Smear: to harm the reputation of; malign; slander; vilify

Members of SBFII know that the last six months have been strange and discomfiting.  The one thing I find most inexplicable in the whole fiasco is the smearing of three women; Dyebat, lchris and Citroenlady. 

Dyebat was everyone’s hero, the intrepid traveler who wouldn’t let anything stop her from attaining her goal, even if she had to sit outside in freezing weather knitting all night.  She brought that can-do spirit into play when the forum was up for sale.  When everyone else was worried, Dyebat said “Let’s do it ourselves!”  And we embraced her for that.  Many, many people offered money to purchase the forum, but the impetus came from Dyebat. 

After the purchase, she logged many miles and many hours in meetings and in efforts to develop the management and financial structure for the non-profit. Everything seemed to take three times more time and effort as it ought to, but Dyebat got it done in the end.  She should be our hero still.

Then there is lchris.  lchris did not have to offer to help Dyebat.  She could have sat back and watched.  But this was her area of expertise and she generously offered to help.  lchris has spent untold hours (over 1,000) working on the forum since the sale.  It was a complicated group of accounts and sites purchased by people with no prior experience in doing anything like that.

Transferring, recreating, and reconnecting all the pieces was just the beginning. It was also necessary to organize, document, and train on the technical as well as marketing and financial areas. It is mainly because of lchris’s many, many hours of labor that there is even a forum today for us to maintain.  She spent her entire summer working on the forum.  Without her, it wouldn’t be there.

Citroenlady was concerned about the divisions between people on the forum.  She knew a lot about the history of the forum because people were drawn to her and confided their problems.  She saw the members' purchase of the forum as a chance for a new beginning.  She had discussions with Dyebat, Chris, Tink and Kalua about changes she hoped to see. 

One such change was a way for members to appeal decisions they thought were unfair.  Another was a way to deal with members who had been banned for reasons that would not bring such a result now.  All of this was discussed with admin, it was not a secret conspiracy, it was not hidden.  I think she should be commended for her efforts towards fairness and reconciliation.

All three of these women wanted what was best for the forum.  Yet all three were vilified by cruel lies.  All three were accused of being untruthful and of being part of some imagined conspiracy to take over the forum.  It is not true.  It was never true.  Those who believed it were patsies for a vicious internet bully. 

Some of the staff believed the lies, in spite of their own experiences with Dyebat, lchris and Citroenlady.  But at some point, it was learned that the lies came from the cyber-bully.  The tech staff, who has been afraid that lchris really was involved in some kind of “takeover”, realized that they were mistaken.  And what did they do?  They apologized to her.  That was something that other staff members would try very hard to avoid doing. 

What did they rest of the staff and the Board do?  The staff and Board members let the lies and slander remain unrefuted for months, long after they knew from where the lies had come. They tried to prevent members from raising the issue on the forum. 

They blew off members who raised the issue in PMs or email.  I know that because I tried.  I sent messages to eight different staff and/or Board members.  Only after that proved fruitless, did I begin this blog.  And only after I began this blog, did the Board issue a report.  What took them so long?

Had the staff members who made the false accusations simply said that they were fooled by the cyber-bully, retracted the accusations and apologized, the forum would have limped along for a while, but recovered.  Instead, the Powers-that-be chose to stifle discussion, ignore questions and obfuscate.

I wonder if there are some staff and Board members who do not understand the significance of what has been done.  Staff allowed accusations they now knew to be from a cyber-bully to remain unrefuted.  They allowed the lies to continue to be passed around behind the scenes, without taking a stand.  They allowed the reputations of three women, who did not deserve it, to be dragged through the mud. 

Why was this the remit of the staff/Board?  Why not just fall back on the old standard that everyone is responsible for their own posts?  Because many of the people making those accusations were staff.  Because CanadianBill consulted staff before posting his slanderous thread.  They could have stopped it and they didn’t.

It is bad enough that the staff and Board delayed clearing the names of Dyebat, lchris and Citroenlady for many, many weeks.  But when the official report was published, it was not accurate.  The specific lies have yet to be retracted and new lies were told.  What could have possessed them to print something about Citroenlady they knew was untrue?  What could have possessed them to print things which they knew lchris would recognize as untrue?  How did they think they would get away with that?  Why did they think it would be a good idea?

What did they know and when did they know it?

I have been considering the events of last July and comparing them to the report of the SBFII Board.  I have re-read the entire Transparency thread and am not satisfied that the Board report is an accurate reflection of what happened.  In fact, I think it was a white wash.

I knew all along that the accusations of a “takeover” were completely false because I was one of the accused.  But to review that thread with the idea that those events were database errors is laughable.

