The major problem with the July 18th fiasco at SBFII was that the staff was convinced of a falsehood; that the “DJGers” were going to take over the fansite. It was not true. So why did they believe it?
I have wondered about the source of the staff’s mistaken belief that the DJGers were interested in taking over the fansite. It turns out that idea was there from the day the auction was announced to the members.
Within six hours of the auction announcement, Pickled Tink claimed that “former members such as DJG ……… are putting together bids”. Tink said, “The DJGers are already talking about bringing back banned members.”
Kalua replied that he had “inside info that he is considering buying the whole only to shut it down.”
Danileo added, “I have a mole at DJG site and I can confirm what you say”.
But what they believed was not true. I have checked the thread about the auction at DJG’s. There was quite a bit of joking about DJG buying the site, with members laughing over the irony of that idea. But it was not serious (hint: lots of ROFLs). If you had asked any DJGer if DJG was actually buying the site, they would have said, “Hell, no!” No one at DJG’s was “putting together bids”. And no one had even mentioned banned members at the time Tink made her post.
So how did the staff get it so wrong? The staff have long had spies at DJG’s. Some staff members went themselves, including Kalua. Some relied on the reports of others. Did none of them “get” the ambiance of the place? To miss the joking aspect of the reaction to the auction is a serious misinterpretation of the forum. But to claim that they were already talking about bring back banned members is simply a falsehood.
So why did Tink make that claim? From whom did Tink get her information? Or did she make it up?
Was Tink communicating with and believing the cyber-stalker bully, like so many others? Did she know him as Mark Conner, Bill Merrick or by some other pseudonym? Did she give credence to him, even though she was well aware of the cyber-bully by then?
What was Pickled Tink's relationship with the cyber-stalker bully? How did he get hold of a sensitive email, written by PT herself, which could have proved very damaging to Susan? An email in which Tink passed along false rumors about a well-known SBFII member, rather than debunk them.
DJG never made a single bid. But the staff was still worried about him and the DJGers. They could have ignored his forum. But they gave it more credence and more importance by their obsession with it.
Did staff ever admit, even to themselves, their role in the creation of DJG’s site? It was the direct result of their own tactics; over-zealous moderation, unpredictable moderation, staff megalomania.
I believe that the staff members of susan-boyle.com were responsible for the very existence of the humor forum. The impetus for the creation of that site was the banning of DJG for a rather silly reason. They banned him, for the first time, because he posted a joke in a non-humor thread. Oh, horrors!
Of course, that lead to anger and resentment and ultimately the Susahumor forum. But does the staff recognize their part in its creation? Unlikely. They seemed to have little idea how their arbitrary and over-zealous moderation tactics have caused resentment among the members.
Staff also thought DJG was disrespectful, but they cannot “legislate” respect with rules. In fact, any attempt to do so only leads to even greater disrespect. Which in turn lead to more and harsher rules.
So, instead of working to be more “moderate” in their moderating, they worried about how to deal with the animosity their own methods had fostered, without reining in those heavy-handed tactics or evaluating what they were doing to contribute to such an atmosphere.
Was it their paranoia and fear of the DJGers that lead them to believe the worst? The staff, who did not understand the atmosphere of DJG’s in spite of their spying, seemed to be willing to believe anything negative they were told. They were willing dupes. They saw everything through paranoia-colored glasses.
Why is the staff at SBFII so paranoid? Is it part of a general paranoia? Both Admins are very secretive. Neither can let their photo be seen. For a long time, Tink did not admit she was also an Admin/mod at the official Susan Boyle fan site. Kalua won’t even give his real name. He refused to give any information to the state of Delaware for the corporation papers to be filed. What else are they hiding?
The staff believed what they were told about the DJGers, but from whom were they getting their (mis)information? No one at DJG’s had even mentioned bringing back banned members, yet Tink said they already had such plans.
Just to be sure, I also checked the other forum falsely blamed by CanadianBill. No mention of bringing back banned members there either. So where did Tink get that idea? On what basis were they acting? Was it the cyber-stalker bully? Was it just the cyber-stalker bully? Did they ever ask for “proof”? Did they rely on screen caps? (FYI: Screen caps are ridiculously easy to fake.)
It is disturbing to think the gullibility went all the way to the top of the fansite, that even the Admins were listening to a notorious cyber-stalker bully. It is disturbing to realize that even now they are not taking him seriously as a cyber-bully. Are they protecting him? Are they protecting themselves? Why not admit that they were fooled by him? He is extremely good at doing just that.
Why not admit that staff members were taken in by him? Lots of people were. Why not admit that much of the panic on July 18 was the result of the PMs and postings of a deluded staff, panicking because of what they were told by the cyber-stalker bully? Why not admit that the so-called hacking was the panicky tech staff, trying to defend the fansite against a take-over they believed was real? Why continue with the deception about database errors? Why not admit that the paranoia about the surreptitious return of banned members was based on lies told two months earlier, but with no basis in fact?
As usual, the continuing cover-up is worse than the original actions. Those could have been readily explained. But the decision to lie about it later is not so easily dismissed.
