@staticsafe @Vann

well, like

not to do this thing I seem to always do but like

the postal service has an equivalent concept that is optional

as in

not required

now, with the post it's usually "per message"

this would be unwieldy in this day and age, I suspect

but making it something people can opt out of, or opt out of with specific people, etc., might be a solution?

so the option is there for those that want it

and isn't enforced for those that don't

@Vann @staticsafe

or even explicitly noting it as an option for how AFK works for you

one option is 'silent', where if you're marked AFK nothing you get will be flagged as 'read', at all, period

the other is 'monitoring', where if you're marked AFK you still intend to READ but you're not actually going to RESPOND

what we MIGHT need, IMO, is more 'statuses' in this vein

maybe AFK is 'really' nothing presumed read, and 'monitor' is 'probably reading but not replying right now'

@staticsafe @Vann

but I think that stuff's part of how we're adapting to new technologies as part of our communication toolset

we're going to have differentiated levels of how much we're paying attention to things, whether there's the implication we'll respond, etc.

and all that stuff may eventually be codified explicitly in, uh, code O_o

anyway

the point is -- either concept can be useful, but consent and setting expectations is, IMO, the real goal

some features may need off switches

@sydneyfalk @staticsafe @Vann
the postal service has a delivery notification, not a read notification. The recipient can sign on the form that they did receive the message, but leave it in the envelope for later. And you don't expect them to reply instantly. There's no "OMG they got the letter but didn't reply, are they mad at me?"
And the reason we have delivery notification is because people are mailing important documents with deadlines.