Southfield White explanation to clear the air

[dannyboi-ffc]

So it was your fault, thought it might be.

We have lost a completely different class of individual who's views have been highly valued for a number of years.

Won't delete my account as I would like to keep in touch with a number of people but will retire from front line posting for now.
This board is ill advised to lose the quality of Southfield White to be replaced by what exactly?

Finster and Corked Hat will spinning at the thought of Mods deleting posts on a pretence.

and without explanation or notification of any kind -- despite the lack of profanity and hectoring. He's not the only one who this has happened to, but -- like you -- I'm staying on the board. I'm also hoping that he'll find some way to continue to supply us with invaluable information on our young players in development. We've lost a great resource even if he does hold "minority views."

What are you going on about? Someone told me the other day you are a moderator yourself and I nearly choked. But then I guess moderating is easy when no one posts on your own forum.

I give an explanation and you use it as ammo to carry on. Grow up

[Blanco]

So, Southfieldwhite posts a negative post about the negative posters, late at night, goads those for not being real fans (because they're negative) then says he can't be bothered to read the forum any more..

I don't know the guy, but not being funny, why did he just not read the forum rather than drop a bomb, that he knew would damn well would get a reaction.

In my eye's, the Mods did the right thing, but the above comments by Fenhurst are just despicable, sorry.

I agree.

[KevDev]

Rather than clear the air I find this post quite inflammatory.

[Ged]

You better delete this thread before it gets out of hand

[Oakeshott]

"I don't think it's negativity, it's about people being realistic"

It depends where one stands.

But the core issue here, surely, is that everyone is entitled to their hopes and beliefs about how well we will do under Kit, and provided exchanges of view proceed in a civil way, why should anyone be concerned.

I didn't see Southfield White's post, but we have been assured it wasn't drafted in unacceptable language (as if, knowing him from his previous posts, it is conceivable it would have been). As someone who takes a different view about our current situation to him I would not be surprised, if he read some of my posts, that he would include me as one of those being overly negative. But the idea that a posting by him criticising those of us who do take a different view would suddenly lead to the abandonment of the normal, civil discourse on here strikes me as far-fetched in the extreme.

I know how tricky administering a forum can be, and when I used to run one about horse racing occasionally some intervention was necessary. But the intervention reported here strikes me as a precipitate and rather immature reaction by whichever Moderator deleted Southfield White's thread, and I can understand why, having been once "bitten", he doesn't feel like hanging around.

Like others who have posted I will miss Southfield White's knowledgeable contributions and hope that the Moderators might review what happened and possibly conclude that there had been an over-reaction, put that to Southfield White and hopefully enable this unfortunate episode be forgotten with Southfield White then feeling able to return.

[mikestrand]

It seems to be a dangerous precedent to set, deleting posts just in case they turn sour. Not one reply on the thread could have been considered inflammatory.

Shame to lose Southfield White, great poster and enjoyed his nuggets of information.

We haven't lost him he"ll be back when Kits gone..
That was a joke by the way.

[colinwhite]

i read the post ,and didn't think it was in any way inflammatory . Surely the idea of posts is to awaken debate. Admittedly this positive / negative debate can get a bit tiresome ,but he was entitled to his opinion ,even if i didn't happen to agree with all of it he did make a valid point about the window not being shut.
Maybe he pointed the finger at negative thinkers "that don't even go to games ", can't really remember .

[Blanco]

i read the post ,and didn't think it was in any way inflammatory . Surely the idea of posts is to awaken debate. Admittedly this positive / negative debate can get a bit tiresome ,but he was entitled to his opinion ,even if i didn't happen to agree with all of it he did make a valid point about the window not being shut.
Maybe he pointed the finger at negative thinkers "that don't even go to games ", can't really remember .

It wasn't so much the original post it was the way the comments were going.

