If members arent feeling comfortable here or whatever, you could always try Truth Zone on, see how it fits.

truth-zone.co.uk/forum.html

I'm in both Forums.

chandrakavi wrote:
So am I obviously.

It helps prevent me from going back to the DIF

So am I.
Don't let that put you off though folks.

(I normally dodge it because they let Chandra and Novum in)

So, if we want to continue our CSA research and email challenges, we have to set up our own forum?

Well, shame on you! I was okay in DIF until one of you sent me a PM with the link to here.

It is clear that you all knew that any of us clicking on PM links to SZ and/or signing in would be banned from DIF. My PM message didn't warn me about that. It might be a great joke to you (and adding to your membership numbers) but you have actually started to interfere with the great work that the JS thread was achieving in order to feed your own forum fun and ego.

IWTT wrote:
Thats not whats been said.
What we don't want is unsubstantiated libel on the forum.
Anything solid with decent evidence is welcome.

Oh dear!

Why not blame the incompetent paranoid moderators from DIF instead, who think they own us. Does it make any sense to ban somebody based solely that they post on other forums? WTF? It's insanity! Yet you choose to blame it on someone who just shared a link with you.
We ARE NOT Icke's property. Who the fuck he thinks he is? "Right kids, play only on my playground and don't wander away, or else you'd be punished!" Fucking sychos!

IWTT wrote:
We're working on creating our own research platform. Unfortunately, to get the viewing coverage and participation you need for letters/appeals etc - that may not be the best platform in the early stages.

I empathise entirely with your view.

Will pm you with a suggestion for a way fwd

IWTT wrote:
How can it be anyone here's fault you were banned from DIF for being here?

Excuse my ignorance but was DIF providing you with email facilities to conduct challenges?
I'll assume they weren't and you still have that ability to hand.
Were you under the impression that facility would be available on Sanctum Zone?
I have no idea how that could be supplied here.

If you require a custom email address for your group then I suggest someone opens one on MSN or Google mail in your groups name.

If you require a forum asap then you can be up and running for free in no time with these guys https://www.proboards.com/. (We use then for our back-up board in case of outages).
If you need or want a banner graphic for the forum then please ask and I'll be happy to do what I can.
Drop us a link and I'm sure there will be no objection to us including it in our links thread.

We were discussing this, Miss Behaving concluded the discussion by announcing your intentions.
We wished you good luck with those and offered assistance if required.

So, all in all, I can see no justification whatsoever for this outpouring of angst.

I will offer one last piece of advice though.
Have a serious discussion amongst your group members, (taking legal advice if possible), on what is, and is not, acceptable statements and evidence standards or your enterprise and it's work could come to a nasty screeching halt.
Nobody wants to see that.

novum wrote:
That forum is like a mirror of this one, just checked it out??

Babs wrote:
Its a seperate site/forum, not a mirror. It has its own threads, posts, members etc.

And it doesnt look exactly the same.

IWTT wrote:
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

It was made clear here that DIF were likely to ban anyone who joined here, so that you could use a different name if you wanted to do so without them knowing.

We're bothered about quality, rather than quantity of members. That's not to say that the quality of people who have come over is anything but excellent - merely pointing out that you're wrong to think we just wanted to boost our numbers.

And to be honest, I've never come across a group of people who only want to discuss one subject before. Again, if that's the case, I'm not critcising, but stating it's unexpected. I don't believe you made your intentions clear at the outset, so you can keep your shame. I don't accept it.

Babs wrote:
Babs, it was Diamond Geezer, Nov & Frog who set up SZ. Then DG & Frog decided it wasn't going how they wanted it to, and with Nov's help, they set up TZ, which is moderated (as opposed to consensus led here).

Hence the similarities.

Gilly wrote:
Aha well that makes sense now.

I'm no clearer how I feel about this now and pretty much torn on what to do for the best.

It would help if more of the new CSA posters, who had been contributing vociferously and have all gone rather quiet now, put forward their position too.

Ok, here's my thinking (I've had a reread)...

We have a sub-forum for CSA. We temporarily(I'd suggest 8 weeks) make it members only for a 'bedding in' period. A new facilitator is added with the sole role of facilitating this sub-forum.

Us CSA newbies don't suddenly get thrown in at the deep end, the CSA veterans get to safely post in a non-DIF framework and get to adapt to this new found freedom and all that entails, then we all reassess where we are etc after this period.

oioioi wrote:
As somebody who is fairly new to all this and caused a bit of a problem with Car Rego Gate I think this is really fair and just.

The CSA vets are the best people to moderate/facilitate their own sub forum as they know their subject most likely more than most of us. As has been discussed not everybody is cut out for it.

p.s. SZ is so much more pleasant than DIF where I always felt cliqueyness and was afraid to post most of the time as I hate getting into big online wars.

I'll say right off, (for reasons I have already stated above and have no intention of revisiting), that I believe that arrangement is in no-ones interest.

feather wrote:
Not even for a trial period?