Phoenix Rising Dissolution — further comments

I received an email from Janet Dafoe stated that they had started a poll on Phoenix Rising related to which charity should receive leftover donations.

I asked Janet back in June of 2023 who was going to receive the donations. She said it was in the works. On August 7th, the following poll was posted in one of the private forums of Phoenix Rising.

I emailed Janet back at the beginning of this week after I received her email related to the poll and asked how much Cort had paid to acquire Phoenix Rising. Janet did not respond. I am still under the impression that Cort was simply given the website as clearly indicated in the image above. The website was Phoenix Rising’s most important asset. It was illegal to hand it over to an individual.

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/governance-leadership/dissolving-nonprofit-corporation

Federal law requires a tax-exempt charitable nonprofit that is dissolving to distribute its remaining assets ONLY to another tax-exempt organization or to the federal government or a state or local government for a public purpose. Therefore, the dissolution process necessitates identifying other nonprofit(s) or government entity to accept any assets of the dissolving nonprofit. You will need an inventory of assets to manage this part of the process smoothly. “Assets” could include cash, tangible property such as vehicles or office equipment, and/or intangible property such as data or intellectual property. The transfer of assets may also invoke legal documents such as property deeds, contracts, and trademark registrations.

This means that in the dissolution process your nonprofit cannot give any of its property away to individuals, including board members, other volunteers, employees, or those served.

The nonprofit can, however, sell its assets, as long as the individual or entity purchasing the asset is paying a reasonable amount, ideally the “fair market value.”

Again, if I am wrong about this, please let me know. I know Janet reads this blog, perhaps she can provide a response right on the blog.

Cheers.

Was the transfer of Phoenix Rising to Cort Johnson illegal????

Back in June of 2023, Janet Dafoe stated that Phoenix Rising as a non-profit had been dissolved and that she had handed the website back to Cort Johnson.

Let’s take a look at a previous comment by Janet Dafoe regarding Cort Johnson.

So, it’s ‘not a good idea at all related to Cort having anything to do with Phoenix Rising???

In accordance with the law in the United States, one can’t give away a non-profit to just anybody. A non-profit is not allowed to give away its assets to individuals or to a ‘for‘ profit organization. A non-profit, when dissolving, by law, has to give away its assets to a similar non-profit. According to the law, a non-profit can sell its assets as long as the individual pays fair market value. The Board of Phoenix Rising could have only legally sold Phoenix Rising to Cort Johnson and to do that they should have had an external appraisal/valuation of the website. It was illegal simply to give it to him.

If Janet Dafoe and the former Board (whoever they were) argue that the website is not an asset, that couldn’t be further from the truth. It was the website that contributed to the organization’s overall value and ability to fulfill its stated mission which was to “directly support persons with ME/CFS and their caregivers by enabling direct patient information exchange”.

If Janet Dafoe and the Board simply handed Phoenix Rising back to Cort Johnson, then they have broken federal law and that could have ramifications.

There is also the issue of what happened to the donations that Phoenix Rising had in its possession prior to its dissolution. Federal law requires that the donations should be handed over to another non-profit (for ME/CFS patients in this case). I emailed Janet about this twice. The first time, she stated that it was in the works. The second time she ignored me. It is beyond me, why, when they knew they were going to dissolve Phoenix Rising, they didn’t ask the membership where they thought the donations should go. There are many ME/CFS non-profits that could have used the donations.

If I am wrong about the illegal transfer of Phoenix Rising, you can let me know.

The ‘Proposals’ Revisited

Just a quick rewind to the past. In a nutshell, Sushi (Susan Thomas) manipulated Gary Solomon (Butydoc) and Janet Dafoe by lying to them and this led them to develop ‘proposals’ to be put into place on Phoenix Rising as new rules. Even though I was the Lead Moderator at the time they did not discuss these proposals with me. They discussed all of it with the lying raw fish who fed them a bunch of lies. I stepped down from moderating on Phoenix Rising partly due to this. Phoenix Rising used to be a forum with hundreds of members visiting and posting every day. It was a vibrant community, sadly, now it is a dust bowl of a few members posting with less than 20 members online at any given time. This is what Gary Solomon, Janet Dafoe, and Susan Thomas did to Phoenix Rising — they destroyed it.

The Proposals.

1. Proposal: No longer will moderators use their personal name or avatar in their role as moderator.

They took this one off the table. There wasn’t ever any expectation that moderators must use their real name. I felt no need hide behind a made-up username, Sushi did. However, for transparency I believe somebody who has access to personal information shouldn’t hide behind an anonymous name and at least reveal their true identity to the Board.

2. Proposal: The president of the board will have the final approval of all suspensions and bans. Suspensions and bans will be communicated to the member by the president. Moderators have the power to ban spammers without involving the president.

I guess they put this one in place BUT Gary Solomon quit as president and was never replaced. Moderators have now been given back the ability to suspend and ban members. It an odd proposal though because generally the Board of Directors of an organization has nothing to do with the day to day operations of an organization. This proposal came around because I banned one of Sushi’s buddies for good reason after long standing issues with her. Sushi then lied and said she had ‘protested vehemently’ about Ema’s ban. Sushi didn’t protest at all. There posts related to Ema’s ban in the ‘Reported Posts’ forum which demonstrate exactly what Sushi said. Of course, she publicly asserted that I had removed these posts. I had not and one can roll back the software to any date to actually investigate that.

In fact, this is Sushi’s only ‘vehement protest’ related to the banning of Ema.

3. Proposal: Make clear rules for the length of time people are put on moderation. Create a system of suspensions before banning members for life. When they come back on after suspensions, they will be moderated. Specific lengths of time will be established in policy.

They have yet to publish within the rules any clear rules related to this. Generally, the rule was to put a person on moderation; look at their next 5 – 10 posts; and if they were all appropriate they would be taken off moderation. It was that simple and quite fair. The issue was that Cort Johnson was on moderation for five years and whined to Janet Dafoe about it. He really didn’t visit the forum and post enough for any judgement to be made whether he should be taken off moderation or not. Due to the whinging about Cort being on moderation for so long, one of my last acts as a moderator was to remove Cort from moderation and guess what happened? Gary Solomon aka Butydoc put him back on moderation within a short time of me removing him due to his breaking of the rules. Go figure. Was I right to leave him on moderation until he proved he could not break the rules? Yes, I was and it wasn’t my fault that Cort barely came to the forums and posted.

4. Proposal: We need more moderators. First we will try to find moderators from people we know. If we don’t find enough, or would like more, we will advertise on the forum for moderators and use their posts and any other information we have to decide on whether they are appropriate. Proposals for new moderators will be approved by a vote of all moderators and the board by simple majority.

Gary, the moron, owes me a big apology. I don’t know how many times he publicly and privately accused me of not trying to get new moderators. At one point, I contacted at least thirty members and nobody wanted to help. I posted on the forums asking for volunteers. Well, I guess almost six years later, they have finally realized how difficult it is to get new moderators. I have seen a few posts asking for new moderators and now the team is so small they have a message plastered on the forum asking members to only report serious rule breaches. It wasn’t that I didn’t try to get new moderators, it was impossible.

5. Proposal: Training of moderators. At the present time, the board recognizes the urgent need for more fully trained moderators, so the board directs the CEO to have the job of training new moderators be facilitated immediately as his number 1 priority. All moderators shall have complete access and knowledge to perform all aspects of moderation and permissions.

Gary Solomon also made it a big issue that I wasn’t training new moderators and that liar Sushi said I didn’t train her. Well, I had no time to train new moderators as I had just taken custody of my granddaughter and due to the fact that Sushi was so lazy, I was doing 90 percent of the moderation work anyways. I had no time train anybody. I also had written a ‘Moderator’s Manual’ that included all the knowledge a moderator would need in order to perform moderater actions. Sushi had a copy of this, there were links to it on the forum, yet she lied to Gary and Janet that I hadn’t trained her at all. I was also training her by explaining all my actions within the Reported Posts forum.

