|
|
|
|
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/17/2007 7:47:32 PM |
how long does that stay on my file till i am able to message a user who has that blocked.
That status, will be permanently tattooed to your, ummm .... profile. | |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/17/2007 9:01:48 PM | | It bugs me too. After say 30 or 60 days it should be reset so that you can contact people who have their profiles set to "Must not have contacted someone looking for an intimate encounter" in their profile after that time. Cause there are a few women I want to contact but can't because of the feature even though I contacted one or two people several months ago. Btw, I am not one who is always looking for sex, I have sent messages to people who were looking and got no responses from them so I am just looking for dates or whatever comes up. | |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/17/2007 9:15:49 PM |
After say 30 or 60 days it should be reset so that you can contact people who have their profiles set to "Must not have contacted someone looking for an intimate encounter" in their profile after that time Why should it reset???
I'm pretty sure that most women chosing to use this restriction, mean to block the all of the guys who've message those seeking intimate encounters. Not just the guys who did it in the last 4 weeks.
there are a few women I want to contact but, they don't want to be contacted by you. That is their right. | |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/17/2007 9:36:24 PM | | So I message one person because of what their profile is set to and I am automatically not allowed to contact someone I am interested in? That is a bunch of rediculous bullcrap as far as I am concerned and makes no sense. Just because I happened to contact one person not looking for sex does not mean I want to bone the next chick I message. Holy crap all I can say is that filter is rediculously stupid and should not be so restrictive of who you can message, or at least having a time setting would change things a bit. | |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/17/2007 9:51:33 PM | So I message one person 
according to post 3 of this thread:As an FYI - it has to be more than just one innocent message before you get tagged with your proclivity for such contacts.
should not be so restrictive of who you can message, according to your profile:
Female
Age between 19 and 24
Live in Canada
Live within 75 miles.
You must have a picture to contact this user.
Must not be looking for Talk/E-mail
Must not do drugs
Must not be married
Must not smoke Perhaps gay men, 25 year olds, Americans, people living 80 miles away from you, camera shy people, people looking for online friends, stoners, and smokers, all think your message restrictions are too restrictive???
The point is: it's your right to restrict others from contacting you. Therefore, other people have the same right to restrict you from contracting them. duh???
| |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/17/2007 10:07:28 PM | Well GuelfDude,
After say 30 or 60 days it should be reset
Do you reset every 30-60 days? Every couple of months you change your mind
about why you are here? If that's the case, then some women/girls will not want
to chat with you.
When you show us who you are, we believe you.
This is a harder venue for the younger men & women here.
Go the the beginning of this thread & all will be explained.
KK | |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/18/2007 7:34:42 AM | After say 30 or 60 days it should be reset so that you can contact people
This is not a Punishment or 'Application Process' Waiting Period. If any Ladies wish to reset their IE Filter in their Mail Settings at some Future Point to permit such Contact, it is entirely up to them.
So I message one person because of what their profile is set to and I am automatically not allowed to contact someone I am interested in?
The IE Filter does not restrict Contact on the basis of 1 single Message.
It doesn't work that Way.
That is a bunch of rediculous bullcrap as far as I am concerned and makes no sense.
I am sure your Point will be duly noted by some Ladies who have so decided to block IE Seekers.
Just because I happened to contact one person not looking for sex does not mean I want to bone the next chick I message.
Well ... so you bone some, but not all of them.
Thanks for the Reassurance.
Holy crap all I can say is that filter is rediculously stupid and should not be so restrictive of who you can message, or at least having a time setting would change things a bit.
Again, this Contact Filter is a Feature of this Site that a User may opt to use. These Contact Restrictions are based on your "Contacting Habits", not on Regulations.
Do you contact People based on Rules and Restrictions, or what you are truly looking for?
 |
| |
|
| |
| |
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/19/2007 1:04:45 AM | After say 30 or 60 days it should be reset so that you can contact people who have their profiles set to "Must not have contacted someone looking for an intimate encounter" in their profile after that time.
Mail Settings (To message USERNAME you MUST meet the following criteria.)
| Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex. |
|
|
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/19/2007 1:40:33 PM | What happens if a girl you knew and off line you had an intimate conversation but then when things got sour between you she reported you as a looking for sex
shes a real mean person and i dont want to mention her name... but this isnt fair to me.
| [=The Filter triggers upon 'First Contact', not by filing Reports/Ticketoride] |
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/19/2007 9:32:34 PM |
You don't get flagged if an IE contacts you- that is to say, if you reply to an IE intiated email. One only gets flagged if they do the contacting to an IE, and for the record, it's more than just once. One has to show a tendency to repeated contacts of such individuals.
