Policy of who and even when can be mentioned varies a lot depending forums. Here we see every now and then this kind of comments:
Sorry for @ ing you earlier, I didn’t know it was poor etiquette.
Could we solve out this if we had a setting somewhere — a purpose made group perhaps — where is limited who cannot be mentioned? But that could be too limiting and there should be extra settings for who and when can use mentions — to allow staff’s and other background groups’ work.
Plus error message should be more informative than general one as you aren’t allowed to mention that person.
I have bad feeling this another draft in the meaning it is technically difficult to build, but again — my knowledge of dev things is below zero. If it would be easy we would have it already, right?
But situation when an user uses a tool that is there, but it shouldn`t be used, is quite strange.
(AI suggested header When @ is Taboo: Managing Forum Mention Policies )
The same reason why Discourse’s core doesn’t send you a fax with your community heartbeat. As we can see, there’s no big demand for it, especially within a scope of what CDCK guys do for their clients. Luckily, it’s open source, and it is theoretically possible for such feature to appear once somebody picks up this task no matter the conditions for it are set. So, you could join us at this marketplace request and we could increase the budget in order to find potential developer quicker. So far no responses to that marketplace request.
That is one of the lousiest reasonings and you know it too
Not because of an example of as ancient tool as landlines or checks (I can’t even write it, piece of paper that acts as cash money) but because Discourse is just piece of code. We are talking here about tools to limit actions. Just like we can limit when and where is suitable to Discourse popup to screen or start beeping on my wrist.
I understand totally why there is need to limit informatic flow. But it should be happend via settings and automation using a little bit more civil way than nagging when users are using offered tools that are widely in use.
No. I have zero intress discuss about policy of Meta. I was used this forum as an example why there is need and demand for such option.
Your solution is pay to get option to limit in-build action. I would like to see softwear itself offering an option to adjust its own behaviour. Just as we can do with everything else.
If it is impossible mission because of technical structure of Discourse, including amount of workload and then human nagging is cheaper option, then I’m happy — but I would like to hear it. Or… if no one else thinks we should have, at age of AI, something more reliable tools than just human moderation and longer rulebook, then this feature request never fullfils rule of three or even needs of corporate clients and that’s fine too.
The thing about etiquette is that to some extent it’s all about context.
It’s not appropriate for someone to demand the involvement of a specific person in a support topic, but entirely appropriate to mention them in other contexts such as citing their involvement elsewhere or giving thanks. Even if you could figure out the logic to manifest that behavior in code, users wouldn’t necessarily understand.
Exacly. And that’s why we/them/everybody needs one setting more.
Sure, if the real reason not to limit ability of mentions is it will break too easy background jobs (again, as an example) like messaging of team or what ever works there, that is understable.
I’ve worked on live support and sales. I didn’t do very much global markets but scandinavians. But britons have real strong tendency contact right away to superviser if theirs demands didn’t fullfilled. That’s why email addresses and phonenumbers were’t available at all for customers. We didn’t rely on asking customers not to bother them because they had some other jobs to do too.
Same apply with limiting mentions. Different environment, but totally same principle.
We face the same problems, but as it’s not polite to mention higher-ups in the Discourse structure (and I’m not sure who to tag to bring this request to their attention), we can only hope they stumble upon an interesting feature request, or that it will be addressed by Meta-Discourse enthusiasts via any internal channels they may share.
At the same time, we as a community using this wonderful product, could help improve its critical functionality by funding outsource development. Marketplace requests could even have a great feature for crowd-funding - which gives us another productive idea to implement.
)