5. Proposal: Transparency of moderation. All moderation correspondence will be open for other moderators and the board to review. There will be no private conversations between moderators and problem forum members. All moderator conversations will include all moderators and board members. The moderator initiating the conversation will be the sole correspondent. For others to become involved a decision needs to be made by all.

That’s all well and good and the ‘Reported Posts’ forum existed so all pertinent information could be read by other moderators and the Board. I felt it was really disrespectful to members to invite all the Board and the moderation staff into a private conversation related to rule breaches. Most members did not like to be contacted and admonished for some kind of against the rules behaviour. To have others included in the conversation could potentially be a source of embarrassment. I always used to add Mark (CEO) if members were being troublesome.

Another point is that I had more than a few members contact me about very private issues related to other members and they pointedly asked me to keep it private, which I did. I hope Gary didn’t read my private Conversations as part of his investigation.

Also, if a member contacts a moderator with a simple question, why should this be shared with the Board and other staff. It would be a total waste of time.

Does the Board of any other Non-Profit demand to be included in the staff’s correspondence. What an authoritarian way of existing.

6.Proposal: Members’ posts on any place other than Phoenix Rising will not be considered in issues of moderation including suspension or banning.

Well, then, why was I banned from Phoenix Rising by Butydoc/Gary for this blog.

7. Proposal: Any moderator or board member can propose someone for unbanning. Their whole history must be comprehensively reviewed by current moderators. If the current moderators agree unanimously, then the person will be unbanned and go on moderation. If they don’t agree unanimously, then the board will become involved, review all the information and history, and moderators and board will vote. Simple majority passes the unbanning. After unbanning, they will be put on moderation for 3 months. If they cause a problem, they can be considered for banning again sooner than 3 months. Rebanning must be unanimous with moderators or board will become involved, the same as the normal banning procedure.

They didn’t put this one in place either. Why on earth didn’t they institute the built in moderation via the software that after a number of infractions, you get a temporary ban for X amount of time. After a certain number of points, and temporary bans, a member would be banned permanently. It’s for forums that don’t have a lot of moderators or would prefer not to put a lot of personal time into moderation.

Proposal: Sock puppet accounts. Members using sock puppet accounts to disrupt and troll the forums will be banned.  

That’s a good rule.

8 Proposal: Moderators or other members do not have permission to view any other member’s chats or private conversations. In order to view others’ private conversations or chats, moderators will need to provide due cause to the Board and get permission to do so. If a problem is discovered in a chat inadvertently, a moderator may not pursue it without due cause and permission from the Board. If this rule is violated, the moderator will be fired.

This is because Sushi whined to Gary and Janet that I had read her chats on ArrowChat. I was becoming very concerned about an information leak on Phoenix Rising and pursued it. Unfortunately the leak was either coming from Sushi or a Board Member discussing private information with a member of Health Rising. I chose to investigate it privately. I wasn’t actually investigating Sushi, I was investigating a member of Health Rising and this is when I found out that Sushi was discussing other members private details with Ema (one my suspects). I should have fired her and banned her on the spot but I didn’t. It’s one thing to have a valid reason to do something, it’s another to read private chats just because you are nosy. Sushi used my private information that she could have only gotten from the back-channel of Phoenix Rising and violated my privacy by telling other members my private business. Of course Gary and Janet thought that it was okay to do that.

Gary should have proposed a rule that Board Members are not allowed to write to members and divulge the personal and private information of staff members to them or they would be banned. He also could have perhaps included Board Members shouldn’t threaten to divulge private information about staff for black mail purposes. That’s a fairly good reason to ban somebody for life. Gary did those things yet was kept on as President of the Board and as a member of Phoenix Rising.

So, these are the great proposals that never real came to anything.

The state of affairs these days at Phoenix Rising:

1. Little to no activity. Right now there are 10 members and 37 guests online.
2. There are two moderators listed one of which hasn’t been active since July 2022.
3. In terms of the ‘Board’, there is one administrator ‘Diwi’, and Janet Dafoe.

I hope the staff at Phoenix Rising now ‘get’ how difficult it was to get new new moderation staff. I was repeatedly blamed for Phoenix Rising not having more than two moderators. Obviously, it wasn’t my fault.

I don’t know what Janet Dafoe does these days except use the forums to raise money for her husbands research which is a conflict of interest. I have no idea what Gary Solomon is up to these days but hopefully he is taking a course in grammar. Sushi is still listed as a Moderator ‘Resource’ which is a huge joke.

And this is where Phoenix Rising is at now.

If Gary, Sushi, and Janet weren’t such total arses they would have been able to figure out that it wasn’t my fault that Phoenix Rising could never attract enough help. A few apologies would be nice.

One last thing, Gary Solomon, you are such a liar — where is the report of your investigation. There isn’t one likely because you found absolutely nothing to support the lies of Sushi (Susan Thomas) and your own misguided beliefs about me which was down to you not doing your due bloody diligence. If anybody is still on Phoenix Rising that is reading this perhaps ask them about the following:

Gary, it’s been six years already. Be a real man and admit you were wrong about pretty well everything.

Over and out and peace to all. I hope everybody is as well as they can be. Mark and I are still together and the little one is seven and doing really well.

A Board Member pushes an unproven treatment of ME/CFS by an Advertiser on Phoenix Rising.

I have decided to add a blog post because for some reason people continue to read my blog.

The Board Member in Question.

Being a Board Member of a non-profit confers some responsibility. One is not supposed to break the rules that the board has set out for the membership. A Board Member shouldn’t press members into doing irresponsible things. A Board Member who is not a medical professional shouldn’t offer any kind of medical advice to the membership. On Phoenix Rising, a member who goes by the username ‘Hip’ constantly breaks the ‘no medical advice rule’ and the moderators take no action. I know ‘Hip’ named himself after ‘Hipocrates’ who is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine. This is quite telling. Does Hip consider himself to be one of the most outstanding members in the history of Phoenix Rising? I did spend a lot of time when I was moderating reminding Hip not to give medical advice. I think at one point, due to repeated rule infractions, I threated to ban him. Hip does not have any formal education in any of the medical sciences. He has a background in mathematics. He has no business offering medical advice on Phoenix Rising. Much of the time, his advice is erroneous and could end up harming some of the members.

The Advertiser in Question.

Presently, Hip is offering a huge amount of medical advice related to an unproven treatment of ME/CFS. Back in May of 2021, Dr Igor Markov joined Phoenix Rising to promote his own business to patients for financial gain. This person was reported to the moderators. Rather than banning this person who clearly had broken the ‘No Advertising’ rule, a moderator started a thread making statements to support this doctor. The moderators gave him his own thread to answer questions and to offer medical advice (another rule breach). The moderation team seems to believe that if Markov doesn’t provide links to his two clinics himself, he isn’t advertising. Hip encouraged members to provide the links to the two clinics instead so the doctor wouldn’t be advertising. Links or not, this man is clearly posting on Phoenix Rising for financial gain. Hip is actively promoting this doctor, his theory, and is drumming up business for him.

