‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. (Lewis Carroll)
WAMcKinley was one of the original members of forum staff at susan-boyle.com (now SBFII) and she was very well-respected by all members. By her own admission she had few 'technical skills', but her natural, friendly way with members meant that she didn't need them, especially where moderation was concerned. She was the first with a 'heads-up' by PM if a member went a step too far, but also the first to support a member who was being intimidated or bullied. Many of us received a reassuring PM from WAM offering staff help and assistance if personal attacks by other members became too much, and for these reasons she was well respected. She was also one of the few staff members who always responded to a PM. Other staff members demanded respect, but fell short of the mark.
Just before Christmas 2009 WAM was removed as moderator. It was hurtful, and I can personally attest that the official reasons given were completely unwarranted. It was a while before she felt able to participate again on the forum.
In February this year, WAMcKinley was put into pre-moderation at SBFII, along with a number of members who are also members of another forum. She made a conscious decision not to post on the forum at SBFII whilst in this position, but was free to correspond with other forum members via PM.
Last June WAM had became involved in a PM conversation with a member of SBFII who I will refer to as 'A.P.' In that exchange WAM shared her opinions quite openly, but at no time was her intention to intimidate or bully. Nevertheless, the following email was sent to WAM just a few days later:
From: "Susan Boyle Fans International" <susanboylefansnp@gmail.com>
To: j*********@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 5:23:51 PM
Subject: Banned
WAMcKinley
This is to inform you that as of this moment you are banned from the forum.
Sending pm’s to members in order to intimidate them is called bullying.
As per our rules bullying is forbidden in this forum.
Slandering
the Admins is also forbidden, as long as you did it outside of our
premises we did not take any action. Now you have gone well beyond the
line you yourself fixed and quote” I always try to remain within the
limits”
You brought that unto yourself now it is up to you to assume the consequences.
The Administration
--
Susan Boyle Fans International
WAMcKinley has passed her side of the PM correspondence with A.P. to me, so that everyone can judge for themselves whether or not her banishment was justified. She has also asked me to point out that had A.P. asked her to cease the communication at any time, she would have done so. I have set it out below:
My comment to : http://suboleaks2theotherside.blogsp...nd-scenes.htm
Default Re: Rewad Knudt's blog
Thanks. I was able to get it this time. I tried to post a comment, but my ID wasn't accepted and I saw no way to register.--(??) Anyhow,---here's what I tried to reply:
"Xeno isn't someone to run her mouth when she doesn't have her mind in gear at the same time. In other words, I'm sure xeno knew exactly what she was saying and meant every word of it. She's not the only one among us who has been frustrated with the fact that nothing has changed with the forum since the turn-over last year,---not a damned thing. People are still being muffled and exiled, comments and threads disappear into the mist with abandon, and, in effect, the same rules of repression apply as they always have. whatever happened to the forum for and by the membership we were promised?? Xeno isn't the only one disappointed to see what has become of our forum which had such promise and potential. The fact that active membership has declined sharply in the past year should tell you there are a lot of us who feel the same way. The blog revelations tell the tale of lies and manipulation all the way down the line and they're backed up with facts. If Chris, dyebat, knudt et al were telling lies, wouldn't you think those in power at the forum would come out with guns blazing and facts at the ready to dispute those claims made in the blogs. The fact that there has been nothing but silence from the SBFII admin. speaks volumes. You're right, K****: "When you lie and cheat, the truth comes out eventually." And the truth has been told irrefutably."
Thanks again for the link! WAM
6/4/11
Default Re: Rewad Knudt's blog
Thanks. I was able to get it this time. I tried to post a comment, but my ID wasn't accepted and I saw no way to register.--(??) Anyhow,---here's what I tried to reply:
"Xeno isn't someone to run her mouth when she doesn't have her mind in gear at the same time. In other words, I'm sure xeno knew exactly what she was saying and meant every word of it. She's not the only one among us who has been frustrated with the fact that nothing has changed with the forum since the turn-over last year,---not a damned thing. People are still being muffled and exiled, comments and threads disappear into the mist with abandon, and, in effect, the same rules of repression apply as they always have. whatever happened to the forum for and by the membership we were promised?? Xeno isn't the only one disappointed to see what has become of our forum which had such promise and potential. The fact that active membership has declined sharply in the past year should tell you there are a lot of us who feel the same way. The blog revelations tell the tale of lies and manipulation all the way down the line and they're backed up with facts. If Chris, dyebat, knudt et al were telling lies, wouldn't you think those in power at the forum would come out with guns blazing and facts at the ready to dispute those claims made in the blogs. The fact that there has been nothing but silence from the SBFII admin. speaks volumes. You're right, K****: "When you lie and cheat, the truth comes out eventually." And the truth has been told irrefutably."