I have gone back over the whole Transparency thread, and taken some time to think about it, but a lot of things just don’t add up. There seemed to be two storylines, developing simultaneously.  One was the transparency issue.  Kalua did not want to give any identifying information.  Were staff resignations a drama played out for public consumption, intended to override identification requirements by public acclaim?

How could that work?  The staff would resign en masse.  The first to go, Waldog and Stevieboy, had already made their information public, but resigned because Dyebat's request was "unreasonable".  The members with NPO experience, who said that identification requirements were reasonable, were ignored.

Much 'sturm und drang' followed the resignations so that the members would call for the entire staff to return and toss out those “unfair” transparency requirements. This is supported by Lonni’s email of July 18th 11:23 pm (EST), which encouraged members to post “against Chris and Dyebat”.  She also claimed "the entire staff is prepared to resign today".

But, at the same time, there was a parallel scenario; the forum was under attack by the DJGers, along with Dyebat, lchris and Citroenlady.  Early in the thread, members talked about “hidden agendas”, about the DJGers, and claimed that they wanted to eliminate the staff.  Some staff and members were blatant in their accusations; others were more subtle in their innuendo.

These lies came from the cyber-bully.  

He was in communication with both staff and members, telling them lies about a supposed takeover plot that did not, in fact, exist.  He lied about Citroenlady and lchris specifically, as well as falsely implicating members of other forums. Many of the most angry, bitter posts were made by people who were getting their information directly from him.

But these two stories do not make sense together.   Why would staff be leaving if they really believed that there was a takeover attempt?  Did they think the membership would rise up against the “coup”?

The Board report does not touch upon the first storyline and confuses the events of the takeover scenario.

In examining the accuracy of the report, the most glaring paradox is that the Board included a statement that Board members knew to be false.  The report implicated Citroenlady as the person who admitted a banned member.  But the Board knew that was not true.  They were told as much in the August 4th Preliminary Report submitted by lchris.  Any member could have deduced the same thing by a perusal of the Transparency thread.

Two Board members participated in a meeting on August 12 with the tech team. They discussed the time of both events; the return of the banned member and Citroenlady being given temporary mod powers. They knew CL was not a mod at the time in question.  So why did it show up in the report?  How could Board members sign off on something they knew was untrue?  Why wasn’t that blamed on “database errors”, too?

While reading the thread about the Board report, I was appalled at the attitude of one Board member when the issue of the unbanning was raised again (after it was pointed out that the Board report was incorrect).  He said that the topic had been “addressed” and reposted the incorrect section.  Did he actually think that “addressing” the issue had any bearing on the truth of the matter?  Just because a report is “official” does not mean it is factual.  Especially when the obvious inaccuracies are never corrected….

Another glaring discrepancy in the report is that it dismisses the “mischief”of July 18 as just a coincidence, an isolated series of errors that just happened to occur at the time some staff thought the site was under attack.  The “errors” are just too convenient to the storyline.  And it is strange that they happened in clusters that day, but have not occurred before or since.

I asked lchris about the likelihood that database errors caused the name changes, the deletion of Dyebat’s thread, the changes in Red Room membership and permissions. Could those have resulted from upgrading the database?  Lchris said no, she seriously doubts that…….

Lchris said she never actually upgraded from the original site at all. The admins and tech team were aware of that. She left that one untouched (it still is) and made a separate mirror site by installing/configuring the same version of forum software and then imported the database file into that. She upgraded on the mirror site.

If errors occurred, there would be records of that.  There were not.  Database error reporting was turned on, and each error was detailed and reported automatically to an email account that is used by several staff as it is the email used for the transfer and activation of most all of their accounts. There were no database errors reported for this time period at all.

The Board report did not accurately address the actions of lchris or of the tech team on July 18.  The report is written as if the staff resigned in response to lchris (temporarily) removing their powers.  But that was not the case.  Resignations began before lchris had any reason to remove staff powers.

As “mischief” increased on the forum, Lchris temporarily blocked staff, saying that someone “with access” must have been causing it. In fact, very unusual things were happening on the forum.  Members watched as new admin accounts were created and other things, such as staff names, were changed.

According to the Board report, new admin accounts were created by Judyokla and Danileo.  The statement in the Board report that the new accounts were created for the innocent purpose of "redundancy" is not reliable in light of this statement by a tech team member during the August 12 tech team meeting:

“I felt at this time we were  under a hostile take over and I was an Admin of this site - i created 2 accts myself trying to stay ahead of you and keep you from taking it over” 

The Board report stated that those new admin accounts were created with the knowledge of Pickled Tink and were “never secret”.  This is confusing.  The tech team member clearly believed that the “takeover” was real and tried to prevent it.  Did Pickled Tink also believe in the Takeover hoax?  Did the tech team take that action with the full knowledge and permission of Pickled Tink?

