[davidschaengold]

This technique is not possible on Radiopaper. Once a conversation is published — which happens as soon it has messages from both parties — neither party can block the other party or unpublish the conversation (though you can edit your own posts, including deleting them).

Either party can keep adding messages to the conversation in any order, but only a back-and-forth is considered an update to the conversation as a whole, for the purposes of sending it to the top of the feed. That way, if a conversation turns sour, one person only needs to stop replying, and the conversation will gradually sink down the list into oblivion, even if new messages continue to be added by the ignored party.

[_Nat_]

How is that different from the parent-comment's point?

I mean, the parent-comment was saying that folks could get the last-word by replying-then-blocking. It sounds like folks on your platform could get the last-word by simply not approving the other-side's response.

To avoid one side getting a last-word in a feud, it'd seem like you'd need to ensure that both sides could eliminate the entire conversation should they not be satisfied with its ultimate conclusion, such that there'd be no last-words in any feuds as there wouldn't be any (published) feuds. Short of that, it'd seem like one party could end up getting in a last-word.

[rectang]

The difference seems to be that the other person gets the last word and anybody who actively seeks out the conversation will see it, it just isn't promoted? Because if I understand correctly, once someone has been approved once in a RadioPaper conversation, their subsequent posts in that conversation cannot be hidden.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> That way, if a conversation turns sour, one person only needs to stop replying,

Without actually trying it, this seems like a solid design choice.