Why the strongest communities aren’t built around leadership but around shared ownership
Most communities don’t fail because people stop caring.
They fail because too much care is required from too few people.
In this solo episode, Tonya Kubo explores what actually makes a community sustainable and why the traditional, leader-centered model quietly sets communities up to collapse. What looks like strong leadership often creates hidden fragility, where everything depends on one person showing up, holding it together, and carrying the weight.
Drawing on Stacey’s real-world example from a military spouse community, Tonya breaks down what happens when belonging is built into the structure instead of assigned as a responsibility. Instead of hosting and managing every event, Stacey’s model distributes ownership, allowing members to create, lead, and sustain connection themselves.
Tonya also challenges one of the most common assumptions in community-building: that disengagement is caused by apathy. In reality, it is often the opposite. People care, but when the burden is too high or the ownership is not shared, they step back instead of stepping in.
If your community feels dependent on you, or if you have ever wondered whether what you are building could last without you, this episode offers a powerful reframe of what it takes to create something that actually endures.
You’ll hear how:
Communities don’t fail from apathy, but from uneven distribution of labor
Burnout in leadership is often a design flaw, not a personal failure
Self-sustaining communities differ from self-running ones
Stacey’s model distributes ownership without losing structure
Communities built around personality are inherently fragile
Purpose-driven communities create continuity beyond the founder
Delegating tasks is not the same as transferring ownership
Shared responsibility creates stronger, more resilient belonging
Episode Highlights
[02:00] The question that reveals whether your community is built to last
[06:30] Why communities don’t actually fail from apathy
[12:15] How Stacey’s model distributes ownership from the start
[18:40] What happens when everything depends on one leader
[25:10] The difference between self-sustaining and self-running communities
[31:45] Why personality-driven communities are fragile
[38:20] How purpose creates continuity beyond the founder
[45:00] Delegation vs. true ownership and why it matters
[51:30] One simple shift to start redistributing responsibility
[57:00] The question every community leader needs to answer
Tonya Kubo is a community strategist, marketing consultant, and rebel with a cause: helping people find the place where they truly belong. For nearly two decades, she’s built online spaces that feel less like comment sections and more like chosen family. She’s the fixer you call when your Facebook group has gone straight-up Lord of the Flies and the bouncer at the door of internet nonsense. As the host of Find Your Freaks, Tonya brings together unconventional thinkers and bridge-builders who know “normal” was never the point. Her favorite spaces? The ones where the freak flags fly high.
Support the Show
If Find Your Freaks matters to you, help us keep it ad-free by buying us a coffee (or two!). Every dollar goes to production so more weirdos can find their people.
Tonya sits down with Eli Trier, an artist, writer, podcaster, and self-described dopamine dealer whose work is a love letter to weirdos and misfits. As a neuroqueer, AuDHD creator, Eli shares what it means to build spaces where being different is not just accepted, but celebrated—and why belonging starts with making room for the outsider.
Transcripts
What I want you to be thinking about, whether you're a community member or community leader, is what would happen to your community if you were to disappear tomorrow. Communities need to be self-sustaining. Gone are the days where one person, the leader, is willing to martyr themselves for the good of the community.
Somebody still has to care. Somebody still has to show up. But self-sustaining though means that anybody can step in to fill the gaps because the structure is in place and the structure will support it.
People mistakenly think that what kills communities is apathy, whether they're online or in person. It's like, oh, people just don't care. But that is actually not what kills communities.
It's not apathy. It's the burden. It's when all the labor falls on one person, even the most committed leader will eventually burn out and everything burns with them if the community was built to revolve entirely around them.
We're wired for connection, but most of us are faking it to fit in. I'm Tonya Kubo and this is Find Your Freaks, the podcast that flips the script and spotlights the quirks you thought you had to keep quiet. Subscribe now and head to findyourfreaks.com for show notes and extras because around here, what makes you weird makes you wonderful.
