Fixing the co-op forum

It's ok to link to another website from the classifieds.

Perhaps if admin gets complaints, they can be immediately forwarded to the co-op committee; no other action required.

I think it's possible Dave will allow them again. He has said if we correct the two main issues, he would reconsider. I have to trust his word, since we are putting in a serious effort here.

I do not believe they are irreparable. (Hi, db...long time... :-)

I'm not sure if the co-op forum is ultimately fixable, but I'm very glad we're pursuing solutions on 2 fronts -- trying to fix the co-ops and looking for an alternative way to do group purchases. With all these ideas being discussed, I really think we'll come up with something -- either way -- that will allow us to continue to participate in these great deals!

I truly felt like I had been hit between the eyes with a board when the co-op forum was discontinued and had to step back. Thanks to all of you for being constructive and working so hard on this to try and get it back!

I have read/skimmed through the thread and have seen some great ideas. Here are my thoughts so far and sorry if I missed anything!

The committe idea was something that I thought would work very well. Would it be possible to select two people at a time to head the commitee and rotate out every three months? It might be a good idea to have one of the two to have had personal experience running a co-op. This would be a total of eight people which is certainly do-able. That way people would not get stuck dealing with constant problems and suffer burn-out and it would hopefully prevent some of the hard feelings since they would not be in that position for a great length of time during the year. A three month committment is not that long and could be changed yearly. Consider it as an opportunity to serve your community! Kind of like going in to the army.

The idea of a concise "accept" button for participants in a co-op is also an excellent one. As stated above people are very used to seeing these so it should not pose a problem as far as resistance to the idea. If they did not choose the "accept" option then they could not participate. If they did choose to accept and there was a "whiney" type problem direct them back to it and ENFORCE it. If it got enforced the whiners would eventually get the message. No headache for you or admin. There will be legitimate problems and that is where the committee members would step in.

A concise guide to hosting a co-op would also be invaluable as a sticky on top of the forum. If we had that guide it would be easier on everyone involved including the hostess. I bet there are some great people out there that would have hosted if they knew how and some that tried but got in over their head unintentionally. An experienced co-host for the first one would be something I would suggest as one requirement. A spreadsheet is another thing that would be very valuable as a requirement. It tells in a glance exactly where each participant stands as well as the availability of limited items. Something I would not do is have a requirement that the host must have been a member of DG for a certain amount of time. Age does not confer wisdom and it would eliminate a lot of really good people. The co-host requirement for a first time co-op would be much better.

I really like the way the co-op forum was set up with threads that were for orders and chat threads and would like to see that remain the same as it seemed to be working really well.

OK just looked at this post and somehow it has gotten r-e-a-l-l-y long. So will stop for now.

Wrong forum. Sorry Fairy! I'm moving over to alternatives.

This message was edited Nov 9, 2008 10:00 PM

The original reason for the requirement of being a paying subscriber for 2 years was to eliminate vendors or vendors friends from paying for a membership in order to run a coop for the vendor. If people are here for 2 years or whatever timeframe is decided, then they would be less likely to be a secret representative of a company.

I never meant to imply that being on DG for 2 years automatically makes someone capable of hosting a coop. I think the main host should be here for 2 years and the rest of the team or apprentices wouldnt have a membership time requirement.

chris

Please make sure that we are indeed keeping on topic

This thread is a fix it thread, there is a seperate alternative thread and I think that we truly do need to keep them seperate-my brain was trying to act simultaniously inputting all the wonderful ideas, but not all were geared towards FIXING it-some were alternatives...

I also have to beleive Dave at his word-he has never given me any reason to think otherwise-if we can resolve the issues he will indeed reconsider. I, by no means, think co-ops are a dead issue and have the greatest of hopes that this wonderful group has come up with some great ideas that can really work.

For rotating out the committee-I too think it will have to be staggered-if you take lets say 7 people (odd # for voting reasons), if you replace all 7 at once, you are getting in 7 new people that are starting out blind. I also think the first set will have to be in place for a longer period of time to get the kinks worked out.

I am not saying that the committee will alleviate all of admin's problems, but I truly do think it would diminish their burden's by a large percentage.

I also agree that for a disclaimer, it would have to be clear and concise-similar to a resume-get the most across in the fewest amount of words.

As far as the committe is concerned could there be a "closed" forum that only new and old committe members would have access to for the purpose of giving each other feedback on what has worked and not worked regarding running the forum or in regards to disciplinary action? That way a lot of the learning curve would be eliminated making for a smooth transition each time a committe member is rotated out.

