locked Special Announcement override #suggestion


 

I've locked this topic.

Mark


 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 04:03 PM, Christos Psarras wrote:
Others also suggested doing just that (using the member list way to send the special notice)
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be adamant.
So do that. But if you're going to do that, if you want so badly to be able to reach everyone with a special notice, then why not simply disable no-email.
And now I'm done here. :)
 
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

But what I don't understand is, you're so adamant about contracts and violations and such, yet this capability (or feature) of sending blast messages to (overriding) nomail users has been around ever since the admin could select one or more nomail users and sending them a message as special notice (we are only talking about special notices).  Others also suggested doing just that (using the member list way to send the special notice), and yet it's suddenly an issue now.  I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

Cheers,
Christos


On 2021-07-24 18:44, J_Catlady via groups.io wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 03:39 PM, Christos Psarras wrote:
it's the same exact thing as an admin selecting the NoMail users and sending those folks a message.
Which, again, is violating the contract. I might leave a group that let me choose no-email and then violated that. It's like you unsub from a mailing list and then get their blast emails anyway. A personal email might be a different story, sent just to that individual. But the proposed feature is to specifically allow violation of a member's no-email choice and send a blast email to everyone, "overriding" the no-email.
 
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu



 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 03:50 PM, Dan Tucker wrote:
I have at least one member in my group who is THAT way. He adamantly does not want ANY contact from the group. 
If you have a problem with that member's non-participation (whatever that means to you), it's your choice to remove him. You can have any number of group guidelines that disallow the specific behavior you don't like. My group specifically has a guideline to the effect that "discussion of your cat's health is a two-way street" yada yada. But I have never enforced it. I don't feel it makes sense to try to force people to respond to anything. You never know what they're going through personally and why they're not responding, especially, in my group's case, with a sick cat.

And with that, I will exit this conversation.
 
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

I have at least one member in my group who is THAT way. He adamantly does not want ANY contact from the group. 
It is my opinion that if someone has that big an issue with ‘hearing from’ the group or members, they should not be part of it. 
With membership comes a certain degree of responsibility and partnership. 
It’s just not right IMHO. 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 14:44 J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 03:39 PM, Christos Psarras wrote:
it's the same exact thing as an admin selecting the NoMail users and sending those folks a message.
Which, again, is violating the contract. I might leave a group that let me choose no-email and then violated that. It's like you unsub from a mailing list and then get their blast emails anyway. A personal email might be a different story, sent just to that individual. But the proposed feature is to specifically allow violation of a member's no-email choice and send a blast email to everyone, "overriding" the no-email.
 
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 03:39 PM, Christos Psarras wrote:
it's the same exact thing as an admin selecting the NoMail users and sending those folks a message.
Which, again, is violating the contract. I might leave a group that let me choose no-email and then violated that. It's like you unsub from a mailing list and then get their blast emails anyway. A personal email might be a different story, sent just to that individual. But the proposed feature is to specifically allow violation of a member's no-email choice and send a blast email to everyone, "overriding" the no-email.
 
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 03:34 PM, Dan Tucker wrote:
It feels too much like a spy lurking in the shadows to me
Well, this conversation seems to have gone way off the rails. But I'll bite (to mix metaphors;). How is it a spy lurking in the shadows? It's just a matter of which way they choose to respond and has nothing to do with whether they respond at all or not. You can have a lurker who gets all the emails but never replies, let alone checks their email. Or you can have no-email members who reply to the group 10 times a day via the web. Whiich of those, to you, are the lurkers? And even if they lurk and DON'T reply one way or the other, some groups don't mind that. I have no requirement that members of my group send a bunch of messages or any messages at all and I think most groups are that way. But by all means, disable no-email if you feel that way. No need to criticize groups who, for whatever reason, allow no-email.
 
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

>>> I think that violates a member's choice to be no-email.

I personally don't think so, it's the same exact thing as an admin selecting the NoMail users and sending those folks a message. 

All this does is make it easier and efficient to send a special notice to everyone in the situations where everyone has to be contacted with a very important group-related matter. 

Cheers,
Christos



 

So you believe that it’s okay to have someone sit in your ‘town meeting’ with the option to input without any opportunity for you to engage with response? They can offer their comments but refuse to respectfully hear rebuttals?

It feels too much like a spy lurking in the shadows to me. I’m not partial to clandestine operations. 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 14:26 J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 03:13 PM, Dan Tucker wrote:
if you don’t want to see our mail, there’s no point in being (not really being a) part of us.
Although I personally have set my group to disable no-email so that I can reliably send special notices, I totally disagree with that as well. Email is not the sina qua non of groups. Many, many people access their groups solely via the web. In no way are those people "not reallly being part of" the group.
 
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 03:13 PM, Dan Tucker wrote:
if you don’t want to see our mail, there’s no point in being (not really being a) part of us.
Although I personally have set my group to disable no-email so that I can reliably send special notices, I totally disagree with that as well. Email is not the sina qua non of groups. Many, many people access their groups solely via the web. In no way are those people "not reallly being part of" the group.
 
