Staff Walkout

There are a few more pieces of the puzzle to put together.  In her July 18th email to selected members (hours before the "admin mischief" began), LonniR stated that “unless the good members such as yourself and as many friends as you can muster do not post against Chris and Dyebat's actions, the entire staff is prepared to resign today.”

What action of Dyebat’s and Chris’s was so egregious that the entire staff of forum.susan-boyle.com was prepared to resign?  They had asked for identification.

Back in May, Dyebat and lchris had discussed the formation of the NPO with staff.  All had agreed to the NPO prior to the auction. Dyebat and lchris assumed it would be done quickly (within days of winning the auction, should they win) and that Kalua would be the Director of the Board.   Kalua was aware of this, of course.  So was the staff. 

In the minutes of the staff meeting of June 17, item f lists the future Board members as chosen by staff.  It included Kalua (Carlos).

STAFF MEETING JUNE 17, 2010

Staff Present: Carlos, Hils, Dani, Judy, Ross, Lonni

4. Corporate Structure

f. Board Members were chosen from staff: Hils, Lonni, Ross, Carlos, and
Judy. Graeme will serve as alternate. Chris and Mary Jo will choose 2
board members from the membership.

Kalua knew very early in the process that the Board members were required to provide a real name and address.  Chris provided staff with the forms that would be necessary for the NPO.  The information required of those on the Board included name, address and phone number.  That is the information which Kalua refused to provide.

 (Click on image to enlarge)

Anyone who has ever been involved in setting up an NPO knows that the information is both reasonable and necessary.  They did not ask for anything to be made available on the internet or to members.  That was exaggeration and disinformation spread by staff to make the requirements seem much more onerous than they actually were.

Kalua knew that he would be required to provide the information required on the form if he was to be a member of the Board.  But he neither provided it nor turned down a Board position. 

What happened instead was that the formation of the NPO was repeatedly delayed.  Dyebat and lchris found out later that they had been blamed for the delays. Finally, Dyebat began the Transparency thread out of frustration – raising the issue of the need for identification publicly as there was no plausible reason for the delay in supplying her with the necessary information for her to file the NPO.

And the staff made plans for a mass exodus.  

As LonniR said, “the entire staff is prepared to resign”.  Pickled Tink said the same in a basecamp discussion with lchris on July 18th.

Hils:    … .right now all of the satff are ready to walk –(sic)

The staff resignations were not spontaneous individual decisions.  It was a strategic maneuver.   Waldog and Stevieboy resigned on July 17th.  It had always seemed strange that two staff members whose real identities were known would resign over identification requirements.  But it would make sense if they were part of a planned walkout by staff.

Some members knew about the planned staff resignations.  On July 17th, Kalua and Pickled Tink sent out invitations to those staff and members who had contributed to their portion of the auction price.  They were to have an MSN meeting on July 18th.  Those invited were AireMom, bklvr79, Bobber, Danileo, Hulapig, jayhawk fan, JudyOkla, Kalua, Lonnirose, Martha Ellen, Mirrim, musictchr, stevieboy49, the subofan, truusbuist, Waldog and wasforgas.  Treedeen, the lender for the member's portion of the sale, was not invited.

To all Investors in staff contribution to bid for forum:
Dear Everyone,

We are sure that you may be somewhat bemused by the transparency thread and by some of the discussions currently taking place on the forum which have not been instigated by the staff. As you have all so generously contributed to the staff section of the bid we felt that we should update you on what is going on.

We would like to invite you all to join the staff at a meeting, on MSN tomorrow, Sunday 18th July  at 8pm BST,  3pm EDT,  9pm European time.

Please let us know as soon as possible if you are unable to make it and we will ensure that you are provided with the relevant information. We would be grateful if you did not discolse that this meeting is taking place to anyone outside of those named at the top of this PM.
For those of you who do not have it  my MSN address  is
[email]

Thank You

Kalua and Pickled Tink
Administrators.

The meeting took place within hours of Kalua’s resignation on July 18th. During the meeting, JudyOkla stated that it would “send a huge message if all staff resign at once”.

And much of the staff did resign.  Others had their staff powers temporarily withdrawn  because of the activities of the faux admins.  The activities of those new admins could only have taken place if the staff resigned.  Otherwise staff would have had to either stop them or appear complicit. 

It was harder for lchris to figure out who was doing what in the admin control panel because she had never been a moderator and was unfamiliar with those features of the forum.   Lchris knew someone was doing it, but not who, so on the evening of July 18th, she suspended staff privileges until Pickled Tink returned in the morning.  

