Fixing the co-op forum

I also like the rating system idea. However it's done... whether it's stars, etc. I think it would make newer members much more comfortable joining in on their first coop. It can be a scary thing, sending money to someone you don't know at all, not knowing for sure if you will ever get your order.
As for the newer members who want to try their hand at running a coop, I think the mentor idea is a good one for them, so they have a chance at getting started. Also the limiting participants or product. The only possible problem I see with that is the "mentor" would have to be very careful to only step in when necessary. The new ones won't learn if the mentor "takes over" the coop.

Thanks Terry for gettign that cleared up. Still not thawed out here from the cold. Appreciate it. : )

OK
So if there is no limit in the classifieds, is there a reason this would not conceivably work?

I"ll admit I haven't read every post, but did want to throw my 2 cents in a bout a "committee" to oversee. Unless these people are people from outside who have no connection to the people running the co ops, there might be a problem.

ie. One of your friends is running a co op, and someone else complains, what do you do. It would be nice to think you could stay neutral, but could you really

ie If you were to be a committee member, could you still do co ops yourself and still be fair to everyone else. Or would you give us doing them yourselves.

Just a couple thoughts. We'd all like to think we could be totally impartial, etc., but I think it would probably run into the "fox running the henhouse" type thing.

I don't mean to be negative, but I think all things have to be thought through so if there are decisions made, they will work and we won't be here again.

I do think it would be good if all co ops had a "format" that was pretty much the same. I know all are diff and there would be some stuff that would have to be different, but lots could be the same. Would save any confusion for members from one co op to the other. One example. Most co ops charge some kind of handling fee. If members knew to expect that before even going into a co op thread, it would certainly save lots of time and energy explaining over and over why you are doing it. Charges would be diff, but there wouldn't be confusion about why, etc.

How about "classifying" the classified ?
Then if you are looking for Dahlias you would only have to go through Dahlia ads, for example.

Ok, so I see some of you who have hosted coops before are going to come up with a workable solution, hopefully. I'm only looking at this through the eyes of a "participant", and would never host a coop myself. (I left my organization skills at the office when I retired)

I've only been here to watch the process, and put my 2 cents in now and then. I'm also looking to talk my sister into joining DG, and I know the only reason she'd join is to take part in the coops, and for some of the plant talk forums. I would really hate to have either of us, or any friends I bring to this site for the coops, to get burned.

So, I'm just going to sit back and take notes for future reference now.
Somebody, please fix it.

I've been reading all weekend and have refrained from commenting much as I really don't post much on the forums these days. That said, I have formulated some thoughts I'd like to share.

1. There is a lot to be said for having conformity among the coop rules. It is very confusing for a new member I'm sure. A standard coop format is a good idea imo.

2. Having hosted some coops in years past, I have to say there are some hosts that are great at finding/getting deals hammered out, some hosts that are great at record keeping, and some hosts that just thrive on sorting and packing up bulbs, plants, gloves, whatever. People just have different strengths and skill sets. To that end I think the mentor idea really pays huge dividends in keeping things on the level and provides a sense of increased security that things might run smoother. To take that a step further, I would recommend that hosts pair up. I know that Kathy has done this recently and while, at times, it seems there are too many cooks in the kitchen on these, I think a 2-person hosting system is a great idea. So maybe a "coop committee" could evaluate host "applications" and keep a pool of approved hosts. Hosts could be classified as organizers, record keepers or shippers (in the case where vendors don't ship direct). Thus, if I want to host a coop and know my strength is in record keeping I could consult with the committee to find a suitable "shipper" host to help me co-host the coop.

I don't know how workable this could be but it sure seems that when there's sharing of the coop hosting responsibilities things run a little better.

3. Also, one of Terry's coop mantras has always been.....Keep it small. As much as I know DG'ers want to share a good deal with fellow gardeners I think setting limits on the size of a coop is something that should be considered, especially in the case of a first-time host. All the quick, small coops I've been in have been fabulous.

4. Back in the day, I did a couple of purchases from vendors that I shared with other DG friends. I contacted them privately as I knew they were avid collectors as I was of a given genus and we pooled our order (3 or 4 of us) and placed an order to save on costs. This was in the case of ordering lily bulbs from a Canadian supplier where phyto certificates and exchange rates were involved. Could the Classified area be used to search for Want To Buy opportunities? I guess this technically could be considered a really tiny mini-coop of sorts.