Normal was never the point. Welcome back to the show. I have so much that I want to talk about today, but let's first start with what the episode is about.
You know, if you're paying attention to the title, this is the community that runs without you. But what we're really going to be talking about are self-sustaining communities. What I want you to be thinking about, whether you're a community member or community leader, is what would happen to your community if you were to disappear tomorrow? OK, I'm not talking about getting hit by a bus or a train or what other worst case scenario disaster planning event that you usually think about when you're doing your, you know, crisis planning.
I just mean like if you step back, you know, if you just said, you know what, I'm busy today, I'm just not going to duck in. And then that day ended into two days, maybe two weeks, maybe two months. What would happen? Would it keep going, do you think? Do you think it would just the activity would quietly diminish until it disappeared? Just think on that, because if you listen to episode 20, that is the question that Stacy Morgan, our guest from episode 20, who is a military spouse and her husband is the commanding officer of a base, which puts her in charge of all the spouses on the base to some degree, all the dependents, making sure all the families are getting what the families need and all of that good stuff.
That is the question that her work is asking. And it's one of those things where we did not plan for the episode to go that direction. But when it did, I could not deny the importance of it.
And so we're going to come back to that. But before we do that, I want to say first, I just need to give a shout out to the people who make this show possible. You know, we are 100% listener supported at this point, we do not have sponsors, we do not have ads, we are only existing on the generosity of our listeners.
And so I haven't yet done a proper acknowledgement to the listeners who are making this show possible. So I want to say thank you to Sherry Gregory from the Great and Grace podcast. She is our newest supporter.
Also, thank you to Rachel Alexandria from the Lonely at the Top podcast. She is also a supporter. I want to thank Brenda Ortiz, who is a monthly supporter.
And one of our first she and Sofia Gonzalez came in at episode one, and they have been supporting us ever since. And I want to say thank you to Lisa McComas, another listener who came on board as a supporter in the last month. And if you were somebody listening to the show, enjoying the show, and you want to throw 5, 10, 15 bucks our way, we are happy to take that go to tanya.link slash coffee, like a cup of coffee.
And you can choose a one time contribution, you can choose a monthly support, whatever makes sense for you. Sometimes we do have special supporter offerings, not always really, it's just about paying for the editing, paying for the hosting and all the little things that go into the show. So I just want to say thank you to our supporters.
And if you're interested in supporting, we would love to have you. That's tanya.link slash coffee. And then I also need to do you the service, the respect required to address the audio issues we had in episode 20.
If you've listened to episode 20 already, my interview with Stacy Morgan, kudos to you. Kudos to you. I applaud you.
I owe you a debt of gratitude, because my audio on that episode is trash. Stacy sounds amazing. Stacy is always amazing.
I've known her for years. But what I will say is my audio is trash. And you know what, I want to give credit to Stacy.
Stacy offered to make time to rerecord to do the interview over again. But I said no, simply because an hour of her time is precious. You know, I'm not saying an hour of my time isn't precious, but an hour of her time is precious.
And the idea of taking another hour out of her very busy schedule, just so I could sound better on the audio made no sense. That was not a trade I was willing to make. If her audio was the problem, I would have moved mountains to redo our interview.
But because it was my audio, and she sounded amazing, I didn't see a need to fix it. What I will say, though, is that is the kind of choice that connects directly to the subject matter of my interview with Stacy, right? If you want a community that lasts, if you want a self-sustaining community, you have to be willing to build a community where your comfort as the leader is not the priority. So we're going to come back to that as well.
So if you haven't listened to episode 20, because I'm going to reference that one a lot more than typical, I just want to give you a quick kind of summary. I don't want to rob from the interview because Stacy has so many good nuggets to share. But as a military wife who is now in a position where her husband is a commanding officer, you know, Stacy, first of all, you have to understand Stacy's been doing this for 20 years.
And a lot has changed in marital relationships in the last 20 years. A lot has changed in military life in the last 20 years. You know, when Stacy first became a military wife, when they got their first installation, and that is how they refer to it.
