| | Not allowed to message?Page 1 of 2 (1, 2) | I received a notification this morning that I was not allowed to message someone. I checked their profile and apparently one of the restrictions is that I cannot have messaged someone looking for an "intimate encounter". I was not actively looking for just an intimate encounter, however I do believe I messaged a few with that in their "looking for" field at one point, just to talk to them.
I feel this is unfair, as the person I am trying to contact now seems real and honest. I would appreciate it if this restriction can be lifted, or if there was a way to clear my "intimate encounter" messages so I can talk to more people.
Please advise? | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 7:58:21 AM |
I feel this is unfair, as the person I am trying to contact now seems real and honest.
I don't see how her seeming "real and honest" makes it unfair that you can't contact her based on her mail restrictions? | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:00:04 AM |
I feel this is unfair, as the person I am trying to contact now seems real and honest. I would appreciate it if this restriction can be lifted, or if there was a way to clear my "intimate encounter" messages so I can talk to more people.
Please advise?
Nope, can not be done. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:06:23 AM | | Wow, so I send one message to someone and I'm blacklisted forever? That really does suck. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:08:35 AM | | It's human nature to be curious. I saw a person that showed up on the close to me list that I thought I had gone to school with. I sent a message, never got one back. Because of that, I now cannot look for any meaningful relationships based on an exclusion factor. This is not fair to me, maybe I'm just seeing it the wrong way. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:11:03 AM | | It takes at least four first contact messages to someone looking for an Intimate Encounter get blacklisted. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:12:28 AM | I think it is four or more times.
Plentyoffish Site/Suggestions/Help
FAQ: Blocked by the Intimate Encounter Filt
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts4201689.aspx
Edit:
Ah, I was beaten by Msg: 6... | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:13:37 AM | I've had the profile for a few months now. Maybe I've accumulated 4 over the course of time, but I myself am not looking for JUST an "intimate encounter"
If I had known that was just for a booty call, and maybe have been notified of this possible blacklisting, I would have been more cautious in choosing who I messaged.
This is still an unexpected, and therefore, unfair system quirk. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:16:17 AM | | She doesn't want to be messaged by someone who contacts others looking for IEs. You have, therefore you are not someone she wants to meet. She has a right to set her own restrictions. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:17:50 AM | Thanks for that link. It looks like I'll have to delete and recreate the profile.
I work with software and system design - anything that require working with a loophole to be functioning as intended is inherently broken. People are not perfect, and having a silly restriction for "4 or more" messages over the course of an entire profile's existence place a permanent flag shows that the system needs to change.
I'm not looking for a skanky hookup. This annoys me that I now have to redo everything. Oh well. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:19:40 AM | I'm not looking for IEs.
Call me stupid, but I sometimes don't even look at those sections (What are you looking for/ dating/relationship - EVERY relationship starts somewhere). I look for the quality of the profile and make a judgement based on the content. A dropdown box choice of "What exactly are you looking for" can mean many things to many people.
I am NOT looking for IEs. The site should not assume I am. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:21:49 AM | You are welcome.
It's nothing to do with system design, I am afraid (I myself used to work in that industry, so I understand what you say.) This matter is perfectly explained by a lady of Msg: 9. Unless you don't understand this sort of "rules of game" here, you would be caught by some other things. Good luck to you. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:27:39 AM | I'm not extremely angry or anything over this. This is after all, called "plenty of fish" It's not the first, last, or best dating site out there. It is one that I was not unhappy with though, up until I found out about this.
I'm not going to beat myself up over not being able to message the person in question. They live quite far away, and it's only one person so far that I haven't been able to talk to.
As an alternate suggestion, might I ask that a filter be placed to remove the people I can't message from my searches? That would be a more realistic request, as why show "matches" that I can't be matched to? | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:30:35 AM | I am NOT looking for IEs. The site should not assume I am.
^^^ The fact that you've messaged at least FOUR people in this category says you have indeed been looking for an intimate encounter.
I mean you cannot mistakenly do this 4 times 
*Edit* So,you were lonely and horny........you could've looked at some porn.
| |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:33:46 AM | | So if I have a lonely night and message a few people (4 really isn't that much, considering how many people flirt in a real life situation) that counts as me changing my overall intentions? I don't think so. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:35:08 AM |
I am NOT looking for IEs. The site should not assume I am.
The site DID NOT assume that you were. It afforded you a completely clean slate when you joined. YOUR behavior is what changed your status. The pattern you set in your behavior through opting to initiate contact with those who you did.
So if I have a lonely night and message a few people (4 really isn't that much, considering how many people flirt in a real life situation) that counts as me changing my overall intentions? I don't think so.
Those who opt to block you aren't concerned about your 'overall intentions'. Their concerns are based in those instances where you are having a lonely night and looking for casual sex. That's the part of you that concerns them and that's the impulsive side of you they want no part of.
Someone who robs a bank only when unemployed and having bills to pay, is still a bank robber !
EDIT FOR BELOW :-
I happen to use the iphone app to access POF, which does not show intentions and personal restrictions. Again, a little notification would be nice.
I can't comment on the accuracy of the statement about using the phone app, as I don't use it but I can comment on the rest of your statement. If you had been notified of the consequence of seeking out IE's, chances are you would have stopped doing so. That makes the whole purpose of the code ineffective.
