• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

General Website Queries: 2018 Onward

You were attempting (perhaps by following a link in a quote within a post) to access prior posted material which has been removed from the publicly accessible areas of the forum.
Yes, if it was (for example) a link in the newly edited Good Posting Practice thread then a number of quotes relate to posts now archived, which are inaccessible to the membership. This is why I asked where specifically.
 
I will make sure i add a trite comment before each article i post in future. Taking inspiration from your fellow moderator. ...

'Trite' or not depends on the context in which a post is entered.

For every such 'trite' teaser comment used to introduce a news item within a thread dedicated to such random or casual contributions there's one or more others along the lines of (e.g.):

This 2007 article is the most extensive single overview of this very convoluted case. It concludes that the whole incident was a fiction created to promote an upcoming 1968 Argentinian science fiction film entitled Che OVNI.

This story isn't purely cryptozoological, but it strikes me as having a potential relevance to crypto- as well as mainstream zoology. If nothing else, the points made about the low proportion of all species currently known (perhaps only 13 - 18%) should be heartening for those seeking cryptids...

... within the more substantive threads dedicated to serious discussion.

How extensive a useful introduction may be depends on how much burden you're foisting off on the reader(s) to decipher the relevance of your new post to the given thread and how self-evident that relevance may be at face value (from the whatever-it-is you're presenting).

The more substantive the contribution the more it recommends itself for introductory explanation - especially if it contains considerable quoted text, much of which may be hidden from immediate view.

The counter-examples cited above illustrate the relatively 'high' end of the spectrum of appropriate introductory explanation. The 'trite' ones illustrate the relatively 'low' end. Accordingly ...

A complete lack of introduction / explanation:

- lies somewhere off the spectrum's 'low' end;
- tacitly signals the submission is unworthy of comment, trivial or irrelevant; and
- renders it indistinguishable from randomly arriving junk or spam.
 
Yes, if it was (for example) a link in the newly edited Good Posting Practice thread then a number of quotes relate to posts now archived, which are inaccessible to the membership. This is why I asked where specifically.
Yes I clicked the link pointed to by the notification that one of my posts had been moved into the new thread.
Sorry I should have been been clearer there.
 
To the Esteemed Moderators:

For several days now, I have been unable to access the forums from my desktop because my IP has been banned. This has happened occasionally in the past, and I think I understand the reasons for it. Previously, the problem would clear up in a short time, and everything would be fine. This time, though, it appears to be permanent.

Now here is the thing: I CAN access the site from my laptop, which connects to my home network via WiFi. The laptop signal is going out through the same router and presumably, is showing the same public IP that is getting my desktop banned. ???

I have done the standard drill on my desktop (deleting cookies, clearing the cache, etc.) but the problem persists.

Any help or advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks.
 
You've got a PM.
 
Just a quick one, i posted an article about the 'crooked forest' in Poland, i searched for 'forest' (titles only) in the seach function and nothing relating to it came up, so thankyou for moving my post to the thread already in place.
 
I'd point out that this thread is not intended to be a place for dispensing either security tips or views on ethnic propensities.

The first is best conducted via PM; the second is best left unsaid.

"Just because you think it, you don't have to tell us," as my mother would admonish.
I don’t live in the UK, and I don’t know what ethnic group travellers are. With that being said, all groups, ethnic and cultural, have both good and bad behaviors.

I am dismayed to conclude that on these threads, we can be chided for commenting on bad behavior of a particular group. This, when those opinions are based in decades of personal experience!

I have read members posting medical suggestions, with no repercussions. I do understand the slippery slope of no-politics-to-political-correctness. However, I think that Maximus Otter’s comment was not intended to be offensive, but rather a helpful warning. I think it was appropriate. I personally hope he continues to post observations based on his experiences. That some members do not want to read these is Fortean in itself.
 
POSTS MOVED TO THE CORRECT PLACE.

I don’t live in the UK, and I don’t know what ethnic group travellers are.

That would be a point on which to brush up before continuing--it being a key element of the issue.

I am dismayed to conclude that on these threads, we can be chided for commenting on bad behavior of a particular group. This, when those opinions are based in decades of personal experience!

You don't have personal experiences of groups, you have personal experience of individual members of those groups--likely a pretty limited number!

It's the racial generalisations that we aren't interested in reading about; in fact, we're pretty exclusively interested in reading about STRANGE COINCIDENCES on that thread--it's written at the top of the page.

I can't emphasise this point enough. You were reading a thread devoted to the personal experience of coincidences, don't you think observations like 'Watch out for the blacks', 'I've never met a nice South African' or 'You can never trust a Jew' might be... a little jarring?

I have read members posting medical suggestions, with no repercussions.

