|
|
|
|
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 51 | |
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 12/18/2006 6:09:09 PM | @ MSG 48
this nice virgin boy may have to settle for a mattress marathoning hellbound crackwhore
You make your bed .. you sleep in it
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 52 | |
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 12/18/2006 6:10:20 PM | Just in case anybody misses it, post #48 is employing parody/sarcasm, profile note: non-religious.
Another IE thread as run its course: the filter criteria is proprietary to the Admin, we don't know - he ain't tellin'.
late™
moderator
Additionally as an FYI
YOU DO NOT GET FLAGGED IF SOMEONE SEEKING AN IE CONTACTS YOU AND YOU REPLY | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 3/4/2007 12:31:20 AM | once i was flagged, i decided im just gonna talk to whoevr i want, shouldnt i be able to do that anyway, without being judged?
The Option to do so lies with each single User, it is THEY who judge you.
Those who excercise Discernment of who they wish, or wish not to be contacted by are your Dictators.
 |
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/11/2007 12:05:25 PM | So far on this subject we're getting a lot more 'tude from our POF moderators than we are common sense. It was a decision, made by the creators of the site, to allow members the option of banning others who've sent messages to people who were in turn seeking intimate encounters. It was a decision, made by the creators of the site, to flag people after a certain number of such messages. The creators of the site did not, by contrast, offer the option of banning anyone who has sent more than a certain NUMBER of messages, of any type, in a certain period of time. The creators of the site did not, by contrast, offer the option of banning anyone who has ever had a forum post deleted. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This was a conscious decision by the creators of POF and it's subject to discussion and critique. All of this, "we're not judging anybody, the users who block you are" stuff is nonsense.
Second, the idea that a user isn't flagged for his first message to someone seeking intimate encounters (IF TRUE!) ignores the potential for messaging for purposes other than actually meeting in person -- something that happens in POF all the time. Message two people (three? four? who knows?) who are looking for intimate encounters -- to make conversation -- and you're forever locked out of messaging a goodly chunk of the rest of the community, with wholly insufficient warning. Moreover, the moderators have conspicuously failed to address the question of whether the raw number trips the filter, or a percentage: if I send twenty messages to people looking for dates, and two messages to people looking for intimate encounters, am I predator in the eyes of POF, I wonder? If I send fifty messages to thirty different people, and three of those people are looking for intimate encounters, am I bigger predator or a smaller one? 
Third, before the moderators quote the "with wholly insufficient warning" and reply with YET ANOTHER smug hypertext link to some obscure passage in another forum or elsewhere on the site, I hope they will understand that it is totally and pathologically unreasonable to hold people THIS accountable for having not versed themselves in obscure site rules to that kind of degree -- or, worse, to suggest that they read ALL of the posts in ALL of the forums -- before sending their first message to another user. I teach college and I can't get my students to circle the letters on their multiple choice questions, and THAT's written across the top of every page!!!
There are A MILLION different ways to handle this same issue without reflexively depriving people the chance at a first contact. Just thinking out loud, the site could cover every inbox message from someone who has ever messaged someone seeking intimate encounters with a note to the recipient, showing the percentages involved. Now that I think of it, why not a cover note on every message saying, "this is how many messages this other person has sent, and to which categories"?
In the end, the point of my complaint and those of other people is that the consequences of sending messages to people in search of intimate encounters are totally out of proportion with the seriousness of the act. And that complaint is wholly reasonable. There is ABSOLUTELY no cause for all of this "you deserve what you get" nonsense.
If the creator/moderators of POF really want to judge people, then they ought to create a separate, stand-alone site for people seeking intimate encounters, and remove that "in search of" option from the main site's list of choices. I mean, this is supposed to be a COMMUNITY -- on what planet is it appropriate for the creators of a web community to say that certain members of that community should be punished for contacting certain other members? Judge it or don't judge it, that choice is yours--but the system as it's set up right now would presume to do both, without sufficient warning, and that's unacceptable.
Stop swaggering around and FIX IT!!! | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/11/2007 3:09:46 PM | So far on this subject we're getting a lot more 'tude from our POF moderators than we are common sense.
Nothing to do with "tudes", Dude, it's the way the System works.