Lchris thought that Tink would help get the remaining forum staff quickly reinstated.  But instead, Pickled Tink herself resigned early on July 19th. 

Even though she had resigned, Tink continued to discuss forum matters regularly with lchris and Dyebat, giving them instructions.  Over the next few days, lchris repeatedly asked Tink to get the staff to return.  Sometimes Tink ignored the request, other times she obfuscated, with vague excuses.  

snippets from CampFire

July 18
Chris:  Hils -  I don't want anyone to leave without cause - i have no issue with anyone here
Chris: Dyebat and I just wanted the site/staff to stay the same..
Chris: dyebat /I do nOt want to take over anything - all staff are her to stay
Chris: ok..so are staff all in? can we get stevie and ross back?
July 19
lchris3: I know but how are staff?  can you get them to return?
July 20
lchris2: please, just take the reigns and get back to the site
lchris2: We do not want to be in charge..shessh..you all walked out
lchris2: please, just take the reigns and get back to the site
lchris2: YOU GUYS LEFT THE SINKING SHIP
lchris2: Hils, I work for you - you tell me what to do
lchris2: just step in and be the boss   
lchris2:  huh? You return - make a post that you are back   
we did not take anything - you gave it away - you have to take it back
lchris2: you all walked away - sheesh
lchris2: So - have you un-resigned yet?
July 21
lchris2:  MJ/I are waiting for staff - you to return
lchris2: need to get mods back so I can get xeno/cl out
lchris2: you all left the ship or don't you recall???

The staff did not return on the 19th as lchris had expected.  It appears that Pickled Tink was telling the staff that lchris was keeping them out. On July 22, lchris was clearing the forum mailbox and came across a message from Pickled Tink to staff. (It was in the mailbox because Stevieboy had replied to the email notification which included the PM contents.) 

At the same time that lchris was asking for Tink to get the staff back, Pickled Tink told staff that “a return to the forum has been negotiated with lchris”.  Chris was begging for them to come back but Tink told them she negotiated their return, as if it were lchris who was keeping them out. 

Dyebat and lchris decided to take the opportunity of Kalua’s resignation to finally file for the NPO.  A few hours after Kalua left, they sent out invitations to staff members who were to be on the Board.   Lchris sent repeated requests for staff to reply to board invitations.   But no one replied for days.

snippets from CampFire

July 21
lchris2: THERE IS NOT ONE REPLY FROM STAFF - NOT ONE
lchris2: FOR DAYS
lchris2: NOT ONE
lchris2: Not a single staff has replied to the letter to be on the Board

It appears that the staff had planned the walkout to force the issue of Kalua’s identification requirements.  They would stay out until he was allowed to return, without providing identification.  Tink said in a discussion on July 20:

Hils:  I can not keep on in limbo- I ahve said to the staff I am with them and its eitehr all of us or none of us – (sic)

“Either all of us or none of us” was to be the staff ultimatum.   Perhaps the staff thought that the members would demand the return of Kalua.  To that end, the staff encouraged members to make posts in support of staff.  Martha Ellen did just as she had been asked in the email from LonniR and started a support thread for staff. 

But the walkout was cut short because Dyebat and lchris took advantage of the staff walkout to finally file for the NPO.  Kalua could no longer block the NPO because he had resigned. 

On July 18th, they sent out letters to prospective Board members.  But the staff members who had received them did not reply.  Finally, lchris issued a deadline.  If they did not reply, the seats would go to regular members instead of staff.  Facing the prospect of losing seats on the Board, the staff began to reply to the Board invitations. 

As soon as they received affirmative replies from two Board members, lchris and Dyebat did what they had wanted to do for over two months.  They filed for the NPO.

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.

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.  

True Lies

Just when I think I have seen it all, I am again awed by the amazing agility of the human mind.  The ability to twist truth into lies and lies into truth was demonstrated during an exchange I had recently with a UK Susan Boyle fan. 

I don't call them lies, I call them a difference of opinion.

Let’s see…  if you think something happened (even if it didn’t), is it your opinion that matters, rather than the truth?

I differed in my opinion from others and who I chose to believe, it is a free country.

You may indeed differ in your opinions and in whom you choose to believe.  But that still does not make the issue a matter of opinion.  If you choose to believe the earth is flat, that does not mean it is flat.  It simply means you are wrong.  You chose to believe the cyber-bully, but that does not mean the things he told you were true.  It simply means you were wrong. 

Thye (sic) and I were posting our thoughts as we saw them, we are entitled to our opinion.

