Front Porch Forum declined two of my postings before the August 11 Washington Central vote and would not say what standard I had broken. On August 5 it wrote that no changes had been made to my account; three days later the login page reported it deactivated. The correspondence, in full.
On July 29, Front Porch Forum declined to publish a posting of mine about the August 11 Washington Central vote, citing section 2.6 of its Terms of Use, and asked me not to post about the vote for a week. Its stated basis, supplied the next day, was six postings I had made that month that covered four different factual topics. When I described the episode publicly, that posting was declined too, under section 2.21. On August 5, the company's co-founder and chief executive wrote that no changes had been made to my account. On August 8, the login page reported my account deactivated.
The correspondence is short, and it is reproduced below in full — eleven messages between me and FPF Member Support from July 29 through August 5, and what the login page showed on August 8 — so you can read it as I received it and weigh it yourself.
Two notes on how the communications are reproduced: Quoted reply chains — the copies of earlier messages that ride along at the bottom of each reply — are trimmed; every message is otherwise verbatim, including the two declined postings, which Front Porch Forum's messages quoted back in full. Member Support staff are identified as staffer A, B, and C rather than by name; the company's co-founder and chief executive, who signed the final reply, is named.
The six postings covered four subjects: whether school board members were carrying out duties required of them by statute; district debt and deferred building maintenance; state and federal outcomes data; and the ballot question itself. Section 2.6 reads, in full: "You agree not to repeatedly post the same or similar content, or dominate the discussion." I do not see how the first half applies.
I asked four times what the standard is. Over what period, and across what range of subject matter, is "the same topic" measured? How many postings in how many days is too many? I asked first so I could stay inside the line, and later because I had begun to wonder whether the line moved. Each reply restated the section number. The record follows.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your posting, below. However, we're writing to let you know it will not be published as it does not comply with FPF’s Terms of Use, specifically provision 2.6. While we appreciate your efforts to share information and concerns with your neighbors, we also want to ensure that many voices are heard. When members post repeatedly about the same topic at length, we may ask that they consider taking a step back so others can weigh in. Please refrain from posting about the WCUUSD vote for one week.
Thanks for your understanding, and participation on FPF.
Take Care,
[staffer A]
Member Support
membersupport@frontporchforum.com
Help Center • Website • Donate
Front Porch Forum: Helping neighbors connect and build community.
Re: WCUUSD Articles of Agreement - Vote No
Matt Rkiouak • (mrkiouak@gmail.com) • Merrill Dr, Middlesex
Posted to: Middlesex
Jul 28, 2026
Supporters of a no vote should not misrepresent, or flat out lie, about whether the votes in question impact everyone voting.
A vote for no is a vote to adopt a school configuration common no where else in the country, where young children are shipped from elementary school to elementary school across grades, disrupting their social and educational development. That is plainly relevant to all district members.
No voters should write an articulated, well reasoned argument that doesn't rest on misrepresentation. So far, none have been provided:
Not the debt (all schools require maintenance -- the lack of debt for Calais and Doty are just signs they need the most money spent on them, and the 2023 Act 72 report shows this. See this link for more, honest and fact based, details: https://middlesexgazette.org/news/washington-central-buildings/).
Not the disenfranchisement or gerrymandering (7% of the district population controlled the school configuration this year: https://middlesexgazette.org/news/washington-central-what-the-vote-decides/). The significant majority, 8, board members that recommended closure would still vote to close, ending the harmful elementary school grade experiment forced by the distressed budget. The ONLY reason that is happening this year is that 7% (610 across ONLY Calais & Worcester) of school district voters made the decision for us AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION of the majority of our school board, who were also by the entire district.
And worst of all, the one that no one mentions, the nearly 15 year plummet in educational outcomes won't be helped by keeping the same school configuration thats been in place during the fall. Students are testing a full grade level worse than they were just over 10 years ago. See this link for more on the educational outcomes: https://middlesexgazette.org/news/washington-central-schools/, look at the federal and state data behind the WCUUSD comparison here: https://hungermountaini.com/schools/#sec-seda. Note the 17% increase in chronic absenteeism (https://hungermountaini.com/schools/#sec-chabs), and the 23% fall in college and degree granting trade school continuation ( https://hungermountaini.com/schools/#sec-postsec).
All of this data comes directly from the State of Vermont's Agency of Education, the Federal Department of Education, and the Stanford Education Data Archive. I have no dog in this race other than wanting my 2 and 4 year old to have the best public education and school experience possible over the next 17 years. That's what all of our priorities should be. Sadly, none of the No vote supporters I've seen can articulate how a no vote gives them this. The status quo is not working for our children.
People need to not misrepresent what is at stake here -- its the proper care and education of our community's children. Vote Yes so we can start the work of fixing what we've lost over the past 10 years. If you're voting No, first have a plan for how to fix our schools -- otherwise a vote for No is a vote to continue failing our kids.
It's my second post on WCUUSD in a week, without this post, I only have a single post on that topic this week.
