Members should not be able to lock conversations with mods

Martok

Well-known member
Members should not be able to lock conversations with mods/admins
Why not? What's the reasoning behind this? (They can only lock conversations they have started, they can't lock other conversations and it doesn't prevent moderators from starting a conversation with them).
 

dethfire

Well-known member
Why not? What's the reasoning behind this?
Members should not be able to control the flow of discourse with staff. I've now had multiple times where a member starts a conversation with a mod/admin that requires a reply but the member has locked the conversation. It's very frustrating and a waste of time to start a new conversation with that member.
 

Member_68162

Active member
I have to agree with dethfire. I just started using XF again after a long break and didn't know this was possible, it shouldn't be. A troublesome member could easily use this ability to intentionally irritate staff members.
 

wang

Well-known member
I agree too. If members can lock their own conversations, at the very least, staff members must still reply to them.
 

Bionic Rooster

Well-known member
It might be tricky try to single out one or more user groups a member could not close a conversation on. I don't know how that works. But this works very effectively, just ban the troublesome member.
 

dethfire

Well-known member
Still an issue. I have members locking conversations with staff before staff can resolve issues with the. Super super frustrating.
 

Sim

Well-known member
I actually came across this today for the first time where someone complained to me and locked the conversation. I agree that there should be a permission setting which allows administrators (and optionally moderators) to bypass a conversation lock.

It wouldn't work to have members not allowed to lock a conversation with moderators (because there may be other non-moderators in the conversation) - but it would work to simply allow mods/admins to bypass the lock and post regardless.
 

wedgar

Well-known member
I actually came across this today for the first time where someone complained to me and locked the conversation. I agree that there should be a permission setting which allows administrators (and optionally moderators) to bypass a conversation lock.

It wouldn't work to have members not allowed to lock a conversation with moderators (because there may be other non-moderators in the conversation) - but it would work to simply allow mods/admins to bypass the lock and post regardless.
However, that member blocking the conversation with a moderator or administrator would be locked out for several weeks. ..
 

Kirby

Well-known member
I agree that there should be a permission setting which allows administrators (and optionally moderators) to bypass a conversation lock.
Why? You can't force members to listen if they do not want to listen. Even if you bypass a locked conversation they aren't forced to read or even react on it.
 
Last edited:

Sim

Well-known member
Why? You can't force members to listen if they do not want to listen. Even if you bypass a locked conversation they aren't forced to read or even react on it.

There's a big difference between them choosing not to listen and you not replying to something that needs replying to.

You can't force members to read a new conversation you start with them or an email you send them either - but that doesn't mean you don't send it if it needs to be sent.

Allowing us to bypass the conversation lock is purely a convenience factor for us to avoid the need to start a new conversation or to send an email.
 

Kirby

Well-known member
conversation you start with them or an email you send them either - but that doesn't mean you don't send it if it needs to be sent.
Hmm, I simply consider this as a signal that the user does not want to communicate and that's fine for me. As you've said yourself, it is not possible to force a user to read a conversation message or an email. So what's the difference between the user not reading the message (because he does not want to) and not reading the message because he does not want to receive messages? IMHO there is none, except in the case of blocking conversation you know that for sure.
How would you proceed if you did send a message and the user does not react?
Apply this action directly in case the user blocks communication-> problem solved :)
Really, it is that easy - just respect the users wish to non get contacted.
 

Sim

Well-known member
I don't get why people argue against a suggestion of this nature.

I suggested a permission setting, which makes using it completely optional - you don't have to enable it if you don't want.

The fact that you choose to do things one way while I prefer to do them a different way is exactly why this needs to be an option rather than the current system which dictates a course of action. It is my site and my choice how I interact with my users.

Creating this option has zero impact on admins who choose not to use it.

There is always room to debate the details of implementation - but there is no value in arguing against an optional setting.
 

beerForo

Well-known member
I don't get why people argue against a suggestion of this nature.

I suggested a permission setting, which makes using it completely optional - you don't have to enable it if you don't want.
Because software can become bloated even if your suggestion is optional.
 

Ozzy47

Well-known member
Because software can become bloated even if your suggestion is optional.

Such as these?
😜
 
Top