Hi

We have discovered that deleting a PM does not delete it to the person you sent it to, which we feel is the main point of wanting to delete the pm.

Further, if the recipient of the 'deleted pm', who can still see it, replies to the sender, the sender cannot see the reply.

Previously, we could delete a pm. The recipient would get a note that someone deleted a pm. And it was simple. We would like to return to that system. And hope that this might be something looked into in a future update.

🤞

This is by design. You can delete the conversation for yourself, but you cannot delete it from other people.

If your the author, it seems like being able to delete its existence would make a form of sense. Afterall, an author can delete a thread they created, right?

At the least, there should be a setting whether to allow it or not, just as there is a setting to allow for the deletion of threads.

Edited February 13Feb 13 by My Sharona

Think of it as an inbox. If someone emails you, they can of course delete the email once they have sent it, but not from yours

We can still edit the pm after it was sent.

I cannot see why you'd want to make it impossible to actually delete the pm - what is the thinking behind this? The worst part is that if the recipient replies to the 'deleted for the sender only' pm, the sender does not receive the reply.

I suppose, currently, I will just alert the community not to delete a pm, but to edit it instead.

13 hours ago, Brian Lane_61409 said:

... if the recipient replies to the 'deleted for the sender only' pm, the sender does not receive the reply.

Then the person who deleted the PM doesn't know they were sent a PM. The sender would probably not understand why there was no response, which in turn, may create ill will where there is none.

I can understand arguments in both directions. But one thing we should also consider is that in the case of an abusive PM, we would not wish to see the PM deleted after the recipient has read it, but before they have had the opportunity to report it. So, for this reason alone, I am in favour of the status quo.