Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest 100% free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
So... not only are you saying I'm a liar... you're also calling me dumb?
you can maybe then "flex your muscle" and possibly punish a user for getting pissed off at -you- for calling him a dumb liar???
that would warrant you calling me a dumb liar?
Twisting Post(s) is a Form of detracting from the Topic.
And here again, in its utter Simplicity ...
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.
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.
It was tested long before the Debut of this Feature, and it has been tested since again and again, hence your Test would be nothing other than your written Testimony against that which has already been verified: The Filter does not block first Contact after 1 single attempt looking for Intimate Encounters or Sex.
Further, should anyone create a secondary or multiple Profiles in an Effort to circumvent the IE Filter, all your Accounts will be terminated.
I contacted that person because many people I knew told me that a "one night stand" would help me get over my ex;
Do you believe that nobody in either of the two threads (more?) has actually misunderstood things because the statements in the web site about this situation are not worded as the admin and you moderators seem to assume? As I said, some of us are submitted bug reports, and you guys just shine us on. If people tell you that they are interpreting things differently from how you do, does that not mean a bug exists? It's not a bug in the sense of PHP or whatever this site is written in, it is a bug in the print statement. The statement is not displaying what it should.
Sure, we live with not precisely worded statements around us all the time. Marketing thrives on statements which appear to say one thing when they actually say something else. Some of us happen to be more sensitive to this than others. In police work, use of this kind of thing is called entrapment. It's in politics. Does it have to be here? Is there some reason why you can't make things clearer?
As far as you buying something I say or not. I can't speak for others, normals or other Aspies (Asperger's Syndrome sufferers) like myself. Some of us have what I call pathological honesty, we have to tell the complete truth, good and bad, to whoever asks. Which is why we can't sell stuff. Nobody is going to buy a tractor from me if I tell them what is wrong with it. I have to give the other party enough information in order to make an informed decision. Shooting myself in the foot when this happening inside my brain is a constant in my life. I realize that not telling the complete truth, or lying, could often make things easier. I can't live with myself in even approaching this. I have told the truth in this forum. I have written to people who have listed as their interest, Intimate Encounter, about things that have absolutely nothing to do with sex.
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.
As I said, some of us are submitted bug reports, and you guys just shine us on.
If you would have read this Thread, this Query has also been addressed numerous Times.
Do we re-test the IE Filter Daily because of yet another Post claiming it has a Bug?
Should we maybe re-test every Hour, every Minute, so we can reaffirm what has already been done over and over again?
So, in too wordy a fashion, here is my take on 2 places where I think something needs to be done. ... Are you sure you want to list your interest in this site as "Intimate Encounter"?
Reinterated again: The IE Filter is based on "Contact" Habits, not Threat of Consequence. Not based on "Yeah" or "Nay", but who you have been contacting, and those who restrict such Contact.
In police work, use of this kind of thing is called entrapment. It's in politics. Does it have to be here? Is there some reason why you can't make things clearer?
Its about your Contact Practices and Routines, and it works as intended best without you being exposed to Warnings or Consequences. It gets right down to "Brass Tacks", what you really and truly are looking for right down to the Core, bypassing any "Computational Think" ... which is ... what the Ladies want to know ... Who you really are!
Why entertain baseless "Buggy Filter" Arguments ... that simply do not exist?
This sort of thing still allows you to maintain the mystery as to how many messages a person can send.
Exactamundo! The Heart of what makes this Filter work so well.
Some of us have what I call pathological honesty, we have to tell the complete truth, good and bad, to whoever asks.
Why does the point keep getting missed that the users who use the filter DO NOT WANT YOUR MESSAGES! If you are unable to contact another user because of this filter it is because the user doesn't want to talk to you. That is the reality. Glitch or not, one contact or not, if you have associated yourself in anyway with this type of behaviour there are users that do not want to talk to you. That is the reality.
The users of the filter are not posting in droves that they feel they are being limited by it because they are happy with its performance.
For every argument against the filter I am quite sure, there are thousands of users out there whom will never read nor post in the forums that are quite pleased with the filter and the lack of "hey baby.. wanna ****" messages in their inboxes.