Are you sure??? I've only contacted one, once, and didn't get a reply... that was back in December and I've been unable to contact users with that mail preferance since. What's really funny??? I'm still single!
I'm definately not trying to "pass the blame" on or anything because "I" am responsible for my own actions, but I contacted that person because many people I knew told me that a "one night stand" would help me get over my ex; and it was a rough breakup. I didn't believe it would work but I was willing to find out because so many people told me that it would work... and because of that one message, I'm unable to message some really great women I see on this site; and like I said... I'm still single.
Who could I contact to clear my name?
--Brandon
BTW: I just went and looked at my contact history, and I still see that one IE profile I contacted. I checked all the other people I've messaged, the messages no longer exist, but only that one person's profile says IE on it. What's going on? | |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/19/2007 9:34:06 PM | While I can see why this tag and accounting have been added, it never has been added properly.
Maybe a person needs to be a lawyer, or an English major, but the statements within the system are inconsistent. In your mail settings you have "Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.". It is entirely possible to message someone who has as their posted interest, "Intimate Encounters", without looking for either an intimate encounter or sex. Within the last week, in looking through the who is online listings, I stumbled across someone who listed their preference as "Intimate Encounter". However, nothing about the rest of the profile was consistent with that preference, from how you guys seem to interpret things. So, you could write this person to tell them about how things work, and you could find this was the N'th message which sent you over the limit on being branded a pervert (because that is how people setting this flag on who they are accepting email from interpret it). Some people who list their preference as Intimate Encounter definitely only have one thing on their mind upon reading the rest of the profile. Some seem to have some comments solely along the lines of intimate encounter, and some that seem "ordinary". And like the one I stumbled across this week, have nothing in the profile which corresponds to Intimate Encounter.
Someone has suggested resetting things at 30-60 days, or doing something with the book-keeping on this. How long have I been a member here? It has to be more than 2 years. I don't keep track, it has been a long time. Am I looking for sex? Hey, I'm an Aspie. I'm lucky if I can get someone to tell me the time of day, let alone me propositioning people for sex. I'm looking for friends, and since I get so little feedback on anything, I just keep trying different things. Have I noticed that some people I was writing to, had listed that their preference was Intimate Encounter? Sure. Was I writing to them asking for sex? No. At times I did wonder what I might do if they wrote back and said they wanted sex with me. My conclusion was that if all they were interested in was sex, I wasn't interested. I have to start with friendship. But all of my analyzing was really for nothing, as the issue has never come up. Except that this site has branded me a pervert in some people's eye, who can't see the system as being improperly worded.
At the end of the day, I don't think it is going to effect me one way or the other. There are so many people (women) who ignore my polite attempts at friendship, that not being able to write to a few more because of this stupid pervert flag, isn't really going to change things. | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/19/2007 9:37:17 PM | I've only contacted one, once, and didn't get a reply
not getting a reply doesn't absolve you from your intentions - and this intention is what concerns women.
and for the record once again - the system counter for IE contacts IS NOT just one.
Who could I contact to clear my name?
there isn't sorry to say | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/19/2007 9:52:27 PM |
and for the record once again - the system counter for IE contacts IS NOT just one
I hate to try to go back and forth on any issue, because nothing gets accomplished... but I remember specifically that I messaged that one user and the day I did that I tried messaging a user with the no-IE preferance and it refused me.
I'm serious, I'm not lying... why should I need to lie? If you were to look in my contact history (and I would give a moderator my password to do so) you could check for yourself and see ONLY that one person with the IE preference who I contacted. I checked them all, I checked the guys and the girls and that one woman was the only IE that I contacted.
I'll even issue it as a challenge:
Select a moderator and I'll give them my password... that moderator can check my contact history and check the (very few) profiles of the people I've contacted; you WILL see for yourself.
You say (quite clearly) that it takes more than one IE contact by me... but the facts before my very eyes, the rules which have defined who I am able to contact and who I am unable to contact... my experience here on POF suggests otherwise since those rules have been in place since I contacted that one person.
I'm sorry, I just do not believe the "more than one" IE contact attempt when this restriction has held me back since I messaged that one person.
I'm not angry with you guys, but I am telling the truth... and I can prove it.
