Purge at SBFII

In an action contrary to their own rules, the staff at SBFII conducted a purge last month.  At least seven members were put into pre-moderation status on Feb. 17.   All of their posts must now be approved by staff being allowed on the forum.  There was no expiration date given for the pre-censorship.  Not all of them belonged to the infamous humor site.

Their messages read:

Pre-Moderation Status
Due to the provocative content of your posts, from now on and until further notice you are being put on pre-mod. All your post will be moderated.

SBFII Staff

What in the world happened on Feb. 17?  Was there a great uprising, leading members to make such outrageous posts that a whole slew of them had to be sanctioned?  What happened? 

Well, nothing specific happened on Feb. 17 except that the staff at SBFII got fed up with criticism.  Two new blogs were started in the days prior to that, one by Sassyone and one anonymous.   There is no evidence that any of those on pre-mod status had anything to do with those blogs. 

If SBFII staff knew for sure which member was responsible for the anonymous blog, they would have been banned, as Sassyone and I were.  But they did not, so instead they punished people who had nothing to do with it. 

And Mirrim, who was often privy to staff conversations, knew it was coming.  In the early hours of Feb. 17th she posted that she was “happy to see the administration of this site finally take a solid stand and oust these individuals.”  This included members who had not broken any rules.

It is clear that the sanctions were planned and not in response to any specific posts.  Some of those put into pre-moderation status had not even posted recently. 

For example, LEM had not posted since mid-December.  Yet she received an email, more than two months later, informing her she was now being pre-moderated.   Another member had received one warning almost a year earlier.  Her last post had been weeks before Feb. 17th and not at all provocative.  Others were posting, but had not posted anything deserving of censure. Yet all were punished on Feb. 17th.

One of those who is now censored asked a Board member about the mass sanctions.  She asked staff and then replied as follows:

This is what I have found out: The persons who were put on Pre Moderation had received a warning prior to Pre Moderation status. I was told you had received such from Kalua. Although to you, it might look like it was a group, as one entity, move to place all on Pre Moderation, I was told that was not the case. Each person was considered individually and the decision reached was done individually.

This is clearly not true.  Some had received no warnings.  Some had received a warning quite a while prior to being sanctioned.  In one case, the warnings were more than a year old.  And yet all received the message that they were being sanctioned on the same day.  Not a group?  Not believable.  Not  when some hadn’t even posted in weeks.

According to latest rules, posted Dec 2010, there are a series of steps to go through when sanctioning members.  These were clearly not followed.

Sanctions Policy

Warnings stay on record for 12 calendar months.
1. First warning - No sanctions, but a PM reminder of the rules and notification of warning.
2. Second warning - Moderated posts for 7 days. *Pre – Approval status
3. Third warning - Removal of posting and PM privileges for 30 days. *Read Only status
4. Fourth warning - Removal of posting and PM privileges for six months.*Read Only status
5. Fifth warning - Permanent removal of posting and PM privileges. Read-only privileges. *Read Only status
6. For very serious offences member will be issued a complete ban (persistent disruption of the forum, flagrant violation of the rules, bullying, cyber stalking and spamming)
Note: You can appeal the decision to the Appeal Panel as of the 4th warning.

Most of the members who received the group sanction had zero or one warning.  Yet they were put on permanent pre-moderation status, which should come only with the fifth warning.  It seems clear that the staff decided to rid themselves of members who asked awkward questions, who didn’t buy the party line fed them by staff.

This was not the first time they have thrown out the rules.  On Jan. 11, Skywriter was placed on pre-moderation status.  Her crime?  She posted this question:  “Why has knudt been banned?”  That was not a question they wanted to answer, because my banning did not follow the rules either.  So she was punished for asking.  She had no warnings at all, before or after being sanctioned.  She was not even notified that she was on pre-moderation status.  She didn’t find out until she tried to post.  Later, Pickled Tink would post that “asking questions in a polite manner is never discouraged”.  Tell that to Skywriter.

They got away with banning me contrary to the rules.  They got away with sanctioning Skywriter, contrary to the rules.  Perhaps those actions emboldened them.  Now they have sanctioned a whole group, again contrary to the rules.  And who can complain?  Just asking a question about it is enough to draw punishment. 

Why have rules, if they are not going to follow them?  Why lie about it to their own Board members?  It is not as if the Board has any backbone and will call them on anything the staff does.  Will they......?

Unraveling the Tangled Web

Why no blogs recently?  Have we been AWOL?  No, we have been busy. 

In January, lchris wrote this on her blog:

Dyebat and I would also like to thank Knudt for her time spent diligently investigating the July incident to get to the truth of what happened. There is still no public retraction stating that Dyebat, CL and I were not involved in any attempt to remove Staff or take over the site. The Board report still stands. Given these latest attempts to cover-up Staff/Member involvement, and the continued defamation - we will now provide access to all of our data to Knudt so that she can continue.  Stay tuned.