[Wearethewhites]

i read the post ,and didn't think it was in any way inflammatory . Surely the idea of posts is to awaken debate. Admittedly this positive / negative debate can get a bit tiresome ,but he was entitled to his opinion ,even if i didn't happen to agree with all of it he did make a valid point about the window not being shut.
Maybe he pointed the finger at negative thinkers "that don't even go to games ", can't really remember .

It wasn't so much the original post it was the way the comments were going.

That's how I see it. If left into the late hours, it'd have been a minefield by the morning. Thought the Mods did the right thing, and if you read the OP correctly, the post was moved for review, not deleted (as some individuals have stated) You'd honestly think this was a deliberate a witch-hunt against a member reading some of the comments, not some Moderator doing his job correctly. Ridiculous.. 

[Arthur]

It seems to be a dangerous precedent to set, deleting posts just in case they turn sour. Not one reply on the thread could have been considered inflammatory.

Having complimented the O.P. in an earlier post, I do nonetheless find some resonance with this view.

I have, on more than one occasion, been reading an exchange of opposing views between two members that has run to more than a couple of contributions apiece only to find a moderator ask the pair to discontinue. Although the two members are most certainly at odds, both have been arguing their view without contravening any of the behavioural guidelines. As someone who appreciates good reasoning, I find such exchanges enjoyable to read.

Whilst I fully accept that it is the moderators' role to act as they deem appropriate, taking pre-emptive action - to prevent the guidelines from not breached - can be counter-productive. Whether it is the case with SW, I cannot say, for I did not see his post, but in the instances of which I am thinking, my own view was that interesting debate (which is the lifeblood of such a forum) had been stifled needlessly.

I would kindly ask the moderators whether (individually or collectively) they would consider shifting this 'line in the sand' so that the point at which cold water is poured on a potential confrontation is not so soon as to disallow members from earnest and frank disputation that requires a series of exchanges.

[os5889 mkII]

Now really, what sort of a tit deletes his account after a bout of forum negativity rage.

[Hint - Moi]

[dannyboi-ffc]

Just for the record it wasn't me that moved it. I think some are assuming because I'm the messenger it was me. Southfield will hopefully come back soon. The issue has been dealt with outside of fof and as far as we're concerned there isn't an issue at all now

[Logicalman]

It is unfortunate that one or more members have taken umbridge with Dannyboi-ffc for posting an explanation to what happened.

Just to put it in context, at times, when a thread either becomes - or appears to be becoming - one of those all-too-common heated debates that unfortunately are reduced to name-calling and toys-out-of-prams, then some kind of action is required. Human nature as it is means that we will never have a consensus on any topic, and we rightly all have our own individual views.

That said, when a Mod is not 100% sure the thread has gone, or is going, that way, he/she then has a decision to make, and often it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, and therefore the Mod might decide to pull the thread off the main board and ask advice, just in case. It happens rarer than some think, but it does happen, and this is the case from last evening concerning this thread in question.

It can always be agreed that the Mods have been lambasted in the past for either leaving a thread open too long, or, as in this case, removing it before the toys his the floor, but if you put yourselves in that position, what would you do?

SouthfieldWhite is a valuable member of the Fulham FC community, and has been a fantastic contributor to this, and other boards, and I believe I speak for everyone when I implore him to reconsider his decision to remove himself from FoF, over what might be considered a simple thread that had potential to cause a rift. It's nobody's fault that he got the hump, we have all been there for varying reasons, but like many things in life, hindsight provides us with the great ability to getting things right.

FoF has grown to be the largest of the FFC boards, both on this site and the FB group, and there is a reason for that, it's the best one out there (not putting any of the other boards down at all - we all have our strengths and weaknesses), but with that growth comes these kinds of issues, but nothing that we cannot resolve.

Fernhurst, I would also ask you to reconsider your withdrawing from posting, we need people like yourself, as well as others, to keep this board as good as it is. As like SouthfieldWhite, everybody has and is entitled to their opinion on different subjects, and those opinions do matter, even if others might not agree, or even one's own personal opinion of the poster, good or bad.