It's like a co-installation almost. The veteran military spouses had told her, oh, she didn't have to worry about anything. She'd get there.
People would see her unpacking. Women would come over with a cake and they would invite her to tea. And she said, to this day, she has never had that experience.
When it has come to community, she has never landed on a base where everybody was laying out the red carpet to invite her in. She always had to go first. She had to make her own way.
In recent years, what she's finding is there are a lot of bases where there's not a military wife to run the civilian side of things. More and more, we are seeing people get into positions of power and positions of leadership who are not married. Maybe they're divorced.
Maybe they're bachelors. But the installation she's at right now, the base that she's at now, has had two prior commanding officers who were both unmarried. So she's not stepping into an established system of community for spouses because they didn't have spouses to start that.
And they were busy enough with their own side of the role that they weren't able to carry both. So there is this traditional model. And I think a lot of you listening are going to recognize this from any civic organization you've been part of, any nonprofit you've been part of.
The traditional model of community, of clubs, of organizations is very top down. Everything runs through the person who's in charge. And then when the person who's in charge leaves, so does the momentum.
Everything goes with them. It's why nowadays it is so hard to find somebody to take over these leadership roles. I live in a relatively small town, but a lot of our youth organizations, our schools, whether it's sports teams, your FFA club, in our case, it's theater arts, but your musical program, they're very much supported by boosters organizations, these nonprofit organizations that fundraise to fill in gaps, but also provide that volunteer army that make a lot of these groups successful.
My daughter's in marching band. I've talked about this before. There's 220 kids in the marching band.
So we're talking like four buses of kids go to all these competitions within Northern California. They travel up to four hours every single season for these events. And these kids have to be fed breakfast, they have to be fed lunch, all of these things.
The only way that happens is parents stepping up, giving up their Saturdays in order to make this happen, to volunteer. And the only way that that happens is through the efforts of the booster club. But the booster clubs had the same president for three years.
And she's wanting to step down because her band kid is getting ready to graduate. And nobody wants to fill her shoes because the job feels too big. And she's talked about this all the time.
She's like, I get it. On one hand, I've done a great job as booster president. And on the other hand, I've made it look like you have to have it all together in order to be successful.
And so you know, this idea of a traditional model of community where everything runs through who's in charge. On one hand, it sounds great, right? You've got great quality control there. Awesome, right? Nothing.
If nothing moves forward without your stamp of approval, you've got great quality control, like nothing goes out that's subpar. But the flip side is, is when you step away, and you're not there to rubber stamp everything, nothing happens, right? Nobody pushes it forward. And so what I loved about what Stacey was sharing, and what you should know is Stacey was originally scheduled to be my very first interview for the show.
And if she was my very first interview for find your freaks, we would have had a very different conversation. Because at that time, she was in the Marshall Islands, wrapping up their time there, and had not yet been stationed in New Mexico. And so the conversation that we had was still fresh on the heels, like she was still kind of getting her sea legs there in New Mexico, finding her way, getting the kids acclimated to a different school, all of that good stuff.
And what that duty station allowed her to do, because they were stepping in after a long period of nobody being in the spouse role, in the commanding officer spouse role, and nobody leading the, you know, military, I think it's the military wives club, army wives club, maybe is what it's called. But you know, she always refers to the spouse organizations, because also, there's no guarantee that the civilian dependent is a wife these days, right? Sometimes the active duty, career military person is the wife in the relationship, and it's the husband who's the civilian dependent. So when she set foot there, and her number two on the wives side was coming in behind her, she thought, you know, what if we took this opportunity, this opportunity where nothing has been in place for a long time, rather than cry about the fact that, oh, my gosh, we have to build the structure from the ground up, there isn't a culture established here of spousal activity, and, you know, mentoring the younger generation of spouses, and really supporting the younger families, you know, we don't have that, rather than complaining about having to build it from scratch, she thought, well, if it doesn't exist, what if we looked at building it differently? What if we didn't follow the supposedly tried and true model of the last 20 years that we have recognized is tried, but is no longer true, because it's no longer relevant to society.