True to her word, lchris has provided a lot of data.  We have taken the time and trouble to go through this data because finding the truth is important to us.  And because no one else who could do it, would do it. 

This kind of investigation takes time, which is why the blogs have been quiet.  But we will get the information out.  We will be posting the results of our investigations into the events of last July.  As I have stated before, those who were falsely accused have never wished to move on without discovering just what did happen and who the culprits may be.

We have found some things which we expected and some things which surprised us.  There are going to be things that some of you do not wish to hear.  There are going to be things that some of you do not wish to believe.  Please remember that it is not just our word against that of others.  The evidence contained in the records is incontrovertible and would stand up in any court of law. 

The records we are examining were always available to the Board, had they wished to do an actual investigation.  I believe that some on the Board steered the investigation in other directions because they did not wish to expose the activities we have uncovered.  Should the Board have the courage to check our information, it is still possible to obtain the data independently

What the Board and membership of SBFII choose to do with this information is up to them.  Those who are implicated, and those who support them, will undoubtedly discourage follow-up and fact-finding. 

We wish only to bring you the truth, and it is within reach, after many hours of research.  Please bear with us.  It will take a little longer, but the end is in sight.

Unfinished Business .....

“Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.” 
Dwight David Eisenhower 

Why can’t we just move on?  Why not accept the apology given in the Board report and move on?  In my experience, people wanting to ”move on” are generally supporting those suspected of misconduct.  They would like to minimize the attention on the errant deeds and put it behind them.  This is not the normal reaction of those who have been falsely accused.  They would like the truth to be known.

Dyebat, lchris and Citroenlady KNOW they did not do the things of which they were accused.  They know that lies were told about them, willingly believed and passed on by the staff. 

Do those of you who believed “Mark Conner” or “Jenny” realize that it was the same cyber-troll that was already banned from the forum many times?  You know he put out false information in the past.  This was more of the same; cruel lies spun for those eager to believe them.  Some people, including staff, were still in contact with him in August, still believing his lies.

Those who think it should all be water under the bridge do not understand the true magnitude of what happened.  There was no attempt to take over the forum by lchris, Dyebat and Citroenlady. 

NONE. 

And, of course, they have always known that.  To understand the full impact of the lies told about them, it would be enlightening to read the Transparency thread with that in mind.  But that thread has been deleted.*

So why not move on now?  Because the staff has not admitted to their part in what happened last July.  Because the Board report was full of more lies.  Because the “apology” was made meaningless by including everyone.  Why apologize to those who told the lies along with their victims?  That kind of apology is null and void on arrival.

And why were only the members of DJG’s forum specifically exonerated?  There was an entire thread, sanctioned by staff, accusing Citroenlady, lchris and Dyebat of working with the members of another forum to take over SBFII.  I am a member of that forum and know it was completely untrue, but it was never retracted in the Board report.  Why not?

The Board report contained deliberate untruths.  It does not appear that anyone on the staff or Board actually wanted to find out the truth.  No one objected when the "independent investigation" was neither independent nor an investigation.  No one asked lchris about any of her data.  No one asked Hostgator.   Not the Board, not the "investigator".

The Board report was a whitewash of staff involvement in the events of last summer.  So we will continue to investigate ourselves.  We want to know the truth, even if no one else does. 


*The latest word from staff at SBFII is that if something is “sent via PM or email”, it is okay to share it.  So anyone desiring a print copy of the Transparency thread may request one at crknudt@hotmail.com.

Goodbye, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Adieu

I was banned from susan-boyle.com today.  This is the message shown when I tried to access the forum:

That seemed kind of strange.  I hadn’t posted anything for several days.  And what I did post was hardly disruptive.  Here is my complete record of posts from the past two weeks:

01-07-2011 05:00 PM
Thread: ** Leave of Absence **
I am glad you have decided to stay. I've enjoyed following your story. 

12-31-2010 05:46 PM
Thread: Celebrating our *OTHER SUSANS* encounters of 2010
Diane, that is a wonderful story! :hug: I know you felt great doing it, too.

That is it.  Those are my “disruptive” posts.  Obviously, the person who wrote the ban message was not telling the truth.  So why was I banned?

I got a message from Kalua.  Actually, it was a notification of a PM from Kalua.  I have only read it in my Hotmail account because I cannot access it on the forum.  Here is the message:

Knudt
For the last several days you have been copying and printing entire threads.
If I see you doing it once more you or one of your croonies I will ban you and the lot

I'm absolutely sure that the international court in The Hague will accept your complaint.

Your behaviour in this forum has become intolerable, you are warned! and if this pm lands in your blog, the same applies a complete ban
 
Kalua
Administrator

Since I am already banned, his prohibition against posting this message here seems moot.  Apparently, in spite of what the ban message said, I was banned for making copies of threads.  But why have a Thread Tool that shows a print version of threads if members are not allowed to make print copies? 