When Pickled Tink resigned, she did not say a word about the supposed takeover which had had Lonni nearly in hysterics.  That is curious.  Didn’t Tink get the memo?  You’d think Lonni would have told her. Why didn’t Tink either reassure Lonni and everyone else that it wasn’t true or deal with it if it was?                                            

Will anyone ever tell the truth about those events?

I am not satisfied that the Board report did that.  There are errors of fact and errors of omission.  The investigation, by a friend of one of the parties involved and at her house, did not fulfill the requirements of an independent investigation.  Blaming the events of July 18 on “database errors” is convenient, but inaccurate.

Because I was among those falsely accused in the takeover-plot-that-wasn’t, I have been paying close attention to the events recorded in the Transparency thread.  It has raised questions in my mind about staff involvement in the events of mid-July.  What did they know and when did they know it?  The Board report does little to answer those questions.  Will we ever know?

Note:  Because the report of the Board has proved inadequate in supplying members the complete picture of the events of July 18, lchis has taken the step of sharing information towards that end.

Transparency in Hindsight, Part 3

Note:  The links no long work.  It appears that the entire Transparency thread has been deleted.  However, I have previously made a copy of the entire thread.

I am going to interrupt revisiting the Transparency thread because I have just read something that helps make sense of what happened. Dyebat has posted on her own blog.

SB : Our Story

This part is very enlightening:

The level of distrust was incredible. The staff of susan-boyle.com did not want member ownership of the site for fear that the “DJG’ers” would seize control and take down the site. They demanded that we accept no loans from any “DJG’er” lest they renege on the loans and leave us holding the bag. Once the site was won at auction they were going to “clean out” all the troublemakers/DJG’ers and prevent any more from joining.

Hmmm………. after the auction, staff were going to get rid of the DJGers? How could they do that? They couldn’t just ban them for no reason, could they? No, they would need a reason.......

Hmmm………. and what about Citroenlady? She was not a member of DJG’s. She would have to be a special case…………

I had thought the Dementor was the source of the lies about the supposed takeover. Now I am beginning to wonder…….

Something to think about while I get back to the Transparency thread.

Page 28 07-18-2010 11:02 PM

Truus returned after having been away a few days. Someone must have caught her up on the supposed plot. Truus laid it out with unfortunate candor, considering that is was not true. She said it was a “planned takeover”. She claimed that Dyebat, lchris and Tweek led members the wrong way and were not honest. She said lchris had decided to “wipe all the staff out”. (#1083)

In fact, about a half hour before that, lchris had temporarily blocked staff access. She started a thread and explained that it was because “one or more mods and/or others with access are causing mischief”. She noted that it was all recorded in logs.

Heads up to all members

It was suggested that Hulapig may not have been the one posting in her name. (#1087) (She was.)

Judyokla resigned in post #1092. A member had posted about having to choose between staying or going to a new site. Danileo answered her that they would “inform those interested” when the doors were open. Then Danileo also resigned. (#1093, #1094)

In post # 1095, Truus offered Tweek some valuable advice, which she herself does not appear to have taken. She told Tweek that if she made a mistake or got carried away, she should admit it. She told Tweek if she cared about the site, she should tell the truth.

Members were still confused and didn’t know what to believe. Sadly, this is still the case for many.

In post #1100, lchris expressed surprise at the rumors of a “planned takeover” because the staff was to be given more seats on the Board than non-staff.

Truus repeated her allegations of a “planned takeover”. (#1104) It was never true, but someone had done a good job convincing her. Was it other staff members?

Members expressed concern over the upheavals and staff resignations.

Page 29  07-19-2010 12:08 AM

BrooklynBlessings posted a couple times about reconciliation. No one was listening, though things seemed to have calmed down a bit. But MartyPA posted to remind people that being polite and calm didn’t mean one was telling the truth.(#1139)

Mirrim posted to support that there was a “takeover”.(#1147)

Page 30 07-19-2010 02:52 AM

In post #1163, Pickled Tink resigned. She addressed communication problems, differences of opinion and management styles, and some lingering questions about the auction and Kalua’s identity. There were issues of mutual distrust.

Most members still didn’t know what to think.

Page 31 07-19-2010 07:34 AM

Members were waiting to hear from Dyebat. Meanwhile, Lonni claimed that the small minority (the takeover group, I suppose) were “happy campers”, having accomplished their mission. (#1223)

In post #1227, MartyPA said that members had to decide who to believe, without all the information. Unfortunately, that is still true today. She asked if the entire staff lied.

Lonni still believed she knew who “they” were.(#1233)

Page 32 07-19-2010 11:16 AM

Some members thought that the problems were part of the normal growing pains of setting up a corporation. That was not true. That would have been workable. Instead, lies were deliberately spread about people. Those lies were believed and spread farther.