Perhaps some of the Ladies who have selected to block those who had sought to make Contact for Intimate Encounters would like to put in their 2 cents, after all it is they who are opting to engage this Block.
It was a decision, made by the creators of the site, to allow members the option of banning others who've sent messages to people who were in turn seeking intimate encounters.
By demand ... your Issue lies with those who block you, not those who create the Features for the Member Base.
The creators of the site did not, by contrast, offer the option of banning anyone who has ever had a forum post deleted.
By Contrast ... you are confusing the Forums with the Dating Aspect of this Site.
This was a conscious decision by the creators of POF and it's subject to discussion and critique.
Discuss away ... Feature stays !!!
and you're forever locked out of messaging a goodly chunk of the rest of the community, with wholly insufficient warning.
Matters not, its the Women who have blocked IE Seekers who decide if they want to hear from you or not.
eover, the moderators have conspicuously failed to address the question of whether the raw number trips the filter, or a percentage
Nothing conspicuous ... The Admin is not stating how the Filters work ie. not exactly trying to help you circumvent them.
if I send twenty messages to people looking for dates, and two messages to people looking for intimate encounters, am I predator in the eyes of POF, I wonder?
You are an IE Seeker in the Eyes of those who have blocked you.
Third, before the moderators quote the "with wholly insufficient warning" and reply with YET ANOTHER smug hypertext link to some obscure passage in another forum or elsewhere on the site
The purpose of the Links is to refer you to previous Messages and Threads on the same Topic to answer your Questions. Its obvious you either don't read them, or understand them. Most of your post is plain and simply redundant, been asked over and over again. Hence the Links to those previous Discussions.
I hope they will understand that it is totally and pathologically unreasonable to hold people THIS accountable for having not versed themselves in obscure site rules to that kind of degree
If that is the Way you would like to refer to those who have contact-blocked you, by all means.
There is no Site Rules that prevents you from contacting IEs ... Its the Ladies who have opted to block IE Seekers that do.
before sending their first message to another user. I teach college and I can't get my students to circle the letters on their multiple choice questions, and THAT's written across the top of every page!!!
You feel you deserve a warning? Its irrelevant. The ladies that block you block you because of your contact Habits, not because you were or weren't instructed in some Way or Form.
n the end, the point of my complaint and those of other people is that the consequences of sending messages to people in search of intimate encounters are totally out of proportion with the seriousness of the act. And that complaint is wholly reasonable. There is ABSOLUTELY no cause for all of this "you deserve what you get" nonsense..
Thats for those to decide who have blocked you.
If the creator/moderators of POF really want to judge people
You are again confusing "Creator/Moderators" with those who contact-blocked you.
on what planet is it appropriate for the creators of a web community to say that certain members of that community should be punished for contacting certain other members?
Same Query under yet a slightly different Colour ... Thats for those to decide who have blocked you.
Judge it or don't judge it, that choice is yours--but the system as it's set up right now would presume to do both, without sufficient warning, and that's unacceptable.
Thats for those to decide who have blocked you.
Stop swaggering around and FIX IT!!!
Seems those who have opted to block contact from those seeking IEs have FIXED it.
|
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/11/2007 4:49:35 PM | So far on this subject we're getting a lot more 'tude from our POF moderators than we are common sense.
Perhaps a little logic is in order.
*We're only messengers, not the designers of the feature.
*We've given all the information on this subject that we have (ad nauseum, I might add)... what more do you require?
*Admin adds features near constantly and keeps only those features/tweaks which work... this might not work for you but it IS working for the greater majority of users, or it would have been discontinued long ago.
All of this, "we're not judging anybody, the users who block you are" stuff is nonsense.
So, if we give people hammers, we are responsible for all the nails that they drive?
I think not.
The site owner (do note the singular) gave ladies a tool to combat an issue that they expressed concerns about , how they use it is THEIR perogative. Plentyoffish does not in any way shape or form coerce or entice any woman to use this block. Additionally, each woman who employs the feature is tacitly endorsing it.
ignores the potential for messaging for purposes other than actually meeting in person ...>>snip<<... to make conversation
speaking as a woman, and not a moderator? I ain't buyin' it, Joe.
