Why was my thread about moderation removed?

[Cambridge Away]

My follow-up post about moderation has been removed without explanation last night.

For anybody who did not see it, I explained that I had since learned of another established member receiving a month-long ban without understanding what they had done to warrant it. I also raised the concern that the "Friendsoffulham" account appears to be operated principally by one individual while issuing disciplinary decisions through the forum's collective identity.

When Somerset Fulham questioned my ban, the response treated his comment as a public accusation before speaking on behalf of "the moderators". The Facebook response to my appeal was likewise unsigned and presented as coming from the moderation team collectively.

Last night's post did not identify or personally attack the administrator. It asked who exercises disciplinary authority in the forum's name and who, if anybody, reviews that person's decisions. A further established member then replied that he had experienced what he considered to be a similarly disproportionate ban. Approximately half an hour later, after the discussion began attracting engagement, the thread was removed.

I immediately wrote directly to the "Friendsoffulham" account but again received no reply. Nobody has explained why the post was removed, which rule it breached or where members are permitted to raise respectful concerns about moderation.

If this post is also removed, I will continue the discussion on TIFF, where I originally saw Friends of Fulham promoted. I came to join FOF from TIFF because its anonymity and loose moderation sometimes made it feel like the Wild West and open to abuse by users.

This is more concerning. Friends of Fulham presents itself as an open community, yet its most powerful administrator appears to operate through a form of selective anonymity. He may be known to some longstanding members and can identify himself privately whenever he chooses, but ordinary users are not told who is speaking when the "Friendsoffulham" account reprimands or bans them.

The result is that one individual can exercise personal authority while appearing publicly as the collective voice of the forum. He is identifiable enough to control the community, but anonymous enough to avoid personal accountability when his decisions are challenged. Whatever TIFF's faults, I have not seen the same concentration of power in one person speaking with the authority and identity of the entire forum.

[peachcobbler]

As someone that runs a forum myself, not the right way to go about this and there are very good reasons why a board my operate that way FoF does.

Are you entitled to critism moderation, yes. In fact I do somewhat frequently and they've not seem to ever take an issue with it (no bans for me as far as I know). However, there's a big difference between questioning a decision like you are doing now and turning it into a public campaign about who is behind the moderation account, how many people login and use it and if power is concentrated or not (you also have no idea if it is or not by the way).

For starters, it's very normal for forums and online boards to operate moderation through an anonymous account. Obvious reasons for this, not least protecting the privacy of volunteers who give up their own time to keep a community running.

I also don't really understand the suggestion that anonymity somehow makes someone unaccountable. Accountability means having reasonable processes for questioning decisions, not necessarily knowing the personal identity of whoever made them. Very different things.

Also, even if it is an open community its not a public institution, it's a private forum with terms and conditions. The moderators are volunteers, not elected officials and while it's perfectly reasonable to expect consistency and fairness, I think the language about disciplinary authority, selective anonymity and concentrations of power is rather overblown for what is ultimately a message board about Fulham FC.

None of us has a right to use someone else's forum on whatever terms we choose or want, we must abide by the rules and terms they institue, and if you don't want to or don't like it, you are free to leave. I'm not saying this as a kick you out motion, but in an honest gesture that you should not feel trapped to stay involved in a place you clearly have issues with.

I'd much rather the people who volunteer their time running this place were allowed to get on with it, and that any legitimate disagreements were handled proportionately and respectfully rather than turned into a wider controversy like this.

Please don't interpret* my response as accountability should not exist, case that's lazy, and what you are demanding and accusing FoF moderators of is quite different than asking for accountability.

[Cambridge Away]

As someone that runs a forum myself, not the right way to go about this and there are very good reasons why a board my operate that way FoF does.

Are you entitled to critism moderation, yes. In fact I do somewhat frequently and they've not seem to ever take an issue with it (no bans for me as far as I know). However, there's a big difference between questioning a decision like you are doing now and turning it into a public campaign about who is behind the moderation account, how many people login and use it and if power is concentrated or not (you also have no idea if it is or not by the way).

