Opting in/out of @Mentions

[Luddly Neddite]

I like getting the invites. I don't go to all of them right away but eventually I read them and feel flattered I was invited to something! It's a nice surprise! my 2 cents...

J, you're probably in the majority. It's just that those of us who don't like it, REALLY don't like it.

Yes, bdboop, your message is coming over loud and clear. You told me months ago that you did not like the @ function and I dropped your name from the list immediately, per your request.

How can anyone remember what this poster wants, what that poster wants and which ones changed their minds, which ones want to be mentioned for this but not for that ....................................... ??

 

[Wolfsister77]

If people were as important as they were making themselves and their posts out to be, then their followers would just go "Oh, there's that brilliant fellow again, I wonder what he's been up to. I shall click on his profile and hit 'all threads started by.'"

We're not stupid, we don't need a trail of bread crumbs. If we want to see what you've got to say, we know how to find out.

It does have to do with arrogance. The strange part is if you don't ever make your way to their posts, they think it's because you're the stupid one.

Delusions of grandeur.

Has anyone ever said that or is that what you think they are thinking? I honestly don't think they (those that use the mention function) even realize who didn't respond to the mention but most certainly focus on those that do.

Good point, I have never gotten the impression from either Wake or Stat, that they think anyone is stupid for not coming. Maybe someone else does that but they don't. I'm not understanding the hostility here.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I will make sure and write down the names of folks who say they don't like them. That saves the email question. - J.

Are you serious?

You're really gonna make a running list of all the various preferences?

How about we form a Board of Directors and Jeremiah can be the secretary.

 

[Dot Com]

mass mention me & I will stalk you to the ends of the board..... errr..... earth. Count on it!!!

 

[BDBoop]

Have a list, as stated. Like opt-in capabilities.

It's working fine for the people who are thoughtful enough to do so.

 

[Mertex]

I like getting the invites. I don't go to all of them right away but eventually I read them and feel flattered I was invited to something! It's a nice surprise! my 2 cents...

It's been my experience that the vast majority of people I have asked have told me that that they either really like the @ function or they don't mind I I mention them. I use it sometimes twice a week, or sometimes once in every two weeks, depending on what's up.

And I don't mind other people mentioning me, I assume they mean it out of good will, and if I get to the thread and figure out it's not really for me, then I just leave the thread, no big deal.

I mean, the @ function is actually a pretty neat clerical option, imo.

It doesn't bother me one bit....because I decide whether I want to go to a mention immediately or later, or even never. I'm not one to allow a mention or even a pm to dictate what I do and when I do it, but then, that's just me.

If someone uses the mention to draw my attention to an insult, I will ask them not to do it again, if they continue I put them on ignore and inform them, if they continue, they are on their own to face the consequences.

If someone quotes a post that has mentions and they get repeated over and over, I am able to determine that by the thread name and the sender, so it's just a matter of ignoring it, but I guess some people are more sensitive, and surely their requests should be honored. But, it's not such a big freaking deal.

 

[Wolfsister77]

J, you're probably in the majority. It's just that those of us who don't like it, REALLY don't like it.

Yes, bdboop, your message is coming over loud and clear. You told me months ago that you did not like the @ function and I dropped your name from the list immediately, per your request.

How can anyone remember what this poster wants, what that poster wants and which ones changed their minds, which ones want to be mentioned for this but not for that ....................................... ??

I suggest they make a list and keep it somewhere on their computer. It's either all or nothing. If folks want to be included or haven't told them they don't, they get included. If someone has specifically said they DO NOT want to be included, then they are never included.

 

[Amelia]

J, you're probably in the majority. It's just that those of us who don't like it, REALLY don't like it.

Yes, bdboop, your message is coming over loud and clear. You told me months ago that you did not like the @ function and I dropped your name from the list immediately, per your request.

How can anyone remember what this poster wants, what that poster wants and which ones changed their minds, which ones want to be mentioned for this but not for that ....................................... ??

It is reasonable to expect that people who go to the trouble of keeping a super long list of people to @ would take the extra effort of making note of who doesn't want to be in the list ... or else they are undermining their claims about caring about community and togetherness and other positive social forum qualities they pay lip service to.

If they don't want to keep up with the details of people who are okay with it sometimes but not others, they can remove the person from their list altogether to avoid friction.


Edit: yeah, what Wolfsister said.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stat? Stop sucking all the oxygen out of the room. I was talking to Jere.

bdboop, you are writing on an open thread on an open forum where all can contribute. If I see something that interests me and I feel like responding, then I can do that at my own leisure, just as you can.

It's part of the USMB experience. I don't forbid you from making a response to someone else.

