FabSwingers.com > Forums > Fabswingers.com site feedback > Politely decline
Politely decline
Jump to: Newest in thread
Its been, asked on a few threads and I figure it might be an option for those of us that don't just want to ignore messages but equally dont want to spend time writing out responses ad-infitium.
Along with the block/delete option can we have a "Politely decline" option ?
once this has been ticked similar to the wink warning and message warning can it tell them that this user has already politely declined you within the last month ?
I cant see it being any harder than the other options to implement and would vastly improve quality of life  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Ohhh something like this would be as good as sex ok it won't be but it would be bloody great as we try to reply to all msgs this would be so much better and all the rude ppl who just delete your msg  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We have a standard thanks but no thanks message. Just copy and paste it for replies, takes seconds."
Yeh we do and have this too and then they message us again 2 weeks later and you see people making threads saying you were rude as it wasnt a "personal reply" or they got blocked for no reason.. x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I believe admin tried this once. When people hit the thanks but no thanks button the person or people they said no thanks to would reply with "Why not?". "
But if the full idea above is followed anyone trying to ask 'why not' would get a warning flashing up telling them not to message, a bit like with winks.
To Ruggers point, I bet there would be threads on it on the forums, but at least with this system the people getting annoyed are the repeat messengers and not the couples or ladies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think this could be done which would add something along the lines "Please respect this users wishes and do not reply any further. Failure to do so and the user will have the right to block and report you." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I believe admin tried this once. When people hit the thanks but no thanks button the person or people they said no thanks to would reply with "Why not?". "
This option could possibly work the same as the filtter button whereby if someone tried to reply back to you it would be blocked just an idea  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I dont understand the issue with the blocking.
You could click the 'thanks but no thanks' button, then delete and block from the original email itself.
That would stop any comeback and would save me going into the sent folder to then click the profile and block, or wait for another email to come in and block or... go back to the original email and block. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I dont understand the issue with the blocking.
You could click the 'thanks but no thanks' button, then delete and block from the original email itself.
That would stop any comeback and would save me going into the sent folder to then click the profile and block, or wait for another email to come in and block or... go back to the original email and block."
id never block just because someone wasnt my type i only block arrogant rude or abusive people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This issue is as old as the hills. Responsible members will accept the "thanks but no thanks" and move on. But it's the tossers that reckon they deserve a full explanation that is the issue.
The issue for the user receiving the "but why" message is one of sorting the timewasters and tossers from (albeit very rare) genuine types that want to learn from knock backs. Let's face it, we were all innocent greenhorns at one time who would take all advice and feedback going.
No easy solution but I'd suggest a 3 strikes response:
1/. Thanks but no thanks - please do not ask why since I may block and report you to site admin. If you are genuine and respect my position, please do not send a "no worries" response - it just clogs up my inbox.
If they ask why then
2/. Look I said no thanks. At this time I don't wish any further messages from you. Please understand I will block you and report you to site admin if you contact me again.
If they come back, then block and report.
Now I accept some people get 100's of messages and I agree that if we all did the above we'd never have shagging time. But how many of the 100s of messages are but why messages.
Perhaps the answer is for the receiver to hit the thanks but no thanks button. and have the system send the 2nd strike response automatically if there is any follow up. If they come back a 3rd time, we should all have a spam folder into which such 3rd strikes are sent.
You can then see how many just don't get it in your spam folder and leave your inbox free for messages you do want.
Apologies I'd this sounds long winded. In practice it's not.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I believe admin tried this once. When people hit the thanks but no thanks button the person or people they said no thanks to would reply with "Why not?". "
Or get really pushy and beg/plead, personally no thanks and hit block is so much easier |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This issue is as old as the hills. Responsible members will accept the "thanks but no thanks" and move on. But it's the tossers that reckon they deserve a full explanation that is the issue.
The issue for the user receiving the "but why" message is one of sorting the timewasters and tossers from (albeit very rare) genuine types that want to learn from knock backs. Let's face it, we were all innocent greenhorns at one time who would take all advice and feedback going.
No easy solution but I'd suggest a 3 strikes response:
1/. Thanks but no thanks - please do not ask why since I may block and report you to site admin. If you are genuine and respect my position, please do not send a "no worries" response - it just clogs up my inbox.
If they ask why then
2/. Look I said no thanks. At this time I don't wish any further messages from you. Please understand I will block you and report you to site admin if you contact me again.
If they come back, then block and report.
Now I accept some people get 100's of messages and I agree that if we all did the above we'd never have shagging time. But how many of the 100s of messages are but why messages.
Perhaps the answer is for the receiver to hit the thanks but no thanks button. and have the system send the 2nd strike response automatically if there is any follow up. If they come back a 3rd time, we should all have a spam folder into which such 3rd strikes are sent.
You can then see how many just don't get it in your spam folder and leave your inbox free for messages you do want.
Apologies I'd this sounds long winded. In practice it's not.
"
On the other hand, even those that you say "no thanks, you are well over the hour's drive" (surely a full explanation?) or words to that effect, still don't and won't take any notice  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andcCouple
over a year ago
London and Cheshire |
We used to answer ALL messages, we would politely say no thanks and if, say, they had messaged us but they were outside our age range, we would say why.
But we just got more messages, saying things like age is just a number..etc
So now we just ignore them, if they are outside our age range or are not verified (a requirement for us to meet) we block them, because they haven't even bothered to read out profile.
If we message someone and don't get a reply we understand that they don't want to meet with us and that's OK with us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its been, asked on a few threads and I figure it might be an option for those of us that don't just want to ignore messages but equally dont want to spend time writing out responses ad-infitium.
Along with the block/delete option can we have a "Politely decline" option ?
once this has been ticked similar to the wink warning and message warning can it tell them that this user has already politely declined you within the last month ?
I cant see it being any harder than the other options to implement and would vastly improve quality of life "
Great idea but even if you 'politely decline' there are a number of muppets who will still persist. But then just block, I know.
However couple still message us even though when they try they get the old warning from the site.
But overall, good idea, just hit a button & that's it, done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We are on a site where there is this facility, and people start threads complaining the reply isn't personal.
It is one of those no win situations I think."
People complain on this site if you say no thanks, or ignore. At least with proposed idea from OP a reply will be far less time consuming. Even copy and paste becomes time consuming, opening a word document, copying, going back to Fabs, find message want to say no thanks to, paste, send.
A polite no thanks option, with added feature of blocking to stop person trying to contact further |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