Thanks again for the link! WAM
6/4/11
Default Re: Rewad Knudt's blog
There is definitely a C of I in the case of working for two forums, especially when one is a NPO. To quote DJG: "It's interesting to note that the 'staff' are claiming no conflict of interest exists between having a particular person as admin of both their own site and the 'official site', when there's an example of such conflict of interest just today. It seems that a 'promotion' for their own store has been posted on the 'official site'. Normally, such things most certainly wouldn't be allowed on an 'official site', but when the admin is the same person on both sites rules can be bent. So basically, having the same person as admin on both sites allows the 'non-profit' site to benefit financially from the 'official site'. That's a conflict of interest if ever I saw one."
And as to your question about Chris and dyebat hoping to arrange new admin. for the forum, there was never any secret about that. Many of us who had seen the present admin.'s dirty tricks throughout their tenure were hoping for that very thing, especially when they all resigned last July. It wasn't a matter of "getting rid of" them, as you put it, as they had already resigned. The mistake Chris and dyebat made was trusting them to resume their jobs in a way that was fair to the membership----and allowing them back in with the understanding things would be more democratic now and members would have more say. Well, we all see where THAT went. Straight into the trash-heap. PT and K are running the same kind of repressive dictatorship they always have and show NO signs of stopping. And why should they?? It's all about control and access to Susan. If they're able to finesse that for themselves and their friends, that's all that matters to them. The NPO is a big joke. The powers that be never intended to have it become a NPO and have fought tooth and nail against it. They're not about to share the power with anyone and members are becoming more aware of that every day.
Say what you will about DJG's. We're free to make comments and ask questions about anything, any time we want. No one swoops iin to tell us we're "off topic" ---or comments are "inappropriate." Comments and threads stay where they are and don't go disappearing into space as if we have a bunch of Mommies taking charge of a bunch of children. It's a free and wonderful place to be. If there's been some bad-mouthing and name-calling, chalk it up to blowing off steam over the repressive treatment we received at the hands of the rigid forum that we no longer recognize as home.
There is definitely a C of I in the case of working for two forums, especially when one is a NPO. To quote DJG: "It's interesting to note that the 'staff' are claiming no conflict of interest exists between having a particular person as admin of both their own site and the 'official site', when there's an example of such conflict of interest just today. It seems that a 'promotion' for their own store has been posted on the 'official site'. Normally, such things most certainly wouldn't be allowed on an 'official site', but when the admin is the same person on both sites rules can be bent. So basically, having the same person as admin on both sites allows the 'non-profit' site to benefit financially from the 'official site'. That's a conflict of interest if ever I saw one."
And as to your question about Chris and dyebat hoping to arrange new admin. for the forum, there was never any secret about that. Many of us who had seen the present admin.'s dirty tricks throughout their tenure were hoping for that very thing, especially when they all resigned last July. It wasn't a matter of "getting rid of" them, as you put it, as they had already resigned. The mistake Chris and dyebat made was trusting them to resume their jobs in a way that was fair to the membership----and allowing them back in with the understanding things would be more democratic now and members would have more say. Well, we all see where THAT went. Straight into the trash-heap. PT and K are running the same kind of repressive dictatorship they always have and show NO signs of stopping. And why should they?? It's all about control and access to Susan. If they're able to finesse that for themselves and their friends, that's all that matters to them. The NPO is a big joke. The powers that be never intended to have it become a NPO and have fought tooth and nail against it. They're not about to share the power with anyone and members are becoming more aware of that every day.
Say what you will about DJG's. We're free to make comments and ask questions about anything, any time we want. No one swoops iin to tell us we're "off topic" ---or comments are "inappropriate." Comments and threads stay where they are and don't go disappearing into space as if we have a bunch of Mommies taking charge of a bunch of children. It's a free and wonderful place to be. If there's been some bad-mouthing and name-calling, chalk it up to blowing off steam over the repressive treatment we received at the hands of the rigid forum that we no longer recognize as home.
