***PLEASE READ*** FoF ettiquette

[LBNo11]

...if any members would like to PM me or any of the other moderators naming specific posters that they feel are disrupting this forum we will look at the posters' history and decide how to deal with them.

Any information received will be kept secure and in the strictest confidence.

We are determined that this site remains entertaining without resorting to name calling and profanities, in keeping with the club's ethos of being a family club.

Friends Of Fulham membership has increased in the last year faster than any time in the site's history, we hope this is because people like what they read and respect what the site is trying to achieve, and are happy to comply with the rules.

Considering the size of the membership we have very few WUM's or Trolls on FoF, but we can only further control suspects by receiving your input to confirm our suspicions.

It's sometimes difficult to judge what are strongly held opinions that fly in the face of popular perceptions from someone who is only interested in deliberately causing disruption to the site, but the moderators will take into consideration any complaints with the view to maintaining a site where views are respected even if disagreed with...

[HatterDon]

here's a question that is nowhere near a criticism. I've been wondering about this in a long time:

When we've seen threads created that are obviously provocative and abusive, y'all are quick to lock them, but they stay on the page with the initial intent/effect obvious. Why don't you delete the threads after a certain period? It would be like spray painting over obscene graffiti on your front door.

[Berserker]

here's a question that is nowhere near a criticism. I've been wondering about this in a long time:

When we've seen threads created that are obviously provocative and abusive, y'all are quick to lock them, but they stay on the page with the initial intent/effect obvious. Why don't you delete the threads after a certain period? It would be like spray painting over obscene graffiti on your front door.

Good point

[Burt]

here's a question that is nowhere near a criticism. I've been wondering about this in a long time:

When we've seen threads created that are obviously provocative and abusive, y'all are quick to lock them, but they stay on the page with the initial intent/effect obvious. Why don't you delete the threads after a certain period? It would be like spray painting over obscene graffiti on your front door.

Good point

Good point indeed.

It could be argued that by not deleting a locked thread then we are explaining to one and all why a particular post or thread has been unacceptable, and locked (assuming the explanation is clear). So everyone is aware of what is, and what is not, acceptable.

Like with the Loic Remy thread I have just locked.

I could have just deleted it, but I thought I would keep it there to make people aware that we can't just post names out there, due to libel etc.

I guess you could argue things either way. I am not sure whether what I did was the best thing to do, or whether I should just have got shot of it.

Comments welcome...

[David Allen Crankshaw]

I think Richardson should be told off by the Mods for taking his shirt off and once again flashing his religious quote. This he can do after the match but during it after he scored was simply asking for trouble.

Makes me want to blaspheme and support a left week political party.

I'm quite happy to see Richardson showing his message but why not just lift his shirt up and not take it off. He wouldn't get booked for lifting his shirt.

[TheDon]

I think Richardson should be told off by the Mods for taking his shirt off and once again flashing his religious quote. This he can do after the match but during it after he scored was simply asking for trouble.

Makes me want to blaspheme and support a left week political party.

I'm quite happy to see Richardson showing his message but why not just lift his shirt up and not take it off. He wouldn't get booked for lifting his shirt.

:hook:  i take it your an expert on the shirtlifting laws.

[win-dup]

Fair enough but I was recently threatened, to my utter astonishment, with a three day ban from FOF for apparently posting something hideously offensive. Despite two requests as to the nature of the posting I received no reply so genuinely don't know what I was supposed to have said.  If you're going to ban people you must spell out what the offence is. 

We do unless its so egregious it needs no explanation, and we have NO obligation to tell you why you were banned, but thanks for your input. We will continue to Moderate as we see fit for the continued peace on this board.

blimey, at the risk of being banned, that's a bit Stalinist isn't it? I shall slip off this mortal coil not knowing what I said that was so offensive when all I've ever tried to do is lighten the board with teasing and irony. And a dose of realism. I'll get me coat.

[Berserker]

My whole life is like that.