And so what she did is said, you know what, we as the spouses organization are not in charge of events. We exist here to create a culture of activity of mentorship, to create a culture where every new person on this base feels welcome, and feels like there is something going on that they can plug into immediately. We'll take that responsibility of making sure there is stuff out there.
But we don't own any of it, we will send out the newsletter that talks about when the events are, but we don't host the events, we don't own the events. Instead, you, as civilian dependents, wives, husbands, whatever, you get to plan events that are important to you. You get to create the activities that you want to develop friendships around.
You host them, tell us when you're meeting, right, we've got some things, you know, you've got to, you know, be consistent, we recommend once a month, right, so you don't like bite off more than you can chew, you don't have to do it every week. And then just let us know when you stop meeting. But if we are going to sponsor you, be consistent.
And then they let it go, right? There's no, no special skills, you didn't have to be part of the cool club. You didn't have to prove that you had leadership skills, and you had successfully implemented this at your last base. You just have to say, hey, I'm interested in pickleball.
That's the example she used, right? It was somebody was like, can we get a pickleball group together? And she was like, you can get a pickleball group together. We will put the pickleball group in our newsletter. We will make sure everybody knows the pickleball group is, you know, approved and sanctioned by our organization.
But when it comes to creating pickleball teams, and your pickleball team names and all of that good stuff that is on you, you figured out what will provide the space to make that happen. And what is amazing is the pickleball group is very passionate, right? The pickleball group is growing like gangbusters. And there is now a pickleball group for anybody who comes on to the base.
And Stacey doesn't need to be the person to make it happen. She's not, she's not figuring out the teams. She's not worrying about how many people are coming to the next session, right? All she has to worry about is, is it still happening? Do we have the date and the time and the location correct? And that's it.
And what I want you to be thinking about is how do you duplicate that? Because Stacey is really just making decisions based on the survival of what's important. She knows after 20 some odd years of military life, of being a military spouse, that loneliness is the biggest threat. And she talks about it from a perspective of military retention, right? If spouses get lonely and they are miserable, they will oftentimes create an ultimatum for their spouse.
It's like, I can't do this anymore. I can't keep moving. I can't keep starting over.
I can't keep holding things together while you're gone. You need out. Like, like we, we need to stop doing this or couples are divorced, you know, but ultimately there's not a lot of continuity in military life because it has been so hard to maintain those relationships and maintain that functioning ecosystem.
And so Stacey said, well, you know, what if we were to make it easier? What if we made it easier on commanding officers' wives and officers' wives to manage this so that if they are working full-time outside the home, because that's another thing, right? When Stacey started her military spouse career, the assumption was they were wives who were homemakers, right? Their whole career was supporting the home front. And nowadays, even in the military, we have a lot more two income households, right? We have a lot more geographically separated spouses where the civilian dependent spouse doesn't want to do the moving. They want to push forward in their career.
So maybe they live apart. And so Stacey thought, you know, how do we create community, which is still desperately needed, right? Community is not outdated, especially not on a military basis, but how do we make it relevant for the modern world, for the modern woman or man who is facing the constraints of competing priorities and everything else that makes it so much easier not to make friends than it is to make friends. And, you know, something that Stacey was talking about that I thought was really interesting, and this got me thinking about a conversation I had had post-pandemic when somebody was lamenting the loss of the volunteer spirit.
They were like, you know, you used to be able to like send out a text for volunteers, and they weren't trying to be gendered, but they were really referring to, you know, send a text to a bunch of women, and you would have volunteers lining up. And she was like, you know, women just don't have that volunteer spirit. And I had told that person at the time, I said, you know, it's not that women have lost the volunteer spirit.
people to lean on. So now, in:
And so in talking to Stacey, my perspective kind of shifted a bit, and what I realized is that people mistakenly think that what kills communities is apathy, whether they're online or in person. It's like, oh, people just don't care. People don't care.