Members had been waiting for Dyebat to post. She finally did and said she thought mods were being misled. (#1278) She did not seem to understand why the uproar had ensued over the need to identify prospective board members as real people. Frankly, I don’t either, because as Dyebat notes, the first two mods to resign could already be verified as real people.

Dyebat said that she had no independent verification of Kalua’s identity. She said he refused to speak on the phone or provide any information to Dyebat or lchris regarding his identity. Dyebat mentioned that Mirrim went to staff meetings, even though she was not staff. And Dyebat said that members were in the middle of a mystery. And unfortunately, we still are.

Page 33 07-19-2010 02:50 PM

Members debated whether Kalua should receive special treatment or be required to provide identifying information. Monkeytech noted that such a disagreement did seem reason enough to tear the whole forum apart. She said it was obvious there was more involved and was disappointed Dyebat did not reveal more in her post. (1289)

UKSusanfanAnn agreed that there must be something “more” to what was going on. (#1294, #1295) In hindsight, I believe she was correct about that.

Lonni posted that she had spoken to Kalua regularly, so she thought the claim that he would not speak to Dyebat and lchris was ridiculous. (#1308)

There were questions about who donated the money for the auction. In #1316, WAMcKinley posted about the return of the banned members:

"Well, the new site owners hadn't given them entry,--------so who did?? It could only have been someone on staff with access to the right place, the knowledge of how to do this,-----and, it would seem to me, a desire to cause mischief on this forum. Now just who would do something like that?? Certainly none of our former "trusted" moderators or tech staff! WOULD they?? Naw. That would be too conniving and petty."


(Quote posted with permission of the author)

Transparency in Hindsight, Part 2

Note:  The links no long work.  It appears that the entire Transparency thread has been deleted.  However, I have previously made a copy of the entire thread.

Page 23 07-18-2010 08:49 PM

In post 887 (08:59 PM), UKSusanfanAnn suggested that there might be a “mole” reading the thread, LEM, and directed members to her name at the bottom of the thread.  I find it interesting that she used the familiar “LEM”, rather than “Lovin’ Every Minute” as it appeared on the page. 

One minute later (09:00 PM), Hulapig announced that “banned and resigned members” were being let in and complimented UKSusanfanAnn on her “astute” observation.  (#891) 

In post #900(09:06 PM), Hulapig declared that LEM was a “banned” member and stated that “YOUR staff” was not doing it.

Citroenlady said she was delighted to see LEM in post #903(09:09 PM). In post #907(09:11 PM), Bubblegum remarked on the appearance of Luz in the thread list and asked who was “letting them in”.

Hulapig posted that the “Job Faire” had begun. (#909, 09:11 PM) 

It was explained by WAMcKinley that LEM was a former mod and had resigned, and then was banned. WAM suggested that perhaps LEM had been “accorded amnesty”.(#910, 09:12 PM)

In post #916(09:13 PM), Hulapig asserted that the 24-hour waiting period for new members had changed and no one told her.  She posted that people should “wake up!”

Page 24 07-18-2010 09:15 PM

In post #921(09:15 PM), Hulapig said she thought Citroenlady had a clue about who was letting in the banned members.

I have included the time on the above posts because I think it is interesting.  UKSusanfanAnn “noticed” a banned member and one minute later, Hulapig announced that banned and resigned members were being let in.  Wouldn’t the normal reaction be to check out the situation before making such an announcement?  One minute hardly gave Hulapig time to do that.

Sixteen minutes after LEM was noticed, Hulapig suggested that Citroenlady had “a clue” to what happened.  But we know that Citroenlady was not involved.  It is easy to prove she was not in any moderator or admin panel at that time. She did not become a temporary moderator until 20 hours later.  We also know that the supposed “takeover” was not true.  So why would Hulapig say that? 

As you read the rest of the thread, keep in mind that there was never a plot by anyone to “takeover” the forum. 

After Hulapig suggested Citroenlady would know, a couple of members asked CL what was going on.  She replied, “This is as much of a surprise to me as you to Hulapig, but I am extremely pleased to see good people come back here, as I am sure most of us will be!”  (#929) 

In post #942, a “new” member posted to say “he” could tell what was going on. He said he knew who the “troublemakers who keep asking the same questions over and over” were.   It is obvious that larryF was the fake ID of someone who was there under another identity.  No one new to posting would have been in on the “attack” storyline.  Even members who had been there a long time had a hard time figuring it out, unless told.  I think larryF may have gotten the email from Lonni.  In fact, he practically could have written it……

In post #946, Hulapig began to go completely off the rails.  She said she was going out with a bang.  In a sort of looking glass reversal, she claimed that the staff (who believed in a takeover hoax) were giving honest answers, but the ringleaders of the “fiasco” were not.  Knowing that there was no takeover fiasco puts a different light on this assertion.  Beware the “new hulapig”, indeed.