If you have, then they have not been seen by me. We seldom permit these things unless they are trivial and clearly harmless (Have you tried warm milk and honey?). Please provide links to the posts you have in mind and I'll review them.

I do understand the slippery slope of no-politics-to-political-correctness.

No need for slopes, neither is welcome; both sow seeds of division among a community united only by a single common interest. Everything that is not FORTEANA is tolerated only insofar as it poses no threat to our ability to get on with analysis of the topic for which the board was established. My personal reasoning for this is available here:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/bloody-politics.62607/#post-1681861

However, I think that Maximus Otter’s comment was not intended to be offensive, but rather a helpful warning.

Nobody said it was offensive; we just don't want to introduce these subjects into the discussion. If you'd like to establish your own Forteana, Political Correctness & Racial Generalisations Message Board, I promise not to do anything to stymie discussion there. I'd be genuinely fascinated to see how it might turn out.

I personally hope he continues to post observations based on his experiences.

This won't be happening, I'm afraid. Not unless they pertain to Strange Coincidences.

That some members do not want to read these is Fortean in itself.

I'm buggered if I can see how.
 
Just a quick one, i posted an article about the 'crooked forest' in Poland, i searched for 'forest' (titles only) in the seach function and nothing relating to it came up, so thankyou for moving my post to the thread already in place.

In this case, the earlier thread (from 2011):

- Had been ambiguously titled so that it wouldn't / couldn't be found with a title search, and ...
(while I'm on the subject ... )
- Had been started with an initial post that gave no mention or even clue that it was about the Crooked Forest, thus ...
- Leaving it to the reader to follow the blind link to an external location to even learn WTF the thread was addressing.

In other words, it was a clear example of posting practices we've repeatedly advised members to avoid since the forum's exodus in 2018.

Souleater - you did the right thing in looking for an appropriate thread within which your post might have fit.

Everyone else - please remember this example when starting a discussion with a new thread or offering a contribution within an existing thread. Give your fellow members a clue what it is you're posting about, and give some consideration to titling / tagging / authoring so that others might find your post when searching.
 
From the Alex Jones thread :)

I clicked the link, and it took me to a legitimate site with a news story detailing what was posted. It's in context. It's not like it's a link to some random Twit with no explanation. I'm impressed with Ascalon's economy of bandwidth, lack of superfluous blather, etc.

Ascalon neatly made the change and added the context :) If you don't agree with the guidelines and the reasons for them, this is a good place to tell the Mods -or a PM to any of us of course :)
 
I don't see anything wrong with the post. I clicked the link, and it took me to a legitimate site with a news story detailing what was posted. It's in context. It's not like it's a link to some random Twit with no explanation.

Now go and try the same thing for a link posted in 2001. If you're lucky, you'll find a post that we have recovered the text for from an Internet archive, but you'll more likely find a Times article that its now paywalled or an Angelfire site that now hosts advertising for gambling.
 
Now go and try the same thing for a link posted in 2001. If you're lucky, you'll find a post that we have recovered the text for from an Internet archive, but you'll more likely find a Times article that its now paywalled or an Angelfire site that now hosts advertising for gambling.
So in 20 years the Twatter links you sprinkle about with absolutely no context will be more robust? Damn. I've been hoping Twatter would go the way of Geocities.

I've looked at Ascalon's improved post. Of course it's better, but then in 2041 a quick Google search (or whatever) will likely bring up the asshat's denied appeal in a fraction of a second. All the information needed for that is in the original post, even if the blue text link doesn't do anything.

I think there might be just a tad bit more policing going on here than is absolutely necessary. It does have a chilling effect, no matter how important good moderation is.
 
Last edited:
So in 20 years the Twatter links you sprinkle about with absolutely no context will be more robust? Damn. I've been hoping Twatter would go the way of Geocities.

You address a legitimate concern (although I certainly don't 'sprinkle' those posts, in the sense of randomly placing them).

I did go through a period of screen-capturing Twitter links before posting them, but this was time-consuming, and I reasoned that most (I don't claim all by any stretch) Twitter links are in CHAT, which is ephemeral and way down on our list for preservation.

The problem is that video and audio sources on Twitter cannot be so preserved. In the past, it was often the case the video/audio material that featured there was a duplication of fuller versions YouTube, but as that medium has grown in popularity, it is increasingly the first and primary source for reporting (which is unfortunate).

That said, it is quite a big company, so I'm hopeful that some of their links may prove durable.

Regardless, this is not an all or nothing proposition; we know it's impossible to make sources bullet-proof, but we're trying to ensure that more of them survive than have in the past.

All the information needed for that is in the original post, even if the blue text link doesn't do anything.