They don't care about me. They don't care about each other. They don't care about this topic.
But that is actually not what kills communities. It's not apathy. It's the burden.
It's when all the labor falls on one person, even the most committed leader will eventually burn out, and everything burns with them if the community was built to revolve entirely around them. You know, so to Stacey's point, to Stacey's credit, she has solved this. And I don't even know that she realized she was solving it when she did it.
I think it's been more of an after-the-fact reflection. But she has solved this by distributing the work before anybody had the chance to get tired, anybody had the chance to get burned out. There's no chance for burnout in this model because it never relies all on one person.
And so what I want you to be thinking about, especially if you're listening to this from the perspective of wanting to build a community, right? Because this show kind of has two audiences. We've got the folks who are just interested in how the other half lives, whoever the other half is. And you love the interview shows.
And you love the insight into military spousehood from Stacey. And you love the insight into cluttery people from Kathy Lipp back in episode two. And you love the insight into the lives of spouses of the incarcerated, like Rachel Allen, or Nikki James Zellner, and citizen advocacy.
That's what you're really into are the interview shows. And then there's the other half of you that are interested really into these solo episodes and going, okay, what is it that makes these communities tick? What is it that people are looking for nowadays that they're clinging to? Or is community dead? Because we hear that all the time too. And what I want you to take away from this particular episode is that I refer to what Stacey created as a self-sustaining community.
And this is something I am talking a lot about publicly this year. And it is because while everybody else is saying like right now, what's all over my feet is like, Facebook groups are dead, right? Death of the algorithm. Facebook groups are dead.
There's no reach. There's no this. There's no that.
It's not that Facebook groups are dead specifically. It's not that memberships are dead. It's not that, you know, in-person communities are dead.
It is that the communities need to be self-sustaining. Gone are the days where one person, the leader, is willing to martyr themselves for the good of the community. Yes, you will always find martyrs if you look hard enough.
To quote a good friend of mine, Margaret Markison, who is the author of Sustainable Ministry, you will never find somebody to stop you from over-functioning. In any organization, in any environment, they will allow you to over-function. They being people in positions of power will allow you to over-function for as long as you're willing to do it.
Because it benefits them. The more you over-function, the less they have to function. The more they get to under-function.
So when I talk about a self-sustaining community, let me be clear, I'm not talking about a community that runs itself. Although that can be synonymous for some people, that's not what we're talking about. Somebody still has to care.
Somebody still has to show up. But self-sustaining, so, you know, and because self-running means nobody's in charge, right? We have this complete flat hierarchy, and that can get chaotic, especially in conflict. Self-sustaining, though, means that anybody can step in to fill the gaps because the structure is in place and the structure will support it.
Back in my university days, what I used to say is if you invest in the intentional design of your communities, right? Because I was building all these communities, student communities, I was building alumni communities, I was building donor communities. If you invest heavily in the design and the initial build of the community, and you get really solid about building that culture and protecting that culture, that the community will police itself. And in times of crisis, in times of conflict, the community will rise up, and not only will it police itself, it will stand up, and it will defend.
It will defend you. It will defend the mission. It will defend the culture.
And it is a beautiful thing to see that happen. Unfortunately, we only see that happen usually when bad things occur, but sometimes it's when good things occur, right? Sometimes there's a person in need, and everybody rises up. The community will rise up to police itself.
But most communities will fail this test when they are built around a personality instead of a purpose. So that is one of the things I want you to write down, right? The strongest communities with the longest shelf life are built around a purpose instead of a personality. I have a Facebook group.
It's called The Secret to Thriving Online Communities. Many people will talk about Tanya's Facebook group, but very rarely. Like, there's people in there, I think don't even know I'm in charge.
They don't even think that I know I'm the creator there. And that's my bad. That's not theirs.