I can appreciate all of the suggestions, but please make sure they are constructive posts, no shouting:) I can imagine admin reading all these wonderful ideas right now-between this and the alternative thread their heads must be full of good stuff!!

I do have to say to Lorraine's devil's advocate post, that I think that is why you would have to be very particular in who you allowed to serve on the committee....they would have to be impartial-some of us don't have a problem letting people know when they have overstepped their boundries and despite their best intention, something went VERY wrong and that with everytihg else in this world, there are consequences.

And I agree with several posts about the ability to investigate any issues of reciept of materials that were not as desribed-ie. dead plants-and it would be there job to determine what the cause was....

I can't wait to see more admin comments:) That is why I keep popping in at work-can't help myself!!LOL

Good morning, thinking people.

Responses to recent posts...
1. I really disagree with the committee approving hosts and vendors. That's up to the buyers. A rating system will help be informed. I agree with Jazzzy-stop the over-regulations!

2. I think 5-7 committee members is plenty and a 3 month volunteer term doable for most folks, particularly if mentoring a co-op, however the mentoring continues until the co-op is completed. I agree that the first committee will have to sign on longer, but start rotating out at the 3rd month, perhaps 1 per month, so there is only one fresh face at a time to learn the ropes. No burn out. Perhaps committee members could elect to choose to stay an extra term.

3. I absolutely disagree with the thought that dg administration should choose the committee members. It puts us back where were are now.

4. I do not like punishment, but consequences. The more the Administration is involved with this, the less likely they will want to continue. Abuse of the co-op system results in banishments from co-ops, known to all participants. Other indiscretions on DG are admin's territory, INCLUDING taking co-op disagreements to the threads.

5. I believe there will be no issues of favorites with the committee, because decisions will be majority. I know I can be impartial, even when it makes someone angry at me. In addition, frequent rotation of members will mean favoritism, if in play, won't be for long.

6. I found the team approach to co-op hosting extremely satisfying, with up to four main organizers with one primary leader.

The one co-op I did alone, I screwed up collecting money and ended up losing a participant's check, who cancelled it within a couple of months, so I paid for her entire order (and more). Hosts need to know their limits, and the team approach allows strengths to shine and weaknesses supported. (I don't manage money well; I'd rather give it all away).

7. My apologies, but I am not interested in alternatives at this point, ie. the classifieds. The classifieds are fine for what they are, but not for buying 100 of one color of bulb and sharing it with twenty others. This thread is a fix it thread for co-ops. There is another thread for alternatives. I firmly believe that if any group can do the social hard work of cooperative buying (or really anything), it's the folks here.

It's the way of the world, folks. If we don't work together, we will all suffer consequences and we are now in our strapped economy.

I hope my abundance of white space doesn't offend, but I find it easier to read with some room between suggestions.

One question pops in my mind. How will new committee members be chosen?? Having a continual "vote" on the forum would get kind of old after awhile.
Would it be possible for an outgoing committee member to nominate someone to take her or his place? The new person would have to have the approval of the rest of the committe, of course

This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 9:57 AM

oh, another thought to the number of committee members and period served. There will be times of the year that we may need more committee members because of the number of co-ops.

Perhaps, committee members would NEVER be mentors while they are on the committee itself, but mentors could be from another pool - approved by the committee - and that was a rotating list. Perhaps following a mentorship, that person would rotate onto the committee for a "debriefing" stint. Those debriefings would review the co-op, discuss positive and negaative aspects, rate the host, the vendor, etc. and especially, learn and grow.
:-)


PS My caps are not shouting, but rather italics that I don't want to do the html stuff for... :-) Just so you know...

Good morning.

Looks and sounds very good 4paws.

Instead of rotating every certain amount of months. Could seperate people on the committee be asigned to a specific coop. This way they follow it from beginning to end.

As I am typing, it doesnt sound good anymore because in spring, there are so many coops at the same time, there may not be enough committee persons to go around. Hmmmmm...

cross post.

P.S. I dont see any shouting, and I think this is going very well.