The additional text brings the post into the ambit of our SEARCH function. In this case, the post/information is largely trivial, I accept, but we're aiming to establish criteria for best practice that regular posters will hopefully adopt.

@Ascalon has posted some great material in the past that certainly isn't trivial, and we'd like to preserve as much as we can for the future.
 
I think it's important to pick up and reinforce some of the following:

I am dismayed to conclude that on these threads, we can be chided for commenting on bad behavior of a particular group. This, when those opinions are based in decades of personal experience!

It's the racial generalisations that we aren't interested in reading about; in fact, we're pretty exclusively interested in reading about STRANGE COINCIDENCES on that thread--it's written at the top of the page... don't you think observations like 'Watch out for the blacks', 'I've never met a nice South African' or 'You can never trust a Jew' might be... a little jarring?

As Yithian says, it's the extrapolation and application to an entire ethnic group to which we object. The traveller detail was important within the context of the narrative of that particular story, but the tacit "Better get your washing in and the bikes out of the yard" implication certainly is not. Racism is racism regardless of the target, and it has no place on this forum.

This won't be happening, I'm afraid. Not unless they pertain to Strange Coincidences.

Absolutely.

I have read members posting medical suggestions, with no repercussions.

If you have, then they have not been seen by me. We seldom permit these things unless they are trivial and clearly harmless (Have you tried warm milk and honey?)

Again, we do not allow this as a rule beyond the obvious. We have had people espousing bizarre and often potentially disastrous "treatments" for various ailments. We have discussed this a few times over the years, so maybe a reminder is called for.

A while ago we had a discussion about why we differentiated between a thread where someone who was drunk was about to make a purchasing decision, and it was asked why we let that ride whereas another where someone quite clearly struggling with a serious illness and obviously quite confused was shut. I gave the rationale that people in a vulnerable mental state haven't elected to get themselves there, unlike people who have got drunk or taken hallucinogens. They can be in a highly suggestible position and not able to make lucid decisions - therefore any amateur advice given, however well-intentioned, can be dangerously counter-productive (ok, same can be said of the drunk or stoned, but chemical effects wear off). Even professionals never give "blanket" advice - they deal with individual cases on their own merits.

If you get wired and follow someone's advice on thread to the effect that setting fire to your trousers is a fun thing to do, then that's your problem. You put yourself there (and if you're addicted, get professional help): the only reason we have (very few) thread about mental illness in particular still extant - such as the one that deals with Munchausen's Syndrome, for example- is that they are mainstream Fort threads that happen to incidentally involve direct experience on the part of a poster (or someone close to them) - in the latter case what started as an objective discussion of a mental condition in a Fortean context only became subjective when a poster announced that they themselves had the condition.

In each case the poster were advised to go and get professional help, pretty much unanimously. The threads then continued as the subject was the condition itself rather than the poster, ie they could thrive as abstract discussions without the necessity for direct personal testimony, and of equal importance have a significant Fortean angle to them. This goes for both physical and mental illness. People with serious maladies are often vulnerable, suggestible and desperate for any glimmer of hope, and I've personally seen such people absolutely heartbroken when led up a blind alley with false hopes. This, again, is not something we would ever seek to encourage, and so all such threads are monitored closely.
 
For the avoidance of confusion, we've tidied up the Website Issues section.

There was a lot of technical discussion and advice that is long out of date and has not been correct for years.

In addition, multiple threads about how to change avatars, signatures, email addresses and usernames have been consolidated.

All the material posted still exists and can be wheeled out if we find that an ancient issue has become relevant once more, but the clutter meant that new users--and existing ones--had difficulty knowing where to post and where to find answers to technical questions.

It's down to a single page now, which would be a sensible size to maintain, I think.

If there's a specific thread that you need to consult or wish to post on, request it here and I'll dig it out; that said, over an hour's browsing turned up very little of value from before the latest relaunch.
 
I think it's important to pick up and reinforce some of the following:


As Yithian says, it's the extrapolation and application to an entire ethnic group to which we object. The traveller detail was important within the context of the narrative of that particular story, but the tacit "Better get your washing in and the bikes out of the yard" implication certainly is not. Racism is racism regardless of the target, and it has no place on this forum.

Absolutely.


Again, we do not allow this as a rule beyond the obvious. We have had people espousing bizarre and often potentially disastrous "treatments" for various ailments. We have discussed this a few times over the years, so maybe a reminder is called for. A while ago we had a discussion about why we differentiated between a thread where someone who was drunk was about to make a purchasing decision, and it was asked why we let that ride whereas another where someone quite clearly struggling with a serious illness and obviously quite confused was shut. I gave the rationale that people in a vulnerable mental state haven't elected to get themselves there, unlike people who have got drunk or taken hallucinogens. They can be in a highly suggestible position and not able to make lucid decisions - therefore any amateur advice given, however well-intentioned, can be dangerously counter-productive (ok, same can be said of the drunk or stoned, but chemical effects wear off). Even professionals never give "blanket" advice - they deal with individual cases on their own merits.