The True Cause of ME/CFS

Dr Igor Markov states that his work ‘gives the true basic etiological and pathogenic causes’ of CFS from almost twelve years of ‘systematic clinical research’. He has trademarked two new medical conditions — Chronic Bacterial Intoxication Syndrome or CBIS and nephrodysbacteriosis. He describes nephrodysbacteriosis as a ‘bacterial dysbiosis’ or an ‘imbalance or overgrowth of bacteria in the kidneys’. Markov states that the kidney dysbiosis causes the constant release of bacterial toxins into the bloodstream which in turn causes a body-wide toxic condition — CBIS. Markov states that CBIS causes Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Markov’s Research

To provide support for his claims, Markov has written a lengthy article that is published in a dodgy predatory journal and took part in the dodgy conferences offered by the sister company. The journal is published by Longdom Publishing which used to be called OMICS publishing. OMICS publishing is well-known for publishing journals that aren’t peer-reviewed. OMICS charges excessive fees and accepts pseudoscientific badly written articles/studies. OMICS is also involved in predatory conferences which are meetings set up to seem as they are legitimate scientific conferences but they are nothing of the sort.

Markov’s journal article is very difficult to read because it is a mess of really bad grammar and bad science. From reading the article, it is obvious that Markov has decided with no peer review, no replication of his findings, virtually no statistical analyses, no randomization, no control groups and controls for any variables that he has found the cause of CFS. This is not systematic clinical research. Note I am only referring to CFS here because ME is absent in his article. Even though the paper is eighty-five pages long, he only recites his own previous work for a literature review.

Markov’s Treatment for CFS

Markov states that when he treats CFS patients for nephrodysbacteriosis, he cures nearly all of them. Markov treats the nephrodysbacteriosis with auto-vaccine therapy and states that this therapy is ‘fully curative for 93% of the CFS patients he has treated’. It sounds like a miracle. It’s unfortunate that you can’t find a single patient with CFS that has stated they have been cured by Markov. Why the silence? This should be huge and in the news.

To provide autovaccines to his patients, Markov isolates the bacterial species causing the nephrodysbacteriosis in the kidneys. The bacteria are cultured and killed to create personal autovaccines. Patients provide warm urine samples from which these bacteria are cultured. How on earth can Markov actually tell where in the urinary tract these bacteria are actually coming from? Markov, of course, totally disses the use of antibiotics so he can promote his autovaccine therapy which makes him the money. Prescribing antibiotics would mean less money. It also takes 6 months to 2-3 years to achieve full recovery from CFS which adds to his profits.

Markov has claimed that he has treated and cured thousands of CFS patients. Why has nobody even heard of this until he attempted to promote his treatments and clinics on Phoenix Rising? Shouldn’t he be contacting and seeking out other researchers to replicate his findings?

Markov’s Understanding of CFS

Markov really has no understanding of what ME/CFS actually is. From his website, he conflates chronic fatigue syndrome with chronic fatigue. He seems to believe that CFS is caused by modern life — a polluted office environment, physical inactivity, watching too much TV, too much screen time, being overweight, having a highly stressful life, and possessing a Type A personality. Markov states that CFS is the result of the complex interaction between the environment and a persons lifestyle. Despite stating all of this, he still insists that CFS is caused by nephrodysbacteriosis. Of course, he can’t provide a coherent reason how all of the above translates into kidney dysbiosis. He also using a very outdated definition of CFS which does not include PEM. In fact, he never mentions PEM at all.

His recommendations to protect yourself from developing CFS are to go to bed early, eliminate stress, daily walks, good physical activity, and having a good diet. Markov, states on his website, that if you have at least one symptom of ‘chronic fatigue’, you should contact his clinic as soon as possible and he will no doubt tell you have nephrodysbacteriosis. Basically, it seems that anybody with any kind of fatigue will be diagnosed with CBIS and treated with autovaccines.

Hip pushes Markov’s claims repeatedly on the forums

This man has no clue what ME/CFS actually is and even so Hip is pushing his treatment. A Board Member should not be telling members how to do proper urine tests, how to culture their urine using the dipslides, how to do a subcutaneous injection and so forth. He has no medical/clinical background to be advising members to do any of these things. He seems to just read things on the internet and regurgitates it to members with little or no understanding of what he is saying. For instance, he recommends that members use the same dipslide to test their urine multiple times because he ‘personally’ thinks it’s okay to do that. However, if a dipslide is used more than once, there is a high chance of culturing bacteria from contamination rather than an actual infection. He also states you can use any size needle for a subcutaneous injections. Needle size does matter. Hip doesn’t seem too concerned that a member might get an infection, have the needle break in the skin, or perhaps hit a nerve without proper instruction beforehand. Then there is the issue of the autovaccine itself. If a patient is not in the Ukraine, Hip instructs members to give the autovaccine to themselves. This entirely misses the fact that a patient should first be tested with a skin test to ensure the patient doesn’t have any hypersensitivity reactions to the vaccine. Hip is offering all of this advice with no medical background. In essence, we have a Board Member of a non-profit pushing an unproven and costly ‘cure’ to forum members.

Claims are not Facts

Hip is presenting Markov’s claims and ideas as facts. Hip presents Markov’s correlations between bacteria found in the urine and blood as being valid and true. As far as bacteria in the urine goes, Markov appears to have a ‘highly sensitive’ urine test that can detect the bacteria causing dysbiosis in the kidneys. Nobody else in the world uses this highly sensitive test that can actually pinpoint where bacteria come from in the urinary tract. Markov has an independent lab conducting blood tests for him but nobody can find the existence of the lab online nor is there any comparable bacterial toxin test anywhere else in the world. It all seems extremely dodgy.

I remember back in the good old days when a nice lady came along and told us that ME/CFS is caused by XMRV. Many members spent hundreds of dollars on tests because according to the nice lady, nearly all patients were infected by XMRV. Now, we have Markov appearing and telling us that CFS is caused by nephrodysbacteriosis and he is offering dodgy diagnostic tests. He also states that nearly all CFS patients have this bacterial dysbiosis of the kidneys. At least the nice lady, actually had her research published in a reputable journal which allowed other researchers to replicate her findings which they couldn’t. The only thing Markov has done is to come to a forum for ME/CFS patients to try and push his ideas and treatments. He lucked out because Hip is doing all his work and advertising for him. Markov has even stated that members should tell their doctors about his cure so he can offer them a franchise agreement with his clinics. That’s all we need. Franchised clinics offering a fake diagnosis via dodgy one-of-a-kind tests and then a cure with autovaccines.

Another Charlatan offering a Miracle Cure to ME/CFS Patients?

I know there are members on Phoenix Rising now doing urine tests, culturing urine and so forth directly due to the Phoenix Rising moderators and Board Members allowing advertising and medical advice. Members, spurred on by Hip, are finding bacteria in their urine and want to spend money on the ‘cure’. Is the bacteria from contamination? From what members say they are doing it seems very likely. Do ME/CFS patients have bacteria in their urine and is this different from the rest of the population? Do these same people have these bacterial toxins in their blood? There are too many questions and no answers. We have a man pushing claims with no scientific proof to back them up; a man using dodgy tests that may not be reliable or valid; a man claiming he has cured 93% of CFS patients when there is not one patient online stating they have been cured by Markov. There are many bad reviews of the Markov clinic online. It’s all really sad because it seems we have yet another charlatan using ME/CFS for profit. It is sickening that a non-profit who is supposed to be supporting their members is actually supporting yet another person trying to make profit from desperate patients. I guess there are two charlatans here — Markov and Hip — because after all a charlatan is a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.

Eljefe19 – Back on Phoenix Rising

I know I said I was done but I think the return of one of Phoenix Rising’s most troublesome members deserves some blog time. I was also thinking of writing a post on Cort Johnson which I will probably do at a later time. I wrote about Eljefe19 here. I noticed the other day on Phoenix Rising that there was a user called ‘SlamDancin’ which reminded me of Eljefe19 as he was fond of a variation of that name. The two have too much in common not to be the same person.

They both live in Salt Lake City, Utah (Eljefe19, SlamDancin).

