I've encountered on occasion the need to converse with a member on my site via PM, however I can't do this if I've disabled the member's Personal Messenger. You may say, well, that makes sense, but I think that similar to overriding an inbox-full, Admins should be allowed to override this and message any member on the board, and vice versa.

A member who's Personal Messenger was disabled reported a post to me, and I have no way of responding to his report without re-enabling his Personal Messenger.

[quote name='Brett B' date='11 September 2009 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1252627347' post='1854947']
I've encountered on occasion the need to converse with a member on my site via PM, however I can't do this if I've disabled the member's Personal Messenger. You may say, well, that makes sense, but I think that similar to overriding an inbox-full, Admins should be allowed to override this and message any member on the board, and vice versa.

A member who's Personal Messenger was disabled reported a post to me, and I have no way of responding to his report without re-enabling his Personal Messenger.

[quote name='gizzabit' date='10 September 2009 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1252632086' post='1854964']
You could use the email member feature from the site, that's what I do in cases like these.

I'd prefer to be able to use a method of contact via the forums, rather than email which could possibly bounce back.

You can re-enable their PM access via the ACP. Even if you do this, or there was a way to force the PM through like what you suggested, there's no way to prevent them from simply ignoring the PM.

Yeah, this will be a good feature. With email, you won't know if they've read it not. I always prefer to use PM for more control (ability to unsend, track).