Yes, I just thought of that, too chris, and typed a post as you were typing, but it disappeared into the ether. Drat.

Some times of the year, we would need more members on the committee. Other times, the committee could be on vacation, more or less.

Perhaps mentors would never be on the committee while they were mentors, but could rotate into a seat on the committee when finished to debrief and discuss (and rate the host, vendor, etc). Perhaps the committee doesn't have a set number, except at the minimums and maximum, with any odd number between. (say 5 - 13)

I was getting so excited, I got goosebumps...we are really going for some exciting stuff here - maybe a model for other parts of society.

(ether, please don't eat this)

I agree with 4paws first post this morning and people being assigned to a certain co-op.

All sound like good ideas to me too. I think this could fix the majority of problems for the complainers/rule breakers etc. But will it fix the 2nd part of the problem? The one Dave mentioned about vendors?

Just an idea... co-op committee persons could be comprised of a 'drawing' of people. Like jury duty.lol If you participate in a co-op you could have to serve just once every few years.

I do like the idea of separation between the committee members and a "pool" of mentors, if for no other reason than some co-ops run over a longer time frame than 3 months.

Should a mentor connected to an "active" co-op (delivery phase not yet completed) have access to the closed committee forum so they can bring issues into the forum for discussion? I think that makes sense, although to keep things simple only committee member would "vote" if a vote was needed on a solution or consequence.

We do need to think about terms and how many on a committee at once. If we are talking a seperate pool of mentors and committe members and the #ers to be 7 for the committee and equal that at certain times of the year for mentors I think we may be spreading it thin-that would be 28 committee members and how many mentors we would be looking for over the course of a year????? That is an awful lot when you are looking for qualified individuals....IMHO-we barely have that many peeps that care enough to stop in here and be constructive about the problems at hand.....it seems to be the same ones with several posts for the most part....just something to think about....

I think if we separate committee members from the mentor pool, 3 committee members serving at a time would be sufficient.

I think having a mentor or contact person is needed
Like in the peony co-op when people couldnt get a hold of the host and they
get NERVOUS .....The host had me as a back up and i had her phone number so i
could contact her and vice versa-She didnt have acess to a computer as much as
she thought she would have. So this really helped out when she needed something posted she called
me and i relayed it to the co-op. If we needed her I would call her with the questions.
I just think (IMO)that a back up person with a phone number would be a good thing

Oh and i may not be posting much but im right here with everyone as im sure
there are many watchers

Classifieds and coops are very different.

1) Coops are fun, a great social experience

2) Coops are educational. The chat threads give great cultivation and usage instructions.

3) Coops are collective team efforts engendering great camaraderie and helping each other make great gardens

4)coops allow members to share or trade purchases to help insure that everyone can get some of the best items. Recent coops that I've joined in when items would sell out, different members would give up some they had purchased so that everyone could get at least one.

5)coops allow members to post testimonals regarding the quality of plants or services they have previously received from the vendor and hosts.

6) coops provide easy solutions for those unexpected events that prohibit purchasers from being able to complete their purchases. The host can then reoffer the items to the members, which are usually claimed immediately.

7) coops inspire gardeners to try plants they would not normally consider from a classified ad

8)coops create larger discounts. Many coops final prices are determined by the ultimate size of the purchase. The more ordered, the larger the discount. Classifieds do not have this benefit, cooperatives have collective purchasing power

9) not all coops are created equal. the coops where members order directly from the vendor, and shipping is done by the vendor are often still coops. Great example is the seed coop still running. It started out with a relatively small discount, but as the orders have grown, now the discount is significant on some very hard to find seeds. The shipping is also free. These benefits are the result of a cooperative effort, not responses to a classified ad.

10)coops build strong and loyal membership and forge great frienships. Gardeners helping gardeners

I personally think that there needs to be more standardization in the administrative processes of coops. Perhaps the committee could steer these guidlines such as:

The use of spreadsheets for all

Paypal acceptance for all, this way the buyers get the benefit and recourse of Paypal's buyer's protection, without giving this headache to DG, the committee or the local law enforcement. I've used this, it works and you also get the buyer protection offered by the credit card you use with Paypal, not to mention your credit card's bonus points!

An easy way for all buyers to provide the host with their name address, form of payment and email address when placing orders.