They both take the medication Etizolam (Eljefe19, SlamDancin).

Both have used Rapamycin (Eljefe19, SlamDancin).

They both are 30 years old (Eljefe19, SlamDancin). (I won’t post a link to Eljefe19’s age because it contains his real name and his address).

They both use cannabis (Eljefe19, SlamDancin).

The are both associated with the Lights study at the University Of Utah (Eljefe19, SlamDancin).

Both suffer from ‘depersonalization’ (Eljefe19, SlamDancin)

Note: some of these links are in private forums so you may not see them unless you are a member.

I think that’s enough to show he’s the same person. I think he should be banned again due to being one of the most toxic members ever on Phoenix Rising — even Gary told him to get lost.

I also noted when writing this blog that his bestie jesse2233 hasn’t been seen on the forums since August of 2018. Jesse2233 lied, begged, and pleaded not to be banned even though his IP addresses (4 of them) matched to various troll/sock puppet accounts. He contributed to the downfall of Phoenix Rising and despite stating Phoenix Rising was his favourite community and he couldn’t live without it — what did he do? — leave after a year. Sushi went ballistic when I stated he should be banned due to his connections to the trolls. Sushi stated he was one of the most fantastic members ever and Phoenix Rising wouldn’t be the same without his wonderful contributions. She didn’t like that I was threatening to ban him because I saw the truth. She actually bullied me over it. It was because I mentioned banning him that she went about lying her way into destroying Phoenix Rising. She is still around doing her job as the ‘Moderation Resource’ which is probably why the forums are full of threads in the wrong forums, old and useless stickies, rule breaches, and really bad moderation. Oh well, c’est la vie.

A diatribe by Whitney Dafoe

I found this in my drafts folder and have decided to publish it. Whitney Dafoe posted a rather annoying post on his Facebook page back in December 2020. I wasn’t aware that Whitney had said anything until I came across a post on the S4ME forum questioning why a link had been removed. The link in question was to Whitney’s comments on Facebook which can be found here. It starts with:

I feel ashamed. Not of any one individual out there but of the ME/CFS community as a whole for what some of us have done to Jen Brea. It is truly shameful and we should all feel this way. She has sacrificed so much, maybe more than any other ME/CFS patient in the history of this illness to spreading awarenes – making a feature award winning documentary film and starting and leading MEaction. She is also more recently trying to help figure out the newly discovered cranial issues that we now know can cause ME/CFS..

I am not sure why Whitney Dafoe is taking it upon himself to chastise the whole ‘ME/CFS Community’ for what ‘some’ of ‘us’ have done to Jen Brea. That seems like a harsh and unfair attack on the ‘community as a whole’. What exactly is the ME/CFS community? Does the ME/CFS ‘community’ include all those who have ME/CFS? In 2020, it was estimated that between 17 – 24 million people worldwide have ME/CFS. Is this the ‘community’ that Whitney Dafoe is referring to? To me, the very large number of people with ME/CFS worldwide is composed of micro-communities consisting of like-minded patients sharing similar thoughts, beliefs, feelings about the illness that has drawn them together in some manner.

Why is Whitney Dafoe lumping an extremely large number of people with ME/CFS together and chastising them for their behaviour? Why should patients with ME/CFS who have never criticized Jen Brea or don’t even know who Jen Brea is be admonished to feel ashamed of themselves? It is the people who have personally attacked Jen Brea that might want to reflect on their behaviour, nobody else. And for those who do know who Jen Brea is, they are entitled to have an opinion related to her film, her advocacy work and about her current beliefs as to the causation of ME/CFS whether these opinions are negative or positive. There should be a clear line drawn between a criticism of a person’s opinion as opposed to a personal attack on the person. I haven’t really ever seen any vicious attacks directed at Jen Brea, I have seen some undeserved rudeness but mostly I have seen people questioning her and at times I have seen Jen Brea push back as well.

I understand that Jen Brea has sacrificed a lot but I am sorry I think that those who have sacrificed the most are those who have lost their lives to ME/CFS (dying from the illness or by suicide), or those who are lying in darkened rooms 24 hours a day. There are so many patients we are unaware of because we simply don’t know that they exist. Jen Brea has sacrificed no more than many with ME/CFS and many have suffered and sacrificed much more than she ever has or ever will. Some live in poverty, she does not. Some are alone, she is not. She is one advocate of out many. Some have been so severely abused by the medical establishment they have taken their own lives. She has gotten what she wanted from the medical establishment.

In his FaceBook post, Whitney Dafoe states that we ‘now know’ that cranial issues can cause ME/CFS. Later in his post, he says:

Many of these same people who have attacked Jen seem to also “know” what causes ME/CFS and attack anyone with other ideas. I’ve got news for these people: YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE. You are not an educated scientist; Even the world renowned scientists who are working on figuring out ME/CFS don’t know yet.

By using CAPS, he screams that people have no ‘fucking clue’ what causes ME/CFS because they are not an educated scientist. Is Jen Brea an educated scientist in the field of cranial nerves and related neurology? Is she a educated scientist in the field of ME/CFS. No to both. So on the one hand, Whitney Dafoe is stating that we now ‘know’ that cranial issues can ’cause’ ME/CFS and then states that even ‘world renowned scientists’ don’t yet ‘know’ what causes ME/CFS. Excuse my confusion but this makes no sense.

After chatising people in a totally confusing manner over ‘attacking’ Jen Brea, Whitney Dafoe moves on to people attacking Cort Johnson.

ME/CFS has a long, pathetic history of petty infighting and division over insignificant matters. Just a few years ago Cort Johnson was forced out of the forum Phoenix Rising he created and had to start a new website for his incredible journalism about ME/CFS. This has left Cort with a smaller audience and Phoenix Rising with a serious lack of content. I don’t care why this happened, I don’t even want to know. It’s just shameful and unacceptable for this kind of thing to be happening in a patient population that needs every bit of possible momentum and awareness to have a chance at a cure.

Whitney uses Cort’s history with Phoenix Rising as an example of ‘a long and pathetic history of infighting over insignificant matters’. If Cort leaving Phoenix Rising is so ‘insignificant’ why mention it at all?

Is Cort Johnson really producing ‘incredible journalism’. Once in a while he produces some good articles about the state of affairs in the world of ME/CFS. He also promotes useless alternative therapies which I am sure he, at times, gets money to promote. I won’t even mention the dodgy links he used to add to his articles on Phoenix Rising when writing about useless alternative therapies.

Whitney is right, he doesn’t know why Cort left Phoenix Rising and he should care, everybody should care. Since, I am privy to some of the details as I started volunteering during the time when he was leaving, I can certainly give some details. Cort was not forced out of Phoenix Rising. He agrees with this.

I am not going to go into any great detail but Cort decided to turn Phoenix Rising into a non-profit organization which means he had to have a non-profit Board overseeing the non-profit. This meant he would no longer control what happened at Phoenix Rising nor use the donated funds for whatever he pleased. Cort didn’t like the fact that the Board wasn’t going to pay him what he wanted for his articles. Basically, Cort had always used donations to pay for his bills and he lost control of that by making the website into a non-profit. The Board offered Cort a fair amount for articles and he declined. The Board also discovered some really questionable activity by Cort which their lawyer said not to advertise at the time. The Board was going to make an announcement that he was leaving but Cort went behind their back and made his own announcement without telling them. Cort also stated in 2017 in post on Phoenix Rising:

Except for a few people nobody knew why we split — we keep the reasons to ourselves and we both have continued to do that; i.e., I never posed a danger to PR.