--Brandon | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/19/2007 10:02:35 PM |
I checked all the other people I've messaged, the messages no longer exist, but only that one person's profile says IE on it. What's going on? your contact history only shows people who are still members of this site. If you've contacted people months ago, and they've since deleted their profiles, they won't appear in your contact history.
Also, it's possible that someone appearring in your contacts as changed the "looking for" on their profile, since you messaged them. | |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/19/2007 10:48:09 PM | While I can see why this tag and accounting have been added, it never has been added properly.
you've audited the system code?
Maybe a person needs to be a lawyer, or an English major, but the statements within the system are inconsistent. In your mail settings you have "Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.".
fairly straight forward if not to the point.
It is entirely possible to message someone who has as their posted interest, "Intimate Encounters", without looking for either an intimate encounter or sex.
With the IE filter as first in the list, why would one do this? unless they missed it, hence why an ample "oops" factor is provided to take this into account.
Within the last week, in looking through the who is online listings, I stumbled across someone who listed their preference as "Intimate Encounter". However, nothing about the rest of the profile was consistent with that preference, from how you guys seem to interpret things.
what you choose to write about in your profile does not have to have any baring on what you seek.
So, you could write this person to tell them about how things work, and you could find this was the N'th message which sent you over the limit on being branded a pervert (because that is how people setting this flag on who they are accepting email from interpret it)
no, it only indicates that women may be concerned with your choices of contact and they simply would rather not hear from you, much like if you were married, or did drugs or smoked.
Some people who list their preference as Intimate Encounter definitely only have one thing on their mind upon reading the rest of the profile. Some seem to have some comments solely along the lines of intimate encounter, and some that seem "ordinary". And like the one I stumbled across this week, have nothing in the profile which corresponds to Intimate Encounter.
again, tell us where it is a definitive that one's profile write up must include what we seek? I've seen tons of profiles, IE or not, that do not speak to what they seek.
Someone has suggested resetting things at 30-60 days, or doing something with the book-keeping on this. How long have I been a member here? It has to be more than 2 years. I don't keep track, it has been a long time. Am I looking for sex? Hey, I'm an Aspie. I'm lucky if I can get someone to tell me the time of day, let alone me propositioning people for sex.
and this has baring on?
Have I noticed that some people I was writing to, had listed that their preference was Intimate Encounter? Sure. Was I writing to them asking for sex? No.
Again, I guess you never noted the email filters then? hence why there is an adequate "oops" factor to take into account negligence in not noting the email filters from the start.
I'm looking for friends, and since I get so little feedback on anything, I just keep trying different things.
Have you tried posting your profile in the Profile Reviews forum?
At times I did wonder what I might do if they wrote back and said they wanted sex with me. My conclusion was that if all they were interested in was sex, I wasn't interested.
wouldn't the majority of normal relationships also include sex? so why write to IE's with the email filter in mind?
I have to start with friendship. But all of my analyzing was really for nothing, as the issue has never come up. Except that this site has branded me a pervert in some people's eye,
again, pervert is your definition, not the site's claim.
who can't see the system as being improperly worded.
what is the major malfunction with the wording again? It's fairly straight forward isn't it? - an email block for people who have been contacting IE profiles - you'd have people believe one was contacting IE's for 18 holes of glow in the dark mini golf? Let's be reasonable here.
At the end of the day, I don't think it is going to effect me one way or the other. There are so many people (women) who ignore my polite attempts at friendship, that not being able to write to a few more because of this stupid pervert flag, isn't really going to change things.
not replying to your messages is a whole different kettle of fish - also discussed ad nauseum through the forums and if the flag isn't to blame for non responses? what is? | |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/19/2007 11:22:03 PM | Are you sure??? I've only contacted one, once, and didn't get a reply... that was back in December and I've been unable to contact users with that mail preferance since.
It is User Statement vs. the Way the IE Filter works.
Since the Filter does not block initial Contact of 1 single Instance, the User Statement is false.
I'm definately not trying to "pass the blame" on or anything because "I" am responsible for my own actions, but I contacted that person because many people I knew told me that a "one night stand" would help me get over my ex; and it was a rough breakup.
Aside from any Issues dealing with how many Times you have contacted anyone for Intimate Encounters, your Justification above is likely enough for most Ladies to IE Block you.
Hence the Filter does what it was designed for.
I'm serious, I'm not lying... why should I need to lie?
Lets just play really dumb and pretend you are not looking for an Avenue to get around the IE Filter.