A sticky message showing where to mail payments or what email address to use with paypal, the official time of order opening and the planned closing time as well as a standardized order format.

I personally do not think that serving on a committee and running a coop automatically creates a conflict of interest. Should a conflict arise, there would be a COMMITTEE of several (5 to 7 would be good) to provide oversight.

The foxes can watch the hens. It is done all of the time in business, LOL often with great results, despite the current financial debacle. My friendships with co-workers and subordinates, never prevents me from executing my managerial duties. I've also served on boards for community organizations and my member friendships never influence my judgement in making decisions that are for the good of the group. In any event, there would be a COMMITTEE of many to discern and oversee such relationships.

Problems will arise, they can not all be worked out in advance. The points offered here are great as they will help shape the frame work for the new improved coops. The coops will change and evolve as new and better services and products are offered and the committee, membership, and DG could participate in selecting these changes.

For practical purposes it might be advisable to limit the number of coops running simultaneously. Perhaps the placement of time limits on the length of an offering might be useful. Some sort of scheduling arrangement for coops could also be helpful.

For those of you who feel that DG wiil not enforce the rules or deter problematic members, I suggest you visit the other coop discussion forum to read some of yesterday's and today's posts. Unfortunate but helpful, Kudos to Dave!

Part of the acceptance button disclaimer feature could include an agreement not to discuss coop problems in other forums. Will this work absolutely, probably not, but it may help to control it. As in any thread where people go off topic, members can always step in and politely remind the poster to stay on topic.

The committee will have a network of alumni committee members to consult on larger issues before presenting problems or opportunities to DG and members. The new format should reap the benefits of the experience of long term members and provide a fertile enviornment for the growth and participation of the newer members.

One issue-a lot of co-ops are done far enough in advance where PP would offer NO added protection....

I think 3 on the committee is good...

I also think that the "jury duty" method isn't a particularly viable one-the person who's turn it is, may not still be a member...also, I know some people that get VERY upset and resent their call for jury duty-do we want resentful people running the committee?? They should be volunteers that meet certain easy criteria....

Yes, critter, I think mentors should have access to the committee, but not in the final decisions.

I think 3 is too few for the committee; I like the idea of everyone who participates being in a drawing, like jury duty. Individual participation is key in co-ops, therefore it will give every individual the opportunity to particpate other than paying their money.

Perhaps the initial committee could come from those who have hosted successful co-ops since they reopened. That would be a lot, but then those people could work out who will serve first, perhaps through a very basic drawing.

I don't think it's viable to have an outgoing member pick the next member...favoritism could be in play again (like little kids picking for a team).

I think many involved do not know this is happening, and if I hadn't heard from someone else, I wouldn't have known. I'm too broke to buy anything right now, so I haven't been tempting myself. 9Kitty is sick. Perhaps a group blast to former hosts.... guess it could be time for me to learn how to do that, eh? We need shihtzu in here, nyvoices, Pixydish, mgh, so many others who have hosted successfully.

Oh...someone wrote about setting up co-ops so that the vendor did all the work - like the Excalibur co-op (I'm so glad I sprung for it now!) - yes, those could be easily run through the classifieds, once it was decided there as enough interest to go to the vendor. We need the co-op forum to discuss vendor options, viability of the idea, etc. as a group. That's hard to do via email/dmail - least for me, it's confusing.

I too was wondering if there is really a big enough pool of people to pull from for mentors & committe members. As Fairy stated, it seems to be a very small group even posting on these threads.

I have never hosted a coop and have only participated in 2, had an interest in several. It is the participants that make the coops go. No buyers...no coops! So where are all the people who buy from them?

The vendor issue does seem to be a stalling point too. Not sure there is an acceptable solution to that issue that will be followed.

The committee idea has some merits, but also some serious pitfalls.

Instead of hanging your proverbial hat on that one idea, are there other ideas (that don't involve a committee) for fixing the co-op problems, namely:

1) Enforcing paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Acceptable Use Policy fairly, and ensuring that co-op vendors (whether they are members or not) aren't getting a "free ride", while other vendors are paying for ads and PlantScout listings.

and

2) Preventing the most common co-op problems, including handling disappointed buyers (when expectations were too high, or they have a legitimate complaint) and keeping organizers from biting off more than they can chew.

