"You are not authorized to read this forum" ??

Post Reply New Topic

That's what I got when I clicked the link of a topic reply notification email. I vaguely remember getting something like it in the distant past, and I guess that the root cause is that the topic was deleted just after the notification was sent out. But I was just wondering why it says I'm not authorised to read "this forum" rather than "this topic." Also wondering why the message says I'm not authorised when it presumably should read "this topic has been deleted." Just that it's a bit of a shock to get that message if you've not seen it, or not seen it for a long time. I thought for a moment I must have done something very naughty, but on reflection I don't think I have.

I don’t think that threads are ever entirely deleted. They are moved to the mod room or whatever it’s called. It’s sort of like nonmembers trying to access Members Only as far as us not having access to it.

Ah, so that's likely the "forum" I'm not authorised to read. Strange kind of forum though.

It's a long-standing ruling from Alex that "deleted" threads and posts are moved to a moderator-only area. AIUI this is for legal reasons.

This works well enough and items silently "go away" except in two cases: the one you've discovered and another where a moderator forgets to not have a "shadow topic" left in its place (this appears as the "Moved:" link on a forum index).

With this as the only mechanism available any links within a post cannot be changed so when clicked, the forum software attempts to access the destination as usual - which fails because the destination is not accessible to members.

The message is confusing and a direct result of "deleting" (moving) threads and posts to a privileged forum - but there is no mechanism by which this baked-in linking action can be displayed as "The linked post/thread has been removed".
It's an embedded link so the forum software attempts to use it when clicked - to be told it can't be used.

It's not really satisfactory, but...

So is it safe for users to be members on the site? As logically somewhere or something someone has said at any one point can be seen by another as being wrong so they will report this and if a moderator decides to act, this then goes on a hidden record which can be used against them at a potential future time. This means that it is rare for any of us to have clear records if we freely use our minds and wills to communicate on this site. Only those who think like robotic algorithisms can will be immune from this, where most autistic people are ones who can think outside the box, so do not comply to the internet hidden societarial rules so will natrually be more suseptible to having what they write recorded on this hidden register? Or am I getting too technical?

I think you're reading far too much into basic forum housekeeping.

Members document their own interactions for themselves through public posts - no robotic algorithms or hidden records are required.
And to be clear - there are no algorithms used on WP; people are free to respond, or not, to whatever they read.
Nothing is steering or suggesting posts or threads.

Disciplinary actions are logged; moderator commentary notes of general behavior may be added over time.

Owing to the almost universally excellent behavior of WP's members, disciplinary action remains very rare.

But let's say a member has been a member for 50 years. Another member has been a member for six months. The 50 year member will no doubt at some point in time be disciplined and end up with a bad record due to the time they have been on and feel guilty about it even though they may overall be a really nice person. The new member would have a spotless record. I hope I am making sense? This is the element where past records can go astray.

I am just giving possible examples. Yes, I realize I am talking theory. It just brings back memories of me working on the railway where every day we had a different shift, but about eight years into the job a certain start time caught me out, so I came half an hour late for the shift. (There was another shift which started half an hour later and I got confused probably due to tiredness when checking at the end of the shift before). Now I was required in the office and they looked at my record which was around eight to nine years, and he saw that it was the third time I had been late since I started and he said "This is starting to become a pattern". So I pointed out another employee who was always late, and I was told he was a separate case. He was late a few times a week! I felt it was like fraud to say I had a pattern of lateness... But what I am saying, is that recording things when we mess up sort of reminds me of my time on the railways.

Last edited by Mountain Goat on 15 Mar 2025, 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Most members respond positively to a short PM about a post which rarely rises even to the level of a smack on the wrist - moderators understand how things may get a little heated and allowances are made. Often it's just a case of everyone involved toning things down a little.

Just because your hypothetical 50 year member may have been subject to disciplinary action 49 years go doesn't mean that just one more action is enough to have them banned.
In this instance it would simply be a dusty old relic about something that happened 49 years ago.

This stuff is not recorded in a Great Booke of Reckoning from which there is no escape, as you seem to think.
People can, and often do, change.

I added a little as I ammended it.

Glad it is not the same.

Well, more than a little I think.

Those records kept in your railway days sound horribly oppressive!

Railway keep records from the day one goes to the interview I think! Is all rules, so military people make excellent employees.

