Opting in/out of @Mentions

[Mertex]

its an in-you-face way to get attn to your threads. Everyone knows my visceral hatred for the social threads , and this seems like a way to drag me into the same type of feel-good threads . Thanks but no thanks for the mass @ mentions. Leave me out

But nobody forces you to even look at the mentions in your CP. I've mentioned some people who have later told me they didn't even know I mentioned them....so, it's not like alarms are going off with red flags making you go take a look.

Mentions from certain people I just simply ignore, and nothing bad has happened to me as a result of it.

 

[BDBoop]

Yeah, bullshit /she said politely

I don't like it, don't need it. That's what the 'new posts' and 'active threads' are links for. If I thought your thread was worth visiting, I would do so.

If your sense of "togetherness" goes part-n-parcel with people wishing you would knock it the hell off, then yeah. Togetherness it is.

I like the @ Mention function because it brings about a sense of togetherness. Community. It is extremely useful when you share an OP you spent a lot of time and effort on, when you don't want it to just get a smidgen of feedback and then fade away. There's nothing wrong with it imho, and it promotes forum activity, too. If someone doesn't like being mentioned, they can always ask to not be mentioned, and I'll honor that so long as I don't forget.

Many people like this function, and appreciate being invited to share in the conversation.

It's a social function for a social forum, and it's one of the best ways to come together and talk.

Will you take me off of your mass mentions?

And me.

Yeah, bullshit /she said politely

I don't like it, don't need it. That's what the 'new posts' and 'active threads' are links for. If I thought your thread was worth visiting, I would do so.

If your sense of "togetherness" goes part-n-parcel with people wishing you would knock it the hell off, then yeah. Togetherness it is.

I seriously think that feature pisses people off more than anything.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Yes, you have the right to personalize your remarks at Boop and suck the oxygen out of a thread. You are not required to follow Boop's good advice.

Both eyeballs, same socket I shit you not.

/BAER

And thank YOU for not taking anything personally.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Yeah, I'm fine with him doing that. It's a pretty straight-forward thread, everybody can see what happened.

Time to go write a book.

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

My response, the one which you just quoted, was of course after you did use my name -"Stats?" - hmmm... you do realize that, right? Or do you wish to relitigate my first response to you all over again? That would be pretty circular, don't you think?

It is an open board. People can "interject" themselves where they want to. They can also quote other people in the middle of a conversation if they want to. I see it as adult behavior. Far better to quote someone and make a point than to just talk to the air and make people wonder to whom one is referring.

I prefer the more direct approach. And I thought you did, too.

Link please. The ONLY time I mentioned your name was when you called me out.

Go for it.

Gonna be a long wait for that link, Boop.

That's okay. This book isn't going to write itself.

I suppose an apology when he realizes he was wrong and everybody can see it would be too much to ask?

Yeah. Those apologies are never any good anyway. Who wants an apology that isn't heartfelt?

My response, the one which you just quoted, was of course after you did use my name -"Stats?" - hmmm... you do realize that, right? Or do you wish to relitigate my first response to you all over again? That would be pretty circular, don't you think?

It is an open board. People can "interject" themselves where they want to. They can also quote other people in the middle of a conversation if they want to. I see it as adult behavior. Far better to quote someone and make a point than to just talk to the air and make people wonder to whom one is referring.

I prefer the more direct approach. And I thought you did, too.

Link please. The ONLY time I mentioned your name was when you called me out.

Go for it.

You wrote something. I responded. I did not "call" you out. You were upset that I responded to you about anything, told me I was sucking up all the oxygen. I made it very clear to you right then and there that I can respond to anyone I want to at any time on any open thread. People do it all the time here. And I will continue to do that at my leisure. I don't need your permission to quote anything you write, irregardless whether the text is aimed at me - or someone else.

You then did mention my name and I then did respond again. The chronology is clear for all to see.

If your beef with my is that the original quote I made of you is of a text that you didn't intend directly for me, well then, you are going to have to live with that, because people jump into conversations all the time here in USMB and quote people in the middle of a conversation. What I did is no different than what other members do here every day.

So, I don't need to provide a link. The chronology of this little exchange is right here on this thread for all to see.

-Stat

Yup. It absolutely is. See the ONE TIME I mentioned your name. You stated, clearly and concisely, that you didn't say a thing to me, until I said your name.

You are wrong.

I understand it is mentally and emotionally impossible for you to own an error. Be a man. I get that! And it's fine.

But the thread proves you wrong.

 

[Gracie]

Oh. Never mind. I see why the hatefullness.

The twinsies are on the warpath again.