But it's because we have built that community around the purpose of building thriving communities. How do you foster belonging to your own perfect people, whoever they may be, right? Part of the success of the Clutter-Free Academy community, even though I have not actively run it in half a year, right, is even though it's founded by Kathy Lip, right? Like, I started that community for her. That was the request.
But the purpose is to help people break free of the bondage of clutter. And that purpose supersedes whoever is on the admin team. So in that case, Kathy is not the infrastructure, right? When a community is built around a personality that the founder is the infrastructure, and that's very fragile.
Because if the founder gets sick and has to take a sabbatical or a hiatus, the community will collapse because it's only built on people showing up for them or showing up when they show up. But when you build around a purpose, anybody can further that purpose, right? So when the leader leaves, it doesn't matter because the members still know how to keep going, right? Because they were invited to keep the ship running from the beginning. So one of the things that I've been thinking about is, you know, because I keep talking about intentional design.
I talked about intentional design in the last solo episode, which would have been, let's see, this is 21. So that would have been episode 19, is I have a habit of saying that this only works if it's built into the beginning, that you can't retrofit belonging. And I'm going to stand by that cautiously, because I don't know that that is 100% true.
All I can say is that in my experience, I haven't seen success at trying to retrofit the belonging, because when members are conditioned to wait for direction, it's like pushing a boulder uphill to redistribute the labor later. I have been pulled in to rescue a lot of communities where this has happened. The community was really strong, really vibrant, but the owner sold it.
Believe it or not, this happens. People sell Facebook groups all the time. And they say, hey, we've got, you know, 10,000 members.
We're running like 70% active. We sell a $2,000 offer. We're selling about $20,000 a month out of this group.
And then somebody buys it. They don't have the connection to the people. They don't have a connection to the purpose.
And they're repeating all the tactics that the former owner did. And they're failing miserably. They're losing money hand over fist, because they're missing the one critical piece is that everybody was showing up in support of the founder.
People trusted the founder. People were happy to give their money to the founder. They're not giving their money to the founder's replacement.
I'm using the example of a business group, because that's what typically gets sold oftentimes. But you see that also when public service groups change hands. When you have the I love insert your town name here group, and it started by somebody who's passionate, they walk away after five years, 10 years, whatever, somebody else steps in, they run it differently.
People just aren't as engaged. And you know, in Stacey's case, she didn't try to recover anything. She just created an original design.
And that's why it worked there. So I definitely can tell you that if you are thinking about building a community, if you're thinking about relaunching a community, baking this aspect of shared ownership and structure of processes where everybody is gathering around a shared purpose, their shared ownership, and therefore, there is a self sustaining component to it. Like it works, it totally works takes a little bit of time on the front end, because people don't believe you, right? They don't believe that they don't need your rubber stamp of approval.
But they once they catch on, it is a beautiful thing to watch in action. But when it comes to retrofitting, it's hard once people have been conditioned that everything goes through the leader, or this is all about the leader all about the founder, it is very hard to teach them otherwise. So if you remember back to the beginning of the episode, and when I declined Stacey's invitation to rerecord episode 20, because of my bad audio, I just want to tell you like the same logic applies, right? My reason for saying no, we're just going to move with it as is, is the same reason that more of us need to be building communities that aren't built around us as individuals and are built around the shared purpose of the members.
Because when we start thinking, it's about us, then we start looking to everything happening in the community as a reflection of us. And that leads us to make different decisions than when we're asking, what does this community actually need? Sometimes the answers are the same. Sometimes what makes us look good, and what reflects well on us is exactly what the community needs.
Other times they're not. And I want you to think about that with your communities where the answer may be the same and where the answer may be different. Thinking of a community like Clutter Free Academy.
In many cases, like we had that community on post approval just because it was so busy. That was actually not the greatest thing for us, right? Because people didn't like having their posts held for approval. They oftentimes felt like we were trying to censor them.