If you were to look in my contact history (and I would give a moderator my password to do so) you could check for yourself and see ONLY that one person with the IE preference who I contacted. I checked them all, I checked the guys and the girls and that one woman was the only IE that I contacted.
The Contact History is not a Counter for IE Contacting.
The Filter does not work that Way.
|
| |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/20/2007 12:34:23 AM |
Since the Filter does not block initial Contact of 1 single Instance, the User Statement is false.
Lets just play really dumb and pretend you are not looking for an Avenue to get around the IE Filter.
So... not only are you saying I'm a liar... you're also calling me dumb?
Wow... you're really top-notch, did you know that???
Is that POF policy? To provoke users to anger or attempt to incite an argument? Or do you do it on your own so you can maybe then "flex your muscle" and possibly punish a user for getting pissed off at -you- for calling him a dumb liar???
I'm serious: Where did I insult you... that would warrant you calling me a dumb liar?
I think I'm not stepping too far astray by suggesting you act a little more professional...
Speaking of professional, I tell you what.
Sometime in the next few days I'll create some new profile; without any pictures or anything because I won't be using it... and I'll message that SAME user, and I'll see if that new profile is blocked after just ONE message.
Instead of "me" taking YOUR approach... I'm not going to call YOU a liar...
"I" am actually going to step into INVESTIGATING and I'm going to see what happens. Could I be wrong, always... Do I think I'm wrong? Not this time.
I'll let everyone know what happens.
--Brandon
BTW: If I wanted an "avenue" around the IE blocker... I'd just create a new profile; wouldn't I?? So "let's just play really dumb" and assume that you don't know a thing about me... Instead of going "around" the IE blocker, I PREFER HONESTY and I've stuck to THIS profile since I created it. What does THAT say to YOU about me? Consider it... and I'm sorry if I've offended you. | |
|
| |
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/20/2007 11:43:10 AM | Looking over this thread, there are a few of us that have a problem with the wording of this situation. In other words, they are submitting a bug report. And you guys just keep pushing the, "there is no bug here, go away" statement.
I am not an English major, or even close. I do not know exactly what it wrong with the wording of the statements surrounding this on the site, it might just be punctuation. However, in my opinion what those statements say is not the same as what you think they say.
So, in too wordy a fashion, here is my take on 2 places where I think something needs to be done.
==========
User chooses Intimate Encounter as their interest, and submits page.
------
You have chosen Intimate Encounter as your interest in the use of
this site. Regardless of what your own interpretation of that term
is, this site assumes Intimate Encounter means predominantly an
interest in having sex, to the exclusion of almost everything else.
Unlike the other types of site use interest (for example, dating)
on this site, people can block email messages from other users who have
written to people who have Intimate Encounter listed as their interest
with this site.
If you have other interests in this site as well, such as dating, you
should choose a different site interest.
Are you sure you want to list your interest in this site as "Intimate
Encounter"?
==========
User chooses to send an email to someone who has listed Intimate
Encounter as their interest in the site
-----
In sending an email to this user, who has listed Intimate Encounter
as their interest in using this site, you may be disabling your ability
to send messages to users who have selected that they do not want to
be contacted by people who have sent messages to those who have selected
Intimate Encounter as their site interest. This disabling has NOTHING
to do with the content of any message you are sending.
Are you sure you want to send this user a message?
=============================
This sort of thing still allows you to maintain the mystery as to how many messages a person
can send. | |
|
| FAQ: Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/20/2007 12:26:44 PM | basicpagan, chill out, dude. no one is calling you anything. i know you only read the first page of this thread. so, let me clue you in. this thread has 5 pages, and the other one (FAQ - Block for sex or intimate encounters (Huh?)[Locked]) has 3 pages. call it 200 posts. at least half are from guys like you, who've been tagged by the IE filter, and protest saying, "really, it was only one." but, the filter just does not work that way.
let me point out what is evident. one (like you) who has been tagged by this filter clearly has an incentive to lie, in hope of getting it removed. so, what we know to be true,
Since the Filter does not block initial Contact of 1 single Instance, the User Statement is false.
whether it is a lie or a misperception (to wit, i suggest you look above, at someplace's post, msg 116, for an explanation of why you can now only identify one possible IE contact),
Lets just play really dumb and pretend you are not looking for an Avenue to get around the IE Filter.
we've heard it a 100 times before, and we're not dumb enough to buy it.
for your edification:
msg 88
I have checked this several times with test profiles, both for blocking and getting blocked. Viewing IE profiles won't do it, replying to an IE profile won't do it, first contact to one, even two doesn't do it, .....
late™
moderator
let me inform you of a few things:
Sometime in the next few days I'll create some new profile; without any pictures or anything because I won't be using it... and I'll message that SAME user, and I'll see if that new profile is blocked after just ONE message.
bad idea. multiple profiles are not allowed. and, that can get you booted.