As I said, the reason why the Board did not say anything why Cort ‘left’ PR is because at the time PR’s lawyer told them not to do so. Cort is extremely lucky that they weren’t allowed to say some of the stuff he did because if they had, I doubt he would be held in such high regard by some and I doubt some of the organizations who now support him would now do so. The only thing I am going to say was it was related to ‘donations’. I have seen time after time where Cort plays the victim in his demise on Phoenix Rising, scapegoating the Board, making it look like he was ‘forced’ out at times. He lied about why he was on moderation for five years, he gloated that his forum got the most traffic ever due to the people repeatedly denigrating myself and J. Edwards. Cort said the following about me when I resigned:

I highly doubt that the Board told Kina of their plans with the expectation that she would splat them over PR giving her own negative slant first. I believe that was an unethical thing to do – the mark of an angry person – not someone committed, at least at that moment, to well-being of PR or the Forums. It guaranteed that the discussion would not ensue in the kind of moderate, more reflective tone that I think most of us aspire to.

What a hypocrite. He posted on Phoenix Rising that he was leaving after he agreed to let the Board make an announcement. He didn’t tell them he was going to do so. He also started a website at the time which doesn’t exist anymore that had the purpose of slagging off the Board with lies. The Board did not tell me of their plans. Mark was well-aware I was planning to resign and he didn’t try to stop me. I was committed to Phoenix Rising which is why I was so hurt and upset at not being included in writing the new policies. I believed that the new proposals were going to hurt Phoenix Rising. Yes, you dumb arse, Cort, I was angry and it was justified. Cort Johnson isn’t a nice or an honest man.

Whitney goes on to say:

What keeps happening to exemplary people in this community like Cort Johnson and Jen Brea cannot continue. They are our leaders, or voice, our hope. If you want to help, then think about what is actually good for ME/CFS and put your energy into that instead of harming our progress for the sake of your ego or emotional needs.

I am sorry but Cort Johnson and Jen Brea are not our leaders, our voice, or our hope. Please don’t have the temerity to speak for all people with ME/CFS in the world.

Isn’t all the work done by various researchers around the world our hope? How is Cort Johnson our hope? In short, he is a blogger and really he doesn’t add much to the ‘community’ except blogs. Jen Brea is not our leader, our voice, or our hope either. She made a film about ME/CFS and my only criticism is that she made it more about herself rather than ME/CFS itself. She is a person who believes something anecdotal from her own experience. A leader does not insist that she is right, especially with no scientific formal training/education in what she asserts. She asserts much of the information on S4ME related to cervical issues is wrong. It’s incredibly easy to say that if you don’t have a good grasp on the science itself. Is it not possible that her cervical issues cause ME/CFS-like symptoms rather than causing ME/CFS itself? Research is needed, not just assertions based on anecdotes. As a result of her beliefs, patients are getting dangerous surgeries on their necks by really questionable doctors. It is wrong that anybody makes any assertions ‘that cranial issues can cause ME/CFS’ at this point and it is no wonder that people get upset at such an assertion especially made by a more prominent advocate.

Whitney went on to say in his FaceBook post:

Stop the self righteous, arrogant bickering, fighting, personal attacks and divisive tactics.

Then, Mr Dafoe, please follow your own advice and stop posting missives on Facebook that are both a personal attack on the ‘community’ and designed to divide. He then says:

Please. Think before you act. Treat fellow ME/CFS patients with respect. Stay open minded. Don’t engage in actions that divide us and denigrate our leaders.

Yes, Whitney, do think before you act. When you tell people to treat ME/CFS patients with respect, I would suggest that you don’t yell at people in sweary CAPS. Staying ‘open-minded’ is entertaining the knowledge that people should be able to criticize the words and ideas of others if they don’t believe in them and they might be harmful to the ‘community’. I don’t find Whitney’s post to be open-minded at all.

Let’s come together and work together for the common goal of ending ME/CFS. I know you are all alone and desperate. But I promise you significant progress is being made. Let’s all contribute to that progress rather than hinder it.

I wonder how Whitney believes coming together is going to end ME/CFS. We can all stand together and sing ‘kum ba ya’ but that isn’t going to solve ME/CFS when scientists can’t do it. Having conversations about what people believe related to anything ME/CFS is not going to hinder progress.

Judging by Whitney having tons of comments commending his words and making all sorts of rude and derisive comments about ‘these people’, it appears he is doing exactly what he is telling people not to. Dividing!

Let’s be real. A few people with ME/CFS criticized Jen Brea. If they personally attacked her, then they should be held accountable for that, not everybody.

Well, that’s all I have to say about that.

Final Blog Post — Six Face Palms

This indeed will be my final post on this blog. I do believe I am finally finished. I know it has been a long time. For me, it was necessary and now it’s time to move on.

This blog was only supposed to be about Phoenix Rising. However, due to the Gary-Janet-Sushi-like behaviour of the S4ME Management Committee/plus some of the moderators (Hutan, TiredSam, Trish), I am going to be mainly discussing S4ME in this last post.

To that small group of losers who trolled and doxxed me before I stepped down from Phoenix Rising, you might want to think about growing  up and getting a life, not ruining websites, and not harassing and bullying people. Did your stupidity really help Phoenix Rising? I’d say no. Really, try to get the real picture of circumstances before you jump to unfounded and bizarre conclusions.

I really miss Bob’s contributions on the forums and it is such a shame that he believed that the only choice he had was to end his life. It’s so tragic and his death was the result of the deplorable way the medical system treats patients with ME.

When Bob passed away, Adrian un-banned Valentijn without even consulting the other committee members. Adrian did so because he felt that because Valentijn worked so closely with Bob, she ‘should be with us’.  This just brings home the fact that she should have never been banned in the first place.

I really miss Valentijn’s honest straight to point voice on the forums. There was a reason she had the most likes on Phoenix Rising. Even though Valentijn hasn’t posted there for over three years, she still has the most ‘Likes’. The Management Committee on S4ME could not accept her honesty,  her straightforwardness, and any kind of criticism that she might have.  It’s a great shame that they silence any member that doesn’t adhere to their party line. A fair forum should never arbitrarily ban a member for having a strong opinion.

At the time of Bob’s death, their was a Conversation on S4ME where many members thought it would be nice to send flowers and a card to Bob’s family. I sent a private message to the Committee asking if  S4ME would send flowers from all the members as a caring gesture as many of us knew and appreciated Bob. I was summarily dismissed by Trish who told me to send flowers myself and stated that the Committee “shouldn’t send flowers because it might start a bad precedent”. I think I have already said this but how does sending flowers on behalf of members of a website to a much loved member of the ME community set a bad precedent? I think not sending flowers sets a really bad precedent and it’s a crappy way to treat a grieving family. Condolences mean a lot and condolences on behalf of a community means a whole lot more.

S4ME is an excellent website to find science-based discussions related to ME. I must say though that there are a few members who post silly one-liners in an attempt to inject humour into threads. This is really annoying because it takes the thread off-topic and makes threads much longer than need be. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is ignored because one of the moderator’s is the worst offender.

The regular members make S4ME an excellent scientific platform. I have to say that Andy puts forth a great deal of effort in posting relevant and interesting threads.

On the whole, in the short time that S4ME has been in existence, there has been poor , inept moderation and poor decision making by the committee/moderators and a hell of a lot of moving of the goal posts which has resulted in many good members becoming lurkers or leaving altogether. Any strong voices of dissent are removed via banning or silenced with pre-moderation.

S4ME initiated pre-moderation for any threads related to Jennifer Brea.

