Ability to RE-add user to conversation

[chilihead]

User leaves conversation (possibly by mistake), wants to rejoin, there is currently no way to. Especially useful for large group messages.

Also useful if message starter removes a user and then wants to add back. Can even happen by mistake, wrong user, etc.

This should do it but it doesn't once they've left:

[Ahmad E.]

2 minutes ago, chilihead said:

Also useful if message starter removes a user and then wants to add back. Can even happen by mistake, wrong user, etc.

If the starter removes someone, the starter will have the ability to add them back. You need to click on the name of the user that has been removed and then on re-invite.

It's not possible if the user left and was not removed.

[chilihead]

5 minutes ago, Ahmad E. said:

It's not possible if the user left and was not removed.

Thanks. Then this should be possible.

@Colonel_mortis which one did you say failed?

[Colonel_mortis]

Just now, chilihead said:

Thanks. Then this should be possible.

@Colonel_mortis which one did you say failed?

Left. The starter is able to add back members that they blocked (though staff aren't, and staff are also able to be blocked by the starter now (yay, another thing I dislike about the new PM system)) by clicking their name.

[Lindy]

9 hours ago, chilihead said:

Thanks. Then this should be possible.

No, it shouldn't be. When I leave group conversations it's because they're annoying me. Allowing someone to bring me back into it would further annoy me. I believe there's a confirmation when leaving a confirmation... if it's not being conveyed that a user is permanently leaving a conversation, we can certainly improve the verbiage, but to allow someone else to drag a user back into it is not the solution.

[chilihead]

I've had situations where there's a group conversation, a member leaves but wants to come back. The conversation may be one that has been going for many months and they don't want to start it all over just to be able to add that one person so they are locked out forever.

I suppose being clearer may work, thanks.

PS. Turning off notifications seems to be hidden under "Message", can that be its own button? This would help as, if someone needed to take a break from the convo but not leave (because they knew they couldn't come back), they could turn them off, but it is not a top menu choice like in 3.4.

Thanks Lindy!

[Lindy]

How about adding to the "Delete conversation" disclaimer - "Click here to turn off notifications instead of removing the conversation, a permanent action." ?

[chilihead]

That could definitely work, maybe note they can be turned on again too.

And maybe the "Message" button can be called "Message Options" as I feel that is a bit hidden for turning them on/off.

Anyway yes, that wording will help thanks! I have used this myself to mute a conversation but not leave, so making it evident is great. That should solve!

[Lindy]

Perfect.

[Colonel_mortis]

15 hours ago, Lindy said:

How about adding to the "Delete conversation" disclaimer - "Click here to turn off notifications instead of removing the conversation, a permanent action." ?

I would still prefer it if the user could review a list of PMs that they've left and rejoin one - no amount of disclaimers is going to stop the person who accidentally clicked the "delete all PMs" button and doesn't even remember doing it (yes, that really happened), or just selecting then deleting multiple PMs, including one that you wanted to keep.

[Lindy]

Generally speaking (and there are exceptions) - we tend to favor educating and working to prevent people from making mistakes than essentially bloating the code with a bunch of "undos" though I recognize these safeguards exist in our world of personal devices (recycle bin, deleted voicemails, etc.) 

In 4.1.9, there is verbiage that makes clear "no, really... gone forever" and also gives you the option of just turning off notifications instead of dumping the conversation altogether. 

If that doesn't resolve the concern long-term, we can revisit at a later date, but we're hesitant to just sling code for isolated and avoidable instances.