Received from Samuel Murray at 4/3/2019 12:47 PM UTC: Perhaps... but who is to say that others can't discuss it? Perhaps those not liking discussion of their ideas simply need to use their delete

with the key words being "all suggestions." That is never what I proposed. As usual, this would be an additional, optionally used feature. Use it or not. I can see no real argument against a

Received from Chris Jones via Groups.Io at 4/3/2019 12:14 PM UTC: I'm not unsympathetic to those concerns either, but the idea seemingly being put forth that all suggestions should be shielded from

Thanks. I did think about the signature, but my idea was for the group owner to be able to enforce (or suggest!) certain quite specific pieces of information that would be displayed in a very brief

This is what Shal wrote, so forgive my misinterpretation. It's what I wanted to say as well. He was not specifying people making suggestions; he was specifying people commenting on them. Sorry, Shal.

There has been previous discussion on something similar, but related to usage in a signature. However, the topic did spread as far as thoughts about forms and

I lied, it wasn't my last comment. :) I totally, 100% agree with Shal here. As it happens, I am so intimately familiar with the Group Guidelines feature - I originally suggested it, I fought for it

The initial suggestion for this feature also mentioned that the user would be able to choose their flag. I don't think this will make sense for all groups, so this probably should be a group option.

I have skipped over many further comments and arguments about my suggestion in this thread, and this will be my final comment. The irony is overwhelming! I make a suggestion for a simple feature that

Hello everyone On several specialised lists where I'm a member, it is useful to be able to see some basic information about a poster when you read his mail. For example, on a software support group,

If a feature is very simple and doesn't require much of any discussion, and the proposer knows it, then the proposer simply has to refrain from reading and/or responding to any replies. The thread

That is doubtless true, and I am not unsympathetic to concerns about discussion here descending into the politics of the bear pit on occasions. However, while a suggested feature might be very

This sort of thing works well on systems where users identify their country of original when they sign up, but Groups.io doesn't know from what countries people are from. There are some ways to guess

(once again straying into the meta-argument) J wrote: That's not at all a spurious or dismissive comment. Those who've been reading beta long enough may remember

No, it is not his job. He doesn't have to respond to anyone who doesn't seem to understand his suggestion. He can, if he wants to, but no-one is going to feel ignored if he doesn't. I suppose it's

Yes, that is a characteristic of mailing lists such as these -- new people are constantly joining the learning curve. If this bothers you, then you should change you way you read messages and/or

People don’t seem to understand that this is not GMF. It’s not the job of a suggester here to educate the rest of the group on all past threads, or all related current features, or even to make

Find all prior threads? That would be even more exhausting lol. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be

As you seem to have been on the beta group for some time you could help eliminate some of that discussion with a single post pointing people to previous topics on the same subject. If a topic starts

I do, especially if they are themselves totally unfamiliar with basic functionality, as in the recent case. And if the suggestion is something that already exists, I think we can trust Mark to