Keep in mind, we've already been down the road of pre-approving co-ops, and it was not successful.

Folks, just wanted to apologize for such a long post.

I so love the many great ideas being offered here.

I don't think it should be necessary for someone to have run a co-op to serve on the committee. Perfect case in point is Critter. I doubt that anyone would find her unsuitable to serve on a committee.

Fairy, you're right about Paypal and their 60 day limit on buyer protection, but it would apply that free service on many of the coops. In addition, many credit cards extend their buyer protection for longer than 60 days, and the buyer would still have that protection from the card they used on Paypal.

I'm pretty new to DG and very new to co-ops (participated in 2 this year and both were excellent). I think the idea of signing a disclaimer before participating in a co-op is the best idea so far. I'm still not convinced of the committee idea. We've all likely been part of a "committee" at some point in our lives and we can all probably agree that committees get bogged down in several things such as burn out, personal opinions, paperwork (!)/emails, lack of interest, etc.--the list goes on and on. I think that once you agree to a disclaimer that alleviates DG from any and all liability, you are on your own.

The co-ops have/had rules; a few folks chose to circumvent those rules. I appreciate Dave and others giving us the ability to discuss 'fixes' here but it doesn't seem all that difficult to me. Put the rules in place (don't change them for each co-op), have participants sign a release, and then go with it. Rather than have a committee, I'd suggest setting up a system that a group of people (volunteers) manage the complaints when they arise. The rule keepers could rotate off the job as they get burned out or life intervenes. The rule keepers are volunteers--they have no ability to change the rules or twist them to make them work for a select few (unlike a committee, which can set new rules). These folks, of course, would need to be thick-skinned and tough. So rather than a committee, I suggest a keeper of the rules or something to that end. And I'd also suggest making the rules very simple and in black and white--that makes the rule keeper's job quite easy. Sort of like a referee--DG sets the rules, the referee enforces them with no exceptions. The host/hostess of the co-op can always ask the referee to intervene. The rule keepers could be taken from an ongoing list of those who have volunteered--either alphabetically, numerically, etc. I think that DG admins should make this choice and then could defer any and all co-op questions/complaints to the rule keeper du jour. This takes the stress off of DG admins and makes co-op participants responsible for themselves.

JMHO

Terry, who does the enforcing, preventing, and handling you mentioned above? Would admin be willing to step into those roles again if we figured out a better framework for co-ops (standardization, disclaimers, etc.)? The committee idea is being bandied about mostly as an alternative to admin having to be involved (at least most of the time).

RN, we cross posted. My idea of what a committee would or wouldn't do is, I think, fairly close to your "rule keepers" concept. If I were on a co-op committee, I would not want to be in the position of changing the rules, for example... While it might be that some tweaks are necessary as things get fine-tuned, I would want to get more than 3 people's input into that. And there will always be shades of grey and things that need interpretation -- that's why I think it's necessary to have somebody in that sort of role, whether a committee or a set of "rule keepers," or admin.

I don't think co-ops should be subject to pre-approval as such (vetting hosts and vendors), but it might be useful for organizers to have to submit a certain amount of information before the ordering phase gets underway... I see a need for advisers and mediators, not for "Big Brother."

Terry, Even without a committee the use of Paypal and credit cards on all coops is one way to see that disappointed buyers are reimbursed for purchases gone awry and removes this responsibility from DG.

While we brainstorm for other solutions, could you please share your concerns re the pitfalls of a committee?

Without breeching confidentiality what are the typical ways that a vendor has gotten a free ride? What activity buy a vendor crosses the line between being a helpful accomodating vendor and being an abusive one?

Former coop hosts, How hard would it be to still get good vendors to negotiate co-op deals if they were required to pay DG a fee (another form of advertising revenue) to be eligible to offer coop sales to DG members? Alternatively, Could this fee be built into the handling fee and passed onto participants?

If disenfranchising paying advertisers, thereby diminishing DG profitibility, is the crux of the abusive vendor matter, this needs to be one of our biggest concerns . Without good advertising revenue DG will not flourish. I know that paying subscribers feel that their membership costs should offset this, but I have often been amazed at how few paying subscribers there are vs overall membership.