It definitely made more work for us because we had to actively approve posts. We had to read them and do all these things. But it was best for the community because having that post approval process prevented bad actors from having access to our very, very precious members.
Prevented the community from being overtaken by spam. I mean, we'd only have like a really bad spam incident about once a year. It was more work on our end, but it was better for the community in the long run.
And so those are the kinds of things that you have to think about is what does the community actually need? Now, if you're building something new, here's what I want you to ask yourself before you launch. If I stepped away in a year or two, what would need to be true for the community to keep going? Okay, if you're building to last, ask yourself that. If I step away in a year or I step away in two years, what would need to be true for this community to keep going? If you are already in a community, because this would be a very, very discouraging episode if I was like, nope, you got to bake it into the beginning or else.
If you're already leading, here's what I want you to think about because I have successfully pivoted in this way. It's just kind of, it takes a while to turn the ship, but it's worth it. Find one task you're doing alone that a member could own.
Not delegate. This isn't like, oh, do this for me for a bit, but actually have them own it. You know, you could say, hey, we're getting a lot of new members.
Would you do me a favor? And every time I post a welcome new members post, would you do me a favor and comment on that and, you know, reach out to the new members individually and just see if there's anything they need. You don't have to fulfill their needs. Just see if they need anything.
Let me know what comes up, right? You could do that. And some people are going to be like, oh no, like depending on what they need, I'm happy to help. But there's a difference between delegating a task and just saying, hey, you own it.
100%. It is all yours. In one of the groups I run, anytime there is a question about a specific community platform, there is a member who answers those questions because she is much more of an expert on that platform than I am.
And she doesn't have to ask my permission. Hey, is it okay if I answer that question? She knows. Please, by all means, because if she doesn't answer it, I'm going to tag her and say, you know what, I can tell you a little bit, but really if you want straight from the horse's mouth, true expertise, you're going to go to Jodi over here.
So definitely think about what is one task a member could own. And then if you are a member of a community, here's the other thing is we've got to stop thinking that our communities have like leaders and followers. Okay, that's not the true nature of a community.
There needs to be a lot more like equity in a community. So if you are a member, I want you to ask yourself, do I wait for permission to contribute? Am I waiting to be invited to the conversation that I have every right to already be a part of? And if you're in a community where you really do have to wait to be invited, ask yourself if that's what kind of community you want, right? No wrong answers. I have been in communities where you're not allowed to comment or ask any questions for your first 30 days.
You're supposed to just observe the culture and see how things are. You're supposed to read all the content, right? There's nothing wrong with that being the ground rules. But if you're a member, I just want you to ask yourself, are you waiting for permission? Are you that person who waits for somebody else to post and you comment on the posts? What is stopping you from creating a post yourself? All right.
So bringing us back to the original question at hand, what would happen to your community if you disappeared tomorrow? I hope if you've listened to episode 20 or by now, if you're still listening, that the question feels a little less scary. It's not an easy answer, but I think if I've done my job here, you know it's a question worth asking before you have to. If episode 20 is still in your queue, go listen to it.
Please white knuckle through my bad audio. What Stacey has to say is well worth it. If this episode in particular has resonated with you, I would love for you to share it with somebody you know who's trying to build something right now.
Let's save them from making some of these classic mistakes of building it around them and their personality versus building it around the shared purpose. They will be so grateful to you. And if you want to support the show, again, tanya.links.coffee. Every contribution matters.
It matters to me. It matters to the team. And I so appreciate you.
Now here's what I want you to do after all that. I want you to go out. I want you to find your freaks.
Okay. I want you to find your freaks. I want you to drop me a line.
Tell me who your freaks are, right? Info at tanyacubo.com. Tell me who your freaks are, and I will see you in the next episode. That's it for this episode of Find Your Freaks. To help more weirdos find their way here, subscribe, rate, and leave a review.
And if you're craving connection, join the freak show at findyourfreaks.com. What makes you weird makes you wonderful. Normal was never the point.
