>>21124Yep, that's been the case for a few weeks, ever since this last shitshow started. Guessing that they'll reopen memberships within the week.
>>21130Well, this is a fun little blog, let's see what all else we have here:
https://loradayton.com/2021/05/15/this-is-why-no-one-wants-to-talk-to-you-in-chat-or-pm-or-rather-fill-out-your-fucking-profile/>Empty profiles and oft-deleted accountsEmpty profiles I 100% agree with, gives me absolutely nothing to start a conversation off with, and makes it more difficult to carry on a conversation in general. Oft-deleted accounts I can mostly get on board with, though in the case of females, it's more a red flag of mental instability than anything else. I remember there being one girl that would delete and make new profiles on and off for years. That said, the best woman I've ever met off Feabie was a serial deleter, so there's clearly exceptions to the rule.
>No site activityThis is a good thing. I'd take people with no public activity over people who word-vomit their garbage takes day in and day out every day. It shows that they have some degree of self-restraint, and are more likely to be sound of mind. As for guys, is actively simping on statuses REALLY that much better than no activity? Think about it.
>No photographs of yourselfThis one's understandable, though I can't wholly agree with it. On Feabie, greyfaces have a very bad reputation due to an abundance of bad apples, whether they're just closested coomers, trying to find a side fuck despite being in a relationship, etc. However, there's other, wholly valid reasons to desire anonymity, so I have little issue with people without pictures. From personal experience, pics definitely do help catch my attention, but in the rare situation someone actually does message me first and they have no profile pic, having some information in their profile at least gives me something to work with in terms of conversation. Granted, that's just the guy perspective, and I don't have to slog through hundreds of messages from thirsty dudes.
>Terrible etiquette and bad mannersAgreed on this front. It just makes people look like morons, and poisons the well for everyone else (See also: The greyface thing mentioned earlier)
>Assuming the object of your affection is starved for attention I do more or less agree here as well on paper, but how is this fundamentally any different from the people who assume that people without profile pictures have bad intentions, just because it's fairly commonplace? Hint: There is none. There's definitely a fair number of people who sort of are attention-starved on the site, though it certainly doesn't justify acting like a dick towards them