When WAM received her email from 'the Administration' telling her that she had been banned, she felt that a great injustice had been done to her. She entered into email correspondence with the forum administration. Please see for yourselves what was said, and by whom. WAM's words are in blue:
"This is so wrong. I have NEVER sent a PM to any member of this forum
with the intent to bully them. If you have read any of my PMs, you will
know this. I have engaged in PM communication with members over several
points of view as I have been prohibited from posting and this was my
only way of expressing an opinion. But never, at ANY time did I bully
anyone. I was always cordial and respectful in my tone and never used
harsh or argumentative language that could in any way appear
intimidating. I don't know what this is in response to, but your
judgement and conclusions in this matter are incorrect. I would very
much like a means to redress this issue as I feel it is in no way fair."
with the intent to bully them. If you have read any of my PMs, you will
know this. I have engaged in PM communication with members over several
points of view as I have been prohibited from posting and this was my
only way of expressing an opinion. But never, at ANY time did I bully
anyone. I was always cordial and respectful in my tone and never used
harsh or argumentative language that could in any way appear
intimidating. I don't know what this is in response to, but your
judgement and conclusions in this matter are incorrect. I would very
much like a means to redress this issue as I feel it is in no way fair."
Then Kalua sent this:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Boyle Fans International" <susanboylefansnp@gmail.com>
To: j*********@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:14:04 PM
Subject: Re: Banned
From: "Susan Boyle Fans International" <susanboylefansnp@gmail.com>
To: j*********@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:14:04 PM
Subject: Re: Banned
WAMcKinley
Let’s
set the record strait to start with, you were never prohibited from
posting, you are in pre mod and you can post anywhere anytime you want,
but your posts have to be approved by a Moderator and as long as they
are not controversial they would appear immediately in the forum.
Why didn’t you post your opinions about CoI in the forum as some members did?
Why
there was no other candidate proposed from “your side” for the Board?
Finally for how long the Admins and staff in this forum will be
slandered, subject to libelous accusation, bullying, trashing and
bashing?
You
say you never used harsh or argumentative language?, well Admins dirty
tricks, repressive dictatorship, corruption seem to us like plain
slander.
Do you really want to go thru your history path in the forum? Let’s do it!
You
were made a Mod by Paul, when Kalua offered you training you dismissed
him with a wave of your hand saying don’t worry I will cope!
You
never learned to help a member technically speaking, you never learned
to delete a post, you never learned to move or edit a thread, and up to
this day you don’t even know how reply with the quote in the post.
When
we had the first shipper war you sided with the shippers, when we had
the religious war you sided with the religious, so how come you are now
with all those flaming the “red scarves religious loonies”?
When Paul discovered you had joined D***’s forum he asked for you to be demoded immediately and banned from the forum.
Do you know who sweet talked Paul for more than 2 days to at least forego the banning sanction? Kalua!
When
you started voicing your displeasure against Danileo do you know who
tried to arrange things so the banning sanction would not surface again?
Kalua!
All
you have done since then is trash and debase the Admins, there so much
that they can stand, and as said before now you started doing it in the
forum via pm, trying to intimidate members, to convince them to share
your opinion.
Well no more, now you have your freedom to go your way but outside our premises.
You still have the possibility to address your self to the Appeal Panel, from our part this is the last communication with you.
The administration
_____________________________________________
(6/12/11)
This may be the last time you plan to communicate with me, but I hope
you will allow me the opportunity to address some of the issues you
raised in this email. Some of the criticisms you have made of me are
patently incorrect and I would like to clear them up. First of all,
when I was placed on pre-mod, I stated at that time that I didn't intend
to post as long as I was under that restriction. My choice, I know,
but as I didn't agree with the sanction, that was the way I responded to
it. So that's why I made no public comment regarding board selections
or any other opinion. It was your choice to treat me with the
disrespect of having to have my comments screened before they could
appear on a thread,----and my choice to refuse to have that happen.
Having no redress in what I felt and still feel is an overly restrictive
treatment, I chose to remain silent. But I was still left with the
option to send personal messages, which I sometimes did. In the list
of forum rules, the only regulation regarding PMs that I could find was
that they were to remain private. So I entered into these
correspondences with the understanding that what I was communicating to
the other person was a private conversation. What I had to say was
between me and them, no one else. In no way was my tone or attitude
harassing, bullying, or threatening. I knew I was taking a risk by
even considering trying to have a civil discourse with AngelPrecious as
our viewpoints are considerably different in just about every way. But
when she made a comment in one of the threads about the blogs that I
knew to be false, I wanted to give her my side of things. Always a
mistake trying to reason with the unreasonable,----but I tried, anyhow.
Our PMs were, as far as I am concerned, cordial and friendly, although
we remained at opposite ends of the spectrum, which seemed to be fine
with both of us. At least we got to state our own opinions. Long
about the second or third PM, it occurred to me that maybe I ought to
keep a record of this communication in case I should ever need to refer
to it. I deleted PMs after the fact, most times, because I was usually
running fairly close to a full mailbox. So I made copies of my last
couple of responses to AP and kept them in my email files. When I was
banned and the reason given was bullying, the only reason I could come
up with was that AP must have reported my conversations with her. I
was relieved then that I had kept copies of these PMs as proof that no
such intimidation ever took place;----and when I read through them
again, I knew this to be true. Anyone reading my words to her can
easily see that what I am saying is the truth. What on earth would I
possibly stand to gain by trying to intimidate anyone in the forum, let
alone someone like AP who I know to be firmly on the side of the forum
admin.?? My mistake was in thinking she might be able to tolerate
another point of view besides her own. I guess I learned the hard way
that this wasn't so.
