What does this error message mean?

I have gotten it twice recently. I get email notification indicating that someone (different usernames) has replied to my post. But when I click the link, this is the error that comes up...

Oops! You are not authorized to view that page.

Thanks.

in all likelihood you're trying to view a thread that is not deleted, rather is hidden from view.

It's because you forgot to pay you ST Membership fee. Pony up and you'll be given access to everything, including the Restricted Section and the elusive Hottie Thread.

Why would you guys make it so a thread can no longer be read? The thread shows up when I search for it, but it shows it is locked and if I click on it, I can't read it. It just says, "Oops! You are not authorized to view that page."

So it is more than a matter of the thread being locked down to new posts. It is no longer available to be read. Kinda like book banning. And yes, I understand that this is a private site, I am a guest, and there are no First Amendment rights.

i'm a different person now. I've changed pronouns twice

Only if the rest of your post lacks capitalization. :)

Only if the rest of your post lacks capitalization. :)

Now -- for those wondering: if you ever got that message, it's usually because a thread or reply hit our moderation for one reason or another. What hits the standard for moderation? Kinda like the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity, "we know it when we see it."

If you get a "that message can't be found," it's because the person who posted the reply deleted it.

I posted about an option to try to preserve the content of the Womens Forum for historical posterity. We don't really have an "archive but still searchable" option for forums, but I can rig up something close enough.

As far as locking specific threads, yes, of course some posts will have value. The problem we have is that - in some cases - removing content that we feel simply doesn't belong on the forum ends up being intractable. People quote people who quote people and you simply cannot extract the "bad parts" of a thread and still have it be understandable. This is made even more complicated because of potential concerns around record keeping. I.e., we may need a record about what was actually said, which makes extraction of certain posts from the larger thread even more difficult.

As with discussions of "first amendment rights," analogies to book banning feel quite excessive. The government telling you what you can and cannot read is a far stretch from a private business making decisions about what sort of content it chooses to host or not on its own servers. I'm sorry, but I simply do not see those as analogous, and I would say that equating them only weakens your argument. Slowtwitch is not - and can never be - a totalitarian government. And equating these actions diminishes the very real harm that actual book bans and other autocratic actions have in the real world.

Book bans in America aren't about the government "telling you what you can and cannot read." It's a question of what books schools and public libraries are going to have on the shelves. But I would prefer to stay on the topic.

If I were to start a thread "Athletes in Larger Bodies Revisited in Light of Ozempic", would Slowtwitch lock it down?

*to me*, that is de facto "the government telling you what you can and cannot read." But that's lack of clarity in my writing. As I wrote my reply, I was thinking precisely of the absurd bans in Florida rather than of some outright confiscation-and-burning-by-jackbooted-thugs type of ban. Precisely because it is so insidious. My key point was/is really that it's the *government* doing this. If a private book shop decides it doesn't want to sell a book because it finds the contents offensive, I do consider that to be entirely reasonable. In the same way that I find it entirely reasonable for us to choose not to host certain content.



It would depend on what you wrote. And then it would depend on what people wrote in their replies. Same as any other thread. Nothing about that topic in general is "off limits" or verboten. While there are certain topics that have - historically - veered into "off-limits" postings more often than not. PEDs being the biggest one. I would NOT categorize this topic as being of that ilk, so no concern there.

However, I will say in advance that threads which basically exist partly/entirely to throw shade on the management team are generally frowned upon. E.g., "As I wrote that other post that was so rudely censored, ..." --> please don't do this. If you want to discuss the actual topic "Athletes in Larger Bodies Revisited in Light of Ozempic" have at it. If you want to discuss that specifically with context about how you feel we wrongly censored a previous thread on such a topic, please do not do that.

*to me*, that is de facto "the government telling you what you can and cannot read." But that's lack of clarity in my writing. As I wrote my reply, I was thinking precisely of the absurd bans in Florida rather than of some outright confiscation-and-burning-by-jackbooted-thugs type of ban. Precisely because it is so insidious. My key point was/is really that it's the *government* doing this. If a private book shop decides it doesn't want to sell a book because it finds the contents offensive, I do consider that to be entirely reasonable. In the same way that I find it entirely reasonable for us to choose not to host certain content.



It would depend on what you wrote. And then it would depend on what people wrote in their replies. Same as any other thread. Nothing about that topic in general is "off limits" or verboten. While there are certain topics that have - historically - veered into "off-limits" postings more often than not. PEDs being the biggest one. I would NOT categorize this topic as being of that ilk, so no concern there.

However, I will say in advance that threads which basically exist partly/entirely to throw shade on the management team are generally frowned upon. E.g., "As I wrote that other post that was so rudely censored, ..." --> please don't do this. If you want to discuss the actual topic "Athletes in Larger Bodies Revisited in Light of Ozempic" have at it. If you want to discuss that specifically with context about how you feel we wrongly censored a previous thread on such a topic, please do not do that.