Spoke: Add "lock conversation" action option to question responses

[bchrobot]

Request from campaign organizer:

For people we mark as "Refused", we want their only response option to be to click the opt out button

[arena]

I need some context to understand this.
Does this relate to tagging by the Texter?
Or is this a state for the contact?

[ibrand]

@bchrobot do you have any extra context on this one?

[bchrobot]

oof that's a memory question

I believe this came out of an ID texting campaign where there was a survey question response option of "6. Refused." The organizer wanted to ensure that when this question response was selected by a texter the texter's next action had to be Opt Out, as opposed to Send. This was to appropriately record the question response datum while also ending the conversation and opting the user out.

Tags as implemented in MoveOnOrg/Spoke may have addressed this?

[arena]

This seems a little too vague to keep open. Let me know if it should be kept open and if so what the details should be. I'll check back in and close it if nobody is opposed.

[ibrand]

Oh ok I see. So in that scenario:

• Texter selects the interaction step of "refused"
• As of right now, they can hit send and move on and not think about it again

Really, we'd want:

• Texter selects the interaction step of "refused"
• opt-out is the only viable button to push afterwards

I've actually heard requests like this before. Scenarios that pave a clearer path of action for texters so that they don't forget to click the opt-out button or an interaction response

[Frydafly]

Checking in here-- sorry for being dense, but I don't know what the "refused" interaction step is? I don't recall seeing it as an option. @ibrand @bchrobot

[bchrobot]

There's no built-in "Refused" option (at least as far as I'm aware in the MoveOn codebase). A common pattern for voter ID campaigns measuring support is to create a question with six responses where 1-5 are levels of support and 6 is a catchall option for people who are angry and/or refuse to answer the question.

[Frydafly]

One thing I'm thinking through is that some organizations use "refused" to denote someone who isn't interested in the particular campaign. Sometimes these folks might actually want to respond to a future campaign and aren't necessarily always opting out of engagement. I'd love to think through how we might work towards your issue but not affect folks who don't have the same definition of "refused."

Maybe one solution is for admins to be able to toggle, per campaign, an interaction step that leads to an auto-opt out based on the content of their campaign. I think this could be possible within the message-handlers framework that exists now. Though the more I think about making opting out easier, the more wary I feel about accidentally opting out folks that shouldn't be opted out. Just some thoughts, what do y'all think?