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

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?