..and I'm sure you smell like cheap perfume because of the lady you stood close to in the elevator, huh? 
and you're forever locked out of messaging a goodly chunk of the rest of the community, with wholly insufficient warning.
again , speaking as a female user, rather than as a moderator, I'd employ this feature to weed out men who *I* peronally would consider to be "slut shopping"....forewarning these guys and letting them know the ways around the filter would render it useless to me in that context. I'm sure many women feel likewise.
Moreover, the moderators have conspicuously failed to address the question of whether the raw number trips the filter, or a percentage
I guess you missed that part, so I'll address it again, just to be sure you see it.
we don't know.
Admin is the only one who knows... he is not going to tell you for very valid reasons... reasons that have already been addressed. I'd be happy to reiterate those reasons , as well, if you so desire.
Third, before the moderators quote the "with wholly insufficient warning" and reply with YET ANOTHER smug hypertext link to some obscure passage in another forum or elsewhere on the site, I hope they will understand that it is totally and pathologically unreasonable to hold people THIS accountable for having not versed themselves in obscure site rules to that kind of degree -- or, worse, to suggest that they read ALL of the posts in ALL of the forums -- before sending their first message to another user. I teach college and I can't get my students to circle the letters on their multiple choice questions, and THAT's written across the top of every page!!!
Inattention to detail on your part does not constitute incompetence on ours.
If you are experiencing buyer's remorse, we'll give you a cheeful refund of all membership fees to datee, in full.
it is totally and pathologically unreasonable to hold people THIS accountable for having not versed themselves in obscure site rules to that kind of degree
you mean, the ones you agreed to abide by when you clicked "I agree" to the terms of service?
There are A MILLION different ways to handle this same issue without reflexively depriving people the chance at a first contact.
but none which so succinctly put control into the hands of individual users, as this does.
Just thinking out loud, the site could cover every inbox message from someone who has ever messaged someone seeking intimate encounters with a note to the recipient, showing the percentages involved. Now that I think of it, why not a cover note on every message saying, "this is how many messages this other person has sent, and to which categories"?
you'd have POF invade the privacy of each and every user by displaying the categories of their private email?
In the end, the point of my complaint and those of other people is that the consequences of sending messages to people in search of intimate encounters are totally out of proportion with the seriousness of the act. And that complaint is wholly reasonable. There is ABSOLUTELY no cause for all of this "you deserve what you get" nonsense.
I have noted that almost every user that objects to this filter is one who encountered the block firsthand....or ...err... have a "friend" who has.  I haven't seen many women complaining .
If the creator/moderators of POF really want to judge people, then they ought to create a separate, stand-alone site for people seeking intimate encounters, and remove that "in search of" option from the main site's list of choices.
there are many criteria for which people can be blocked from emailing a user...
age, distance, marital status... the list goes on. This is just another preference for women to select from. If Admin were judging those seeking IE or were disaproving of them, he would simply eliminate the IE selection completely, I would think.
While moderators might have personal opinions, they are moot, as we do not control the feature in any way.
I mean, this is supposed to be a COMMUNITY
no, sir... while communities have developed in the forums, this is ,first and foremost, a DATING SITE. I have to think that it is designed accordingly. The forums are only a very small fraction of the overall site traffic.
certain members of that community should be punished for contacting certain other members? Judge it or don't judge it, that choice is yours--but the system as it's set up right now would presume to do both, without sufficient warning, and that's unacceptable.
again, the site owner is "punishing" no one, the feature is merely a tool to allow preference selection for users.
on what planet is it appropriate
perhaps on a planet where said "community" is owned by one man, and that's how that man wants it to be?
Stop swaggering around and FIX IT!!!
perhaps the site owner WOULD fix it if he held the opinion that it were broken. I do not, however, think that is the case.  | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/11/2007 5:47:29 PM | It would appear there is no solution to this...
goodo lol ....
how the mods keep such good humour when reading all this crap from guys who have been sussed is quite amazing...
i don't have IE'e 's blocked...
because, it amuses me to see the tactics employed by certain guys to explain away their ...err.. mistakes. | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/11/2007 5:57:57 PM | "I teach college and I can't get my students to circle the letters on their multiple choice questions, and THAT's written across the top of every page!!!" Funny, I taught college, too. As far as reading goes, the rules are posted in many places, and you did agree to the Terms of Service in order to post your profile.