In post 956, UKSusanfanAnn declared that the forum had “split” and three old members had appeared.  She noted Clix Pix, LEM & Luz were there.

Page 25 07-18-2010 09:43 PM

Discussion of the “banned” members continued.  Jayhawk fan said they were coming in by the “busloads”. (#966)  Others welcomed them back. 

Hulapig posted the reasons for Clix Pix’s banning, including the time she got a warning for something the cyber-stalker had actually done.  (#972, #974)  I believe that sort of post contravened usual staff policy.

Hulapig began posting insults. (#977, #984, #988, #996)

BrooklynBlessings made a post about reconciliation and reinstatement that would have been helpful had it come before the cyber-stalker troll did his damage.  Because staff thought they were already under attack, it was not even considered. (#982)

In post #995, d’artanian stated that it was obvious this was all “prearranged”.  In hindsight, I  wonder if there wasn't some truth to that, though not in the way d'artanian meant it.

In post #1000, Hulapig thanked UKSusanfanAnn for asking the “correct questions”. 

Page 26 07-18-2010 09:59 PM

In post #1001, lchris said that she did not know what was going on and that Tink had not approved any formerly banned members.  She asked Hulapig if she was doing it?

Hulapig’s posts continued to deteriorate,  She told UKSusanfanAnn that they were in “Truthland” now and that there would be a place “for all of us”.(#1015, #1023) 

In post #1019, UKSusanfanAnn joined in saying it looked prearranged.   Hmmmm.....  What if it was prearranged, but not by any attackers?

Members expressed concern about Hulapig’s uncharacteristic behavior.  But Trennie proved to have been an astute observer.  She said that Hulapig’s actions were not out of control, but were designed to sow “more discord”.(#1028)

In post #1029 Hulapig denied letting in the banned members.  She then seemed to accuse both lchris and Citroenlady of doing it. 

In post #1031, UKSusanfanAnn described what appears to have been the game plan: allow banned members in, split the forum in the ensuing chaos, claim it was all prearranged (most likely by those “same people”).

Page 27 07-18-2010 10:28 PM

Hulapig said she was leaving, but that “we” would find a place for Tree.  (#1043)  “We” were gone, but she hoped to see RIK soon. (#1055)  UKSusanfanAnn posted that there was more to this than meets the eye.(#1066).  Does Ann knows what that “more” was?  It wasn’t the DJGers. 

In post #1071, WAMcKinley pointed out that good members had been punished for far less than Hulapig had done. 

While these things were happening in July, I found them confusing.  Now I find them disturbing.  I do not like the questions they raise.  Why did Hulapig try to pin the blame on Citroenlady only 16 minutes after the banned member was noticed?  She could not have had any evidence at that point (nor later, because there was none).  Being happy to see LEM is hardly proof that she had somehow gotten into the control panel.

It is clear that Hulapig was among those who believed in the takeover scenario.  But until now, the only ones mentioned as trying to “take over” had been those “same” people and the DJGers.  In spite of the claims of some that they know who those “same” people are, I cannot quite establish the parameters of the group.  But I do know that Citroenlady was not a member of DJG’s forum at that time.

Citroenlady had been concerned about past bannings under less than fair circumstances.  She was not operating in secret.  She had held discussions with both admins towards possibly finding some means of reconciliation.  Just what was so threatening about that?

Why did Hulapig suggest that Citroenlady might know about the readmission of the banned member?  Why did the Board report falsely name her as the one who readmitted Clix Pix?  Was it was an attempt to discredit Citroenlady and turn members against her?   This smear campaign was started by the cyber-stalker months ago.   What disturbs me is that members of susan-boyle.com seem to have been aiding and abetting him in it.

Transparency in Hindsight, Part 1

Note:  The links no long work.  It appears that the entire Transparency thread has been deleted.  However, I have previously made a copy of the entire thread.

I am waiting for the report by Dyebat and lchris about what the records show happened last July.  In the meantime, I am going to revisit one record to which I have access, the Transparency thread. 

I spent some time recently rereading parts of the Transparency thread.  It is remarkable how different it looks in hindsight, especially in light of the Board confirmation that there was no “takeover” attempt.  I recommend it if you have time.  Especially if you believe that the problems on the forum in mid-July can all be blamed on “database errors”.  But I know most can't, so I am offering the "Cliff notes" version.