What a load of bollocks. The beauty of threads is that you can take your time reading them even if the threads are ‘fast moving’. If members are focusing on ‘personal and forum-wide criticism’ then that is taking a thread off-topic and those posts need to be removed and the members doing that need to be reminded not to. Presently, S4ME has seven moderators and that is more than enough to deal with loads and loads of reported posts. If seven moderators can’t deal with a few problem threads, then they simply have no idea what they are doing or have some agenda to control the conversation related to Jennifer Brea or they are just outright lazy and don’t want to moderate effectively. I offered to give my knowledge regarding moderation and again I was summarily dismissed with ‘let us figure it out ourselves’. Very early on, I decided to step away from offering assistance due to TiredSam’s behaviour. Unfortunately, they haven’t figured how to moderate a forum properly and fairly, and I am not sure they ever will.

They have also started moderating the covid19 threads just because of naughty members discussing politics. It seems that the number of threads requiring pre-moderation due to regular members breaking the rules suggests a lack of respect for both the moderators and the rules. It is hard to respect inconsistent moderators as well as inconsistent rules. It’s only going to get worse and get to the point where members start resenting lazy moderators pre-moderating threads rather than doing their jobs.

You can’t have a ‘robust’ conversation when members have to wait hours for their posts to appear or have posts edited at the whim of the moderators. If a few members are causing issues on threads (and this appeared to be very true on the Brea threads), then it’s better to put them on pre-moderation and view their posts rather than punishing the whole membership. This kind of control does not end well. Most forum managers understand that pre-moderation of threads can eventually ruin a forum.

To make matters worse, moderators are breaking the rules themselves with things that ‘need to be said’ and then excusing their behaviour because they can remove the content later themselves. They also don’t get ‘moderated’ for breaking the rules. This is an extremely bad example to set. If you expect members to follow the rules, then they must follow the rules themselves or they are abusing their moderation powers.  On S4ME, moderators actually admit to breaking the rules.

Dear Trish, you have no freaking clue how a moderated forum works and it’s wrong to break the rules because you know you can remove your statements later. Of course you have your own opinions about a lot of things but if you are using your moderator permissions to the remove the rule-breaking comments you make, then you aren’t exactly posting ‘not as a mod’ are you? Just because you say you aren’t wearing your moderator hat when posting doesn’t mean a thing to most forum members. As a staff member, you wield a larger stick than non-staff and what you say can sway forum members and it does matter what you say. Moderators have more power because they can basically censor any member they want via pre-moderation or banning. If a member wants to remain a member and to be able to post freely, they have to do what the moderators say even when the moderators are clearly breaking the rules and their moderation makes no sense. It’s the old saying, “Do as I say, not as I do” for these people.

And the award goes to:

As I have already written in another blog post and in this post, it appears that S4ME has no checks and balances because staff break the rules whenever they want, staff don’t have any consequences for breaking the rules, and when the staff do break the rules, they all stand together in solidarity and the conviction that their choices and actions are right and good.

It also seems that the ‘No Personal Attacks’ rule doesn’t apply to members that aren’t present on the forum.

This shows how they don’t understand moderation. The above post doesn’t make any sense. ‘Criticism’ is worlds away from a personal attack which is what rule number one is about.  Obviously, members should be able to any criticize public figure if they don’t like their actions. The rule states:

Rule 1: No personal attacks or public accusations
While vigorous discourse and even disagreement is to be expected on a forum, it is not appropriate to insult other forum members or attack them on the basis of their characteristics or motivations. Public accusations against other forum members are also not permitted, as they distract from the discussion and can escalate a situation. Disagreement should focus upon the arguments made, not upon the person making those arguments.

Why should the moderators interpret rule number one ‘more loosely’ just because Jennifer Brea said she wasn’t going to participate anymore. A rule is a rule and it must be clear. You need to either apply a rule to all members or not have the rule at all. There have been other members who have said they won’t be on the forums because they are taking a break. Does rule number one get more ‘loosely applied’ to these members?

Some members do not like the fact that Jennifer Brea was making definitive statements about the cause of ME and there should be no problem in voicing that (and many did). Really, the stupid comment about rule number one was not necessary and if members were attacking Jennifer Brea related to characteristics and motivations, then rules should apply because she was still a member. Let’s move the goal posts way further down the field until you can’t see them anymore.

As an aside, Hutan has posted moderation edicts that make no sense previously. I suggested to the Management Committee near the beginning that Hutan appeared not to have a good grasp on moderation and she wasn’t suited to make moderation decisions. So what do they do, they make her ‘Lead Moderator’!

I see where they have also finally banned the use of links in signatures. It took them over a year to decide this. I had this blog link removed from my signature a year prior to this new policy taking place even though they stated they wouldn’t remove it until they had decided about signatures.

Again, another example of poor moderation and not having a grasp of how to find and deal with advertisers. Not allowing signatures also shows a lack of trust of the members. It’s a shame that members can’t link to their own blogs or advocacy sites and so on. Bad links, advertising links or links to inappropriate material was never a problem on Phoenix Rising. It’s very simple. If you find such links, you remove them and contact the member. If it is an advertiser, they should be banned as a spammer. How much offensive content were members linking to — kiddie porn, racism, advocating murder … ??? I doubt members were linking to any offensive content, why would they? I very much doubt that there was even a problem with links and they were just using that as an excuse. Why not just disallow signatures in the first ten posts which would get rid of any spammers. How much lack of trust, paranoia, and control does the Committee have to have. They have a reason now not to want my blog linked to in any signature because I mention them and their abusive behaviour.

Talking about paranoia, they banned Mark without contacting him when he did absolutely nothing and it was for a paranoid reason.

I think that like Phoenix Rising, the staff of S4ME have also engaged in privacy breaches especially related to personal data as defined by the GDPR. The GDPR states that “personal data must be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purpose and it must not be further processed in any manner incompatible with those purposes“. For example, you can’t use private data like an IP address for the purpose of publicly identifying a person. You can collect IP addresses for the purpose of forum administration (privately identifying members, looking for duplicate accounts, looking for spam, software logging purposes etc). I know that IP addresses were used by the staff of S4ME related to purposes incompatible with the stated use. You also shouldn’t use IP addresses to ‘dox’ people. As a reminder doxxing is publicly exposing somebody using private information. The Management Committee of S4ME has breached the GDPR as well as engaged in doxxing as evidenced by a thread titled ‘Kelly M’ (even though they got it all wrong). I must say that’s not very professional. Methinks there might be a thread that they should remove lest they get a wrist slapping or worse from the IOC.

I am going to end my comments about S4ME here.

As for Phoenix Rising, there isn’t much to see there except tons of woo woo. Hip has posted to say that Phoenix Rising’s email account might be suspended if people keep sending emails to their spam folders. Oh dear!. Maybe they should look at the default behavior of the software. I have nothing to say about the present moderator’s on Phoenix Rising as they seem to be doing okay.

At some point in the future, I will likely remove the blog. I still get visitors so will leave it up for at least another year. It really does serve to exemplify how not to run a forum which might help moderators in some way, or maybe not.

Best wishes to all, except Sushi. I can forgive all except for Sushi because what she did was unforgivable.  During the time that this blog has been published, I have learned some very troubling information about Sushi from different sources. I believe I am right to label her as a snake in the grass and nobody should trust her. I can totally forgive Gary and Janet because they are both idiots and I feel sorry for them that they got totally suckered by Sushi and a few other trolls.

I’m done!!!

Wait!!!!

Except!!!!!

I suppose I should come clean now. I do belong to S4ME and have been a member in good-standing for at least five months or so now. It just shows how bad they are at vetting new members. Scramble all you might moderators of S4ME, I doubt you will find my account. Try not to ban innocent members by mistake which you seem to have a history of doing.

Stay safe!!!!!!!!

Statement by the Management Committee of S4ME — part 5

The following are the last paragraphs in the Management Committee’s statement:

We prefer not to comment further on these private conversations, their purpose or their wider context. Since our rules do not allow discussion of individual moderation and banning issues, this thread is closed.
If any member has been contacted by ”Kelly M.” or any other unfamiliar new member, and has any concerns about their conversation or about privacy more generally, get in touch with a moderator (you can do this by clicking the “Report”: button at the bottom of any post or by sending a private message to a moderator).