Something else happened today at susan-boyle.com that may shed some light on this situation.   A lot of threads disappeared.  Gone.  Down the Memory Hole.  The thread called Transparency & this site is gone.  The thread called Dyebat’s ride on Susan’s bus is another of the deleted threads. 

Is that the real problem?  Was I copying threads that the staff would rather no one have access to?  What are they trying to hide?  How can they possibly think they will succeed?   It is a good thing that several people have the complete set of the files.

Or was I banned for the things I have posted on my blog?  I can see why some staff and Board members might have a problem with that, especially those who are not telling the truth.

Begin at the beginning…………

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.

What flavor of Kool-aid is served at those Board meetings?

How do they do it?  How did ordinary, basically truthful members become the sort of people who now fail to speak out when they know lies are being told in their name?

It happened with the official report, when lies were told about Citroenlady unbanning a member, lies that Board members must have known could not be true.  It happened again when John V sent a letter to Citroenlady, withdrawing the offer to chair the Appeals Panel. 

In his message to Citroenlady, John V said it was a Board decision and gave a couple of reasons for the decision.  I have looked for that decision in the minutes of the Board meetings, but it is not there. 

The minutes do mention the decision, during the Nov. 6 meeting, to remove lchris’s access and later to send a letter informing her of such.  But there is no mention of Citroenlady. 

There is one item in the minutes from Nov. 6 which is likely to have been that discussion.  It is listed as a “closed personnel item”.  Is that when Citroenlady was sacked?  It seems very likely, because according to the minutes, at the very next meeting “Tink suggested Ponylady to chair” the Appeals Committee.  That would be rather premature unless the decision to remove Citroenlady had already been made.

I PM’d three Board members to confirm this.  I also sent an email.  Since John had already stated that the Board decided to withdraw the offer, it is hardly a secret.  Why not tell us when it was done?  But I received no replies to my query. 

Why is the timing of this decision such a big secret?  Because John lied about the reasons in his letter to Citroenlady?  Because other Board members knew he lied and failed to speak up? 

Why do I think he lied?  Because the reasons he gave had not yet occurred when the decision was apparently made. 

What reasons were given by John V for the Board decision in his message to Citroenlady?  First, was that the Board was disappointed because Citroenlady was “not willing to accept apologies given by Administrators,Staff and The Board”.  The second reason given was that CL’s blog “quotes and criticises members of our site”. 

If the decision was made on Nov. 6, those reasons cannot be true.  The Board report with the “apologies” was not posted until Nov. 14.  Citroenlady had not written any blogs about the site by Nov. 6 either.  If Citroenlady's dismissal occurred during the Nov 6 Board meeting, John V was not telling the truth.  And the other Board members knew that.  Yet none of them spoke up.  

"Be the change you wish to see... " Gandhi

 “Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.” Maria Robinson

The last few months have been an eye opener.  The Susan Boyle fan community has both delighted and disappointed me.

Some of my expectations and stereotypes have been shattered.  Like Dyebat said in her blog, friends have become enemies and enemies have become friends.

Previously, one of the greatest sources of friction had been the conflict between the pro-shippers and the anti-shippers.  But the barrier between these two groups was actually insubstantial.  We have much in common, including respect for fairness.  I find what we share is far more important than the ways in which we differ.

Shippers stood up for lchris, Dyebat and Citroenlady.  As a result, my respect for them has increased.  They have demonstrated the courage of their convictions.

And shippers are not the only ones who have exhibited wisdom and generosity of spirit during the recent conflicts.  Many other members have demonstrated that they were concerned with fairness and truth.  I have been heartened by this.

At the same time that I have been encouraged by the basic decency of much of the Susan Boyle fan base, I find I am disappointed in others.

There are some fans whose pre-conceived ideas about others color their beliefs so much that they readily, even eagerly, accepted lies and misinformation as gospel.   Fans who cling to erroneous ideas, in spite of the facts, are present on both ‘sides’ of the recent conflicts.  Ironically, this includes both those about whom the cyber-bully has lied and his unwitting accomplices.

While I have been both pleasantly surprised and disappointed by the recent behavior of Susan Boyle fans, the positive far outweighs the negative.   I believe the answer to moving forward must lie with the fans who are willing to join together in a forum that respects fans and puts them first.  Together we can work toward an inclusive fan group based on our shared appreciation for Susan Boyle and our mutual respect for each other.

With the support of lchris and Dyebat, Citroenlady and I have recently started a new forum.  It is not meant to replace any other forum, but to be a fansite where fans can follow Susan's career without corporate influence. It is a site run by fans, for all fans. Everyone is welcome.

Here is the link:  Susan Boyle Fans