[Forever Fulham]

If it's bad enough to be locked, it's bad enough to be quietly removed as well.   It makes no sense to me that Mods would find something offensive enough to lock the thread, but then leave the content up for all to continue to read.  I don't get the theory that leaving it readable 'sends a message' and somehow serves to modify future behaviour.  No, it's just still up and readable, republished, if you will, each time someone new visits the now-locked string and reads it.  HD's insight is right on.  If you lock it, remove it.  If you Mods have any doubt about which way to go, why not take a poll?

[Macedo]

Fair enough but I was recently threatened, to my utter astonishment, with a three day ban from FOF for apparently posting something hideously offensive. Despite two requests as to the nature of the posting I received no reply so genuinely don't know what I was supposed to have said.  If you're going to ban people you must spell out what the offence is. 

Correct..

[Burt]

Fair enough but I was recently threatened, to my utter astonishment, with a three day ban from FOF for apparently posting something hideously offensive. Despite two requests as to the nature of the posting I received no reply so genuinely don't know what I was supposed to have said.  If you're going to ban people you must spell out what the offence is. 

We do unless its so egregious it needs no explanation, and we have NO obligation to tell you why you were banned, but thanks for your input. We will continue to Moderate as we see fit for the continued peace on this board.

blimey, at the risk of being banned, that's a bit Stalinist isn't it? I shall slip off this mortal coil not knowing what I said that was so offensive when all I've ever tried to do is lighten the board with teasing and irony. And a dose of realism. I'll get me coat.

Actually I would suggest that in most cases we do make it very clear as to why we have modified a thread, locked a thread, or banned a person.

And remember, what may be teasing and irony to someone may be something another person could take to heart. That is the danger of the written word, it can be taken out of context or easily misinterpreted.

[Burt]

Fair enough but I was recently threatened, to my utter astonishment, with a three day ban from FOF for apparently posting something hideously offensive. Despite two requests as to the nature of the posting I received no reply so genuinely don't know what I was supposed to have said.  If you're going to ban people you must spell out what the offence is. 

We do unless its so egregious it needs no explanation, and we have NO obligation to tell you why you were banned, but thanks for your input. We will continue to Moderate as we see fit for the continued peace on this board.

blimey, at the risk of being banned, that's a bit Stalinist isn't it? I shall slip off this mortal coil not knowing what I said that was so offensive when all I've ever tried to do is lighten the board with teasing and irony. And a dose of realism. I'll get me coat.

Actually I would suggest that in most cases we do make it very clear as to why we have modified a thread, locked a thread, or banned a person.

And remember, what may be teasing and irony to someone may be something another person could take to heart. That is the danger of the written word, it can be taken out of context or easily misinterpreted.

It's like Burt Jr. I am constantly having conversations with him about why it is not the done thing for him to get his kicks at the expense of other people!

[Blanco]

I think control on the board over what people say is a bit much. Sometimes I read comments that do no harm and the moderators warn the person who wrote it. In real life when someone say "you're a bore" they aren't gonna be told off or warned are they? I understand how some posts(i.e. mine today) might be locked but people have the right to say what they want as long as it doesn't cross the line. That line seems a bit short on here.

[Macedo]

Its called favouritism or if you a long standing poster.
I just been warned on my joke post for calling someone a bore, yet
someone just say im a saddo and nothing is said..Hillarious.

[Blanco]

Its called favouritism or if you a long standing poster.
I just been warned on my joke post for calling someone a bore, yet
someone just say im a saddo and nothing is said..Hillarious.

Yes, I just read your comment and that's what I mean.

[Herbie]

I think the Mods do a top job, especially when there have been numerous times where the mood on this board has been pretty dreary. We, the normal users, can just stay away and ignore the negativity when it gets bad, but the Mods have to stick it out and read it all.  It must be hard work at times, so thank you, Mods.

[Blanco]

I think the Mods do a top job, especially when there have been numerous times where the mood on this board has been pretty dreary. We, the normal users, can just stay away and ignore the negativity when it gets bad, but the Mods have to stick it out and read it all.  It must be hard work at times, so thank you, Mods.

This is also true.