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

Inre the ‘no mail’ option, I sort of resent that it’s even there. 
IMHO, a conversation is a TWO-WAY exchange. Having a ‘no mail’ option sets up a situation that is wholly one-sided. If someone wants to be part of a group, they should be (required to be) part of the group. IOW, if you don’t want to see our mail, there’s no point in being (not really being a) part of us. 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 14:06 J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
I think that violates a member's choice to be no-email. If you're going to do that, I think you need to be up-front and set the group to disable no-email. Otherwise, as a member of the group, I'm tell you, the owner, that I want no email, and you agree to that contract, and then you send me an email anyway.
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

I think that violates a member's choice to be no-email. If you're going to do that, I think you need to be up-front and set the group to disable no-email. Otherwise, as a member of the group, I'm tell you, the owner, that I want no email, and you agree to that contract, and then you send me an email anyway.
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

For what it's worth, I had this suggestion in my local drafts for quite a long time now, and this topic reminded me.

See attached, an additional checkbox in the NewTopic screen, and few lines of code downstream would allow the admin to post to all folks easily and efficiently in a single step, regardless of the NoEmail setting.

The checkbox would only become visible & enabled if the SpecialNotice checkbox is checked, and its default state would be unchecked.

Cheers,
Christos


Bruce Bowman
 

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 07:34 AM, Hank Seamon wrote:
I was looking for a "All Points Bulletin" way to reach everyone occasionally regardless of settings.
Hank -- That's pretty much the reason for a Special Notice.

Turning off Nomail might do it. Rarely needed.
That's what I do.

Keep in mind that these subscription settings apply only to group messages. You can always contact the "No Email" people using groups.io's private messaging. To do that, open the member list, apply the "Email Delivery: No Email" filter, and select Send Message from the Actions menu at the bottom.

It's less convenient, and you have to remember to do it; but it's another way to get these folks up to speed (without changing any of your group settings).

Regards,
Bruce

P.S. If you're unsure if a feature already exists, it's best to post an inquiry to Group_Help or the Group Managers Forum first.


 

Just to be clear: It’s not an “as needed” or “rarely needed” kind of thing, if by that mean disabling no-email when you need to reach everyone and then re-enabling it. It’s more of a permanent setting. Once you disable no-email, everyone who was no-email automatically becomes “special notices only.” But if you then re-enable no-email, they don’t go back to no-email. They just stay “special notices only.” To go back to the way things were, you would have to figure out who was originally no-email and set them all back to no-email by hand.

So if you disable no-email, it’s best to think of that as a permanent change.


On Jul 24, 2021, at 4:34 AM, Hank Seamon <hseamon@...> wrote:

Shall,

Thank you.  I was looking for a "All Points Bulletin" way to reach everyone occasionally regardless of settings.  Turning off Nomail might do it. Rarely needed.


--
Hank S.
Littlestown, PA
One mailbox from a Gettysburg address

--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


Hank Seamon
 

Shall,

Thank you.  I was looking for a "All Points Bulletin" way to reach everyone occasionally regardless of settings.  Turning off Nomail might do it. Rarely needed.


--
Hank S.
Littlestown, PA
One mailbox from a Gettysburg address


 

Hank,

Request/question: Can the list be set up so that Special Announcements
override any members that are not receiving individual email?
No.

That is exactly the difference between the "No Email" and "Special Notices Only" choices in the Email Delivery panel of each member's Subscription page.

One of our members that was upset by the tone and language of the
other members message that they went on NOMAIL and, consequently did
not see the explantion of how we, moderators, were dealing with the
problem.
You can check the "Disable No Email" box in the Message Policies panel of your group's Settings page.

Or you can try member education: ask that they reserve No Email for vacations or other special situations when they don't want any group messages, not even those marked Special Notice.

Shal


 

Yes. You can set your group to disallow no-email. So all the people who would have gone on no-email will be "special announcements only."
--
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 human together. - Desmond Tutu


Hank Seamon
 

Yesterday we had a member that went on a political rant that resulted in three members contemplating leaving our group. That person is now on indefinite Moderation due to several previous warnings.

The intent of our group is to discuss our Roadtreks and related travel.  No politics, personal attacks, jokes beyond the occasional quip.

I had sent a SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT to the members reminding them of the SOP and also that the member was on moderation.

Request/question: Can the list be set up so that Special Announcements override any members that are not receiving individual email? One of our members that was upset by the tone and language of the other members message that they went on NOMAIL and, consequently did not see the explantion of how we, moderators, were dealing with the problem

By that I mean anyone on DIGEST, NOMAIL, etc., as this is a Special Announcement from the Moderators and/or Owner and should be seen by all members.
--
Hank S.
Littlestown, PA
One mailbox from a Gettysburg address