How much would it effect the ability to find good coops deals if a requirement for a seller to have access to the DG buying power is that all prospective vendors are directed to DG to purchase some advertising as part of the deal negotiations?

One of the problems with a committee is that it is a great idea until you have an unsatisfactory result yourself.

We are all like this.

If the committee does not tell you what you want to hear, members will simply go ahead and send the complaint to us...along with the complaint of how the committee was unfair to them. Then we have 2 problems. The committee will lose credibility if we overrule it and if not, we have upset members storming around the forums and the d-mail system trying to gain support for their side of the story.

You say that not complying with these rules should result in banishment. We take banishment seriously here and this is an utmost last resort to end a situation. It is rarely used, and we want to keep it that way.

Let me approach this from a more positive perspective. In order for a committee to be successful in resolving disputes, it must possess certain qualities:

1) Absolute discretion is crucial. The fewer who know, the fewer chances a rumor will leak out.

2) Fairness and consistency. Decisions must take into consideration past decisions, and with an eye toward future similar scenarios.

3) Authority. As you can see in the previous thread, some members can quickly forget and disregard admin's authority. I'm afraid volunteers will have a much harder time making their decision "stick" when tempers flare. (Then you're back to #1 - it's not easy or fun to stand by and let someone tell one side of the story, but you have to because you can't divulge what you know.)

4) Decisiveness and rapid response. Sometimes decisions require swift, decisive action to stop problems before they become widespread, but committees need time to react and reach consensus.



We have discovered situations where vendors initiated the contact with an organizer (essentially "shopped" for an organizer) because they had plants they wanted to sell to DG members, and were unwilling to use PlantScout, classified ads or the Marketplace to do so.

We have had vendors (who weren't aware of the no-self-promotion rules) post in the forums, asking for someone to host a co-op so they could offload their plants or seeds. When we deleted their posts, they were quick to point out a long list of other co-ops that they had suspicions or inside knowledge of similar arrangements. But as long as an organizer and vendor are willing to remain complicit, those are tough nuts for us to crack.

As long as there are participants who take the "I don't care, I just want a discount" mindset, some vendors continued to be rewarded for their boldness. And our efforts to stop them were met with resistance, if not downright hostility (an attitude of "how dare we stop this great deal by getting uptight over our petty little rules" was pretty apparent in some communications.)

We really needed for members to understand that this rule is in everyone's best interests. It is what lets us quickly and consistently sweep the spam ads to the door, and attract high-quality advertisers to the site. (A lot of advertisers want access to this audience, but if they think they can get "air time" for free, of course they're going to try that approach.)

That's why moving all co-ops to a "commercial" platform may be the best option--it completely removes the need for any vendor to try to skirt the rules. And if a vendor isn't willing to pay for a $5 classified ad to promote their business and products to 400,000 members and countless visitors, we should all be asking ourselves why that is.

Aloha,

I have participated in three co-ops and have been delighted with all of them, I would be very sorry to see them go...

I have only one tiny sugestion (which doesn't answer all of the problems) but perhaps we could have a sign up list for those of us who would like to be involved in the co-ops. In order to be on this list we would have to agree to the "buyer beware" statement, and only those people who are on the list may participate in any co-op. Members should be made aware very strongly that there is no recourse, ligitimate or otherwise. Dave's staff could just delete any compaints, if they got them, outright without answering them. A star rating system would be a good thing for good host/hostesses.

As to the vendor problem of not paying a fee - I am not sure how much money is involved - couldn't that be split between those of us who would like to participate in any given co-op? The one time fee then could be turned over to Daves by the host/hostess..

I have no idea how to keep disgruntled people from spilling over to the forums though, although I have not seen anything like that on the forums I visit...

Jenn

Maybe if we knew a little bit more about the problems, not breaching confidentiality, but just some specific types of things, it may help us in our quest to find a resolution

I would be curious to know what admin thinks about some of our other ideas we have been kicking around?? Like the disclaimer, the mentor, etc....

Sorry-I guess we cross posted there...thanks for the info Terry!!

I know that for a lot of vendors like the ones I use for my co-ops, they only sell wholesale and I had to do a lot of sweet talking to get to be able to order from them, they don't solicit their own business...so we may be missing out on some great plants like the brand new intros w/o that ability....

