moderated Re: New notifications #update



I called no names.
I never thought you did.

My intent was to be anything but impudent, impertinent, insolent,
cheeky, audacious, or in any way rude.
I was applying that label to my own statement, not to anything you said.

I do disagree with the notion that anyone needs more training,
On the contrary, if a member doesn't know how to use the available features, then they can use more training.

Which was my point: a member who finds the additional email traffic unwelcome has an existing way to turn them off. But at the same time I recognize that many of those same people don't want to be bothered with having to deal with it. Which is why I labelled my response "impudent" - it doesn't show due respect for the other person's concerns and circumstances.

If a Group Owner wants an option off, what is the need for some
members to turn those on?
It is exactly what you said: "some people might like these Notifications." When the group owner disables the feature for all that imposes a worse user experience on the members who would like the feature.

Isn't the Owner supposed to be able to decide that for each of their
There is always a bit of tug-of-war between what group owners want to control, and what members want to control for themselves. The question is whether the service can find a healthy balance between these competing needs and wants.

In proposing a default muting scheme I am looking for such a balance: address the immediate need to tone down the surprise, provide a way for owners to pre-set members' preferences as they deem best, yet allow the members to change it if they so desire.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.