Do you send your students a personal warning when they don't follow instructions? I know I didn't, yet that's what you're asking to be done for you.
"Third, before the moderators quote the "with wholly insufficient warning" | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/11/2007 7:23:30 PM |
Perhaps some of the Ladies who have selected to block those who had sought to make Contact for Intimate Encounters would like to put in their 2 cents,
Speaking as a woman that has opted to use th IE filter, rest assured that it is not in the name of pathalogical condemnation, but rather a time saving device that this site has & I have chosen to use.
For myself, I don't use the filter to intentionally block the IE segment of this site.
In fact, I have received message from men in the IE category....they had no problem messaging me & were polite. But they were up front & honest about what they are here for & it was reflected in their profile.
The ones that I want to block are all the ' Looking for Long Term, hand- holding, star-gazing, beach-walking, loves to cuddle ' Gents who use this site to try & f*ck anything that isn't nailed down.
I fully endorse some people's choice to be on this site looking for an IE connection. Whatever....just because I'm not looking for that doesn't diminish it's value as an option. Having said that, I love that the filter weeds out the 'underground IE men'. The ones that are looking for that behind the scenes, but don't have the nads to be open & honest about it.
Too bad we can't find a filter for the ones that want you to 'chat' while they beat it like it owes them money.......I'de be all over that one too.
KK
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/11/2007 9:00:35 PM | So far on this subject we're getting a lot more 'tude from our POF moderators than we are common sense.
Common sense isn't even considered by the tagged individuals storming in here demanding that it's their god given right to contact whom they wish without reasoning it out, however let's progress with civility here, so far so good.
It was a decision, made by the creators of the site, to allow members the option of banning others who've sent messages to people who were in turn seeking intimate encounters.
yes, in response to the multitude of women who simply would rather have a smidge more assurance, that someone who contacts them, hasn't been doing the poke-a-roo with every two legged receptacle of that persuasion out there.
All of this, "we're not judging anybody, the users who block you are" stuff is nonsense.
proceeding to ...
The creators of the site did not, by contrast, offer the option of banning anyone who has ever had a forum post deleted.
In the interest of discussion, I'd ask how you drew your "nonsense" summation of the feature, when in the next breath you proceed to ask why there isn't an option to ban people for, one example being, from contact for having an off topic conversation removed from the forum?
Those two examples and their ramifications would seem nonsensical to me. However, let's proceed.
and you're forever locked out of messaging a goodly chunk of the rest of the community, with wholly insufficient warning.
Why isn't the same flack being prattled on about when a user selects being married, on the pipe, or a smoker, then all of a sudden realizes that "hey. there's a filter in my Mail Settings that prevents me from mailing women who turn it on.
Why no blowing a gasket over that one? Isn't that your first warning, much like the very first filter that states Block users from making first contact that have messaged others for sex or intimate encounters .
One may argue, that they weren't warned because they ad yet to clue into Email fitters, but after having their first rejection, because they're proud of their water bong parties - guess what they do?
yeah, they go visit their profile and fix it - problem solved.
No more being blocked for being married, dropping acid, or smoking.
Small, problem though ... 'ya can't fix the fact that you're playing u-boat commander trawling for nookie and possibly putting someone at risk because of one's penchant. Yeah, you can't tell about one's sack race habits outside of POF, but try it here and you're busted.
Just an extra level, perhaps small, peace of mind for the women.
Moreover, the moderators have conspicuously failed to address the question of whether the raw number trips the filter, or a percentage: if I send twenty messages to people looking for dates, and two messages to people looking for intimate encounters, am I predator in the eyes of POF, I wonder? If I send fifty messages to thirty different people, and three of those people are looking for intimate encounters, am I bigger predator or a smaller one?
proprietary information that takes into account a margin of "oops" - make that "oops" redline through your pants and you're busted.
I teach college and I can't get my students to circle the letters on their multiple choice questions, and THAT's written across the top of every page!!!