I suggested a restricted forum such as that when I started discussing the committee idea... I don't see any way of making a committee work without that.

I agree-it needs to be behind closed doors to make it work-having it public would be humiliating for the peopl being "reveiwed" and would make things way worse, not better...

Thanks Critter! I am so sorry to have missed that but it does however mean that not all of my ideas are really bad ------------ :^)

no ideas are bad:) Some may just be more in line with waht will work is all:)

Great minds think alike you know:)

So now there are no more Co=ops?? What is next?

I would like to expect that we are all adults who understand English. therefore, if we have signed (in one way or another) a set of rules and regs and understanding thereof with a promise to comply, that there is not a single one of us who should be running to anyone with complaints about something that was said or done a little different from our liking.
My suggestion is that we all approach this as adults and be required to sign that our language and behavior will reflect the same.
Also, there have been some wonderful suggestions tonite that I concur with.
Thank you
Sheri

I have read most skipped through some but don't know if this idea was brought up yet.
I think I am understanding that possibly a mentor or a co-op forum moderator was mentioned? In regards to D-mail complaints going to admin, the Contact Us link has a drop down menu as to the type of question, comment, etc. Perhaps adding another option, something that would designate it as something pertaining to all comments & questions regarding co-ops so that it gets directed to whoever is going to help/monitor/mentor or whatever, so it doesn't go into this thing that wrecked this in the first place, directly to Dave, Terry and Melody. The person or persons helping out with those can tactfully & effectively diffuse whatever problem is brewing or at least point them to the co-op rules and especially highlight the disclaimers.

I think that is a great idea Sue!!

Fairy, your point about the longevity of committee service is a good one. Quarterly is way too frequent for change in committee membership. Also staggering the term endings to create a smooth transition is an excellent idea. Maybe a way to start this would be to have the initial committee members sign up for a period of their preference and let the staggering of turnover occur naturally but with some refinement based upon the need for adequate staffing.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread concerning my original suggestions regarding qualifications to be a committee member versus eligibility requirements to host a coop.

Every commitee member does not need to have hosted a co-op. The purpose of the committee is not to run a co-op. Their purpose is to see that the co-op is well run, follows the DG rules, serves the spirit and mission of DG and supports a pleasant experience for the membership. It takes time to learn the DG rules, get to know the personalities and diverse needs of the members as well as to absorb the flavor and appreciate the spirit of the DG community. This community has it's own unique unwritten etiquette which is in a large part what makes it such a great enviornment. This learning process is what necessitates a member to have perused the forums and have been an active DG participant for a certain time period, ie 2 or however many years.

The eligibility requirements to host a co-op could be either the demonstration of prior successful co-op management for repeat hosts, or the co-host mentoring process mentioned in other posts above. A co-host for all co-ops is probably a good idea.

Dave's comments this morning seemed to make it very clear that he wanted the solutions and responsibilities for handling the co-op issues to be resolved at the membership level. A member committee is truly a way for the members to shoulder this responsibility.

For a self policing organization to work, all participants need to agree to be bound by the decisions of the governing organization or can choose simply not to participate. Any complaints directed to the administration either about a co-op or the co-op committee should be redirected to the committee by administration for the committee to resolve. Of course there will be complaints about the committee, but if the administration is supportive of the committee for taking this burden off of their plate, then the situation should prosper. The committee and the administration can hold their own private discussions when needed.

I agree that grievences should be able to be presented to the committee confidentially as I have seen how members have been treated by other members when they have voiced their concerns on the co-op threads. I hope never to see this again.

For those brave souls willing to address the issues publicly this may be a good idea if only to allow the at large membership to help simplify things that are only misunderstandings and not really grievences. I've often seen this happen and been resolved politely and humorously on co-op threads.

Thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who is trying to make this work!!!!

I have spent quite some time tonight to read through what all of you astute members have been suggested. Many thanks to Dave for allowing us some time to confer and suggest and to keep the door open a crack for us on this issue...

I love so many of the suggested put forth so far:
1. Having a committee...I think this could work, but putting into place on the site the suggestions of a closed thread for the committee to work, the drop down bar that Calif_Sue just suggested, etc. For the committee to work the best and affectively, they will need such tools. This will help get things handled sooner as a whole and to diffuse such situations.

2. Odd number on committee.

3. Agree that time on DG doesn't make the best host..

4. DEFINITELY I agree with the ACCEPT button of sorts...definitely (IMHO). I also hope that everyone will act as adults and treat others as they wish to be treated. I have cringed in the past at some comments that were posted in public to a host...we all need to do such in private (IMHO) please.

