Private Messages

[SoupDragon]

Why can't we block posters before they send a PM?

Personally, I'd rather like to be able to block PMs completely, like we used to be able to opt out of CAT messages.

Chaos....I can smell smoke. Are your pants on fire¿

Her nose is growing as well, Val.

Interesting '?' there....

Question ~ if they can and do read them why wouldnt they delete one I sent? They said "We can't delete PM's we're afraid"

"Sorry Soupy, but why would you not want to receive a pm ever?"

Because I might choose not to...? Is that so difficult to comprehend? Everyone is different.

As I said in the OP, if you read it, you used to have this option when the system was CAT rather than PM. Why offer less choice?

Well now I just want to know what you said in the pm you wanted deleted skinnyjeans ...

I have only experienced supportive and pleasant pm's so no I wouldn't vote for this one.

Chaos - your pants are smokin'

BTP - well, that's OK then

You don't actually have to read the pm. If you don't want any, just don't read them

At the moment you can block a poster from sending you a PM.

You can only do this is you read the PM from the poster you wish to block.

I want to be able to block a poster without having to read the PM.

Given you can already block people, that's really not a lot to ask is it?

"I have only experienced supportive and pleasant pm's so no I wouldn't vote for this one"

Except why would it bother you that people could do it? They are private messages so it wouldn't make a thread read strangely like an "ignore poster" option would. You can already block posters so it's not like it makes a difference. All that would happen is, I imagine, you get a message saying this poster does not accept PMs". You wouldn't necessarily know whether the poster accepts any at all or has just blocked you. This is exactly what used to happen if you opted out of CAT

It affects absolutely no one except the person choosing their own PM preferences, just like we used to be able to do.

I think I'm all in favour of MNers being able to choose.

I have always had 'normal' PM until about a month ago when I got a very weird one which was literally about a sentence. On asking 'excuse me what are you on about?' I got a referral to a post I had made over 6 weeks ago. It wasn't even what I would call a nasty one - by some peoples standards. I decided the person was not somebody that I wished to have any more contact with so blocked them. Other than that I have been very happy with them. Maybe it could be an option to either yes be available to receive them or no thanks you would rather not.

I had a really concerning one so had to change my name

I've asked about blocking PMs completely before, so count me as a vote in favour of that option.

Yes, I can see why you'd want to, flowery.

Either block completely or leave as is. No having to opt in to allow specific people. Too much faff.

However, if I was working at MNHQ I would do hours of unpaid over time reading PMs and looking up namechanges

Flowery - that's what comes of being 'useful' Perfect the art of uselessness and no one will bother you

Minor hassle only, really, but I just feel very guilty having to refuse requests (or ignore as per MNHQ's recommendation after I requested complete blocking), and would rather I didn't see them in the first place.

"No having to opt in to allow specific people. Too much faff."

I wouldn't want an opt in, just the option to block before an unwanted poster PMed you.

I can see how an option to operate on an Opt In basis would be good for some posters though - you could say "PM me" and add them to the list.

bibbitybobbityhat Sat 21-Jan-12 22:26:57
Well now I just want to know what you said in the pm you wanted deleted skinnyjeans ...

wasn't anything bad, I'm not the pervy pm'er, Just one tgat I'd started but got distracted by ds and then sent but by the time I'd sent it op had reposted and it meant my pm could have looked insensitive at best