This method, which is applied in some other parts of the forum, is not applied in this section where it is really needed. This situation causes administrators to not understand the user's request, misunderstand it, close the issue by thinking that they have met the request even though they have not, and the request is not met.
For example,
The main purpose of the Personal message preferences correction request issue is to allow moderators from sending messages to the user. Although this situation was clearly stated in the first and main part of the request, the manager solved the issue in the opposite direction by focusing on the secondary part of the request. We can understand from this statement that he does not understand the subject and misunderstands it.
It will never be an option to disallow admins and moderators from messaging you.
From this, we understand that the username thinks that moderators can send messages to members in any situation, just like admins. However, this was not the case and a correction was requested so that the username was as it thought it was. This was the main part of the request:
Options available under the "Who can send you personal messages" setting:
-All members
- All members except the ignore list
- Buddies and admins only
- Admins only.
Moderators have been forgotten here.
There is either a misunderstanding here, or a discriminatory attitude towards the moderators. Weirdly, username thinks we'll magically grant moderators the right to send us messages? This should already be in at least two of the 4 options listed above, or when you say admins, this word should naturally include moderators.
As a result, closing demands before they are met, as in this example, is not the right approach and should be abandoned. I present it to your attention and knowledge.