5. I love the idea of the host/hostess STICKY...that would certainly help me if I would consider to host on day. I also LOVE the idea of the committee being able to approve the host, the vendor, size...this will help prevent some from going bad. Prevention is one of the best ways to ward off the problems...

6. I love the idea of a mentor/co-host for first co op...I would welcome that for me...definitely. (Hey, all these great guidelines suggested tonight could bring a bunch of us frequent buyers to think more about actually moving up to be a hostess.)

7. I appreciate Dave allowing us the process to work together...it is a strength of DG that I see now that makes me proud to be a member of this great group of people. Thank you from the bottom of my heart-shaped hosta foliage...

Sorry if I haven't commented on everything...there are so many good suggestions. I can really see the vision of a better and stronger co op than ever...

Keep it up...
Off to bed...hope to catch up with you all sometime tomorrow...ZZZZZzzzzz......
RatherB

WOW!! I say STOP the over regulation!!! Just have a commitee that would manage any problems. All co-op participants MUST go to a resolution board and their decission is final!! Both sides being heard.
As to vendors...who are members as with Bleek and Dori I do not see the problem!!
Remember most people will NOT by if the prices are bad, the goods or vendor is not well known or sends poor mdse.!! I say do not attempt to over regulate!! It takes too much effort! that is why Dave is done! All we weed is a MEDIATION BOARD and that group can be 3 and 2 as a majority on a decission. It can change yearly so no one group has the pressure or duty all the time!!
THAT IS ALL WE NEED!!!
Just my 2 cents!
Julie

Here's a novel idea you guys!!

I went over and looked at the classifieds and there were some on there that listed everything they had to sell (itemized), and the prices and the shipping charges. That way you are dealing direct with the vendor, you may even know the vendor from the coops.

Such as, Bleek has a whole list of bulbs on there. A half a dozen or so of them are Amaryllis, double blooming, for $6. And tons of other bulbs. Just a guess, but about 25 different Alliums and a lot of Narcissas etc.

I kind of like that idea. So, other than having a host who deals with a whole lot of people, how is it different? Plus, I would think, you would get your order a lot sooner.

Don't send me nasty emails. It's just another idea.

Jeanette

There was a fairly recent daylily co-op that was listed on the Classified, it went very well as I understand.

With Melvatoo's help, a potentially time-consuming and labor-intensive Countryside Roses co-op was converted into a hassle-free DG classified ad placed by the vendor, who offered the same discount in the ad that we had negotiated for the co-op. The vendor took care of all the handling, shipping, and correspondence with customers. It was a much better way of handling discount purchases, in my opinion.

Wow: so many great ideas here and in the "alternative" forum. It's great to see everyone working on positive solutions. I'll be happy to accept any reasonable plan that would allow coops to continue; have to honestly say that the coops are one of the major reasons I continue my DG membership. The buys are great, and it's a fun way to try new plants and products and learn from other members.

I do love all the ideas and again, som of these are alternatives, not fix it solutions, but I whole heartedly agree that the communication and ideas on this are wonderful!!! I think overall that we have a great Goal and a wonderful Action plan-I can't wait to see what Dave has to say about all the thinking we have done.

And one thing that was just recently brought up that is a good idea is that in order to host/participate in the co-op that that disclaimer we are talking about should include that the committee will deal with the resolution of ALL co-op forum issues-decision is fair and final.

I've already put my 2 cents worth in. And I see that many of you have answered a lot of my questions, some I hadn't even known I was needing to ask... thank you.
But I have one question I'm still not clear about... here's 2 more cents.

In the event that an order either isn't shipped, arrives dead, or for some reason, the plants arrive unusable. What recourse would I have? Would the committee take care of that for me with the host?
The one and only coop I have participated in was just a couple weeks ago, and the plants won't ship until the spring. Will the committee deal with the host for me if I can't resolve the issue myself?

NOTE: I have no doubt that the host I was dealing with is honest and I will receive healthy plants... I am only thinking about future coops. So, breath, Stacey... breath.


This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 6:00 AM

My 2 cents on bj's question...I would think that you would be able to talk to the committee and find out WHY the plants were unusable or dead. The host MIGHT be able to replace or refund, which is always the best option. When you suggest that the order was not shipped, well, if by some slim chance a host is a total ripoff or had good intent but something happened and they just never shipped, then there would be NO RECOURSE and you would lose your money. The committee is never going to be able to force someone to refund.
They would have sympathy and disappointment that a host did the wrong thing as we all would, because it wouldnt be just 1 person in that coop that had a problem. That is the exact example that the committee would have to say..."sorry that this happened but coops are your own risk and this one didnt work.
It would be said with alot more tact than what I just wrote, but you get the idea.