“Our thoughts as we saw them”?  No matter how divorced from reality those thoughts were, you cling to them as an entitlement.  As the saying goes; you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.  Some members who believed in the takeover hoax appear to be so invested in the erroneous scenario that they cannot let it go. 

I suspect that is why we did not get actual apologies for the lies and false accusations.  Instead, there was generic one-size-fits-all-and-covers-all apology in the board report that did not address the behavior of staff last July and August. 

In fact, the Board report actually made the situation worse. Instead of addressing the lies and resulting actions, the report perpetuated some of the lies and created new ones.  This was a deliberate cover-up.  Not only were staff unaccountable for their actions, but the report sought to shift the blame to others. 

People who knew it was not true wrote and signed that report.  Pickled Tink created and signed a report she knew was not true.  Lonni signed a report she knew did not tell the whole story.  Truus signed a report she knew did not tell the truth. 

If the rest of the Board read the Aug. 4 report from lchris, they were aware that at least parts of the official report were not true.  They are all liable for that document.   And there is no indemnity insurance.  I wonder if SBFII could ever purchase indemnity insurance given Kalua's personal situation.

O villainy! Ho! let the door be lock'd

Kalua:   As administrator of this forum Susan Boyle comes first, but the protection of all the members of this forum is my duty.

The protection of members should indeed be a priority.  But the forum has consistently failed to protect members from a persistent and dangerous cyber-bully.  This person has had at least 23 different identities on the forum alone.  He has plagued Susan Boyle sites all over the internet.

He has concocted and/or exacerbated damaging stories about Susan, her family, her management team and her fans.  He has posted online, and sent messages by PM and by email.  He has even tried to profit from his malicious fabrications by selling them to eager tabloids and told fans to 'watch for' it.

He has told many lies to many people, but one of his most successful attacks on the Susan Boyle fan community occurred last July.  He was instrumental in the uproar on the forum because he was in communication with Lonni, Judy, Mirrim, CanadianBill, UKSusanfanAnn and Marty, to name a few. 

He had somehow gained credibility with both Admins and some Staff and members as Mark Conner/Orgonon and perhaps other false identities.  He may well have been in touch with other staff and members. He convinced them that the other fan sites were going to “takeover” SBFII.  He told lies about lchris, Citroenlady, Dyebat and others.

He has told many lies about fans from Susan Boyle fansites.  He sent messages with those lies to other fans and to Susan Boyle's family and Sony and her management companies.  Then he proceeded to accuse the fans who received his messages of being the ones who started the false rumors.  He often twisted facts around like that, pitting one person or group against another.  It is sick. 

The SBFII site Admins and some Staff have known about him in his various guises for many months.  They have banned him repeatedly, but he keeps coming back.  He has been able to continue fooling people because no one will publicly post his false identities, emails and stories so that all members of the Susan Boyle community would be informed and forewarned.

LChris has lobbied hard for this information to be made available to you, the members, for your safety. Yet, the Board, Admins and Staff refuse. They are (and have been) taking advice from Sony's lawyers. I find it hard to believe that Sony's lawyers have been given the full extent of what the Admins and Staff know about this situation. I seriously doubt that they would put themselves in a position of liability over a prolific cyber-stalker, cyber-bully.

The curious incident of the watchdog that didn't bark

It is my turn to thank Dyebat, lchris and Citroenlady. I have watched them struggle against an onslaught of lies and cynical manipulation for months. I respect and admire all three of them. I am honored to be helping them in any way I can.

I have recently seen the issue of the blogs raised again. Those who raised the issue know perfectly well why we resorted to them. But I shall explain it for the targets of their remarks. We tried to bring up the subject (of staff behavior during July) on the forum. We tried to discuss it in posts. We tried to discuss it by PM and email.

In a deliberate campaign to silence us, the Board and staff members concocted a plan to label all posts dealing with this issue as "contentious" and have them deleted. For good measure, they also threatened to terminate our memberships.

I tried to discuss the situation by PM and email with both Board members and staff members. I sent messages to musictchr, truus, wasforgas, leonina, cicichi, Pickled Tink, and AnnieV. Only a couple times did I get a serious response. And even then, the response was that the Board unanimously decided to ignore the July issues and move on.

Why would the Board choose to ignore the events of last July? Why were they voting unanimously to sweep things under the rug? Why were they not asking questions? What flavor of Kool-aid was served at Board meetings?

I find it unfathomable that any Board member can claim to have been unaware of the issues involved if they spent time on the forum. Surely they saw some of the problems first hand. Staff called Dyebat and lchris liars. Staff ranted and raved about a supposed takeover of the forum (complete hogwash). Staff threatened to take their toys and go home.