In their report, the Board of SBFII tried to pin the blame for letting in a banned member on Citroenlady.  It is not difficult to figure out that she could not have done that because she had no access to either mod or admin controls at the time.  The Board members were told in lchris’s report in August that the records show she did not do it.  Yet they still tried to blame Citroenlady.  Why?  Were they protecting the person who actually did it?

The thread is very long and I can’t cover everything, but I will note the things that interested me on this later reading of the thread.  Other people might have chosen other posts to highlight.  I will skip over the many, many post of those who were trying to figure out what was happening, but had no idea. I will pay attention to those who seemed to “know”.  Times are in Central Time.

Page 1 07-16-2010 04:18 PM

The thread starts off with Dyebat explaining that she wished to operate in an open and transparent manner.  Also, that the realities of being a non-profit corporation require that the persons involved be “real people”, not just an internet screen names.  Most people can understand that.  Those who have worked with non-profits confirmed this. Members were supportive.

Page 2 07-16-2010 10:36 PM

Members continued to be supportive.  They discussed the coming Board.  Most members continued to support Dyebat.  In posts #65 and 72, Hulapig questioned Dyebat’s role and stated that something seems “out of order.  Staff started to question putting their information “on the web”, though that was never requested by Dyebat. 

Page 3 07-17-2010 12:40 PM

Members continued to discuss Dyebat’s intention for transparency.  In post #95, KateOhio said that Hulapig’s questions have the purpose of transparency “clearer”.  In post #98, Waldog denigrated Dyebat and resigned.  Soon Stevieboy tendered his resignation also.  To much of the forum, myself included, this made no sense.  Both had already publicly revealed their real names on the forum so why were they now upset about transparency?  Many members posted asking them to reconsider. 

Page 4 07-17-2010 02:18 PM

Members discuss the auction and who lent money.  They continue to express regret about the resignations.

Page 5 07-17-2010 03:46 PM

Members comment on the NPO and transparency requirements. Maddy asks about conflicts of interest.  In post #161, Catz asked “Why all the fuss?”.  Why indeed?  Trennie agreed in post #164.  Members did not seem to understand what “the fuss” is about.  I did not.

Page 6 07-17-2010 05:23 PM

In post #216, Pickled Tink said all information required by law had been provided. UKSusanFanAnn, in post #228, stated that Waldog and Stevieboy were letting the people who shout the loudest win and get exactly the result they want!  It was unclear at the time who that might be.

Mirrim posted a curious comment in which she says that as a nod to members, staff had Dyebat give the final bid.  It raised a question about how staff could know which bid would be final. (Post#230)

Page 7 07-17-2010 06:05 PM

Pickled Tink claimed that none of staff are involved in any “PAID” employment which would be a conflict of interest, though some may be volunteer mods on other sites. (Post #244) 

Xeno asked about access to the administrative control panel.  Lonni, Pickled Tink and Danileo said lchris has such access. (#248, #254, #259)

UKSusanFanAnn posted the first of many posts claiming it was the “same names” all the time.  She declared we are “at war!!!”.  (Post 249)  In post #257, Catz asked Mirrim if she was “sending a message” with her menacing avatar.  I didn’t think much of it at the time, but can’t help wondering about it now.  Mirrim then posted a quote from the V for Vendetta comic series. (#265)

In post 269, UKSusanFanAnn posted that she could see what Waldog and Stevieboy mean by “hidden agenda”.  If so, she was one of the few. 

Page 8 07-17-2010 06:49 PM

Xeno posted to say that website owners , such as Dyebat, must keep the power to administer the site in their own hands or “chaos may ensue.” (#284)  In post 287, Danileo asserted that chaos has already ensued.

In post 288, UKSusanFanAnn explained what she meant by “hidden agendas”; people wanting to stir up the forum and cause the forum to fall.  With hindsight, it is clear that she has heard the false rumors about the supposed takeover.  (#288) 

Page 9 07-17-2010 08:33 PM

In response to my question, Pickled Tink said that she is a mod on the OS.  (#332)  In post #335, Danileo addresses me by my real name, although I had never given her that information.  I contacted Lonni, because she appeared to be online, and asked that my name be removed.  Lonni never responded, so I contacted lchris, who removed my name.  Some discussion of that follows, including the claim that I had never complained and would receive an apology.  Neither were true. (#355, #365 )

Page 10 07-17-2010 10:16 PM

In post 395, Pickled Tink said the fact that she was a mod on both susan-boyle.com and on the official site was not a conflict of interest.

In post #396 jayhawk fan said it was the “same people” doing all the complaining.  Petty bickering ensued. 

Page 11 07-18-2010 12:11 AM

In Post #430, Lonni joined the “same people” chorus and explained that “we” knew who they were and were aware of their motivation.  She implied that the “people who are supposed to be helping us” (Dyebat and lchris) had joined forces with “them”.  She said “they” wanted to eliminate the staff. 