I think mock problems like these would be good.

So, in that case... I would think a STAR system would be helpful. For those newbies to DG who want to participate in coops, and don't know enough about the hosts... it would give them a guideline as to who has a history of successful coops. I consider myself a newbie, still. And I would ask a lot of questions before purchasing, both of the host, and of others I've met on DG. But brand new newbies might not have that option, or know the right questions before they jump in.

Plus... should I get an answer like that from a committee member (tactfully)... I would expect some "penance" to be paid by the host.

Wow, what a wonderful bunch of ideas! However the mediator panel is ultimately set up, I think the final selection (from suggestions/volunteers/nominees) should be made by DG mgmt. Selection should be from DG'ers Admins know are supportive of the AUP. There is much we are not privy to on this side of the interface.While we can easily identify who is not running a good co-op, fronting for a company would not be as easy to identify. For instance, it never occurred to me until recently that there might be an inappropriate relationship between a Company and a Hostess. That's a difficult thing to prove, I know I certainly did not feel I had anything strong enough to report to DG.

Just my 2 cents,

Maggie

I've read most of the posts and I think mention was made somewhere of allowing threads on the Classified Forum. Wouldn't a good alternative to the Co-op be to allow a vendor to list a special DG Discount for a specified amount of time and specified plants. Then the members could freely place orders on that thread. All responsibility would be between the member and the vendor and DG would still get the ad money.
The vendor could still be approved just as all classified ads are approved before posting.
Jan...

Lots more posts, I like the idea of whoever made the post of a drop down box. You have the " Accept Button" and it has in it about goign to the drop box if you feel you have a problem and that dmails to admid wil not be accept ony through the committee members.

Commttee members could then dmail in private and so some resolving if the host doesn't and like somebody said redirect them to the clauses in the Accept button they signed, which I think wil stop the dmails to Dave and everybody else.

Also agree, with whoever said that those who breka thos erules be punished. Like those that can not conduct busine s in private and have to get ugly on the forums that cause other peopel to unwatch, no body should be put into that position. I think they right, if some of these folks can't conduct in private like adults and if some were actually removed, maybe even for a certain time, they would and others would try and keep the co-oops fun and civilized.

Jan.. The problem with the classified is only 25 people can list at a time. Sometimes when you turn your add in for acceptance you may have to wait a week or two for it to be posted til somebody else's runs out and anothe rslot opens. If you put all these co-ops on the classifie d then the small people who us eit would be lost and swamped under co-op threads. They have product too that only has maybe a certain shelf live. I just don't feel the littl ebackyard gardenrs and such should be swamped with coop threads.

I wanted to inject a comment about failed co-ops and "penance" by the host. In the case of fraud, legal action could be pursued (or threatened), and I think that would get the backing of admin. But there are many reasons for dead or unacceptable plants, and if they were in sad shape when they arrived to the host (either due to bad plants being shipped or to a shipping mishap along the way), then there's little the host can do other than try hard to settle things with the vendor... and there are vendors who ship "at your own risk" and don't do refunds.

I can also think of a couple of co-ops that ran into some trouble because (IMO) the host allowed the co-op to get much too large (especially for a live plant purchase with reshipping) and backed themselves into a corner with regard to timely reshipping. Hopefully, having co-hosts and/or committee member oversight could prevent a problem like that.

Actually, in the first case, one question the committee might ask potential hosts is what agreement they have with the vendor in case plants show up in bad shape. First time hosts, especially, might not thing to double check refund policies.

So, I don't think "penance" would necessarily be a good or effective thing (except to satisfy angry participants who want revenge), but I do think we can reduce the number of unsatisfactory co-ops.

bj, I think a rating system specifically for hosts is very important. I agree that a "penance" be paid by the mock host in your example. I would probably not be good as a committee member because my "penance" would be instant banning from DG. If I was in a sympathetic mood maybe just a banning from the coop forum which would include buying or hosting.

I try to be tactful most of the time, but I have little tolerance for people who deliberatly do the wrong thing.

chris

I JUST barely got in on the last Amaryllis Co-Op, and only because of the kindness of the organizer who MOST KINDLY offered to let me have a few of their extras purchased to give as holiday gifts. Above and beyond kindness. I was excitedly looking toward Spring so I could hop aboard the Co-Op train!

Regardless of what is decided .....

There HAS to be ENFORCED repercussions for breaking the rules!