 

[shart_attack]

I don't mind being mentioned at all.

I am glad for the publicity — however good or bad it may be.

I just don't understand reputation points.

I give rep points to posters quite frequently, and they in turn send me messages, thanking me. But when my own reputation points increase, I can't figure out what poster increased them. So I never get the chance to thank them for bumping up my points, which likely effectively makes me look unappreciative and/ or cantankerous, neither of which are the case.

 

[Gracie]

Opting out of this thread. All the oxygen has been sucked out of it by the bobsey twins.

/unsubscribed

 

[Wolfsister77]

See you all in the FZ now.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Mass mention list =

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Link please. The ONLY time I mentioned your name was when you called me out.

Go for it.

You wrote something. I responded. I did not "call" you out. You were upset that I responded to you about anything, told me I was sucking up all the oxygen. I made it very clear to you right then and there that I can respond to anyone I want to at any time on any open thread. People do it all the time here. And I will continue to do that at my leisure. I don't need your permission to quote anything you write, irregardless whether the text is aimed at me - or someone else.

You then did mention my name and I then did respond again. The chronology is clear for all to see.

If your beef with my is that the original quote I made of you is of a text that you didn't intend directly for me, well then, you are going to have to live with that, because people jump into conversations all the time here in USMB and quote people in the middle of a conversation. What I did is no different than what other members do here every day.

So, I don't need to provide a link. The chronology of this little exchange is right here on this thread for all to see.

-Stat

Yup, it's right there for all to see. You personalized a post to someone who wasn't talking to you or about you. Then acted like your excuse for getting so personal was that that person mentioned your name when they did not, not until after you jumped in a personal manner into a constructive conversation she was having with someone else.

You are totally free to be an ass. And totally free to undermine your claims about caring about community.

It is what it is.

Now I promise Boop that I won't post in this thread anymore so I don't distract her from her writing.



Have a great weekend, everybody!

No. I quoted someone and responded to the content I saw. People do this all the time in USMB.

The rest of your commentary: pfft.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have mixed emotion about all this. I do HATE being included in a giant cattle call to some thread that I might or might not be interested in, and then being subjected to the multi-mentions as people respond.

The @mention does have some features I like. For instance, if I quote or refer to somebody in another thread for whatever reason, I feel it is only fair to notify that person I quoted them or have taken their name in vain or whatever. And sometimes you are having a discussion with somebody that prompts a new thread, and the @mention is useful to notify that person that the discussion is being continued HERE. But these are extremely infrequent occurrences.

The main problem is that I'm getting older with somewhat limited time and it is a real pain in the butt to have to keep lists of "do this" or "don't do that" for a whole bunch of different members and I won't always remember otherwise. Is there an exemption on the resentment meter for those of us of a certain age?

 

[Ropey]

Whats with the hatefulness? Either you don't want @ or ya do.

It may be that some of this stuff being posted between a few members has little to do with the @ symbol.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I have mixed emotion about all this. I do HATE being included in a giant cattle call to some thread that I might or might not be interested in, and then being subjected to the multi-mentions as people respond.

The @mention does have some features I like. For instance, if I quote or refer to somebody in another thread for whatever reason, I feel it is only fair to notify that person I quoted them or have taken their name in vain or whatever. And sometimes you are having a discussion with somebody that prompts a new thread, and the @mention is useful to notify that person that the discussion is being continued HERE. But these are extremely infrequent occurrences.

The main problem is that I'm getting older with somewhat limited time and it is a real pain in the butt to have to keep lists of "do this" or "don't do that" for a whole bunch of different members and I won't always remember otherwise. Is there an exemption on the resentment meter for those of us of a certain age?

I'll remember that, Foxfyre!!!

 

[Mertex]

I like the mention feature and and completely fine and enjoy being included. So do not take me off the lists. I can choose to participate or not and I don't always find all the good threads. I am fine being included. Thanks

I hate it and just clear them without reading them

Well now, there is the adult way of handling it. No big deal....

 

[Zander]

I don't give a fuck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Esmeralda]

The @Mention is a useful feature but I gather that not everyone likes it. I copied a bunch of them from one thread to another when I wanted to invite people to one of my frivolous fun threads. That was when I discovered that some posters prefer not to be included. While they have been polite it is obviously annoying if they prefer not to receive them at all.

The problem is keeping track of who doesn't want to be included. So I was wondering if there was a way to provide an "opt in/out" check box for the @Mention function?

Is this feasible and how does everyone else feel about this?

Since I am using the spoiler feature to invite people to this thread please don't quote the OP or else delete the spoiler. Thank you.