If their rules do not allow discussion of individual moderation and banning issues, then why are they posting about it in the form of a ‘Management Committee Statement’? They have just broken their own rules. It’s not okay for staff to break the rules. How are members expected not to post about individual moderation issues when the Management Committee does it? How are members expected to follow the rules when the Management Committee does not follow the rules? It does not instil any form of  confidence in the Management Committee’s integrity or ethics. Is it fair to discuss banned members when they can’t respond to accusations?

I think what I have taken away from the Management Committee’s statement and recent moderation of the threads related to craniocervical instability is that they move the goal posts related to the rules and their own policies whenever they see fit. They also have a penchant for accusing people of all sorts without doing any fact checking.

I would like to point out that Kelly M. did not initiate any conversations with any member on S4ME at any time. After reading some of the points she made, members who are presently quite upset with the state of moderation on S4ME contacted her.

I would also like to emphatically state that I have not contacted any members of S4ME on the forums since I was banned for blogging about why the link to my blog was removed from my signature on S4ME. I have had a few conversations with members via this blog and via email and these have been initiated by those contacting me.

I am pretty sure that the Management Committee probably thinks I have been contacting members and poisoning the well. I have not contacted members. I have passed on a few things that happened to me while I was still a member (now blogged about) to those who have contacted me.  Any complaints that members currently have have nothing to do with me and these members have come to their own conclusions about the present state of moderation. I believe that if members are upset about moderation practices, they should be able to approach the Management Committee about it and be taken seriously.

Regarding confidentiality (I have already stated this in another blog post), I have been asked on many different occasions to keep information I have learned from various members on both Phoenix Rising and S4ME totally confidential and I have. Even though I would dearly love to blog about some of these things, I won’t because I promised total confidentiality. A few members confided some really private details about themselves to me while I was on staff at Phoenix Rising, I have never repeated those details to anybody including Mark because I was asked not to. I also learned some very private things about some members when I was accepting them as members on Phoenix Rising via doing email searches. We would google a new users email address to check to see if they were a spammer, sometimes we would learn more than we ever wanted to know. This kind of information is also private and something I would never reveal.

I don’t appreciate the Management Committee’s innuendo about privacy. I posted things that were pertinent to the points I was trying to make. I don’t do these things to embarrass people or hurt them. S4ME was created because of me. If I hadn’t blown the whistle on Phoenix Rising, I doubt any of these people would have taken the initiative to start S4ME. I was and am deeply upset at the treatment I received from the Management Committee and the Moderation team. As part of feeling better and healing, blogging about it has really helped and if they don’t like it — tough. I blogged about their statement in response to yet again be treated so horribly by them. They went out of their way to break their own rules just to make some self-important statement when there was no reason to do so. They jumped to conclusions with no fact checking and then proceeded to attempt to throw me under the bus with innuendo. I guess the Management Committee just doesn’t understand that when people do this kind of thing to me, I don’t just passively take it, I respond.

As I have repeatedly said, S4ME is a great forum per its purpose. I am glad that S4ME exists because the internet was lacking a scientific focused ME site. That being said the Management Committee is pretty much a clique and an echo chamber and they don’t take on board anything that anybody says that they don’t agree with. Moderators shouldn’t be on the Management Committee and vice versa. When they had their election, if they had it, did they include themselves for re-election? I think they all would have been re-elected but not to put themselves up for re-election speaks volumes. I hope, at least, my blog posts have given them pause to reflect on their behaviour and maybe improve it. Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. 😦

I think I am probably going to write one more blog and then be done.

Statement by the Management Committee of S4ME — part 4

Here is the next paragraph of the Management Committee’s statement:

These accusations were thoroughly investigated by a subcommittee consisting of the five committee members who were not moderators, who investigated in detail every moderator interaction involving TiredSam. The investigation found he had no case to answer. The process took several weeks and was extremely stressful for TiredSam. The segment of conversation that was screenshot and displayed in Kina’s blog occurred in the private moderation area during that highly stressful period and was dealt with appropriately.

I can safely say that ‘these accusations’ were not thoroughly investigated by the ‘subcommittee’. None of them contacted to ask me questions or to clarify anything I had said in my complaint.

I would like to address the Management Committee’s ‘no case to answer’ comment. The use of ‘no case to answer’ is interesting. It is a British term used in criminal law where a defendant seeks an acquittal without having to present a defence. When the prosecution closes its case during a criminal trial, the defendant may state to the judge or magistrate that there is ‘no case to answer’. If the judge agrees, the matter is dismissed and the defendant is acquitted without having to present any evidence in their defence. ‘No case to answer’ is also used in civil cases (very rarely) where it is argued that the pleaded case and/or evidence does not meet the minimum threshold to establish liability.

Here is my evidence, you judge if there was ‘no case to answer’.

Having been a moderator for over six years on Phoenix Rising, I think a can state that I possess more than a little expertise in the area of forum moderation. I wrote a moderation manual for Phoenix Rising (approved by the Board) which included a ‘Code of Conduct’ for moderators that they had to agree to if they wanted to become a moderator. Sushi was fired because she did not adhere to the code of conduct that she agreed to when she signed on as a volunteer. Unfortunately, two members of the Board of Phoenix Rising reinstated Sushi thereby making a very public statement that it is perfectly alright for a moderator to repeatedly breach confidentiality, lie to the membership, and lie to other staff members in order to manipulate them. The ‘Code of Conduct’ was written after researching numerous other forums to see what their rules were related to moderators. The ‘Code of Conduct’ was also heavily based on advice by Patrick O’Keefe, the author of  ‘Managing Online Forums: Everything You Need to Know to Create and Run Successful Community Discussion Boards’.

It is pretty well universally agreed that Moderators must follow forum rules because if a Moderator breaks the rules, how can members be expected to follow the rules? Whether moderators want to admit it or not, their behaviour is closely scrutinised by members and their behaviour on the forum does count even if they claim they aren’t posting as a ‘moderator’. You can’t take off your moderator hat and then personally attack a member and then put it back on and moderate members for doing the same thing. It is also true that if a moderator breaks the forum rules and/or breaches confidentiality, they will have their moderation privileges removed. Another universal expectation is that moderator’s must exercise fair judgement and not be biased, thereby putting personal interest, personal beliefs, and ongoing friendships with members aside. Moderators should treat all members equally and be equally respectful to staff and non-staff. It’s not rocket science, it’s common sense. Well run forums make sure that their moderator’s follow some kind of code of conduct.

I know that S4ME was in the process of writing their own Moderation Manual during this time, and I was told by a member of staff that they were using the one I wrote as their guide. I wonder if they have a code of conduct for Moderator’s and what it looks like. Maybe they should publish a copy on the forum, so members know what to expect.

So, with ‘no case to answer’, the Committee has basically decided that TiredSam can:

• break the rules
• swear at and verbally abuse staff and members
• ban a member with total bias
• contact non-staff members to discuss private moderation issues and poison them against other staff.

I still can’t fathom that there was ‘no case to answer’. There was a case to answer but I guess their bias won out.

I initially wrote to the Committee because I was quite concerned about TiredSam’s behaviour.  I stated that TiredSam would be better suited not directly moderating members due to many instances of inappropriate behaviour. I suggested his time could be better used performing other duties. He found out that I had said these things and acted in a way that was out of proportion to the situation as well as taking it as a personal attack which it wasn’t meant to be. I have previously discussed TiredSam in this blog post.

So ‘no case to answer’ related to this:

and

and

All personal attacks, yet ‘no case to answer’.

