dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3991
share rss forum feed


sharondippity
Premium
join:2000-12-26
San Jose, CA

[request] Turn Off IM's

I saw an old thread but was unable to post to it due to its age, but wondered if this request was being considered.

I'd like to be able to disable IM's except for the almighty mod IM's.

Or I could learn to ignore them forever if the damn gif file didn't flash. Maybe just turn red or something instead and I could let everyone IM me to their heart's content and I wouldn' t have to be bothered to read them.
--
God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.


removed
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:40

Re: Turn Off IM's

*sign* for a "this user prefers to be contacted via email" option. I don't want anyone to be able to IM me - just let them see that message instead and email me if they still want to talk.


Jehu
Hodor
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2
reply to sharondippity
*sign*

If we can block user IMs a la cart, seems like we should be able to stop them altogether. ('cept from system and mods).
--
Introducing two cookies. When one cookie isn't enough.


drake
Overdosed on confidence
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Baldwin, NY
kudos:5
reply to sharondippity
Sure - *sign*


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
reply to sharondippity
Does anyone see any downside to this suggestion? So far I don't, as long as system and mod IM's can be sent.
--
On Monday, I will drive to Hawaii.


GeekNJ
Premium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ
reply to sharondippity
IM sent

*sign* Sure, why not.


INTENS1
Never Stop Trying
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-21
Midwest
kudos:2
reply to sharondippity
*Sign*


McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Fort Worth, TX
kudos:2
reply to fatness
David See Profile had suggested this a few months ago and the group came up with a specific solution, which would work for him (and other folks, too).


Bach
Premium
join:2002-02-16
Flint, MI
reply to sharondippity
*sign*


drake
Overdosed on confidence
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-10
Baldwin, NY
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to McSummation
said by McSummation:

David See Profile had suggested this a few months ago and the group came up with a specific solution, which would work for him (and other folks, too).
»[request] Turn off IM!


ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
kudos:3
reply to sharondippity
*Sign*

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to sharondippity
OBJECT!!!!!

How can any of you even bring this up again? I thought this had been settled the last time.

You want to make this site into an elitist bunch of little cliques then I guess this site is already half in the toilet.

I was completely opposed to the last request and I totally opposed still and appalled at those of you who want this.

And Fatness, read my posts in the previous thread if you can't figure out why this would be AWFUL for this site. It should be obvious why this is a terrible, terrible, terrible suggestion!

»[request] Turn off IM!
--
Around 2005 a sudden spark will catalyze a Crisis mood. The very survival of the nation will seem to be at stake.Sometime before 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history. The risk and promise will be very high. The Fourth Turning Wm. Straus


removed
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:40
Huh. So wanting to be left alone makes me part of an "elitist clique"? Please explain.


oldTDNickell5
Premium
join:2000-12-19
Federal Way, WA
reply to sharondippity
*Sign*


Macy
South Of Insanity
Premium,MVM,ExMod 2004-7
join:2001-12-02
Pink Beanbag
kudos:2
reply to sharondippity

**sign**


Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH
kudos:2
reply to removed
said by removed:

Huh. So wanting to be left alone makes me part of an "elitist clique"?
removed, as you're probably aware already, "Ignore posts" is a GREAT feature - - and I think turning off IMs is just as well....


Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH
kudos:2
reply to sharondippity
* sign *


big greg
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2005-6
join:2003-10-11
Boston, MA

1 edit
reply to sharondippity
*object*


Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH
kudos:2
reply to drake
Pretty overwhelming support in favor of turning them off (or the ability to) and I bet this thread will go the same way... Will this be yet another very popular request that's not done ??


nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to sharondippity
If this is mainly a problem of inappropriate IMs by newbies, then perhaps the ability to turn of newbie IMs might be a better option. Somebody would graduate from newbie status after a sufficient amount of time and after posting a small number of messages. Perhaps the user level ratings could be used here to set the cutoff point.


McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Fort Worth, TX
kudos:2
nwrickert See Profile, you might have just hit on something. Just like anons can't IM, possibly set the criteria that you can't IM unless you have 5 posts. (It should be a small number, something much less than what it takes to get to level 2. But, something large enough that a newly registered person would be forced to post in the forums first.) Still, make this optional, so that David See Profile can activate it, but so that Mele20 See Profile can leave it disabled, if she wants.


Jehu
Hodor
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2
reply to removed
said by removed:

Huh. So wanting to be left alone makes me part of an "elitist clique"? Please explain.
Indeed, and is harmful to the site. Explain?

Even without this proposed option, you can simply never read nor reply to IMs. Any suggested "harm" is kinda moot, eh?
--
Introducing two cookies. When one cookie isn't enough.


Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH
kudos:2
said by Jehu:

Even without this proposed option, you can simply never read nor reply to IMs. Any suggested "harm" is kinda moot, eh?
And what do you do with the "list" of IMs waiting on you that you'll "never read nor reply to" ?? Not to mention the flashing envelope that will NEVER go away...


Jehu
Hodor
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2

2 edits
I'm in support of this proposal..I'm just pointing out that for those who object, it's not like IMs HAVE to be read.

One way or another they can be ignored, so why not just give the option to stop them in the first place.

I think it's far more "harmful" to send IMs that don't get answered, rather than recieve a message saying "This user has selected not to receive IMs"

--
Introducing two cookies. When one cookie isn't enough.


Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH
kudos:2
said by Jehu:

I think it's far more "harmful" to send IMs that don't get answered, rather than recieve a message saying "This user has selected not to receive IMs"
I completely agree and removed has an excellent "solution" to that. The potential sender will know beforehand that the IM will not work.


McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Fort Worth, TX
kudos:2
reply to Jehu
said by Jehu:

Even without this proposed option, you can simply never read nor reply to IMs. Any suggested "harm" is kinda moot, eh?
But, some folks want to receive IMs from selected folks on the site, but not just everybody. If you just leave them "laying there", then you also miss the ones you do want to see.


antiserious
The Future ain't what it used to be
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Scranton, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to sharondippity
... well, since I'm not as pretty as Sharon, or as popular as Removed, it's not a problem for me - but I can see where that flashing envelope would drive you postal, so ...

... ** SIGN ** - if the "This user has selected not to receive IMs" disclaimer shows ...

... ...

--
... "Do You Know Where Your Towel Is ?" ...


Jehu
Hodor
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to McSummation
Ya, but that's a different request than this one. This is just to turn of IMs, not create a whitelist.

Also, this is not a contextual request as has been discussed in previous threads. It is a simple on/off switch.

I don't really care why a person may choose to turn off IMs, but there's no harm in doing so.

--
Introducing two cookies. When one cookie isn't enough.


Macy
South Of Insanity
Premium,MVM,ExMod 2004-7
join:2001-12-02
Pink Beanbag
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by Jehu:

Ya, but that's a different request than this one. This is just to turn of IMs, not create a whitelist.

Also, this is not a contextual request as has been discussed in previous threads. It is a simple on/off switch.

I don't really care why a person may choose to turn off IMs, but there's no harm in doing so.

I have to agree with you and that's the only reason I signed for it and I don't really think it's such a "needed feature" that nil should have to go to all the trouble of setting up the capabilities of a block-all, blacklist, whitelist, my opinion is it should be a simple all or nothing feature since the block user feature works perfectly well for anyone else who only wants to block a few people.
If people are wanting something more complex with the ability to have a whitelist, blacklist, "I just want to block annoying people" list, it should have been stated in the OP but I think it would be more trouble than what it's worth but heck, if someone wants to do all the hard work, I still would have no problem with it, I don't think the feature whether implemented or not will make or break the site.
--

If you're not living on the edge...you're taking up too much room.
Feel Your Heart Race


Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH
kudos:2
reply to Jehu
said by Jehu:

Ya, but that's a different request than this one. This is just to turn of IMs, not create a whitelist.
I'm not sure that the original requester has objected to removed's suggested change to the request. Requests like this are made and "debated" on, suggestions for improvement made, shot down, and so on...