Tricky issue with members

[Alvin63]

So on my second forum (been running 6 months and now has over 100 members) I have two "founding" members who were very supportive of the forum right from the start and regular posters. However one of them has very strong opinions on a certain topic - which is relevant to the topic of the forum. We've had chats about it before and it's been fairly amicable but I've been clear I'm not going to restrict members who are interested in this topic this member doesn't like and she should just ignore threads she's not interested in. And tried to put a balanced view about the topic and said it's one that will always have varying views.

Then yesterday a new member joined full of enthusiasm about this topic. And got a few frosty replies - I had to do some editing and moderating and smooth things over. Now I have a founding member going maverick on the forum complaining about this topic on the forum and sending me angry messages.

Ok so I should just ban this over opinianated member or ignore them and edit their posts and warn them. But I am finding I am emotionally involved somehow due to the amount of support they gave when setting up the forum.

I have resolved the issue (with both members) now and set a new policy with guidelines on this specific topic. But I fully expect it will come up again as it's a topic relevant to the forum. And I don't want to limit the scope of the forum because one member doesn't like it!

Any tips!

 

[Mendalla]

I have resolved the issue (with both members) now and set a new policy with guidelines on this specific topic. But I fully expect it will come up again as it's a topic relevant to the forum. And I don't want to limit the scope of the forum because one member doesn't like it!

Setting a policy is a good start. You can then point to that when trouble gets started. You put somewhere obvious, like a sticky post?

Beyond that, you probably want to keep a conversation open with the founding members and be clear with them that there are multiple points of view on this subject that they need to respect that. I would be hesitant to ban someone like that but if their responses on this topic get into rules violation territory (flaming other members and that sort of thing), then a light smackdown, maybe a 1-3 day stint in the penalty box, might not hurt.

I have a longtime member who posts on-topic and quite interesting stuff much of the time but is full of himself, always thinks he has the correct understanding of the subject at hand (usually the Bible), and has a b***h of a temper. He sometimes starts slinging insults or denigrating other members ideas. Last time he got out of hand, a 3-day suspension seemed to quiet him down. He's being mostly nice these days.

 

[Alvin63]

Thanks - that's a good idea. In this situation the long standing member actually threatened to leave the forum because I didn't do what they wanted. Hence the dilemma. I don't want to be blackmailed into shutting down an entire topic! Yes a fiery member but also very black and white views. I did manage to find a middle ground with them and set this policy (not as strong as this member would have liked!).

I think they have got a bit big for their boots. Maybe a time out is a good idea but I think if I did that, they would leave.

 

[Old Nick]

It's a tricky situation but basically no member should be above the community.
I suppose that it is from this fact that we must reflect.

 

[beerForo]

Here's the issue. You have separated your memberbase into "founding" and not. And you need an even hand.

 

[Alvin63]

Yes that is an issue Beerforo. They are not named as "founding" members - they just happen to be there first. And now the forum has got more active it seems one of them wants the forum to be very limited only to topics they want to see - which is unreasonable. I am prepared to lose them but a bit sad about it after tremendous help getting the forum going. So I'm going to have to stand my ground and let the forum be bigger than this member wants it to be - not restricted.

 

[Alvin63]

It's the type of forum where there will always be "big issues" and varying views and hot topics for debate. In fact I think I'll start a section on "hot topics" perhaps and let the debate and arguing continue on there. So at least other members can chip in there.

 

[motowebmaster]

I haven't ever managed to keep a founding member of any community I created or took over.

There is a private off-topic forum on my site as well, but users still can't break the rules. No exotics, political, discrimatory, & etc. Riders show off their dogs, cats, tomatoes, horses, pigs, tractors, bbq, & etc in that forum.

Being On-Topic practically all the time isn't normal, but it's the one thing that keeps your community alive.

 

[Max Taxable]

I haven't ever managed to keep a founding member of any community I created or took over

Really one of the universal constants of the nature of the beast I think.

 

[Mr Lucky]

I did manage to find a middle ground with them and set this policy (not as strong as this member would have liked!).

I had a similar situation although it was about one member who thought they were “God’s gift” to the forum and wanted us to remove any off topic humorous posts from “their” threads. We came to a compromise by asking the members who like to joke a lot to tone it down in “his” threads. They did manage to do that but it still wasn’t enough so the guy threw a hissy fit and left. So I learned that compromising doesn’t always work.

one of them wants the forum to be very limited only to topics they want to see - which is unreasonable.

Get a content ignore addon.

 

[webbouk]

Playing devil's advocate, that one member could prevent/deter many others from registering

 

[Old Nick]

I haven't ever managed to keep a founding member of any community I created or took over.

Really one of the universal constants of the nature of the beast I think.

The founding members are qualified as such because they were important during the creation of the community, they have a lot of enthusiasm and are involved almost daily, and they have a significant share in the success of the forum. But when the community becomes popular their importance is diluted in the mass of new members, they are less audible and the new subscribers who do not know the history consider them as members like them, nothing more, which can be vexing I suppose.