What time frame are you making this evaluation over, so I can properly calibrate FPF engagement?
Hi Matt,
Thank you for your follow up. Our decision is based on your six prior postings this month on the subject of the WCUUSD Vote in the Middlesex Forum, published on July 9, 10, 12, 17, 21 and 27.
Please also see our Help Center article about election-related discussions .
Thank you,
[staffer A]
Member Support
membersupport@frontporchforum.com
Help Center • Website • Donate
Front Porch Forum: Helping neighbors connect and build community.
Hi,
Sorry, you didn't answer my question.
What's the length of period and frequency of discussion of topics you're moderating to?
I've received a number of positive reach ours both via FPF and directly after each of my posts, so I want to both abide by your policies, and continue to share information on a timely basis on FPF.
None of the posts you listed this month shared duplicate information. In fact, at least 3 of those posts have to do with actions of the School Board, and nothing to do with the WCUUSD upcoming vote.
I appreciate you providing rough guidelines on period and frequency you're moderating to. I know I had 3 different people reach out to me about posting content that I have shared in Middlesex to the Calais and Berlin boards.
If I need to combine more posts during a particular period to not risk falling afoul of this policy, I'd be happy to do so.
I suspect FPF doesn't want to appear to be allowing users to post in support of one position, and not allowing other users to post against it. Given the post I was responding to was in reply to a post written by a non Middlesex resident, it is particularly odd they were allowed to post without a reply.
Would you please provide the rough criteria I can use for determine the period and frequency you consider dominating here?
Regards,
Matt
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your response. We're glad to hear you've received positive feedback to your postings.
Please see FPF's Terms of Use provision 2.6, pasted below. The provision applies to not just duplicate content, but similar content, such as repeat postings advocating for a position on an upcoming vote. In considering what qualifies as "dominating the discussion," our system weighs not only the frequency of postings, but the length, civility, etc.
We advise giving a week break between postings on a similar topic.
2.6 You agree not to repeatedly post the same or similar content, or dominate the discussion.
We appreciate your understanding.
Best wishes,
[staffer B]
Member Support FrontPorchForum.com Essential civic infrastructure in Vermont Need help? Check the Help Center.
I've submitted a ticket complaining about this unequal application of moderation.
I have posted on the election topic a total of two times..
There is no way to view this as balanced moderation.
You've continued to fail to describe how I have posted on a topic too many times, other than one person claiming 6 posts across a month that touched on 4 different topics was somehow my dominating a conversation.
FPF ought to do better.
Hello Matt,
Thank you for taking the time to reach out, and for your participation on FPF. FPF is nonpartisan. We've reviewed your postings and stand by the team's call.
If you believe other members are dominating the discussion, please feel free to share that with us.
Best wishes,
[staffer C]
Team Manager, Member Support FrontPorchForum.com Essential civic infrastructure in Vermont Need help? Check the Help Center.
Name: Matt Rkiouak
Email: mrkiouak@gmail.com
Subject: Request for moderation review
Comments: The Middlesex moderator and team are restricting ongoing discussion of special election that had less than 40 days between announcement of the election, and the date of the actual election. I continue to share new information, and attempt to respond to new questions or data discussions, such as impact on debt, property values, and so on -- but the moderation team has claimed I am in violation of FPF TOS 2.6. Yet others have posted on the topic the same number of times I have (the moderators seem to conflate a separate school board issue I posted on with posts on the election? yet I've never posted more than twice in the same week regardless. Meanwhile, No supporters on the vote post far more than I do. Is Front Porch Forum ensuring moderation is not politically motivated? I can provide the email exchange I've received from the moderation team, where they've repeatedly evaded provided an answer as to in what way I am dominating a conversation I have been blocked from participating in by them for a week now.
You are the person that moderated me. Was this reviewed by someone else at FPF?
I have already had conversations with multiple people that believe FPF is acting biased, evidenced by my moderation, and FPF selectively not sharing posts by posters in favor of the amendment vote to other communities, even when checking to do so.
I will be working to get these issues and the facts around them published in seven days, vtdigger, the bridge, and myself and others will post about it to social media. This will get noticed.
If FPF really stands by these decisions, you should have nothing to worry about.
FPF is not politically unbiased when it is selectively allowing certain people to most more on a topic than others.
Have you already actioned my account? I did not receive the FPF email for today's updates, yet I have heard from others they have received the email.
Hi Matt,
I sat down with my colleagues and reviewed all of your posts and correspondence on this issue. We stand behind what we've written to you before and the decisions made.
No changes have been made to your FPF account. Our records indicate your email Forum was delivered yesterday (check your spam folder if you have not received it).
We have declined to publish your most recent posting (copied below), because it violates FPF's Terms of Use, section 2.21. By default, all election postings aren't viewable from neighboring Forums. Please stop misrepresenting FPF, and bullying FPF staff.
We will need to leave the exchange here, as we attend to our ongoing work. Further TOU violations may lead to account closure.