Okay.

You accused me of having a problem with you. I was actually referencing Wake. There was no reason for you to clutch your pearls because, as stated - I wasn't talking to you.

Nor was I talking about you.

But thanks for speaking to me!! It was totally unexpected.

Wait a minute, bdboop: you responded to something I wrote, you even wrote my name.

So, I responded back, which is, well, a pretty normal behavior, imo. I made no accusation of you having a problem with me in any way on this thread at all. I said on this thread that you told me a long time ago that you didn't like the @ function, so I dropped you from the list, per your request. That doesn't mean I thought you had a problem with me.

As for speaking to you, dialogue should always be possible.


-Stat

 

[Statistikhengst]

So I see a pattern starting to emerge.

Mass @Mentions are the most annoying to those who want to opt out of them but there are others who actively like them.

Individual @Mentions are generally not a problem although there are still those who want to opt out of them entirely.

Posters have preferences as to what they like/dislike when it comes to thread types. They will avoid the FZ or the social threads because they find those annoying.

Thank you for the input so far. Certainly I will make a note of everyone who doesn't want to be mass @mentioned and keep that in mind going forward.

Nice encapsulation!

 

[Amelia]

bdboop, you are writing on an open thread on an open forum where all can contribute. If I see something that interests me and I feel like responding, then I can do that at my own leisure, just as you can.

It's part of the USMB experience. I don't forbid you from making a response to someone else.

Okay.

You accused me of having a problem with you. I was actually referencing Wake. There was no reason for you to clutch your pearls because, as stated - I wasn't talking to you.

Nor was I talking about you.

But thanks for speaking to me!! It was totally unexpected.

Wait a minute, bdboop: you responded to something I wrote, you even wrote my name.

So, I responded back, which is, well, a pretty normal behavior, imo. I made no accusation of you having a problem with me in any way on this thread at all. I said on this thread that you told me a long time ago that you didn't like the @ function, so I dropped you from the list, per your request. That doesn't mean I thought you had a problem with me.

As for speaking to you, dialogue should always be possible.


-Stat

She was responding to Jeremiah. She did not write your name in the post to which you responded so personally.

 

[Amelia]

bdboop, you are writing on an open thread on an open forum where all can contribute. If I see something that interests me and I feel like responding, then I can do that at my own leisure, just as you can.

It's part of the USMB experience. I don't forbid you from making a response to someone else.

Okay.

You accused me of having a problem with you. I was actually referencing Wake. There was no reason for you to clutch your pearls because, as stated - I wasn't talking to you.

Nor was I talking about you.

But thanks for speaking to me!! It was totally unexpected.

Wait a minute, bdboop: you responded to something I wrote, you even wrote my name.

So, I responded back, which is, well, a pretty normal behavior, imo. I made no accusation of you having a problem with me in any way on this thread at all. I said on this thread that you told me a long time ago that you didn't like the @ function, so I dropped you from the list, per your request. That doesn't mean I thought you had a problem with me.

As for speaking to you, dialogue should always be possible.


-Stat

Where in this post -- the one to which you responded -- do you see your name?

I like getting the invites. I don't go to all of them right away but eventually I read them and feel flattered I was invited to something! It's a nice surprise! my 2 cents...

J, you're probably in the majority. It's just that those of us who don't like it, REALLY don't like it.

 

[BDBoop]

bdboop, you are writing on an open thread on an open forum where all can contribute. If I see something that interests me and I feel like responding, then I can do that at my own leisure, just as you can.

It's part of the USMB experience. I don't forbid you from making a response to someone else.

Okay.

You accused me of having a problem with you. I was actually referencing Wake. There was no reason for you to clutch your pearls because, as stated - I wasn't talking to you.

Nor was I talking about you.

But thanks for speaking to me!! It was totally unexpected.

Wait a minute, bdboop: you responded to something I wrote, you even wrote my name.

So, I responded back, which is, well, a pretty normal behavior, imo. I made no accusation of you having a problem with me in any way on this thread at all. I said on this thread that you told me a long time ago that you didn't like the @ function, so I dropped you from the list, per your request. That doesn't mean I thought you had a problem with me.

As for speaking to you, dialogue should always be possible.


-Stat

No. I did not mention your name until you interjected yourself.

 

[Mertex]

It does have to do with arrogance. The strange part is if you don't ever make your way to their posts, they think it's because you're the stupid one.

Delusions of grandeur.

Has anyone ever said that or is that what you think they are thinking? I honestly don't think they (those that use the mention function) even realize who didn't respond to the mention but most certainly focus on those that do.