All of the above was recorded on the Transparency and this site thread. It was, and is, available for viewing by any member. Go read some of it. Some staff and a few members were near hysterics. But most members remained calm, in spite of the atrocious behavior of the staff.

How else should the Board have been aware of the issues of mid-July? Members posted about it, until the Board tried to stop them. Why create policy #6 if they were unaware of the contentious issues?

I sent messages about it. I am sure that other members also contacted Board members. And lchris gave them reports. She told them about what she found as a result of her investigation of the data records. Did any of them ask her questions? No.

It is ironic that a certain Board member is insisting on retraction of a statement made about him. What did he do about false statements made by staff about Dyebat, lchris, Citroenlady and others? Those statements were allowed to stand for months. When members brought up the issue, he was instrumental in stifling the discussion.

The Board has supervisory oversight of staff. When staff post false accusations about members, the Board has a responsibility to deal with it. When staff allow members to post false accusations about other members, the Board has a responsibility to deal with that, too.

Could the problem be that the Board did not want to deal with the issue because some of them were among those who had posted the accusations? Lonni and Truus both made posts containing false and defamatory statements.  And they are members of the Board.

Perhaps the other Board members should have inquired as to where they got that false information.  Some was undoubtedly from the cyber-bully.  Was it also from an admin of the forum?  Pickled Tink, also a Board member, was the source of a false rumor that DJG was trying to buy the site at auction.*  In reality, he neither registered nor bid on the fansite.

For all those months, public accusations were to be ignored. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly it is an outrage. Sure feels different from the other side, doesn't it?

*Note:  lchris was not the source of this information.  I learned this courtesy of another staff member.

Secrets and Lies

The official report of the July incidents at the susan-boyle.com forum has been altered.  The correction does not appear to have been done in the usual way such corrections are made, that is with an addendum which is agreed to by all signers.  But that is just as well.  If all necessary corrections to the report were included as addenda, the addenda would be nearly as long as the report itself. 

For the record, here is the original, with the deleted sections in red and the added words in blue.

"We have explored the issue of the banned members. It seems that in actual fact only one banned member reappeared.  was readmitted, and that one of the temporary admin appointed by Lchris has said she admitted this person as she thought that the amnesty which had been discussed by PT, Kalua, and Lchris towards previously banned members had commenced. This was a perfectly understandable position for her to take. Two members who had left rejoined. However, rumours abounded that ‘many’ banned members were reappearing, so why was it felt that this was happening? It would seem that much like when someone goes into a crowded building and shouts “fire” even when there is no fire, a lot of individuals will see smoke. In short the board has concluded that the forum experienced a form of panic reaction which is a well documented forum phenomenon. What people saw and felt was real to them and there was a domino effect as people reacted and expressed their concerns."

While I do appreciate that this section of the report has finally been corrected, I have to wonder why it was included in the first place.  Both Pickled Tink and Truus knew that Citroenlady did not admit a banned member, could not have admitted a banned member, yet they approved the official report.  It is not as if they could ‘forget’ something that they knew never happened.  Why did they knowingly include a false statement? 

I find another paragraph from the report interesting.  It is the one about Kalua and the origins of the “mistrust”.

"Things started off well and amicably between all, then Kalua was accused of rigging the auction, of being some one else, of being Paul Wood (previous owner) of lying about a family bereavement, and of being a SONY employee. The mistrust grew and Kalua understandably refused to work with individuals who were mistrusting him in this manner. He withdrew from his position and for the rest of the staff relations became to say the least strained. All parties were very committed to getting the process moving but the misinformation spread by the troll (see below) hindered the process and both sides agree that there was considerable mistrust on both sides."

Like many points in the report, the timeline is confused.  Dyebat and lchris did not start off mistrusting Kalua.  Kalua started off mistrusting them. 

Lchris had no agenda except securing the site for the members.  Dyebat agreed, but had an additional concern.  Dyebat wanted to make sure that two areas which were important to members, the DDB and prayer threads, remained on the forum.  There was nothing in their intentions that should have made anyone suspicious. 

The site was to be owned by fans as a non-profit organization and information was needed in order to set up the NPO.  If the NPO was to be legal, the people in charge of running it needed to be identifiable real people, not just internet avatars.  This was confirmed by others posting on the transparency thread who had experience with non-profit organizations. 