As it stands, without warning, the system waits to see what actions you take. Once you have established a pattern of reaching out for casual sex, a behavior is evident. This is one of the most useful mail restrictions POF has merely because it is based on factual actions vs being reliant on the person creating their profile, being honest. A true case of actions speaking louder than words.
| |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:35:47 AM |
As an alternate suggestion, might I ask that a filter be placed to remove the people I can't message from my searches? That would be a more realistic request, as why show "matches" that I can't be matched to?
That is really often seen on forum. And every time every comment answers "no"
We can read intention of each profiles, so all you would do is not to contact IE seekers. Then you can avoid stepping on mine. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:37:45 AM | As clarification: If someone's going to look for an IE, the logical solution is to send out not just one, but a round of messages. The fact that it only takes 4 to place a permanent flag is unrealistic.
I appreciate the filter, I actually think it's a good thing. I just think that as it stands, it cannot fully justify condemning someone based on purely subjective choices - just sending someone a message does not change who they are.
I actually even sent a message to someone looking for an IE and told them they were trying too hard - So that counts against my 4?
I understand everyone defending the filter - I would too, but I work on making systems efficient for a living - while I can understand and accept the basic concept, I believe the execution could be handled better. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:39:30 AM | | I happen to use the iphone app to access POF, which does not show intentions and personal restrictions. Again, a little notification would be nice. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:40:48 AM | but I myself am not looking for JUST an "intimate encounter" I am NOT looking for IEs.
So were you lying before, or are you lying now?
The site should not assume I am.
This site didn't have to assume anything. All it had to do was count how many times you were looking for an IE.
unfair
Really?? So you think it's unfair that people should be able to block you based on their own personal criteria?? Only YOU should have unfettered liberties here while at the same time you think it's perfectly ok to suggest that others shouldn't have the same freedom you're so earnestly claiming for yourself. Damn, we've never seen any IE-blocked guys saying that here, *ever*.... You are the very first, in the history of the universe. Genius, I tell ya.
Again, a little notification would be nice.
You had ample opportunity to read the FAQs of this site, but I guess you were in a hurry. Meh.
people always change and grow and evolve but herpes is forever, tra la la.
The system works perfectly, just as it is, because it's designed to filter out the guys who establish a consistent pattern of looking for IEs and then want to lie about it. Go find somebody who actually wants to evolve with you. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:45:11 AM | There was never any lies. I am a realistic person who is looking for an honest relationship. The fact that yes, at some point I wanted to find someone to just hang out with for a while, does not imply that my current goals changed.
People are not static. Their wants, needs, evolve over time. So should their matches.
As I said before, I like the filter idea, and I never presumed to want these abilities just to myself - maybe you are trying to start a needless argument?
Anyway, all I'm stating is that the system could be designed to allow more realism in the works - people always change and grow and evolve. The site should too. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:48:51 AM |
Anyway, all I'm stating is that the system could be designed to allow more realism in the works - people always change and grow and evolve. The site should too.
Or you can also evolve when you create your new account. You learnt good lesson, I think. All those above posters comments are really great resources. I always pay attention to their posts.
Wish you luck ;-) | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:48:54 AM | Just to clarify, I am not even speaking from a point where I am upset that I can't find a date - I know that I am a good person, and I have plenty of other avenues to find love and happiness.
I enjoy creating and modifying computer systems to make them more efficient and workable for everyone. I am speaking from a purely technical standpoint now.
I welcome constructive debate, but please do not presume that I am in any way trying to take away other people's right to choose who they talk to. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:55:34 AM |
I enjoy creating and modifying computer systems to make them more efficient and workable for everyone. I am speaking from a purely technical standpoint now.
But your perspective is coming from the side that just got caught in the web and you would like more warnings for said web, which reduced the effectiveness of the web.
The best designed traps are the ones that people are not aware of, thus this does not need to be changed. | |
|
| Not allowed to message?
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:56:02 AM | You had ample opportunity to read the FAQs of this site, but I guess you were in a hurry. Meh.
I created and used my POF account exclusively from my iPhone. Maybe I had just pressed "Accept" too fast ( please don't turn me into a human centipad!) but it's still something that should be modified.
Here's a suggestion - Diminishing returns. Say a person wants to keep a profile for a long time. Years even. This is great, as the user has an established account and will likely return to the site.
Keeping the permaflag for the entire account life only deters the person from ever trying again. I understand the concept of "Oh, real life is forever", but the whole point of internet meeting is to have that abstract interaction before the actual meeting in order to make a judgement on if you want to bring things to the next level.
Perhaps the flag count can stay in effect, but slowly decrease over a timeframe based on the volume of IE related messages sent over the course of the entire time between the first and last message sent. This will help show an average of time vs. entire life that the person was "fishing for booty"
Then the criteria women could choose would be better - They could be living right next to Mr. Right, but because he flirted around a year ago, he'll never show up. Real life and real love can easily beat that. Thanks to a diminishing return system, he will eventually come back onto her radar when he "calms down" and is seriously looking.
As far as the concern with STDs goes, I would hope that ANYONE meeting someone for the first time would have that conversation - that's just being a responsible adult. I happen to know that I am disease free, I would hope my partner has that same confidence. | |
|
Home
login 
