View Single Post
Old 10-17-2012, 12:31 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,448

Originally Posted by Helo View Post
It also leads to an absolutely maddening occurrence where you meet someone that seems as close to perfect as you could reasonably ask for....and they're monogamous with absolutely zero plans to think about anything else.
You must have missed some key personality questions, or else not put enough importance on the answers. I've answered a ton of poly-type questions and made all the "Answers I'll accept" be "Mandatory" and so OKC doesn't match me romantically with anyone monogamous.

For example, one question is "Would you date someone who was already in a committed relationship with someone else?" Options are:
Yes, even in secret.
Yes, but only if everybody knew.
No, but I don't think it's inherently wrong.
No, it's wrong.

Well, since I'm in a committed relationship with someone else, and I don't endorse lying, I chose "Yes, but only if everybody knew" for my own answer, as well as the only answer I would accept. Then I set that answer to "mandatory" for matches. Anyone who chooses another answer is completely unavailable to me, so why waste time? And since that's a dating question, it's not factored into friend-matching.

OKC has a very smart scoring algorithm. It assigns points to answers based on your importance. "A little important" is worth 1 point, "Mandatory" is worth 250 points. So someone would have to agree with you on 250 minor things to override one mandatory thing. Since I've answered at least 10 poly-questions as "Mandatory" that makes it more like 2500 minor things.

Msg me if you want my OKC profile name, and you can go to my "Dating" questions and find some poly-friendly questions to narrow the field.
As I am sure any cat owner will be able to tell you,
someone else putting you in a box is entirely different
from getting into a box yourself.

Last edited by SchrodingersCat; 10-17-2012 at 12:38 AM.
Reply With Quote