Some of it can be oppressive if one has a company which is enforcing rules that is not necessary. Example. The first two companies I worked for were excellent. They were the same group of people so really to me they were the same company. They only came down heavy if they needed to so would only record things (We would have to write traincrew report forms) if needed to which with the amount of trains we worked happened to be around one report form every few months as things happened...
The new company took over the franchise and we had to write those forms almost daily for the most minor things. Such as if we delayed the train 30+ seconds because a passenger was slow getting off, or if we had to get the wheelchair ramp out for a disabled passenger. The older companies didn't want to know as they trusted us. It was a very different atmosphere and most of us eventually left, either due to being sacked, or ending up with mental issues or just got fed up.
The first company the managing director was regularly on the trains and would chat with us and ask our permission to talk to the passengers etc. (The guard was in charge of the train, not the managing director). The last company, we never even knew who the MD was and all the senior staff would hide on trains using ordinary train tickets to monitor us, which actually broke railway rules which state that "ALL railway employees along with the police etc have to tell the guard they are on the train" (And ask permission to board as a guard could say no! (Actually saw the odd guard refuse the MD permission to board! Didn't go down well but they are the railway rules!)
I left soon after I kinda had a break down as my mind was jumping back and fore through time. I didn't know it was some sort of breakdown. I just handed in my notice. But just prior to that I had an overcrowded train that I could not walk through. When it did start to make room, I would normally work it, but on this day I just could not mentally cope with dealing with so many people. It was right at the end of my shift so I could not actually sell many tickets anyway, and the other guard takes over from there. But one of these directors reported me to my manager, so I got the railway rule book and wrote down the rule as not once had this person identified themselves as a company director or a manager. I wrote I wanted to speak to the person who reported me. This was denied. I was told to re-write the form. I completely fabricated what I wrote as I didn't care anymore, and left it a month, and handed in my notice. Then a new company took over, so I went to re-apply foe a job again as I had recovered from the. Reason by then, but then I heard it was the same people in charge and I just couldn't do it. Igot on well with many of them but the memories of the past came back and I just could not hand in the application, even though I knew they actually created a position for me which I was extremely greatful for. But mentally it hit me again so I just couldn't do it. I would have been fine had I got to talk to whoever it was, as I would be able to explain and it would not be a problem, but the secrecy closed the railway off to me as it was the unknown I couldn't cope with.

It's just happened again, only it's a bit different this time. Got a topic reply notification, clicked the link, got told I wasn't authorised to read the forum, but when I browsed to the thread manually it was still there, not locked or anything. The post from the person mentioned in the topic reply notification wasn't there, but there was no post from a moderator saying that anything had been removed. What happened? Here's the link I received:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=426206&p=9655037&e=9655037

Well - it's as explained previously, really.

* Someone posted to a thread you were subscribed to so you received a thread update alert.
* Before you could read (via the included link) the post you were alerted to, it was removed.
* When you now click on the link you're told that you can't access that forum because, as earlier, removed posts are actually moved to a forum only accessible to moderators: that's the one you're denied access to.

Yes, this is unsatisfactory and fails on at least two issues -
* Once a member has been posted a thread update alert it can't be undone - the PM is sent irrespective of what might have subsequently happened to the event causing it to be sent.
* It's not possible to intercept the usual reporting mechanism on WP such that a "removed" post/thread generates a more appropriate "This post/thread has been removed" message - instead of the technically correct message that you're not able to access the forum it was moved to.

In essence this is exactly the same mechanism as is used when (say) an off topic post is moved from one thread/forum to another - except a removed post/thread is moved to a private area, inaccessible to members.

The link you provided refers to a post that was removed (moved) on request of the poster.
So yes, the thread it was originally posted to remains visible but the post doesn't.
This is just the same as if a post were moved from one thread to another thread in a different forum - except when it's "removed", the forum it's now in can't be accessed by members.
Hence the confusing, but technically correct error message.

I see. What had confused me is that last time it happened the whole thread had gone, whereas this time it was still there exactly where it had always been. If I remember right.

What also confused me is that when posts have been removed before, there's been a moderator's post explaining that there's been a removal, complete with the grounds for the said removal. But this time there wasn't an explanation. I guess the rule is that when posts are removed on the initiative of a moderator, there's an explanation given, but when they're removed on the request of the author, there isn't?

I thought people could remove their own posts by clicking a delete button, but maybe that only works until the post reaches a certain age, like the edit button? How old does a post have to be before it can't be altered / deleted by the user?

I asked for it to be deleted due to insensitive content in light of the current situation on WP

Sorry man

It's OK, I was more curious than upset. It takes a lot to destabilise a Yorkshireman.

What's this current situation on WP? I thought everything was bowling along as nicely as ever.