There are also many assumptions made about how the filter works. Honestly we don't know the particulars, and we never will. What we do know, is that it works and those that use the filter are grateful.
Attempting to circumvent a users right to say NO to your message seems off the wall to me. The user has already made it plain they aren't interested. Why would you want to waste your time contacting someone who clearly isn't compatible with you from the get go.
Think about it. Somehow you circumvent the filter, and you are getting to know someone and its going well but they are unaware that you were blocked by the filter. One night the user is browsing the forums and finds these posts. I'd lay bets that you would never see the block user link found faster!
We want different things and we have different standards of behaviour. If you don't agree with those that use the filter, why does it matter if you can contact them or not? You are not on the same wavelength, and its probably not going to work out. Better to know right upfront. Wouldn't you agree?
No one here is judging those blocked by the filter, but we are questioning the Bug mentality.
User A made a choice to behave a certain way. User B would prefer not to have messages from those that exhibit that behaviour. Simple.
The mods have nothing to do with the filter. It's a feature offered by the site, they can't reset your profile or help you try to figure a way to circumvent it.
What they do is help explain the feature(s) of the site and how they work. Just like if you read the FAQs about it, rather than arguing on a case by case basis. It's really a moot point as there's nothing they can do.
It's a user's choice to use the feature, if they do it means they don't want to be contacted. Pretty simple, it would be best to just accept it. (I'm such an optimist!!)
========== 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?
^^^^ = hey there, if you select "intimate encounter" or email other intimate encounters the nice women on this site don't want to hear from you.
This negates everything positive the feature does for women. I don't WANT the horndogs to have advance warning so that they can be wolves in sheeps clothing , I WANT to know which ones are the jerks who want to have their cake and eat it, too. I want women to have at least one line of defense against the unscruplous men who would use them sexually with the promise of a long term relationship, when they have no such thing in mind.
If I wanted to meet someone promiscuous, I'd be on Adult friend finder or something similar... this is how lots of other women feel. Get the picture?
I'm not defending or criticizing anyone's actions here but asking if a program mistake is at all possible????
possible (as are most all things) but not at all likely... and it is tested periodically.
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.
our profiles are exempt from this... we cannot utilize the IE block on our own profiles (as we need to be available to all users in good standing), ane we likewise need to be able to contact any user. Late, however, set up a "dummy" profile for this purpose, which would not have had "mod" settings. His test, therefore, is valid.
I will grant you that some people are trying to abuse the system; and if you think about it a bit, you will have to admit that at least some people aren't. In the case of people who aren't trying to abuse the system, it is apparent that the site is not explaining things adequately. If you were trying to be helpful, you would at least try to see where a misunderstanding is coming from. But all I see here, is "you must be lying". The most likely thing I can think of is that people are deriving enjoyment from this.
I would like to make a feature request. The ability to completely block Intimate Encounters. No messages from them, no IM from them, if you pull up a profile which displays the 10 users in the vicinity who recently checked their email, that none of those 10 are Intimate Encounters people, that if you look at your compatibilty list, that none of those people are Intimate Encounters people, that if you look at who is online (or online recently), that none of the profiles displayed are of people seeking Intimate Encounters, and any similar circumstances that I have missed.
You do realize that if you ` sed tr/intimate encounters/negro/i` that this is very much like the discrimination that happened to slaves and descendants of slaves and people who just happened to share similar genetics to slaves in the US southeast in the past?
"the site is not explaining things adequately." Sorry, truly not meaning to pick on your post, but between the 6 pages of THIS thread, and all the others, plus the FAQs. "I would like to make a feature request." Let me take a stab at this. It works, you don't like it therefore you want the feature eliminated. Well good luck with that, it's a feature offered by the site. If you have a "problem" with it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. You're posting this in a thread on a forum, a feature of the site is not what the mods have any control over or can do anything about. Not explained adequately? What does that have to do with sharing genetics with slaves in the southeast in the past? Please do try to stay on topic, and it's a site filter that obviously WORKS, want to rant about discriminiation, visit another thread. Giving members a choice for a feature and them using it is as much like discrimination as is giving someone heck for buying a vanilla ice cream. Vanilla...pfft....now there's something that gets my knickers in a twist. Perhaps you'd like to join my boycott of all things vanilla flavored. It abhors me, I think vanilla should be outlawed. Chocolate RULES!! Did I explain that well enough, if not then feel free to email me. Well if you can.