The following was written by another moderator during this ‘highly stressful period’. I have redacted names because I feel it’s not necessary to include them and for privacy reasons. I will also keep the author of this post private.

So again ‘no case to answer’ even though other staff were very upset with TiredSam and not with me.

The following was written by another staff member. I guess the opinion’s of other staff was irrelevant to the Management Committee. I won’t identify this person either. This was all related to the problems with TiredSam. I got to the point where I stated I could no longer be on Staff, if TiredSam was on staff. TiredSam wasn’t the only one stressed out. I was still suffering the fall-out from Phoenix Rising and was enduring his attacks as well.

 Very astute, yet the Management Committee decides ‘no cause to answer’.

The Management Committee found ‘no case to answer’ related to TiredSam contacting non-staff members to discuss confidential issues:

This is from a Conversation which was subsequently sent to Valentijn by the member. I do not remember what the moderation issue was with the member. It looks like the member had a post edited or deleted. The rest of the post is a huge breach of confidentiality and the sole purpose was to poison the member against myself and Valentijn and not about the moderation issue at hand at all. The member responded and TiredSam subsequently wrote:

The member in question left the forum in response to poor moderation after both Valentijn and I had stepped down. He/She chose to pass on this Conversation (I am just making that clear because the Management Committee has a penchant for accusing me of doing things that I haven’t done. So no, I haven’t hacked your website).

I really like TiredSam’s admission of being ‘bloody minded’.

• someone who is bloody-minded makes things difficult for others and opposes their views for no good reason.
• deliberately uncooperative
• chiefly British : stubbornly contrary or obstructive : cantankerous
• bloodthirsty; cruel
• tending to be perverse or obstructive
• obstinate, stubborn

I agree with TiredSam, he is very bloody minded. I am pretty sure moderator’s shouldn’t be ‘bloody minded’, not a great ‘trait’ to possess when in a position of power and in working a group setting.

There is ‘case to answer’ when a moderator throws other staff under the bus and discusses confidential issues with non-staff.

According the Privacy Policy on S4ME:

There is an expectation that members will not make information that could be reasonably considered private, public. Members revealing the private information of another member with the intention to cause harm are likely to face sanctions.

What sanctions did TiredSam face? He was certainly attempting to harm both Valentijn and myself. I wonder if he was sowing the seeds of discord with other non-staff. I can speak for myself here, I did not discuss an staff issues with non-staff during this time. I discussed many things with Mark who was on the Board and totally disgusted with their behaviour.

So, ‘no case to answer’. I guess the Management Committee of S4ME approves of and allows their moderators to:

• break the rules
• swear at and verbally abuse staff and members
• ban members with total bias
• contact non-staff members to discuss private moderation issues and poison them against other staff.

You be the judge! My crime was to discuss why my link to this blog was removed from my signature on S4ME. I got banned for that. What did TiredSam get? — ‘no case to answer’

I think it would do the Management Committee good to really look at their decisions and behaviours. I understand that in the future, they want to turn S4ME into a charity. They might want to review the following and perhaps adjust their behaviour accordingly. The following applies to charities in the United Kingdom.

Right to be safe

Every person who volunteers with works for or comes into contact with a charity should be treated with dignity and respect, and feel that they are in a safe and supportive environment.

All charities have a responsibility to create an inclusive culture that does not tolerate inappropriate, discriminatory, offensive or harmful behaviour towards any person who works for, volunteers with, or comes into contact with the charity.

Charities should also be places where people’s well-being and mental health are valued and promoted so that anyone working in the charity or coming into contact with the charity is encouraged to value and invest in their own health and well-being.

Upholding the principle

This means charities should:

• • stand against and have a clear approach to prevent abuse of trust and power including bullying, intimidation, harassment, discrimination or victimisation in all their activities
  • create a culture that supports the reporting and resolution of allegations, suspicions or concerns about abuse of any kind or inappropriate behaviour.
  • ensure that anyone working or volunteering for the charity understands the expectations placed upon them, and provide the relevant training to support them in meeting their responsibilities
  • ensure that anyone who works or volunteers in the charity has access to proper support and advice if they:
    • experience or witness unacceptable behaviour
    • raise a concern or make an allegation about the actions of others
    • don’t feel safe

Statement by the Management Committee of S4ME — part 3

The following is the next paragraph of the Management Committee’s statement:

Recently, Kina has added a new blog, posted on the proposed starting date of our election, which reveals private information and discussions she had with S4ME staff members on closed staff threads while she was on the staff here. This relates to matters which occurred over a year ago, when Kina made accusations to the committee about how TiredSam carried out his duties as a moderator.

I added the blog which they are referring to on September 1st, 2019. I wasn’t aware that the day I posted my blog coincided with the proposed starting date of their election. It didn’t even cross my mind. Has this election occurred? Did anybody volunteer to join the Management Committee? Why would they even mention that? Did they think my blog post might change the election results. Highly doubtful. These days my blog doesn’t usually get a lot of traffic. I don’t even post links to it anywhere, I never have except in my signature on S4ME. I write my blog posts when I have spare time and when I am feeling up to it.

What I revealed in my previous blog post related to ‘The Bad’ occurred after I was banned. What I revealed related to ‘The Ugly’ via screenshots occurred both before and after I stepped down as a volunteer.

 I got banned for blogging about why the link to this blog was removed from my forum signature. I can’t imagine any company in the real world firing a person for talking about their work situation with other people and why they are unhappy. It’s what people do. I communicate via this blog about how I felt about events on Phoenix Rising and subsequently S4ME. It’s quite cathartic for many reasons. If S4ME were a bricks and mortar company, I would have talked about events with coworkers and friends and S4ME couldn’t have done anything about it (unless I was exposing strictly confidential company secrets after signing a non-disclosure agreeement).

Stating that I have revealed private information in their Management Commitee statement is nothing but an attempt to further malign me and really there is no reason to be making a statement about it at all.

During the time that I was a volunteer on S4ME, there were no rules written by S4ME regarding what ex-staff could or couldn’t say related to back-channel issues, Committee issues… . I certainly did not sign any type of confidentiality clause. Therefore, I have no contractual obligation to maintain confidentiality. What I decide to post is up to me and maybe if the Management Committee had treated me with more respect and taken my complaints seriously, I wouldn’t have decided to blog about it. I wasn’t actually ever going to blog about it but many things led me to change my mind. The simple fact is just because they would rather not have me share this information, it is not a reason for me not to do so. I live in the real world where I am free discuss my own personal feelings and if the S4ME Management Committee doesn’t like it — tough. It’s not up to them to tell me what I can or cannot say.

Perhaps, the Management Committee should devise some kind of  of non-disclosure contract to ensure staff and/or ex-staff never refer to their secret activities behind the curtain. Non-disclosure clauses or gagging clauses used to be enforced to stop employees from sharing trade secrets with other companies, now they are used to hush up claims of harassment, bullying and other abuse. Well, I am sorry but why should people remain silent and not speak out when they feel wronged or have been treated badly? No company, internet based or not, should have rules that stop a victim from speaking out? Why should the Management Committee be able to act without transparency behind closed doors? Why all the demand for secrecy? If they don’t want staff/ex-staff/members/ex-members discussing their actions, then maybe they should work on being less controlling, more transparent and truthful, and stop maligning members if they choose to complain about moderation and/or the Committee. The best way to lose members is to dismiss any complaints as being the fault of the member.

I do not post ‘private information’ to gossip about or embarrass people. I have really tried to limit screenshots and to make them relevant to the point I am trying to make. So, yes I posted ‘private information’ related to the TiredSam’s behaviour and actions. I feel it necessary to speak out and in the case of my ‘accusations’ related to TiredSam, I am not finished.