Good point, I have never gotten the impression from either Wake or Stat, that they think anyone is stupid for not coming. Maybe someone else does that but they don't. I'm not understanding the hostility here.

I believe it is more of a personal dislike for the person that is using the function more than anything else, and instead of handling it like adults, some take it as a personal attack. It isn't against the rules to use it, and there are methods to restrict it, if it so bothers a person, so anyone making a federal case over it is just displaying their own idiosyncrasies.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Okay.

You accused me of having a problem with you. I was actually referencing Wake. There was no reason for you to clutch your pearls because, as stated - I wasn't talking to you.

Nor was I talking about you.

But thanks for speaking to me!! It was totally unexpected.

Wait a minute, bdboop: you responded to something I wrote, you even wrote my name.

So, I responded back, which is, well, a pretty normal behavior, imo. I made no accusation of you having a problem with me in any way on this thread at all. I said on this thread that you told me a long time ago that you didn't like the @ function, so I dropped you from the list, per your request. That doesn't mean I thought you had a problem with me.

As for speaking to you, dialogue should always be possible.


-Stat

Where in this post -- the one to which you responded -- do you see your name?

I like getting the invites. I don't go to all of them right away but eventually I read them and feel flattered I was invited to something! It's a nice surprise! my 2 cents...

J, you're probably in the majority. It's just that those of us who don't like it, REALLY don't like it.

I already responded to boop that if I see something I want to respond to, on an open thread on an open board, then I can do that, just like anyone else here. You don't decide whom I respond to. If people want it to be a two person conversation, then an open thread on an open forum is probably not the place to do it.

 

[Ropey]

I used the @ mass address once, in the flame zone. The responses were clear and although I got a lot of laughs out of reading both for and against, I've decided that I'll never use it again.

I do appreciate and use it as an address to someone.

 

[BDBoop]

Wait a minute, bdboop: you responded to something I wrote, you even wrote my name.

So, I responded back, which is, well, a pretty normal behavior, imo. I made no accusation of you having a problem with me in any way on this thread at all. I said on this thread that you told me a long time ago that you didn't like the @ function, so I dropped you from the list, per your request. That doesn't mean I thought you had a problem with me.

As for speaking to you, dialogue should always be possible.


-Stat

Where in this post -- the one to which you responded -- do you see your name?

J, you're probably in the majority. It's just that those of us who don't like it, REALLY don't like it.

I already responded to boop that if I see something I want to respond to, on an open thread on an open board, then I can do that, just like anyone else here. You don't decide whom I respond to. If people want it to be a two person conversation, then an open thread on an open forum is probably not the place to do it.

But you said you did so because I called you out by name. Only I didn't. So why don't you just admit that you took a shot at me because you assumed I was talking about you.

I wasn't operating in a vacuum, home skillet.

 

[AquaAthena]

So I see a pattern starting to emerge.


Posters have preferences as to what they like/dislike when it comes to thread types. They will avoid the FZ or the social threads because they find those annoying.

^^^

 

[Amelia]

Wait a minute, bdboop: you responded to something I wrote, you even wrote my name.

So, I responded back, which is, well, a pretty normal behavior, imo. I made no accusation of you having a problem with me in any way on this thread at all. I said on this thread that you told me a long time ago that you didn't like the @ function, so I dropped you from the list, per your request. That doesn't mean I thought you had a problem with me.

As for speaking to you, dialogue should always be possible.


-Stat

Where in this post -- the one to which you responded -- do you see your name?

J, you're probably in the majority. It's just that those of us who don't like it, REALLY don't like it.

I already responded to boop that if I see something I want to respond to, on an open thread on an open board, then I can do that, just like anyone else here. You don't decide whom I respond to. If people want it to be a two person conversation, then an open thread on an open forum is probably not the place to do it.

You are correct. I don't get to decide. I am not trying to decide. I am pointing out that you made a personalized post at her and then tried to excuse it on the grounds that she posted to you. Which she did not.

The end. You are free to lie. You are free to personalize. You are free to undermine your claims about caring about community. You are free to show what a narcissist you are by claiming that people wrote your name when they did not.

I kind of like it when you do that.

 

[Gracie]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I would prefer to opt out. Maybe someone can start a thread SPECIFICALLY for those who want to opt out? Not those that don't mind. It will just get confusing.

For example....OPT OUT @ THREAD is the title and have it here in the Announcement forum.

Those wanting OUT of it, will say Me, or Check or Gracie or OPT OUT.

Then those that forget who wants out can always check that thread.

Unless it is too much trouble to come look every time. So..I'm with Cereal Killer. Start a thread and wait for people to find it in New Posts.

With that said...Gracie OPTS OUT.