I would like to make a feature request. The ability to completely block Intimate Encounters. No messages from them, no IM from them, if you pull up a profile which displays the 10 users in the vicinity who recently checked their email, that none of those 10 are Intimate Encounters people, that if you look at your compatibilty list, that none of those people are Intimate Encounters people, that if you look at who is online (or online recently), that none of the profiles displayed are of people seeking Intimate Encounters, and any similar circumstances that I have missed.
They DON'T show up unless YOU are seeking 'IE' or 'Other relationship'.
No IE's show up in 'recently checked email', 'my matches', or your compatibilty list, if you are seeking longterm, dating, hangout, or activity partner.
YOU have to actively go searching for them.
Then you can come back here swearing you 'accidently' contacted 1 IE!
I will grant you that some people are trying to abuse the system; and if you think about it a bit, you will have to admit that at least some people aren't.
relevancy to the topic? this isn't a question of abusing the site, it's a question of a user's choice to disallow contact
In the case of people who aren't trying to abuse the system, it is apparent that the site is not explaining things adequately.
IE contact mail filter is first on the list on your mail settings plus the generous "Ooops" factor is plenty.
If you were trying to be helpful, you would at least try to see where a misunderstanding is coming from. But all I see here, is "you must be lying". The most likely thing I can think of is that people are deriving enjoyment from this.
there is no need to call you a liar, set programmed coding that acts the same way over and over, and evidentiary conclusion kinda' says it all
I would like to make a feature request. The ability to completely block Intimate Encounters. No messages from them,
your mail filters will accomplish that
no IM from them,
leave your IM off, or only allow friends on your list to contact you - problem solved
if you pull up a profile which displays the 10 users in the vicinity who recently checked their email, that none of those 10 are Intimate Encounters people, that if you look at your compatibilty list, that none of those people are Intimate Encounters people, that if you look at who is online (or online recently), that none of the profiles displayed are of people seeking Intimate Encounters, and any similar circumstances that I have missed.
so basically, your suggesting to remove the temptation, clamp the cookie jar shut, shut the bawdy house down, hence hide one's penchant for naughty contact here, then run off to Adult Friend Finder, get one's jollies off there, then come here wearing the pope's robes?
'Aint gonna happen
I think some just expect to be able to wash away IE contact patterns with "pope soap on a rope" "Ain't gonna happen" - either/late™
Glitch or not, one contact or not, if you have associated yourself in anyway with this type of behaviour there are users that do not want to talk to you. That is the reality.
Once again, no definitive answer as to whether false flags could, or could not, be applied to any member? Would a 'glitch' in the system then become the fault of the member? Can one (singular) contact, if in fact only one IE contact was made, cause the filter to kick in? Saying 'one contact or not' does little to help resolve this issue when time and time again other Mod's state that one contact will not flag a member.
There is no glitch, the point was more to the fact that it wouldn't really matter if there was. The users decide whom they want to or not talk to. No one said it was just one contact, just that for most users who employ this filter thats all it WOULD take for them to not want contact.
I'm well aware that the Mod's have no control over this, only Admin does. Personally, I'd welcome his say here to put this debate to rest once and forever. Is a programing/glitch error ever possible to falsely ID a user?
The ultimate irony of all this is in knowing that one of the current Mod's started off here with their profile listed as seeking an IE. It also shows that people grow, learn, and change over time, as well as change their settings.
Once again, no definitive answer as to whether false flags could, or could not, be applied to any member? Would a 'glitch' in the system then become the fault of the member? Can one (singular) contact, if in fact only one IE contact was made, cause the filter to kick in?
Is a programing/glitch error ever possible to falsely ID a user?
Exactly what does Speculation of Possibilities have to do with supposed Bugs that in Fact have not yet been found to exist?