Best,
Michael
Michael Wood-Lewis, Co-Founder & CEO
Essential civic infrastructure in Vermont.
How Middlesex Communicates and Stays Connected
Matt Rkiouak • (mrkiouak@gmail.com) • Merrill Dr, Middlesex
Posted to: Middlesex
Aug 4, 2026
Discussion
The moderation team for our Front Porch Forum has refused to publish two posts I've made in the past two weeks — one responding to misrepresentations made by residents of other towns about the state of the Washington Central Unified Union School District (WCUUSD) and our schools, and one clarifying what the research shows about property values and schools. Their stated reason was a non-specific violation of section 2.6 of their Terms of Use: https://frontporchforum.com/terms-of-use. Reviewing my posts, and given that I had not posted for a week before the first refusal, it remains unclear to me how I violated that section. Repeated questions about how often I ought to post in order to avoid this have gone unanswered, including in replies that amount to "Thank you — please review section 2.6."
I've spoken with Middlesex and other town residents who marked their Yes-vote posts to be shared in neighboring Forums, and those posts have had that visibility to other forums turned off.
I'm very pleased to have met a large number of involved people from the work I've done writing about Vermont schools, and WCUUSD schools specifically, in the Times Argus, The Bridge and VTDigger. Open, respectful communication and shared facts are, I believe, a key part of a healthy community.
Please reach out if you'd like to brainstorm ways to share information with the town more broadly and in more depth. The Budget Committee has discussed topics it would like to share sooner and more widely, and to gather feedback on, and I've heard the same sentiment from a number of other committees, officials, and employees.
A two-post limit on Front Porch Forum, on an issue with an election 40 days away, isn't a constraint I'd want on anyone trying to participate in the town community.
You've provided no indication of how I am misrepresenting FPF, and have chosen not to answer any of my questions.
The email is not in my spam folder.
Given you haven't stated FPF's policies, even upon my asking, its rich that you're 1) accusing me of bullying FPF staff without evidence, 2) accusing me of misrepresenting policies.
If you've reviewed my previous communications, you'd see I asked for clarity on your policies to avoid further TOS issues. FPF has chosen not to clarify these, and so has forfeited any reasonable grounds for claiming I'm misrepresenting anything. FPF posts marked as discussion have been prevented from being visible to other communities, and "default" is not the behavior a reasonable person would associate with "checking a box".
I shall be following through on highlighting FPF's observationally biased approach to an election matter, and calling into question whether this particular behavior causes FPF to fall under Vermont's Political Action Committee definitions (uncoordinated spending of over $500).
Regards,
Matt
Editor's note, August 8, 2026: I now realize the definition of spending for election purposes that would trigger a PAC registration is not met here — Front Porch Forum's spending on moderation and publication happens regardless of whether the submissions are political.
You are attempting to log in to a deactivated FPF account. Please email FPF Member Support for help at membersupport@frontporchforum.com and include your first and last name and street address.
That leaves the second half of 2.6: dominating the discussion. The digests are in every subscriber's inbox and anyone can count. Other members posted on election topics, often in support of a specific agenda or candidate, more frequently and in a shorter time frame than I did. I was asked to stop. They were not. How does a member dominate a discussion in which others post more often than he does? I have asked four times. Front Porch Forum has not said.
When I described this publicly, Front Porch Forum declined that posting too, under section 2.21: "You agree not to misrepresent FPF's policies or actions." I was not told what I had gotten wrong. A rule against misdescribing the company, used to decline a description of the company, with no correction offered, is not a standard. It is a way of ending the conversation.
Separately, several residents have told me they marked postings to be shared with neighboring Forums and later found that sharing switched off. Front Porch Forum told me election postings are not shared across Forums by default. That does not explain what those residents described, because the postings in question were not tagged Election. And if it is a matter of defaults, a checkbox that does nothing is worse than no checkbox at all.
One more pair of facts, side by side. On August 5, Front Porch Forum wrote: "No changes have been made to your FPF account." On August 8, the login page returned: "You are attempting to log in to a deactivated FPF account." No message from Front Porch Forum about a deactivation has arrived as of this writing. The screenshot is the final item in the record above.
Front Porch Forum reaches more than half the households in this town. It calls itself essential civic infrastructure, it is a Vermont Public Benefit Corporation by its own election, and it told me in writing on August 4 that it is nonpartisan. Those are the grounds on which I had taken its judgment on trust.
The Gazette published my argument about all this on August 5, in A rule enforced without being explained. That piece rested on this correspondence; the correspondence is now here to check it against. As I wrote then: "Days before a vote, a rule that can be enforced without being explained is indistinguishable from one applied selectively. In a town where a single service reaches most households, that is not a small thing."
Special features document the record behind the Gazette's reporting and opinion. The Middlesex Gazette covers civic content in Middlesex, neighboring towns and the state at large. Back to the front page →
The Gazette comes free by email — a note when there's town news worth knowing. Subscribe by email →