almost free....

[taff]

I have a choice to make. This is freecycle stuff by the way.....
either i get in there quick, delete 2 mods who I made owners because I disagree strongly with their attitudes [dont do this, dont so that] or I delete myself from this particular group. [It's come to a head because we all have separate areas to concentrate on,and my toes have been well and truly stepped on by the two of them]
I've been doing it for about 6 years ago because the person who started it didnt want to do moderating, so i volunteered and recruited new ones, who were ok, until the last 18 months or so when they're both descending into the type of people who members have accused mods of being i.e mini hitlers.
On the one hand, I'd be quite happy about not doing it because it means I wont spend so much time on the computer and more time doing me things. On the other, I'd feel responsible for leaving the members with draconian wannabees. If I left them to it, yay, if I didn't it means much more time on the computer and recruiting more mods, showing them the ropes etc.
I'm having a mini crisis....any advice?

[Two_Sheds]

It seems to come down to a choice of less time on the computer or more?

If you feel very strongly about those moderators, are you able to recruit more anyway, who will do things "your way"? Or can there only be a specified number of mods?

Ideally, you'd be able to sit round the table with your two Hitlers and a plate of bickies, and thrash out the issues in a meeting. You say what you want, they say what they want, and a decision is made (they may go off in a hissy fit and give up moderating).

[Glutton4...]

Yup - exactly what TS said!

[VirginVegGrower]

= time for GYO twitter?! Only kidding - good luck with whatever you decide.

[Corris]

I stood up several years ago on a board and ended up leaving. I've always regretted it because this board was a lifeline for people at a certain stage of their life, and the two others who were in the 'team' were, I felt, harsh and brutal when people wouldn't walk that stage to their drum. I've always regretted it.

Is there some way to 'direct' their behaviour? To point out that it's a co-operative way of working and the ethos behind it? It may be that these two have lost sight of the client group and are feeling far too important for their own good.

Option two of walking is always open later on if it doesn't work.

[zazen999]

My question would be:

Do you feel almost free of them - or of freecycle? Your answer would determine my advice.

[taff]

thanks for that, I was losing the wood for the trees there and was seeing only two options....

[taff]

hmmm...probably almost free of them
I don't think telling people to use the english spelling of center and not the american one, or telling them they don't know where they live [new developments going up everywhere hence new names], pretending the e-mails we send out are automatic, 'telling off' instead of helping [this is an off the top of my head list not an exhaustive one] is doing the site any good.
I don't blame half of them for getting their backs up....
we don't have anything to do with the freecycle site as such, quite a few groups changed to freegle when the split happened, and in the main, the members are ok, there are a few nightmares but they're manageable so far.
righty ho, onwards, upwards and backwards we go....

[Nicos]

Power crazy peeps eh????

[Corris]

It happens though often - I have done voluntary moderating and I do it for money working from home, it's a thankless job generally!

I would approach it in a 'roundhouse' emailly type way to everyone involved. Point out that you don't feel 'as a team' you are being as 'welcoming and open' as you have been, that 'unnecessary communications' with clients should be avoided, along with 'unnecessary directions' and that the focus should be on facilitating the furtherance of the ethos of the group. Some such junky rubbish.

That way you can point at the email when they correct someone's spelling - or geography. and just say 'I think this perhaps is an example of what I was trying to prevent. Such criticism can hurt vulnerable people, and it's not our place to do that - as long as readers can understand the text, then the grammar isn't down to us to correct. We need to be supportive 'group facilitators' rather than 'moderators' in the main.

I'd view your role as a manager - and that gentle guidance for the two members would perhaps bring dividends.

[Snadger]

Power crazy peeps eh????

Dum te dum te dum................

[vegnut]

If i had recruited them, then i would feel responsible to a certain degree. I would strike them off. Unfortunately i'm a cut off my nose to spite my face kind of person and i don't take to these types kindly. Even if i was going to throw in the towel, i would get rid of these two jokers first, then do it. Just my 5 pence worth.

[zazen999]

It happens though often - I have done voluntary moderating and I do it for money working from home, it's a thankless job generally!

I would approach it in a 'roundhouse' emailly type way to everyone involved. Point out that you don't feel 'as a team' you are being as 'welcoming and open' as you have been, that 'unnecessary communications' with clients should be avoided, along with 'unnecessary directions' and that the focus should be on facilitating the furtherance of the ethos of the group. Some such junky rubbish.

That way you can point at the email when they correct someone's spelling - or geography. and just say 'I think this perhaps is an example of what I was trying to prevent. Such criticism can hurt vulnerable people, and it's not our place to do that - as long as readers can understand the text, then the grammar isn't down to us to correct. We need to be supportive 'group facilitators' rather than 'moderators' in the main.

I'd view your role as a manager - and that gentle guidance for the two members would perhaps bring dividends.

See, I'd never approach it in a roundhouse sort of way. Any time I've seen roundhouse emails trying to manage teams it has ended in failure...usually the people who are doing whatever needs addressing will have time then to gang up and it just annoys the people who don't do it. And then they spend more time whingeing about the email and the others which just makes the situation worse.

I think it is best dealing with each individual head on. I would take it back to first principles and show times when they have been against the general ethos and if it's gone too far; just be blunt that it's gone too far. Keep the personality out of it, just take it back to the basics and if it is upsetting the very people that make it work then it is defeating the object of them being there. Never say 'I'm afraid' say 'I'm sorry that I have to do this but it's my role to make sure the general terms and conditions of Freecycle are kept to and I need to take this action'.

[Glutton4...]

If i had recruited them, then i would feel responsible to a certain degree... Even if i was going to throw in the towel, i would get rid of these two jokers first, then do it. Just my 5 pence worth.

Yup - with ya on that.

See, I'd never approach it in a roundhouse sort of way. Any time I've seen roundhouse emails trying to manage teams it has ended in failure...usually the people who are doing whatever needs addressing will have time then to gang up and it just annoys the people who don't do it. And then they spend more time whingeing about the email and the others which just makes the situation worse...

Usually the people that the message is actually aimed at, are the very same people who think it doesn't apply to them.

[Corris]

I guess so, but this isn't work is it? These people are volunteers, not renumerated, giving up their time.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt - not at work so much I have to say (pretty much a 'head on' kinda gal myself) - but when you are managing volunteers it's a bit tricksier. I would 'round house' it not to alter the behaviour, I don't think it will do a jot. But because then there is something to point at.

This group is a lifeline to some people I'm sure. It's ethos and values are obviously something Taff buys into and supports. And yep, responsibility lies with the recruiter of the volunteers.

Fallouts on boards online can be messy and destructive.

I'm not for a minute saying that an email will cure the problem - I'm saying it will give something to refer to and use in communications a bit further down the line and be less pointed because these people are volunteering. And therefore want to feel appreciated and supported by the 'manager' of the site - and also, one assumes, want what's best for the site - they've just lost sight of that.

So, I would manage it by sending out 'terms and conditions' with lots of verbage and not being too pointed - but being clear about expectations. Then I would have something to refer to if I chose to pick them up on their mithering at members.

I wouldn't just walk out though. I have a big regret about the site I did walk out of because I think people would be unsupported after I left.