I completely agree with having the ability to block mail from users that "have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex" BUT. I also believe that people change and that their usage of networking sites such as POF changes too. I know many people that were single when they started here and are now married. Many are still here networking for friends and continued connections. I’ve watched their status change many times from, Dating, long-term, not-looking, IE, and the others. I also know many people here that were/are unhappily married and then break up and have watched their Profiles follow the topsy-turvy psychological curves that their lives have taken them on. At different times in one’s lives they’re sometimes looking for friends only, casual dating, or long-term. I have known many women that had in the past turned their profiles to IE because they were simply looking for more spirited conversation, not because they had an interest in actually meeting. In fairness I feel that to "brand" a person indefinitely for a short-term phase in life is sadly disappointing. Realistically, if it was me, I'd put a time limit cap on blocking users. If say a person didn't contact Intimate Encounters for a period of 6 months or a year ... I would set the system to reset the profile automatically. Imagine being branded for life because you were once a smoker or because you were married at one point in your life regardless of the situation.
That would fix this issue. People that look for hook-ups somewhat regular get blocked permanently, people that don't or only did so for a brief portion of their POF history would/should be cleared. I also believe that would put a fail-safe fix into the mix if there was a program error and some people were “blocked” by computer glitch. This way over time their profile would fix by default. But of course many people do not believe that others change over time. All dating sites have a large number of overly judgemental people. In my opinion it is On-line dating’s worst problem. Everyone judging complete strangers based primarily on assumptions they’ve made from a paragraph of very uncomfortable writing. Hypocrites are the main reason I stopped taking on-line dating and my profile seriously.
Hi, i am new to this site and have only been breifly in contact with 5 women so far. i have gone back and checked to see if they were looking for intimate encounters and as of the time i contacted them they are not, by the way 4 of them initiated contact with me and all i did was reply. I am now trying to initiate contact to only the second one on my part and cannot. If you want a list of my previous contacts i will provide them for you to see. However i keep getting bounced back to my inbox page when i send my message to this woman and the only thing i can see is she has this filter of intimate encounters on and somehow the system thinks i am one of them or maybe it is cause one of the women who contacted me were at one time on that list... i have no idea. If you check my profile even you will see i am not looking for this and make it very clear i dont respect that kind of relationship. So as i said i am just guessing this might be the problem and would appreciate any help you can offer. At least could you direct me to who can help me and some contact info, as i said i am new to this site and cannot find anywhere how to contact help to solve this mystery. I hope i dont get brushed off with a generic answer this woman i am very interested in and from her profile i think she would be interested in me too so you would be doing us both a service, thank you.
I dont see how anything listed there would block me. As you can see i only joined yesterday, my email was well within the limit size, i have nothing of a restricted contact info in the email, we are both looking for friends, the only other restriction she has is not to be married, since this is this first contact and our profiles seem compatible i cant think of any possible reason she would have randomly blocked me personally, she came up as online so she hasnt deleted her profile and as i said earlier this is only the second woman i am intitiating contact with so i am at a total loss. Very frustrating. I am a decent man as my profile will attest to and she seems a very decent woman in my town and right there in front of me but somehow out of reach... what do i do??
To further the mystery if it were to be because of this filter wouldnt that block me from even being able to see her profile, didnt i read that the restrictions would prevent users within the restricted limits from viewing my or in this case her profile??
If necessary or possible i will grant access to my profile email or whatever to administration or whoever else it is that is supposed to help with such a problem to see for themselves how innocent i am and all i am saying is truthful ... i have nothing to hide... is this even a possibility? I can change my password after the facts have been verified.
You do realize that if you ` sed tr/intimate encounters/negro/i` that this is very much like the discrimination that happened to slaves and descendants of slaves and people who just happened to share similar genetics to slaves in the US southeast in the past?
WHAT??!!??!!
You are actually comparing user choices based on BEHAVIOR to racial discrimination???? those who are of that opinion do not, in my opinion, have the foggiest notion of what discrimination is. To deny someone a job, your friendship, dignified treatment, equitable services, etc. based on race, creed, religion, gender, or age,etc.... THAT is discrimination. My choosing to not open myself to meeting promiscious men? That's falls under the catergories of both "self preservation" and "personal preference".