Inserting a line at the top of exam papers that may be overlooked, or kids zoning you out during a verbal warning, are not quite same as halting you in the registration process for the reason of agreement to having read the rules.
In the end, the point of my complaint and those of other people is that the consequences of sending messages to people in search of intimate encounters are totally out of proportion with the seriousness of the act.
Are you forgetting the potential implications of multiple follow throughs on the act of seeking, or has that not entered the equation?
And that complaint is wholly reasonable. There is ABSOLUTELY no cause for all of this "you deserve what you get" nonsense.
Perhaps the phrase may be somewhat harshly put, but the results are well within reason and acceptability for the women.
If the creator/moderators of POF really want to judge people, then they ought to create a separate, stand-alone site for people seeking intimate encounters, and remove that "in search of" option from the main site's list of choices.
Judging people is quite far off from interpretation of actions and intent - I'm pretty sure the intent isn't to engage in a heated game of Scrabble.
, this is supposed to be a COMMUNITY -- on what planet is it appropriate for the creators of a web community to say that certain members of that community should be punished for contacting certain other members?
No different from preventing contact from , married people, Benzedrine bandits or smokers, but I have yet to see such a stink about those -
however, and here's the salient point - you can lie about the above and circumvent the filters once you clue in, (and conspicuously, no complaints) but you can't lie about your actions in multiple contacts of IEs after searching them out.
Stop swaggering around and FIX IT!!!
Morality PSA: maybe when people stop 'effing "around' | |
|
| |
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/11/2007 10:43:21 PM | ^^^ I hear ya Sista !
AND......now that they know how it all works.....They get twisted because they have to put in the effort to create a new profile.
Hmmmm, let me think. Has sent MORE than ONE message to an IE member, AND....is lazy ! I'll pass, thank you.
Stop swaggering around and FIX IT!!!
It doesn't need fixing....it aint broken.
KK | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/11/2007 11:31:09 PM | The ones that I want to block are all the ' Looking for Long Term, hand- holding, star-gazing, beach-walking, loves to cuddle ' Gents who use this site to try & f*ck anything that isn't nailed down.
IE Circumventers ... hmmmmm ... another Angle of Evasion ... not good.
"LT Back-Riders" ... a new, or undetected Breed.
Interesting ... I had no Clue ...
|
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/12/2007 12:00:30 AM |
IE Circumventers ... hmmmmm ... another Angle of Evasion ... not good.
"LT Back-Riders" ... a new, or undetected Breed.
Interesting ... I had no Clue ... Hmmmm ... I have talked about this in other threads ... they have "long-term" on their profile and it's just there so they can attract (target) the ladies who have "long-term" in their profiles. They know that those are ladies who want to have a "serious" relationship and are much more likely to be sucked in by their crap.
They feed you all the right lines and can be very convincing but in the end ... all they want is a quick "bounce" in your bed. After they get what they want ... they go their merry way and pull the same stunt with the next lady.
While trying to plan a POF event in Phoenix, Arizona I once encountered several ladies who were complaining about a gentleman they had recently met. They started comparing notes and in the end we discovered they were talking about the very same man.
As "Ticket wrote ... "LT Back-Riders" ... Yuppers, that's what they are. I wonder if they were previously "flagged" and started a new profile and are now targeting ladies in a different way ... but still after the same old IE???? It wouldn't surprise me at all. | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/12/2007 12:51:15 AM | I wonder if they were previously "flagged" and started a new profile and are now targeting ladies in a different way ... but still after the same old IE????
Every IE Selectee to upload a Headshot Pic of himself which can remain hidden when creating a new Profile ... might be another Course in the right Direction.
Lets see what can be done ...
|
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/12/2007 6:57:12 AM |
' Looking for Long Term, hand- holding, star-gazing, beach-walking, loves to cuddle ' Gents who use this site to try & f*ck anything that isn't nailed down.
I fully endorse some people's choice to be on this site looking for an IE connection. Whatever....just because I'm not looking for that doesn't diminish it's value as an option. Having said that, I love that the filter weeds out the 'underground IE men'. The ones that are looking for that behind the scenes, but don't have the nads to be open & honest about it.
BEAUTIFULLY put, Kits....
these are the guys I'd most want to avoid if I were actively dating.