One member posted about her experience setting up an NPO.  She stated that “a corporation is formed by real people at actual physical addresses” and said they had to get information from every board member and the executive director.  Dyebat and lchris did not require the identifying information to harass Kalua, but because they were trying to set up a legal non-profit corporation. 

Another reason Kalua’s information was necessary was to allow the forum to obtain insurance.  The board must be able to indemnify the NPO against legal jeopardy.  The by-laws state that the directors, officers and committee members “shall be indemnified by the corporation to the fullest extent permissible”.  It makes no sense to indemnify the board members and committee members and not the administrator of the site. 

Why might SBFII need such insurance?  This may be a far-fetched example, but what if someone on the forum posted a thread filled with false and defamatory statements and innuendo about other forum members?  What if staff/admin refused to enforce their own rules and remove the thread? What if they had even had a heads-up about the thread before it was posted, yet allowed it?  The defamed members could decide to sue.  Wouldn’t that put the corporation at risk?  If someone has the potential to put the corporation at risk, shouldn’t the board be able to know who he is so they can obtain insurance?

As Dyebat and lchris held discussions with the admins about the forum sale and transition, something unusual became apparent.  Both of the people in charge of running the forum were very secretive.  Neither would speak to Dyebat and lchris on the phone or Skype and neither would allow their photos to be posted as they claimed it would place them in danger. These two were to be the Director, and Asst. Director of the non-profit!

Kalua would provide no identification at all.  He wanted to contribute toward the purchase of the fansite, but insisted it had to be a donation.  However, Dyebat intended that all contributions be treated as loans and repaid.  Kalua refused to provide information for repayment of his intended $400 loan, claiming he didn’t want to be reimbursed because it was against the rules of his company. To lend $400 to a Susan Boyle fansite was against the rules?  In the end, the money was loaned by a Board member.    

Multiple first-hand experiences led Dyebat and lchris to wonder just who Kalua was representing and what was going on.   Asking questions about him made some staff members very angry.  Why did the staff insist on protecting him at the members' expense?  None of this made sense. Strangely, no one else thought it odd…….

To make matters worse, the ‘reason’ Kalua gave for not providing any identification would have been cheesy in a cheap spy novel.  It was not at all credible in the real world.  If it were true, should he be ‘hiding’ as administrator of a very popular forum representing one of the most famous women in the world?

Again, no one other than lchris and Dyebat was concerned. If true, it potentially placed other staff and members in jeopardy. If false, it was a very serious deception.  

Eventually, Pickled Tink provided adequate identifying information.  But Kalua still refused to provide identifying information of any kind or to speak with Dyebat or lchris.  This is in spite of the fact that Lonni claimed she had spoken with him by phone.

Others claimed (after the fact) that they had Kalua’s contact information. However, Dyebat and lchris, who were supposed to be given this information to file for the NPO, never received it.   Was this just another diversionary tactic?

Kalua chose to resign, citing “personal reasons”, rather than provide any identifying information.  Much has been said about “mistrust” of Kalua by Dyebat and lchris, but the fact is that he gave them many reasons to question his veracity.  There were (and still are) legitimate questions about Kalua’s role and identity. 

This had nothing to do with the troll.  Dyebat’s and lchris’s questions did not come from the troll, but resulted from Kalua’s own words and actions.  The mistrust on their part arose as result of Kalua’s reluctance to trust Dyebat and lchris enough to speak with them or provide any information at all. Why would he not do this?  Have their questions ever been answered? 

The Board was informed of these issues on August 4th, with documentation. They were to question Kalua before his return to work for the forum in a management position as an admin. On August 15^th, the Board unanimously welcomed him back as co-admin. Were any questions asked of him at his meeting before the Board?

Dyebat and lchris had nothing against Kalua or any staff member.  Dyebat and lchris both admire and respect the never-ending hours of service that all staff have given to the forum, often under very difficult circumstances.  They recognize the hundreds of hours, of sometimes difficult staff discussions, that led to many positive changes for all members. 

Yet they were accused of trying to “get rid of” staff.  At no time was this true.  In fact, they defended them and worked very hard to train and retain them all.   Even now, after being lied to and lied about for six months by several staff members, they just want to know the truth. What are some of the staff covering up? And why?

I have a few questions of my own. 

Kalua resigned around the same time that Lonni sent out the email saying the entire staff was prepared to resign. Was the entire episode in which the staff resigned simply a ploy to get members clamoring for the return of Kalua (to allow him to return without providing identification)?

Does Kalua work for anyone representing Susan Boyle or her team, paid or unpaid?

Did the Board ask questions about this matter before allowing him back as admin?  Did they get answers?

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.