The ultimate irony of all this is in knowing that one of the current Mod's started off here with their profile listed as seeking an IE. It also shows that people grow, learn, and change over time, as well as change their settings.
did I miss something here? on what do you base this observation?
ok so it isnt the IE restriction and i am not married... i just answered an email to a woman with these and many other restrictions... so what do i do now or who do i contact? Remember the other facts i have stated. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I have had an experience of trying to send an email to someone who has me on their favorites list. Neither of the two emails I sent appeared in my sent box after sending. The intended recipient's profile did not have any blocks indicated at the bottom.
Like one of the other posters on this thread, I may have inadvertently emailed an IE before I fully understood the various functions and labels here. Hence, I am not even sure whether I am "tagged". How does one know?
I would like to make some general observations: 1) There are many reasons for contacting an IE that may not have to do with a "hook-up" intention or "booty-call". It could be a genuine oversight or mistake. It could be natural curiosity or interest in the person behind the profile. It could be that the IE person has written something of interest in the profile that is not necessarily about an immediate sexual connection. 2) Someone in the thread here remarked that a woman is free to sequester herself behind a defensive line that includes, disconnected doorbells, Dobermans, fences, walls and the like, and that we can't have the city undue her defensive measures. True. But why would a woman come to the public contact site of POF and attempt to sequester herself? The analogy is not analogous at all. It does however highlight the somewhat unrealistic understanding that some people have of human interaction and the very natural sexual energy that accompanies that interaction. 3) Someone in the thread pointed that this blocking mechanism is no different than the one that screens for smoking, drugs, marrital status or distance and the like. Well that's not the case. This block screens those who have ever had an exchange with an IE. Those other blocks do not tag people who have "ever" smoked, used drugs, been married or lived beyond the prescribed radius.
It seems hypocritical of POF to tag someone who has ever contacted an IE and yet provide the IE category for any users to contact without giving warnings that you will be tagged forever.
I really question the pragmatic utillity and ethical implications this block mechanism. It certainly seems to run contrary to the elements of free speech and freedom of association that are founding principles of our free, open and democratic society.
There are many reasons for contacting an IE that may not have to do with a "hook-up" intention or "booty-call"
what reasons? if a person's made a dating site profile looking for "intimate encounters" chances are they're only interested in being contacted for one thing. I suppose you could be contacting these people to discuss the weather, politics, or anything else. But chances are quite likely that they're not interested.
But why would a woman come to the public contact site of POF and attempt to sequester herself?
your own profile has contact restrictions
Female older than 38 Live in Canada Live within 75 miles. Must not do drugs Must not be married Must not smoke
You are sequestering yourself from many people on this public site. Your message restrictions prevent a lot of people from contacting you. So why is it so impossible for you to accept that others should have the same right to limit who contacts them?
Like one of the other posters on this thread, I may have inadvertently emailed an IE before I fully understood the various functions and labels here. Hence, I am not even sure whether I am "tagged". How does one know?
I think it's adequately covered, if not more, in this thread
I would like to make some general observations: 1) There are many reasons for contacting an IE that may not have to do with a "hook-up" intention or "booty-call".
given that you yourself have set up email restrictions, would suggest that you went through that page to carefully decide what people you did not wish contact from.
Just a quick reminder of the first item on that page:
Block users from making first contact that have messaged others for sex or intimate encounters
It could be a genuine oversight or mistake.
I've spoken to the "oops" factor many a time throughout this thread for the people who have genuinely not looked at the email filters
This block screens those who have ever had an exchange with an IE. Those other blocks do not tag people who have "ever" smoked, used drugs, been married or lived beyond the prescribed radius.
true enough, so if the site sets up a profile item that says
I've Contacted Women/Men on this site who are seeking One Night Sack Races
I'd bet my right arm that NO ONE is going to fill it in other than the ones who are here for that reason. See how well the email filter then works.
It seems hypocritical of POF to tag someone who has ever contacted an IE and yet provide the IE category for any users to contact without giving warnings that you will be tagged forever.
Email filter and "Oops" factor cover that
I really question the pragmatic utillity and ethical implications this block mechanism. It certainly seems to run contrary to the elements of free speech and freedom of association that are founding principles of our free, open and democratic society.
The women that don't want to be contacted by U-Boat commanders have that right, and that is their freedom to express.