And on the other hand, the admin who now has to manage a community that posts 200 messages a day instead of just a few must also move up a gear and therefore manage more globally, here too the founders can feel abandoned, lack acknowledgement.
But some have the intelligence to understand the situation and everything is going well in the best of worlds, others on the other hand react quite badly and will then do the exact opposite of their beginning: demolish instead of building.

These can be harmful in the short and medium term and if you have to do without them to "save" the community then you have to do it, that's management: making difficult decisions.

 

[motowebmaster]

The founding members are qualified as such because they were important during the creation of the community, they have a lot of enthusiasm and are involved almost daily, and they have a significant share in the success of the forum. But when the community becomes popular their importance is diluted in the mass of new members, they are less audible and the new subscribers who do not know the history consider them as members like them, nothing more, which can be vexing I suppose.

And on the other hand, the admin who now has to manage a community that posts 200 messages a day instead of just a few must also move up a gear and therefore manage more globally, here too the founders can feel abandoned, lack acknowledgement.
But some have the intelligence to understand the situation and everything is going well in the best of worlds, others on the other hand react quite badly and will then do the exact opposite of their beginning: demolish instead of building.

These can be harmful in the short and medium term and if you have to do without them to "save" the community then you have to do it, that's management: making difficult decisions.

I agree in part, but not completely. I just find more moderators with the same enthusiasm. The largest site I had (before selling it) had twenty moderators from around the world, into whatever they enjoyed doing - that's all I asked of them - until they wanted to have fun doing something else.

 

[Mendalla]

I haven't ever managed to keep a founding member of any community I created or took over.

Mine is still mostly founding members in the sense of people who came over from the site we set ourselves up as a replacement for. Our problem has been retaining newcomers. We've had two "founding members" (as in people who really encouraged and supported development of the site) die over the past 3 or so years (one just recently, in fact). Yes, some have left, too, but now our In Memoriam forum is starting to grow, sadly. And there's only a couple younger people around at this point. Most of us are my age or older (I'm in my fifties).

 

[Old Nick]

It's the type of forum where there will always be "big issues" and varying views and hot topics for debate. In fact I think I'll start a section on "hot topics" perhaps and let the debate and arguing continue on there. So at least other members can chip in there.

Look at this resource from @Brogan

Using Custom user fields with User group promotions

This guide will show how easy it is to allow your members to choose which additional user groups they wish to be members of and subsequently affect their forum experience. For an explanation of both features, see the following pages of the...

xenforo.com

 

[motowebmaster]

Mine is still mostly founding members in the sense of people who came over from the site we set ourselves up as a replacement for. Our problem has been retaining newcomers. We've had two "founding members" (as in people who really encouraged and supported development of the site) die over the past 3 or so years (one just recently, in fact). Yes, some have left, too, but now our In Memoriam forum is starting to grow, sadly. And there's only a couple younger people around at this point. Most of us are my age or older (I'm in my fifties).

I've been running motorcycle communities since the mid-90's, memorializing those who are no longer with us is admirable but the community is there for those who are participating now. Let them enjoy your site today, without being exposed to the past.

 

[Alvin63]

Playing devil's advocate, that one member could prevent/deter many others from registering

Yes and I am becoming aware of that!

 

[Mendalla]

I've been running motorcycle communities since the mid-90's, memorializing those who are no longer with us is admirable but the community is there for those who are participating now. Let them enjoy your site today, without being exposed to the past.

Not my decision to make, really. The site is community-driven. Losing that forum now would go over like a lead balloon at this point and it's not a fight I want to have. I am not even "Staff" anymore, just a volunteer sysadmin and moderator for one forum that I started.

 

[Alvin63]

The founding members are qualified as such because they were important during the creation of the community, they have a lot of enthusiasm and are involved almost daily, and they have a significant share in the success of the forum. But when the community becomes popular their importance is diluted in the mass of new members, they are less audible and the new subscribers who do not know the history consider them as members like them, nothing more, which can be vexing I suppose.

And on the other hand, the admin who now has to manage a community that posts 200 messages a day instead of just a few must also move up a gear and therefore manage more globally, here too the founders can feel abandoned, lack acknowledgement.
But some have the intelligence to understand the situation and everything is going well in the best of worlds, others on the other hand react quite badly and will then do the exact opposite of their beginning: demolish instead of building.

These can be harmful in the short and medium term and if you have to do without them to "save" the community then you have to do it, that's management: making difficult decisions.

Yes. Due to the title ladder, the early members do seem to get some additional respect for their longevity - but when they overstep that with a new member it isn't good. I am prepared for it next time because I spent far too much time calming everyone down.

 

[Alvin63]

I see the point though - they feel committed to the forum but don't want it to change and grow they want it to be a nice cosy little club with no awkward topics.