ADMINISTRATION OR MODERATOR PROTESTS ON THE FORUMS
Anyone that creates or participates in a Protest Thread, outlines any protest in their profile, posts any negative commentary with regards to moderation or administration, or discusses emails between moderators/adminsitration and themselves in their profiles/postings with respect to the Administration of this Site, instead of E-Mailing the Admin or one of the Moderators, will have their posting priviledges permanently revoked, banned forever, all Message Posts deleted, and every Trace and Symbol of that Poster from this Forum removed, depending on severity.
you're skating on thin ice. i'd get that first sentence outta your "about me" PDQ, if i were you.
and, while you're at it, i'd get rid of this, too
UPDATE: I'm f--king single again... f--king wonderful... I find it funny how I am "Mr Right Now" to the few women who actually take interest in me. You know what??? I want to be "Mr Right" for a change!!! So would the f--king FRAT of "Wrong Women" please leave me the f--k alone?!?
we women will tend to think that mr. right now has been sticking his wick somewhere, given the opportunity.
If I wanted an "avenue" around the IE blocker... I'd just create a new profile; wouldn't I??
you could...but what if the tag followed you?
I PREFER HONESTY and I've stuck to THIS profile since I created it. What does THAT say to YOU about me?
imho, it suggests the possibility that you might speak the truth about your preference. but, i do believe the IE filter works as intended. therefor, must presume that your behavior merited getting tagged, whether or not you can "prove" it. (again, see someplace's post.)
and since i type so slowly...
I'm definately not trying to "pass the blame" on or anything because "I" am responsible for my own actions, but I contacted that person because many people I knew told me that a "one night stand" would help me get over my ex; and it was a rough breakup.
unlike cotter, i see this statement as reflecting your honesty. but, like cotter, i think it really calls your morals into question. you should be more careful about whose advice you take.
fortran - while i appreciate your efforts, i think you're making a big deal out of nothing. the wording is as clear as it needs to be. anyone who picks intimate encounter knows what they're picking. and, they can see when setting up their profile that people will be able to prevent them from contacting them. the same can be said of those who contact IE profiles. they can see that some may use that filter to block their messages. there is an important truth you're overlooking. people are responsible for their own actions. period. the truth will out...
"Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.". It is entirely possible to message someone who has as their posted interest, "Intimate Encounters", without looking for either an intimate encounter or sex. ...So, you could write this person to tell them about how things work, and you could find this was the N'th message which sent you over the limit on being branded a pervert (because that is how people setting this flag on who they are accepting email from interpret it).
true. but, most of us believe that people contact IE users for ...ummm... an IE. why else would one do it when there are consequences? to give them unsolicited advice as you suggest?? nope, not buying. i think they know exactly what they selected, and needed no help from you. | |
|
| |
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/20/2007 12:59:52 PM | ^^^^
Marital Status Not Single/Not Looking
Who is Looking for Talk/E-mail
was actually looking for a little action on the side. 
what happened is: actions speak louder than words. people can now restrict messages from users that say one thing, but do another. said people do not consider it to be a "loss". in fact, quite the opposite! | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/20/2007 2:13:41 PM | The only concern I have, I'm not blocked by the IE filter by the way, is the single minded opinion that most people here have. No programs or sites are 100% foolproof yet the main reasoning is only the filters could have caused this.
I'm not defending or criticizing anyone's actions here but asking if a program mistake is at all possible???? I also don't know if the one Mod's test has any validity at all since he is a Mod and should be able to contact any and all users at will. I will add that I don't know if Mod's are exempt from that filter or not?
Aside from any Issues dealing with how many Times you have contacted anyone for Intimate Encounters, your Justification above is likely enough for most Ladies to IE Block you.
Hence the Filter does what it was designed for.
^^^^^ I don't follow the logic there. His supposed one IE admission here shows the filters to be working correctly?
Let's not forget that this site has been having some fairly major problems of late. So, is it possible, or is it not possible, for someone to be wrongly flagged? | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