Later this same morning, Lonni would send out an email to some members, asking them to “post against Chris and Dyebat's actions”.  She claimed that Dyebat and lchris were “in league with DJG and his followers”, who wanted to bring the forum to its knees.  In one of the most ironically false statements I have seen, Lonni said that if members wanted to save the forum, they should get as much help as they could and “start posting the truth”.  The problem was that her “truth” was a lie.

Page 12 07-18-2010 07:21 AM

More heat, little light.

Page 13 07-18-2010 12:13 PM

In post # 481 Kalua resigned. When members expressed dismay at this, Lonni advised them to “think about who is causing all the trouble.”  (#493)  Jayhawk fan posted about the “takeover”.  She thought she knew who was responsible.  (# 501) Did she get an email from Lonni? 

Lonni claimed that “they” were receiving help from the “very people that most of you think you can trust”, Dyebat and lchris. (#501)  In post 513, Lonni ratcheted up the rhetoric by claiming the site was being taken over by people who were evil. 

Page 14 07-18-2010 01:07 PM

At post 521, Lonni said there were people who “want our forum and will do or say anything to get it”.

The forum is now divided into three groups; those who are sure the evil DJGers are taking over the forum, those who know that the takeover is lies and nonsense and those who don’t have a clue what is going on.  From post 542, it appears that KateOhio is among those who believe the lies about the takeover.

In post #550, Dyebat explained that Kalua refused to give any identifying information and so tendered his resignation  The Board would later decide it didn’t mind the site being administrated by an unidentified person and allow him to return to the position of admin. 

Those who were privy to the story about the hoax takeover kept posting about it, but most members were simply confused.  Some are getting frustrated with the allusions to the takeover, without specifics.

Page 15 07-18-2010 01:56 PM

In post #566, WAMcKinley posted about her experience with other forums.  She stated that she had seen “no evidence” of any intent to take over or take down the forum.  In response to questions about who was trying to take down the forum, UKSusanFanAnn replied that she had “no idea”, in spite of her earlier claim that it was the “same” people. (#571)

In post #576, Trennie was torn because she trusted Dyebat and lchris, but “sweet Lonni....” was telling her bad people were trying to assume control.  In post #580, UKSusanFanAnn said Misha was in the minority for doubting the takeover.  Those who didn’t believe in the takeover remained fairly calm, as did the ranks of the confused.  Those who believed that a takeover was in progress were, as you might imagine, rather upset.

lchris sent out letters to prospective Board members. (#596)

In a post ripe with irony, UKSusanFanAnn responded to my statement that I didn’t believe Dyebat would do anything that wasn’t in the best interest of the forum.  She called it “innuendoes and conspiracy theories” and wished someone would speak plainly. (#597)

Page 16 07-18-2010 02:43 PM

In post 607, RIK said he has “learned things” that were disturbing.  He was one of the recipients of email from Lonni.  I commend him for not jumping on the bandwagon and making unfounded accusations.

In post 608, Dyebat called for an end to the bickering and explained about the need for identification. She explained how the incorporation of the non-profit was going. There was little clarity in the subsequent posts, but most remained calm. 

Page 17 07-18-2010 03:16 PM

In post 642, Mirrim claimed to have had Kalua’s information for some time.

In post 654, RIK stated that he was asked to “say something”, but added to the confusion by talking about a power struggle among admins and mods.  I still don’t know what he was talking about.

Page 18 07-18-2010 03:59 PM

In post 692, Dyebat questioned Mirrim’s role and her claim to have Kalua’s information.  Some members deny or doubt the takeover theories.

Page 19 07-18-2010 05:13 PM

Martha E has started a different thread, supporting staff.  In post 747, Pontelle revealed that Orgonon, the cyber-stalker, has been sending out PMs.  Dyebat posted supporting the staff. (#748)

In post 749, UKSusanFanAnn asked why staff were leaving and “setting up a new site”.

Page 20 07-18-2010 06:42 PM

Dyebat posts that she is committed to the fansite lchris agrees.  (#761, #766)

In post #774, d’artanian claims that the answers to what is going on are there in the thread.  Other members are still trying to figure out what is going on.

Page 21 07-18-2010 07:38 PM

Members continue to be confused.  Support is offered for Dyebat and for staff.

Page 22 07-18-2010 08:21 PM

More frustration without answers.

It is clear that the poison spread by the cyber-stalker had done its work.  Both moderators and members believed the lies.  This leads me to some questions:

1) Did all staff members believe the supposed takeover was real?
2) Did they have any plans to counter or sabotage the "attack"?
3) If so, what were those plans?