And what can I say
about my term as a moderator,----one that was stymied from the beginning
by being kept out of the loop by not being informed of staff meetings??
Only after several months was I finally informed, by accident, by
Evie, that there were meetings being held regularly by MSN, of which I
wasn't even a member. Can you begin to imagine how it felt to be so
excluded from what was supposed to be a team working in tandem?? It
explained a lot then, at the time, as I was always receiving word of
things after everyone else and wondering how everyone else seemed to
have information I wasn't party to. It was a real, "Ah HAH"
moment,---I can tell you,-----after which I was forevermore looking over
my shoulder and watching my step with my "fellow" mods. Should have
seen the writing on the wall at that point and quit. But something
inside me became even more determined to stick it out and keep going.
As a mod, I originally went to DJG's with the intention of looking
around and seeing if I might be able to mend some fences between that
site and the forum. In fact, I announced my intentions in the staff
room before I went. All above-board and on record, as I felt was the
right thing to do. So it was a real surprise when DocRobbie sent me
the PM, releasing me from mod duties because, as he termed it, he felt I
had become "an agent for DJG." I suppose I shouldn't have been
surprised since, for reasons still unknown to me, my entire time as a
mod had been under a cloud of suspicion and distrust.
You claim I never learned to carry out my duties properly. When Paul
asked me to serve as a moderator in the first place, I told him my
technical skills were weak. He assured me that everyone on the team
had their own strengths and that I would fit in fine. I promised to
work and learn. I have no memory of Carlos offering to help me with
technical skills; but if I declined, I'm sure it was more with the idea
that I should pick up these things on my own rather than waste someone
else's time in bringing me up to speed. I certainly never gave him "a
wave of my hand," as you put it, as though denying I could use help. I
was under the impression we were responsible for our own training.
And I don't know where you got the idea that I never deleted a post or
helped anyone in a technical capacity. I deleted plenty of posts, spam
entries, trolls, etc. I wasn't in the habit of vacuuming up things
with abandon as some seemed to enjoy doing and still do. I find it
disrespectful and unnecessary to eliminate members' comments as though
they're meaningless and intrusive to the forum. So if that's a fault,
then I suppose I'm guilty. I am in complete agreement with the members
who felt insulted when post after post disappeared at the whim of the
mighty mods who seemed to delight in their power. You'd go back to
find something and entire sections,---entire subjects--- would be gone
with the wind. Ridiculous! No wonder people lost patience and then
interest. I tried to treat members the way I hoped to be treated. If
that's a fault, I plead guilty.
I moved and edited many a
thread, changed thread titles for members, began new threads for members
who asked for help,---and more. I have no idea where you get the idea
I didn't do these things. I had thanks all the time from members for
help I rendered and I was happy to do so. Sometimes I don't reply with
a quote because the posts get so long with all the inclusions, I often
feel that just to reply with a comment is all that's necessary,
especially if my comment follows immediately. When did this become a
problem?? I consider it good housekeeping to keep things brief. Is
this yet another thing I'm being cited for?? If so,---again I plead
guilty!
If it seems to you that all I have
done since being placed on pre-mod is to bash the administration, your
mole at DJG's has some very poor reading skills-----or someone has been
doing some very selective reading. Since I have done NO posting here, I
must assume that I am being judged on the content of my posts at
DJG's,-----something I wouldn't think applicable to my status as
membership on this forum. Your jurisdiction begins and ends at the
boundaries of your forum, so why should it matter what someone has said
elsewhere? Everything I have ever said is true, as clearly as I know
it to be. You may not agree with my opinion, but to call it libel is
to suggest I am lying. (BTW, slander is a spoken lie-----and libel is
written;--so what you're actually accusing me of is libel.) As I noted
to A****P******, a very revealing factor to me about the blog
accusations is that there have been no denials or attempts to counter
any of the charges. When someone tells lies about me or makes false
assumptions, my first instinct is to come forward and set the record
straight. That's what I have tried to do here. I have nothing to
hide and therefore nothing to fear in any revelation. There are many
members at the SBFII who I am sure will vouch for my integrity. I am
proud of my record.
Jean Reynolds
(WAMcKinley)
Knudt has set out her thoughts in her blog Link here and I agree entirely with her logical analysis of the bylaws.