The ones who are upfront about it pose no problem... it's the guys who pretend to be all about the romance who are horndogs in sheeps clothing that I have a problem with... and this is why warning about filters shouldn't be an option, IMO.
It's all about being able to block those guys who have demonstrated that they have had their hands in the cookie jar while pretending not to have an interest in cookies | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/12/2007 12:02:54 PM | ^^^ Exactly Pandy !
I find it rather ironic that the threads that are started complaining about the IE filter feature are not listed as IE on their profile. It's always, friends, dating, and my personal favourite.....Hang Out......I'm fairly certain I know what part of him he wants to hang out.
Women think that this filter saves them from having to deal with those ' Icky IE men',
but they have no idea all the snakes in the grass that have been prevented from contacting them. That is the true benefit of the feature.
Frankly, those are the men that give the IE members a Bad Rap.
It's all about being able to block those guys who have demonstrated that they have had their hands in the cookie jar while pretending not to have an interest in cookies
Damn......now I feel like a cookie......mmmmm macadamia nut !
Keep up the great work admin & mods..... there are countless people out there truly appreciate your efforts to educate the pof masses.
KK | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/12/2007 7:41:11 PM |
Hang Out......I'm fairly certain I know what part of him he wants to hang out.
Amen Ma Sista! Pardon the pun, but the long and the short of the dog-dangling IE seeker filter is this: I, as a user, have the ability to set up filters to control who contacts me and from whom I wish no contact. Now, let's all have a moment of silence and a tear for those who are denied contact because of restrictions .
Okay, on to brass tacks, Admin has made a dating site and he owns it. This is not a democracy, it is (for the most part) a benign dictatorship. He allows us to play with his toys as long as we play according to the TOS we agreed to upon entering his park. His toys, so his rules, PERIOD. If I want to play with his toys, then the choice is mine to play nicely or go home.
I may choose to have filters that say I only wish contact from men who live in my city, don't smoke, drink or use drugs, have never been married, and have no children. It is I who have chosen to limit my possibilities by utilizing the options open to me, not admin who wishes me to stay single forever because my filters screen out everyone except Mormons and sheltered priest-candidates.
And let's not forget personal responsibility for ones actions as well. If I choose not to circle my responses on a college exam contrary to the instructions and I check them off instead, my instructor can choose not to grade my paper for being incorrectly filled out. It may be high-handed and extreme, but so is life. If we want to participate, we have to follow the rules established. | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/12/2007 8:07:00 PM | I ended up running into this thread while looking for the answer to a different problem, but never mind that.
Anyway, I *do* like the idea of this sort of filter, and no, I don't expect it to impact me one little bit, but it did start me thinking. So I did a quick search for women seeking IE's within 50 miles of my zip code, and I got 29 matches, of which maybe two or three had pics. A search for long-term in the same area gave me 600+ matches. I would imagine if I were seriously looking for an IE, and I had any brains at all, I wouldn't risk my rep by writing to any of them, opting instead to ply my skills elsewhere. I also suspect that if I open the search to "anything," the odds of me "accidentally" writing to an IE woman are pretty slim. So, yeah, the filter is going to catch some people, but I'm guessing not a whole lot. It might not be quite as useful of a feature as was initially hoped.
If there's a relatively small handful of people who are getting flagged and are truly baffled by it, I really don't think there's any harm in having someone look into it, just in case there's a bug or unintended selection criteria. Even if the site turns out to be working as intended, I don't think it's giving away too much to let them know briefly what they did that tripped the trigger. But I appreciate the fact that I'm not a moderator here and therefore am not privy to what really goes on around here. If it's tons and tons of users who should know damn well why they're flagged, I can see not being interested in investigating every single case. My guess would be that this is what's happening here, but what gives me a little bit of doubt is having seen a lot of responses that seem to be along the lines of, "Hey, it's free, so if you don't like it, go fly a kite."
Yes, this site is free, and frankly, I'm truly *amazed* at the extent and quality of this site, given the limited manpower available to make it work. The question is, why do it if there's no money in it? And I think the answer is pride. You do it because you want to help people and be competitive with the other pay-for dating sites out there. And I know the administrators and volunteers have that pride because I see it all over the place in this site. I just don't see it as much in the customer service sometimes. But yes, I understand, manpower is limited.