The Downward Spiral

I have written a lot about the Cyber-bully and his involvement in the problems plaguing Susan Boyle fan forums.  But not everything can be laid at his door.  He could not have accomplished what he did without the aid of others. 

Staff and admins at susan-boyle.com chose to believe someone who sent messages in secret.  They chose to believe someone who had been banned many times from their own site.  They chose to believe someone who said things contradictory to what they knew.

Both Pickled Tink and Kalua held a discussion with Citroenlady about the future of the forum.  They knew she wasn’t doing this in secret.  If she had been involved in some kind of takeover plot, why would she bother to discuss it with them?

Staff wanted to believe the things the Cyber-bully told them, so they did.  They felt persecuted by the other forums and so believed the worst of them.  They fell for it, but it wasn’t true.

Why did staff feel that way about the other forum?  Because there was quite a bit of frustration, resentment and anger there.   Why would members of another forum feel this way?  It was a direct result of the way the forum at susan-boyle.com was moderated in the early days. 

The first major upheaval I recall was the closing of a thread because a few had asked for it.  Other members were actively posting on that thread at the time and the closure became an issue.  A thread was started about the closed thread, with some members asking a lot of questions and making their views known.  That thread resulted in the banning of at least two members. 

That was my first inkling that something was wrong and I began to pay more attention.  In the summer and fall of 2009, mods did not seem accountable for their actions.   I noticed threads and posts deleted, often without explanation.  Some people would get warned repeatedly and others seemed to get away with almost anything.  People were banned for things that would be allowed today.  I have already discussed my experiences in being punished for violating unwritten rules.

DJG-Scotland became the focus of staff actions.  He was not always persona non grata as he is today.  He began like any other member and was more helpful than most because he shared his knowledge and helped people with videos.  He also has a sense of humor and began posting visual jokes.  They were harmless and some were silly, but there were complaints from a few who did not appreciate his humor. 

A humor section was created and he was told to post his jokes there.  There was not any such rule for verbal jokes.  Members could and did post funny lines in threads outside the humor section.  It would have been a far duller place to be if that did not occur.

For the most part, DJG complied. But sometimes a joke needed the context of the thread to be understood properly.  So sometimes he posted them in the relevant thread.  

That earned him a banning.  He did not see it coming and was taken by surprise.  The staff had sent him a PM, but since he was banned, he couldn’t access it for a week.  But he did hear from others about the explanation posted on the forum.  It galled him that the mod claimed DJG “understood” because he definitely did not.  When the week was over, he read the message and it contained a different reason than the one posted on the forum.  This lead to even greater resentment because it seemed staff were making up excuses for their actions. 

This was the impetus to creation of his “humor forum”.  It gave him a voice and way to keep in contact with those he had met on the forum.  It also became a place to say those things which were suppressed on the main forum.  Besides humor and some admittedly juvenile joking, there was an area for letting off steam, the built up frustration that had accumulated as a result of the arbitrary moderation elsewhere.

For a while, the moderation of the forum seemed to have improved.  The rules were clearer.  There were better guidelines for moderation.  (Had there been any before?)  The system was far from perfect, but it was better.  However, recently the staff, following Board instructions, has begun to label controversial posts as contentious, accompanied by deletions and arbitrary punishments.

And the fact that the rules are not applied in an even-handed manner to all members is demonstrated on a regular basis.  One member was banned immediately for “piracy”, yet others received the benefit of the doubt and a chance to remove the problem post.  The hypocrisy was especially blatant when a moderator posted suggesting that members go directly to YouTube to perform their own illegal downloads. KateOhio post #106

Inequities in moderation are also in evidence in the enforcement of the rule prohibiting the posting of “allegations, rude or derogatory comments, innuendo or gossip about another member”.  Some members have been allowed to do this, including moderators. 

We saw recently how frustration at perceived inequities and censorship can lead previously civil members to act in ways out of character for them, much in the same way staff did last July.  To my knowledge, there have been no repercussions for the staff.

The combination of arbitrary decisions and the inability to question those decisions is a toxic one.  You feel what has been done is unfair, but also that you are not allowed to express those feelings without repercussions.  Heavy-handed moderation inevitably leads to resentment.  Unequal heavy-handed moderation leads to even greater resentment.

From the beginning of the humor forum, staff members joined DJG’s to keep tabs on what was happening there, often under different names.  They were not there for any positive reason.   People who listen at keyholes rarely hear good of themselves, so they became aware of the frustration and resentment which had no expression elsewhere.  And because they were aware of this, staff were eager to believe the Cyber-stalker when he spun his stories about a takeover.

We still have the lingering effects from those days of anything-goes moderation, compounded by the recent crack down on expression.  The antagonism goes both ways and led to a situation that was ripe for the bully to manipulate.