Should staff members be more active than members?

[MrDawn]

Do you think staff members should be twice as active and more so than the forum's members? Why or why not?

 

[Kale]

I feel like they should a little bit. I am not going to force it on them as they have their own IRL to worry about.

 

[Cory]

They are the foundation of a forum generally that gets the forum revved up and keeps everything under control, so I think they should be more active than most members. Of course, some people have tight schedules and cannot be on as much as others can.

 

[Kale]

Of course, some people have tight schedules and cannot be on as much as others can.

Agreed. Some may work IRL at part or full time jobs, or just have a busy IRL at times.

 

[MamaFrankie]

Not necessarily because, as has been said, there is life outside fora.

 

[Dismal_Bliss]

Not necessarily. They certainly should be active indeed, but I have several members who are addicted to the community and out-post all of my staff (and there's a dozen of us [and it's not the forum I am advertising in my siggy]).

 

[ClicketyKat]

Maybe not twice as active, but definitely active. It's hard to force them though and have them still perform their duties when real life keeps them busy.

 

[André]

Do you think staff members should be twice as active and more so than the forum's members? Why or why not?

"Do you think . . "🤔...well, sure in a sense...yes & no.

I mean, nah definitely would not ever think to expect "staff" to just be more active than they're comfortable with, &/or able.

Though, in this context I'm also unsure of what's actually meant by - 'Staff'(¿?)

Would it be meaning: voluntary labourers? -or employees? -or perhaps a hybrid of these? -&/or maybe something else too?

These "staff member" individuals, they are paid -yes?

Otherwise surely there'd be some kind of personal investiture/attachment?

😄And yet, if by "staff" = meaning a mutually beneficial—formal or informal working arrangement.

Such as:

~employee<∞>employer~

and the agreed upon arrangement is to perform the duties & responsibilities required of a socially accountable position for others, -& regardless if motivated financially, legally, ethically, morally, or etc...and performed to an agreed upon standard...and still furthermore by using the OP's example: it would be to the explicitly stated/yet seemingly ambiguous standard of being: "twice as active and more so than the forum's members."
(🤔butt how would ya even measure that?...)

If that's something like what you're meaning, well then yeah forkin oats mate.

For sure I would think it reasonable the individual bloody agreed to whatever the formal or informal contract conditions may have been.

And unless schemery were afoot, they otherwise did so agree to contract with genuine intentions to actually fulfill their quota-(*or to perhaps go above the)- standard conditions of which the agreement is no less than: *subject: (a) rendering {···X @services···} in exchange for {···Y @value···} from *subject: (b).


But on the other hand, if the OP's query is euphemistically referring to unpaid volunteers...😂whale sheet!

It might then seem kinda p.a. pissy, like a spoilt child indirectly—& very subtly—fkn smearing someone who's freely volunteering their time & energy.

And yeah nah, smearing is still not justifiable even if the volunteer is absolutely useless either.

If it becomes apparent the volunteer has been overburdened with duties & responsibilities beyond their capacities, then it is absolutely the responsibility of administration &/or moderation to resolve their administrative error promptly once recognized.

🤣Coz ya know complaining about stupid shit instead of taking action to sort it out, never really accomplishes bugger all butt perpetuate drama aye.

 

[Uncrowned]

Staff should be active, but demanding that they are more active than the most active member can be a trapt to admins and push staff away. Staff need to be monitoring content and directing conversations and that often means that each of their individual posts is more time consuming than a standard member's post.
Staff often have to deal with posting in topics that may not really be their cup or tea or even need to research items to continue a conversation, this is something that a member can just avoid and only focus on topics they enjoy.

It is much better to hold staff to an activity standard for your staff and while average activity should be factored in, it is not fair or even wise to simply take your most active posters and demand staff perform better.

 

[Kane]

If you are not paying your staff, how can you demand your staff to be more active. If you are paying, you can just ask your staff to be more active than the regular members.

 

[Nomad]

Becoming a staff on a forum is not just about having staff title in the forum, it is also about fulfilling your role as an staff. Apart from the duties assigned to you, moderation for example, you should also be creating posts. If you cannot commit time, you should not be a staff. Likewise, forums should also provide incentives to the staff.

 

[mynovel]

how do you find the staff members?

 

[Shortie]

I wouldn't say that forum owners should be more active than their members as of course, they are also on the forum to ensure everything is running smoothly and to promote the forum as well as being active too.

I would say that forum owners should be active and show that they are active within a forum but would not expect them to be moe active than their community members.

 

[Maria]

I believe so, if you cannot remain active on the site, and engage in the discussion, what is the point of becoming a staff. Being a staff is not just a designation, it is also a responsibility.