I don't mind. If it is something I'm not interested in I'll just ignore it.

 

[BDBoop]

I don't give a fuck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But dude, if it involves bacon? Hit me.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yeah, bullshit /she said politely

I don't like it, don't need it. That's what the 'new posts' and 'active threads' are links for. If I thought your thread was worth visiting, I would do so.

If your sense of "togetherness" goes part-n-parcel with people wishing you would knock it the hell off, then yeah. Togetherness it is.

And me.

Link please. The ONLY time I mentioned your name was when you called me out.

Go for it.

You wrote something. I responded. I did not "call" you out. You were upset that I responded to you about anything, told me I was sucking up all the oxygen. I made it very clear to you right then and there that I can respond to anyone I want to at any time on any open thread. People do it all the time here. And I will continue to do that at my leisure. I don't need your permission to quote anything you write, irregardless whether the text is aimed at me - or someone else.

You then did mention my name and I then did respond again. The chronology is clear for all to see.

If your beef with my is that the original quote I made of you is of a text that you didn't intend directly for me, well then, you are going to have to live with that, because people jump into conversations all the time here in USMB and quote people in the middle of a conversation. What I did is no different than what other members do here every day.

So, I don't need to provide a link. The chronology of this little exchange is right here on this thread for all to see.

-Stat

Yup. It absolutely is. See the ONE TIME I mentioned your name. You stated, clearly and concisely, that you didn't say a thing to me, until I said your name.

You are wrong.

I understand it is mentally and emotionally impossible for you to own an error. Be a man. I get that! And it's fine.

But the thread proves you wrong.

Because there was no error. I never said that I was responding directly to something you said about me the very first time. I saw something you wrote, I responded to it.

You were unhappy about that, told me in your first response to me that I was sucking up all the oxygen (lol) in the room and as of that point in time, you mentioned my name. I never once said that my very first quoting of you was because you used my name. I never once said that, boop. Care to show me where I said that? Good luck with that one.

You are angry about nothing because you want to be angry about nothing. And I suspected that you would act like this.

I will remind you again, bdboop: this is an open thread on an open board. Any member can respond to any content he see's, he can quote that content, regardless whether is was intended for him personally or not. That's part of the beauty of USMB: to be able to jump into a thread conversation. To take part.

If you don't like it, then that's your problem. Get over it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I like the mention feature and and completely fine and enjoy being included. So do not take me off the lists. I can choose to participate or not and I don't always find all the good threads. I am fine being included. Thanks

I hate it and just clear them without reading them

Well now, there is the adult way of handling it. No big deal....

 

[Mertex]

Howey, by quoting that, you just sent a mention out to that entire group again when Derido specifically asked folks to take that list out when quoting.

Another thing that might work is deleting the list from your OP after you post it so the mentions go out and then taking it out after that. Not sure, but that might work for folks.

Multiple mentions for the same thing is actually annoying.

If I'm quoting the post that has the mentions, I delete them...it only takes a second, so people responding to the quote that has the mentions should do that, or not quote the post that has the mentions.

 

[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

As stated. I did not mention you until you mentioned me. You have proof of something different, then link it.

I responded to something you wrote: Yes. That something would be my name. I only said Stat once, and that was in response to you interjecting yourself.

 

[Mertex]

Link please. The ONLY time I mentioned your name was when you called me out.

Go for it.

You wrote something. I responded. I did not "call" you out. You were upset that I responded to you about anything, told me I was sucking up all the oxygen. I made it very clear to you right then and there that I can respond to anyone I want to at any time on any open thread. People do it all the time here. And I will continue to do that at my leisure. I don't need your permission to quote anything you write, irregardless whether the text is aimed at me - or someone else.

You then did mention my name and I then did respond again. The chronology is clear for all to see.

If your beef with my is that the original quote I made of you is of a text that you didn't intend directly for me, well then, you are going to have to live with that, because people jump into conversations all the time here in USMB and quote people in the middle of a conversation. What I did is no different than what other members do here every day.

So, I don't need to provide a link. The chronology of this little exchange is right here on this thread for all to see.

-Stat

Yup, it's right there for all to see. You personalized a post to someone who wasn't talking to you or about you. Then acted like your excuse for getting so personal was that that person mentioned your name when they did not, not until after you jumped in a personal manner into a constructive conversation she was having with someone else.

You are totally free to be an ass. And totally free to undermine your claims about caring about community.

It is what it is.

Now I promise Boop that I won't post in this thread anymore so I don't distract her from her writing.



Have a great weekend, everybody!

Amelia, you responded to Stat and he wasn't talking to you....so how does that work?