If you get wired and follow someone's advice on thread to the effect that setting fire to your trousers is a fun thing to do, then that's your problem. You put yourself there (and if you're addicted, get professional help): the only reason we have (very few) thread about mental illness in particular still extant - such as the one that deals with Munchausen's Syndrome, for example- is that they are mainstream Fort threads that happen to incidentally involve direct experience on the part of a poster (or someone close to them) - in the latter case what started as an objective discussion of a mental condition in a Fortean context only became subjective when a poster announced that they themselves had the condition. In each case the poster were advised to go and get professional help, pretty much unanimously. The threads then continued as the subject was the condition itself rather than the poster, ie they could thrive as abstract discussions without the necessity for direct personal testimony, and of equal importance have a significant Fortean angle to them. This goes for both physical and mental illness. People with serious maladies are often vulnerable, suggestible and desperate for any glimmer of hope, and I've personally seen such people absolutely heartbroken when led up a blind alley with false hopes. This, again, is not something we would ever seek to encourage, and so all such threads are monitored closely.
Long paragraphs, nag nag nag.
 
I had a note from someone in Canada saying they couldn't browse the forum as it came up, 'Your IP address is banned".

I've searched for a solution and can't find one being mentioned..

Any way around this?
 
I had a note from someone in Canada saying they couldn't browse the forum as it came up, 'Your IP address is banned".
I've searched for a solution and can't find one being mentioned..
Any way around this?

No - not without details on the IP address(-es) affected and how the person is connecting to the 'Net.
 
It could be that using a VPN is the reason they're getting blocked.
Around a year ago, I went to log in and was informed my IP address had been banned.

Once recovered from the terrible shock, realised I was still running a VPN app I had been experimenting with earlier.

The person in Canada is using a 'floating IP address', which sounds suitably ethereal and they have now been duly updated about your response.

Thanks for trying to be helpful @Souleater... and... oh dear...I intended to use an 'emoji just now, however... although obviously not a problem...for information and I've tried several times...

Screenshot_20210418-093452.jpg
 
The following batch of posts have been transplanted from the Rendlesham Forest Thread:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/rendlesham-forest-incident.1914/page-27#post-2061894
__________________________________________________________________

What's the point of posting if it is simply embedded into another post???

Simply a case of forum biggoted manipulation by administrators.

My original post was separate for a reason, and should be put back where it was separately, otherwise what's the point of this, never heard of freedom of expression???
 
Why wasn't I emailed and asked if I would like my original post moving???

Come on answer me Enola gay, who put you in charge of my posting???

It didn't say that when I signed up that Enola gay would be merging your posts????
 
Check the Terms & Conditions to which you agreed during registration. Any and all content posted on the Forteana Forums is subject to discretionary action by the Staff. We can and will exercise these discretionary privileges to organize the two decades' accumulated postings as well as newly-arriving materials so as to be conveniently accessible to our members.

Your photo posting is clearly and directly related to the Rendlesham incident, and it was moved into the longstanding Rendlesham thread where it's most relevant and where other readers will be unlikely to overlook it as time goes on. You'll note the merger occurred following a member's query as to why it wasn't already inside the Rendlesham compendium thread.
 
Forum moderators are always merging new threads into existing ones, it happens all the time, on every forum I've ever been on, and I moderate on a couple myself, it's an incredibly mundane process.

I've literally never heard of any poster thinking their permission is needed!
 
It is a fresh piece of evidence and a new revelation and should be separate, if it was just a random rendlesham comment i wanted to make I would have posted it in this thread. So now when people read the forum they wont see it and wont bother reading an old long running rant post and now you have blocked comments to the second attempt I made, so you are simply a debunker, you have buried fresh new evidence where no one can see it, what is your agenda??? You should concentrate on your own posts and leave other peoples business alone, you have no right meddling in other folks business, moderator or not, you have simply acted like a selfish and self indulging individual and should be ashamed of yourself, next time keep your nose out of other folks business and concentrate on your own, I never asked you to move it, I shall be writing to management to complain about your actions and hopefully get you struck of as an administrator, find something better to do rather than meddling in other folks affairs, you should have asked me first if it is ok to move it rather than just decide what's best for my posts, you have buried fresh evidence, I hope you are proud of yourself, and you have really upset me, I feel violated, upset and bullied by you and your actions, you have upset me, I only joined today and this is how you treat people, you are a bully!!!
 
Back
Top