Kind-hearted or not, if there is a punishment, it should be executed .... no matter how fond you are of the worst offender! Or how much the offender has contributed to the site! I think it is reprehensible for someone to play on the kindness of Dave (or whom ever), just to get away with their little "Prima Donna" fit, knowing full-well they were breaking the rules set forth.

If it's against the rules, it's against the rules. Period!

I am sure there will be a solution to all of this, however, ULTIMATELY, the administration will HAVE TO execute the prescribed punishment on wrong-doers.

If Dave is too kind to do that (which would be ME being too kind if I were in his place), maybe it shouldn't be left up to him to do that dirty work. I would not relish that task any more than dear Dave. But, I know there are some who would be honored to be in charge of that, and be most benevolent in the process. Dave does NOT deserve personal attacks for trying to fix a system that a horrible few wish to ruin.

From what I have read, it seems that one of the (few) troubles is that one? of the worst offenders is particularly active in contributions? Look what's happened to our economy from not having repercussions for doing illegal things and just "looking the other way," or just "let them police themselves." THAT does NOT work.

As hard as it is to exclude or banish anyone, it is a NECESSARY evil to protect the masses.

If there is a way to "take advantage of the system," some "low-life" will try, unfortunately that is human nature for a rare few.

I hope I didn't come off sounding off-base, but, I can't express enough how much I abhor ONE (or a small few) PERSON ruining things for the masses (everyone else). After all, if this were a perfect world we wouldn't need prisons, now, would we?

William

Ok, so I can see a "tough love" clause being exhibited here... by some of you. That would make me more prone to participate in a coop if I didn't know the host very well.

I would also be more prone to purchase from a host if I saw a star rating... say, a host with a "blue" star by their name would tell me they've had several successful coops, and can be trusted. This coop would need very little monitoring by a committee member.
But, what about the first time coop host? No star? or a "white" star? or something that tells me that this coop is very limited, and very monitored by some committee... given that they're new to hosting a coop, they should be able to prove themselves, somehow.

Why is classified limited to 25 posts?

Could the same thing be done under the co-op forum but if it is vendor run, have them pay a listing fee?

I'm just trying to prevent "penance" for circumstances beyond the host's control...

I like the rating system idea. I'm not sure how somebody proves themselves as a host other than by hosting... but trying to ensure a "first co-op" is manageable in size should help. Also, perhaps somebody should be required to participate in a co-op before they can host one (most hosts are prior participants, I think), as that will help them learn the ropes. ?

I think now and could be wrong that if there a problem with hoist takign money nad no product returned, that Dave and Terry step in and give the person a chance to rectify matters and they deal with that as it should be. There have been a few over the years, that have been resolved and hopefully we never see that again. That the only pentince I can really see for the hosts.

The minor things are part of the risk we take goign into them and have always seen hosts ask if everybody got everything and such and try an dmake it right and go out of their way to make sure everybody happy.

The reason I suggest an accept button, is how many times does somebody say in the tropical forum see a co-=op for tropicas and just post the link to the co-op. Folks in the forum se eit and evrybody clicks to it, nebie sand regulars and nobody wil stoptoread the stickies first and then you have newbies especially who don't understand all the rules and policy sand what to expect and feelings get hurt. Even being told there is a sticky they totally ignore it and then wonder why ... why.. why..

It only hold 25 posts right now because of some computer clitch or somethign liek that. It was explained on one of these threads. Forget which one nd I on dial up or I woudl try and get it for ya. When he gets chance Dave gonna try and work on it.

I would never want to punish a host for something that is beyond their control. I am trying to think back if there was ever a situation like that...which probably would be the companies fault...which if they had a good rating in Watchdog then I think they would make good on the purchase. If it was proved to be...lets say "lost in shipping somewhere sitting in a corner"...Postal service will not make good on live stuff, but I think most people in the rest of the co-op would usually be more than sympathetic and want to share and help the person who lost out. But that is not a guarantee or warranty.

With a rating system, when we see a new or first time host, we would be able to "test order".
Maybe order just a couple of things with an amount of money that is not devistating should something go wrong. That would be our own choice.

Forgot to say I like the little star idea. I have noproblem jumping in with newbie hosts. I read what they have, know my risks and if I have seen them on the forums or check and see if they active aroudn forums, will jump in with both feet.

Some of those first tiem hosts may be people who don't participate much in the coops but are great at gifting plants and seeds to folks. I know the gifted seeds and plants I receive from folks on the forums shows me they care about folsk and will show that same care if they hosting. Same goes for those folks that I see always offerignhelping hands to help folks out with advice. This shows me they will answer my questions and have patience if I goof in tryign to get my order straight. That just how I decide to join in.