Goodbye, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Adieu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin at the beginning…………

The major problem with the July 18th fiasco at SBFII was that the staff was convinced of a falsehood; that the “DJGers” were going to take over the fansite.  It was not true.  So why did they believe it?

I have wondered about the source of the staff’s mistaken belief that the DJGers were interested in taking over the fansite.  It turns out that idea was there from the day the auction was announced to the members.

Within six hours of the auction announcement, Pickled Tink claimed that “former members such as DJG ……… are putting together bids”. Tink said, “The DJGers are already talking about bringing back banned members.”

Kalua replied that he had “inside info that he is considering buying the whole only to shut it down.”

Danileo added, “I have a mole at DJG site and I can confirm what you say”.

But what they believed was not true.  I have checked the thread about the auction at DJG’s. There was quite a bit of joking about DJG buying the site, with members laughing over the irony of that idea.  But it was not serious (hint: lots of ROFLs).  If you had asked any DJGer if DJG was actually buying the site, they would have said, “Hell, no!”  No one at DJG’s was “putting together bids”.  And no one had even mentioned banned members at the time Tink made her post.

So how did the staff get it so wrong?  The staff have long had spies at DJG’s.  Some staff members went themselves, including Kalua.  Some relied on the reports of others.  Did none of them “get” the ambiance of the place?  To miss the joking aspect of the reaction to the auction is a serious misinterpretation of the forum.  But to claim that they were already talking about bring back banned members is simply a falsehood.

So why did Tink make that claim? From whom did Tink get her information?  Or did she make it up? 

Was Tink communicating with and believing the cyber-stalker bully, like so many others?  Did she know him as Mark Conner, Bill Merrick or by some other pseudonym?  Did she give credence to him, even though she was well aware of the cyber-bully by then?

What was Pickled Tink's relationship with the cyber-stalker bully?  How did he get hold of a sensitive email, written by PT herself, which could have proved very damaging to Susan?  An email in which Tink passed along false rumors about a well-known SBFII member, rather than debunk them.

DJG never made a single bid.  But the staff was still worried about him and the DJGers.  They could have ignored his forum.  But they gave it more credence and more importance by their obsession with it.

Did staff ever admit, even to themselves, their role in the creation of DJG’s site?  It was the direct result of their own tactics; over-zealous moderation, unpredictable moderation, staff megalomania. 

I believe that the staff members of susan-boyle.com were responsible for the very existence of the humor forum.  The impetus for the creation of that site was the banning of DJG for a rather silly reason.  They banned him, for the first time, because he posted a joke in a non-humor thread.  Oh, horrors! 

Of course, that lead to anger and resentment and ultimately the Susahumor forum.  But does the staff recognize their part in its creation?  Unlikely.  They seemed to have little idea how their arbitrary and over-zealous moderation tactics have caused resentment among the members.

Staff also thought DJG was disrespectful, but they cannot “legislate” respect with rules.  In fact, any attempt to do so only leads to even greater disrespect.  Which in turn lead to more and harsher rules. 

So, instead of working to be more “moderate” in their moderating, they worried about how to deal with the animosity their own methods had fostered, without reining in those heavy-handed tactics or evaluating what they were doing to contribute to such an atmosphere.

Was it their paranoia and fear of the DJGers that lead them to believe the worst?  The staff, who did not understand the atmosphere of DJG’s in spite of their spying, seemed to be willing to believe anything negative they were told.  They were willing dupes.  They saw everything through paranoia-colored glasses.

Why is the staff at SBFII so paranoid?  Is it part of a general paranoia?  Both Admins are very secretive.  Neither can let their photo be seen.  For a long time, Tink did not admit she was also an Admin/mod at the official Susan Boyle fan site.  Kalua won’t even give his real name.  He refused to give any information to the state of Delaware for the corporation papers to be filed.  What else are they hiding?

The staff believed what they were told about the DJGers, but from whom were they getting their (mis)information?  No one at DJG’s had even mentioned bringing back banned members, yet Tink said they already had such plans.

Just to be sure, I also checked the other forum falsely blamed by CanadianBill.  No mention of bringing back banned members there either.  So where did Tink get that idea?  On what basis were they acting?  Was it the cyber-stalker bully?  Was it just the cyber-stalker bully?  Did they ever ask for “proof”?  Did they rely on screen caps?  (FYI:  Screen caps are ridiculously easy to fake.) 

It is disturbing to think the gullibility went all the way to the top of the fansite, that even the Admins were listening to a notorious cyber-stalker bully.  It is disturbing to realize that even now they are not taking him seriously as a cyber-bully.  Are they protecting him?  Are they protecting themselves?  Why not admit that they were fooled by him?  He is extremely good at doing just that. 

Why not admit that staff members were taken in by him?  Lots of people were.  Why not admit that much of the panic on July 18 was the result of the PMs and postings of a deluded staff, panicking because of what they were told by the cyber-stalker bully?  Why not admit that the so-called hacking was the panicky tech staff, trying to defend the fansite against a take-over they believed was real?  Why continue with the deception about database errors?   Why not admit that the paranoia about the surreptitious return of banned members was based on lies told two months earlier, but with no basis in fact? 

As usual, the continuing cover-up is worse than the original actions.  Those could have been readily explained.  But the decision to lie about it later is not so easily dismissed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the link:  Susan Boyle Fans

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.