I covered both of your questions in my post. I covered just a few of the many reasons why someone could email an IE for other than immediate sexual connection. So, in as much as I already provided some examples, why do you ask for more examples. I suggest you read again and think. There are many people in the world who have interest in communication with people from all walks of life, yet they themselves are not promiscuous. Do not presume that because I have talked to an IE profile that I just wanted to bag quick sex. If you do not accept my remarks at face value, perhaps you are projecting your own values?
The analogy that the poster used of a woman sequestering herself against public contact is inappropriate. POF is not bastion for the anti-social, the terrified and the paranoid. It is a public site for interaction with intent of bringing people together. To sequester is to withdraw into seclusion. Big difference. Next we will have thought police. Did you ever think about having a quickie? Did you ever have a lustful thought and just wish you could have that connection for the purpose of sexual fulfillment? Perhaps someone at POF will come up with a thought filter for all of the sex negative and sex defensive people. POF could assign a letter to the profile for the rest of the profile's life. How about a scarlet "A". One must bear the scarlet letter forever on the profile so that the whole world can know that one has been an adulterer in one's heart. If you ever had such a thought, you could get the letter. The letter can never go away. Would you like the Scarlet Letter?
None of the people who are in categories I limited from access to my profile are forced to wear a tag. The categories do not pertain to their personal histories, only to their current circumstance which they voluntarily disclose. There is a difference between categorically rejecting someone because they associated with an "undesireable" class, then labeling them for life, and being somewhat selective between groups of people who have voluntarily disclosed certain criteria.
Does anyone know or could anyone share with me how one determines whether their profile has been tagged?
"It seems hypocritical of POF to tag someone who has ever contacted an IE and yet provide the IE category for any users to contact without giving warnings that you will be tagged forever." You have contact restrictions, it's not unlike the ones chose to use yourself. If someone chose "married" as their status then they're "tagged" from ever being able to contact you. Think they should be warned that they won't be able to contact people who choose to restrict "married"?
"I really question the pragmatic utillity and ethical implications this block mechanism. It certainly seems to run contrary to the elements of free speech and freedom of association that are founding principles of our free, open and democratic society." Pot kettle black. You're restricting married and smokers from contacting you how totally undemocratic. Not quite the stand up patriot there are we, if you consider that limiting your right to freedom of association.
You're arguing against yourself, you want to deny others the rights to use features you're using yourself. "It seems hypocritical"......
Do not presume that because I have talked to an IE profile that I just wanted to bag quick sex.
and you should not presume that there is not going to be at least a few woman in the world who are going to be turned-of by knowing that you've contacted people who seek intimate encounters on the internet. I don't have to presume or not presume anything about you. I just pointed out that logically there seems to be no point to contact those people, unless you're seeking intimate encounters with them. You can contact them just because you have "interest in communication", if you wish. But I'm willing to bet nearly all of those people aren't interested in just swapping "hello. how was your day?" emails with you. So why would you even bother?
It is a public site for interaction with intent of bringing people together.
If you feel so strongly about this, then remove all message restrictions from your own profile.
If you ever had such a thought, you could get the letter.
No-one on this site gets a "scarlet letter" for their thoughts. Your messaging ability only gets affected by this filter if you've established a pattern of contacting people who are seeking IEs. Your comments about "thought police" is just a ridiculous exageration.
None of the people who are in categories I limited from access to my profile are forced to wear a tag.
huh? aren't they being tagged, by you, as "foreigners" "smokers" or "drug-users" or "married" etc?
Does anyone know or could anyone share with me how one determines whether their profile has been tagged?
It affects you if: you have a history of contacting user that were seeking "intimate encounters" duh??you'd think that after several pages of this thread, that would be clear If, (for some reason), you don't know your messaging history, then I suggest you try emailing someone with this message restriction in place.
When I see anyone upset with the fact that this message restriction is in place: it tells me that the person most likely wants to be dishonest. Women using that restriction are making it clear that they don't want to hear from guys who've contacted people that were seeking intimate encounters. Men protesting the restriction are making it clear that they want to contact these women anyway = These men want to lie and pretend they've never made such contacts The more that guys protest this restriction, the more clear it becomes that the restriction is doing many woman a favor.
Home
login 
), you don't know your messaging history, then I suggest you try emailing someone with this message restriction in place.