At first when I read the above statement regarding the "petty rules" I was shocked that someone would have the audacity, but then I guess they face everything with that kind of entitled attitude....

I know the term "banishment" keeps coming up, and I am thinking that at least some people using it may mean banishment from participation in the co-op forum, not banishment from DG.

Is it possible to restrict an individual member's access to a forum so they can't post there?

I'm wondering if the co-op forum can be removed from a member's visible forum list (perhaps being returned after a given length of time or other appeal process) so it simply doesn't appear for them, the same way the co-op forum doesn't appear for non-subscribing members. That might be a suitable penalty/deterrent.

Storm... I can try and answer part of one of your questions You have little Dg member vendors. They see an interest in a coop or maybe they have checked to see what interested people last year and added to their stock some things that may intrest the Dg folks. Maybe they could offer that same product as good or maybe a better deal than the being chosen. They are not permitted to advertise themelves on the coop or the forums what they have or can do. If they do they are breakign the rules. The option left to them then is to place a classified and hope that somebody sees it, or somebody hunting vendors finds them in the Dg vendor company and then asks them if they would be interested.

This may be off the wall, but maybe forum for small Dg vendors only. Fee or no fee don't matter, but it could be a place where some of the small vendors could if they see a coop just make one post saying I have this product at this price. It may be a bit higher or lower than coop, but they wouldn't be able to change their price once they posted it. Those Dg members listing on this special thread would have to have to show a picture of the exact size of the product , kind alike you have to have a pic for the marketplace.

The problem with live plants and bulbs which makes it hard to make to many quareentees , is that some folks don't pic up their mail on time. It not always the post office. Packages arriv e and folks are busy and don't opem them an dhandle that first bit of care properly. Folks order things they have no idea about and are not happy when they kill it. Some don't realize especially new gardeners that some plants wilautomatically go into shock for several weeks, they think it dead and complain.

So I can see vendors once it shipped saying it out of their hands. That holds true fo rthe growers. Once it shipped it at your risk and the only time they will resend or credit is if the shipment is diseased for some reason , example. snails or slugs hidden that they didn't know about.

Say Tommy doesn't understand what does a plug mean, or what does, a 50 verses a 30 ellie pot mean, then the vendor can at least giv ethe host a pic of about what it should look like. Even if it not the same product being offered, at least a pic so that thos ethinking they getting somethign bigger can see what it really looks like with measurements. Then if there is a problem with size at least , the buyer has a liget complaint if the coop says a well rooted 50 ellie pot and what the folks get is a 1" x 11/2" rooted cutting instead.

The big outside vendors of DG, alot of them do the same thign the little guys have to do. They have to call a grower, bring it in and then ship to host and host to participants and I think some new folks don't realize no matter how carefully somebody packs, the plants and bulbs take a beating. Some of the outside vendors are happy to do the coops because it means they can empty out their greenhouses for the season or get rid of slow moving items, which is why sometime s they say you can only order these types. Which is hy it is so important for folks to understand It at your own risk when it comes to live items. Most Dg vendors in coops really care about what they sell and making folks happy as they are a part of this community and gardeners and love to see happy folks with happy gardens.

Melody, your concerns are very valid. For a committee to work, DG would have to support it and direct ALL complaints to the committee including those about the committee. That's the largest reason for the agreement to arbitration by the committee to be part of the acceptance button for coop participation as well as agreeing not to contact the administration with coop grievances.

The one coop where I saw some ugliness arise, was caused by the rules not being enforced. The rules must be respected by all or there can be chaos.

Infrigements do not have to result in banishment from DG, but could prevent the offender from coop participation.

Committee, rule enforcers, oversite group, volunteer referees, call it whatever, just see that rules are enforced either by DG or a committee, with safeguards in place to limit site disruption. Rule abiding members are disenfranchised by unenforced rules.

I've often seen Terry step in and move Plant ID requests from other forums. Eventually members get the message. Now, I frequently see members suggesting that posters move over to the Plant ID forum. The attempts to keep threads on topic due limit off topic posts. Peer pressure is powerful. If all members are asked to help discourage disgruntled coop posters taking over other forums, eventually it will stop.

Does anyone have any thoughts on stopping abuse of the Dmail sytem?