Just my thoughts. | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/12/2007 8:39:46 PM | I don't think it's giving away too much to let them know briefly what they did that tripped the trigger.
A definite Pattern contacting those seeking Intimate Encounters.
If it's tons and tons of users who should know damn well why they're flagged, I can see not being interested in investigating every single case.
Pointless.
They've contacted IE's, come here to BS us, hoping we'll let them slip around the Filter.
You do it because you want to help people and be competitive with the other pay-for dating sites out there.
Yup, Help ... no competition though, this Free Dating Site is bigger than all other free Dating Sites combined.
The Bulk of Pay-Sites will eventually fade away anyways.
As "Ticket_" wrote ... "LT Back-Riders" ... Yuppers, that's what they are. I wonder if they were previously "flagged" and started a new profile and are now targeting ladies in a different way ... but still after the same old IE???? It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Recently someone from this Site went on a Date, both Parties "Long Term" Profile Selectees.
When the Date ended, he asked for a "Quickie" in the Bushes nearby ...
Seems to me there is only really 1 effective Way to deal with these Scumbags.
Inform the Candidate in Question you will be bringing your Friend (another Party) along for the first Date. There should be no Arguments/Disagreements about this whatsoever, as it ...
- Is a Token of Personal Safety
- Eliminates IE Requests
- Facilitates Third Party Character Assessment
If he can't stand the "Bright Lights" ... Next !!!
In Fact if he is really some sort of stellar Guy, you and your friend should end up fighting over him ...
(So you think your Dobie can sniff out the worst in Man? Sorry, but your "Furball" is too easily bribed, may end up leaving you after the Date for Mr. N. Tim Atencounter.)
|
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/13/2007 2:30:27 AM | | We might as well face it fellas, We are bad bad boys. We are guilty as charged regardless of what we say or do or how many times we have or have not violated the IE rule. It is obvious we DO NOT or will we ever qualify for a GET OUT OF JAIL card on this one. I think we are all doomed to spend the rest of our eternity on this site in IE purgatory. What a shame. I really liked this site too when I first became a member. I find it odd that the administrator of this site has not posted anything in this thread but instead he is opting to have his moderators defend his actions with regard to this issue. I do not think it is fair too the moderators at all. | |
|
TeJay
|
Joined: 1/16/2007
Msg: 72 | |
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/13/2007 4:25:46 AM | I find it odd that the administrator of this site has not posted anything in this thread but instead he is opting to have his moderators defend his actions with regard to this issue.
Why are you asking the Admin to defend MY choice?? He doesn't know me or anyone else on here. He gave US the option and you are out-voted. You say:
What a shame. I really liked this site too when I first became a member.
Do you know that I wouldn't have joined this site without such a filter? You're not getting it. It's not the admin who implements it. It's the women who are chosing to use the tool. You're blaming the Admin when it's not him. Ask the women why they use it. We do have to make a conscious effort to check the box. It is not checked for us.
I can't count the times that that someone IM'd me or added me to their favorites in hopes that I would start messaging them so I could help them get past their block. I don't make first contact now for this reason.
The only advice I can give you is that the next time you want to take Big Jim and the Twins out for a night on the town, then don't do it on the dating site. Go to a local corner and pay for it.
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 73 | |
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/13/2007 4:40:16 AM |
The only advice I can give you is that the next time you want to take Big Jim and the Twins out for a night on the town, then don't do it on the dating site. Go to a local corner and pay for it.
Sorry guys, ....this post says it all.
You're not getting it. It's not the admin who implements it. It's the women who are chosing to use the tool. You're blaming the Admin when it's not him.
ét voila! | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/13/2007 12:20:36 PM | Ok...so there's a new guy on the site. We "recruited" him at an event the other night. I can't even e-mail him to welcome him to POF because his profile states he's looking for an IE.
I don't want to be flagged as a s*l*u*t because I'm really a nice girl.  But I can't contact this guy, either.
I don't have any restrictions on my profile settings because I want all of my friends to be able to contact me. But I do state in the first line of my description that I don't want to be contacted for IE. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 3 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