For starters, it's very normal for forums and online boards to operate moderation through an anonymous account. Obvious reasons for this, not least protecting the privacy of volunteers who give up their own time to keep a community running.

I also don't really understand the suggestion that anonymity somehow makes someone unaccountable. Accountability means having reasonable processes for questioning decisions, not necessarily knowing the personal identity of whoever made them. Very different things.

Also, even if it is an open community its not a public institution, it's a private forum with terms and conditions. The moderators are volunteers, not elected officials and while it's perfectly reasonable to expect consistency and fairness, I think the language about disciplinary authority, selective anonymity and concentrations of power is rather overblown for what is ultimately a message board about Fulham FC.

None of us has a right to use someone else's forum on whatever terms we choose or want, we must abide by the rules and terms they institue, and if you don't want to or don't like it, you are free to leave. I'm not saying this as a kick you out motion, but in an honest gesture that you should not feel trapped to stay involved in a place you clearly have issues with.

I'd much rather the people who volunteer their time running this place were allowed to get on with it, and that any legitimate disagreements were handled proportionately and respectfully rather than turned into a wider controversy like this.

Please don't interpret* my response as accountability should not exist, case that's lazy, and what you are demanding and accusing FoF moderators of is quite different than asking for accountability.

Thanks for responding. I agree with part of what you say: accountability does not necessarily require knowing a moderator's personal identity, and a shared moderation account can protect volunteers from unwanted personal attention.

However, that protection needs to be accompanied by a functioning process. That is precisely what has been missing here.

I was publicly rebuked and banned for a month. The ban prevented me from using the forum's private-message system, the notice provided no appeal route, and the website contact form produced no response. I eventually reached the team through Facebook, received one partial answer and then had my specific follow-up questions ignored.

I raised the matter publicly only after those private attempts failed. The original thread then received no response from the moderators. My follow-up asked whether the ban and appeal had been considered collectively or by the same individual speaking through the "Friendsoffulham" account. After another established member replied that he had experienced a similar unexpected ban, the thread was removed without explanation. My direct message asking why has also gone unanswered.

That is why the operation of the account became relevant. I am not demanding anyone's private name, address or personal information. I am asking whether decisions are reviewed independently, whether "we" means that the moderation team genuinely considered the matter and where a locked-out member can challenge a decision.

You say that accountability means having reasonable processes for questioning decisions rather than necessarily knowing the decision-maker's identity. I agree. Please identify that process, because I tried the forum, its contact form, Facebook and direct messaging without receiving answers to those questions.

I also accept that this is a privately operated Fulham forum rather than a public institution. That does not prevent members from comparing its conduct with its own published rules, which say that the moderators are "sociable types" who will try to resolve matters amicably and provide guidance before measures that should not be a total surprise. Private ownership gives the administrators power to remove posts; it does not make criticism of how that power is exercised illegitimate.

Nor did I begin a campaign to discover somebody's personal identity. I started with private questions about my own ban. The wider concern developed because those questions were not answered, collective language was used without any clear collective process, and the public discussion was eventually removed.

I am already prepared to leave, so I do not feel trapped here or entitled to use the forum on whatever terms I choose. Before doing so, I think it is reasonable to record why. One thread and a follow-up after repeated private approaches is not an attempt to take over the forum. It is a proportionate response to a month-long exclusion, personal public criticism and the absence of a workable appeal route.

You have apparently been able to criticise moderation without being banned, which is how it should be. My experience—and the experiences now described to me by other established members—has been different. That difference is exactly why a clear process matters.

[Trusty Steed]

Guys, It's just a forum.......

[sunburywhite]

You are lucky you have a forum

If you were a supporter of Pyongyang SC and you made any wrong posts of Friends of Pyongyang then expect a knock at the door at midnight