More about the conflicts of users of sites with the administration
Reflections inspired by the post Razbezhkin .
The rules for the use of most existing Internet projects (I think that 99.9%) have two remarkable points with minor variations:
1) On all controversial issues, the administration makes decisions unilaterally.
2) The administration has the right to make changes to these Rules.
')
For a long time, this situation suited everyone. And now seductive web 2.0 ideas are gradually penetrating the minds of users. For example, this: "If I create content for this site, and the administration earns money on it, I should be able to influence what is happening with the site."
And during conflicts, if the administration starts, under the influence of emotions, to ban all the parties, to rub messages and “to cut evil at the root”, the user thinks: “Yes, what they have the right ?!” Reads the Rules and understands that they have something he himself is not able to do anything else. It can only arrange a flash mob (like publishing a Digg key to protect HD DVD discs) or leave the site (this is unacceptable, because social connections with other users will be lost, and your favorite party will be more expensive than the principles).
Administration of the site is usually smarter and more intelligent than an individual user or their group. It is clear that you can not do everything they ask. But even the best administration can be wrong. For example, we recently made an erroneous decision that had to be “rolled back” and for a long time to rake out some of the consequences.
So, about the rights. I came to the conclusion that in a web 2.0 project, users can no longer be regarded as a crowd that does not understand anything, but “everything is shh”. Taking, for example, the decision to change the blog engine, it is impossible not to take into account the opinion of people who write posts and comments in them. No one except users knows what needs to be improved. (Sometimes they themselves do not know, but this is a different conversation ...) If there is a forum on such a project, it is impossible to “quietly” change its rules without the consent of the majority of users. And so on…
I foresee that some readers of this post will want to develop a thought and draw apocalyptic pictures, as users of forums vote for lifting bans on offtopic and mats. Until it came to that, let's try without exaggeration.
I think all Habraludi faced with similar conflicts, and many were in the role of the administration. I would like to hear your opinions on whether it is worth mitigating the above-mentioned paragraphs of the Site Rules, to introduce in them any user rights or restrictions on the actions of the administration.
ZY It is clear that in the “normal mode” any imputed administration listens to the opinions of users and tries to do them well. It's about conflict.
ZZY UFO, please do not fly to this post, I tried very hard to be correct!
The rules for the use of most existing Internet projects (I think that 99.9%) have two remarkable points with minor variations:
1) On all controversial issues, the administration makes decisions unilaterally.
2) The administration has the right to make changes to these Rules.
')
For a long time, this situation suited everyone. And now seductive web 2.0 ideas are gradually penetrating the minds of users. For example, this: "If I create content for this site, and the administration earns money on it, I should be able to influence what is happening with the site."
And during conflicts, if the administration starts, under the influence of emotions, to ban all the parties, to rub messages and “to cut evil at the root”, the user thinks: “Yes, what they have the right ?!” Reads the Rules and understands that they have something he himself is not able to do anything else. It can only arrange a flash mob (like publishing a Digg key to protect HD DVD discs) or leave the site (this is unacceptable, because social connections with other users will be lost, and your favorite party will be more expensive than the principles).
Administration of the site is usually smarter and more intelligent than an individual user or their group. It is clear that you can not do everything they ask. But even the best administration can be wrong. For example, we recently made an erroneous decision that had to be “rolled back” and for a long time to rake out some of the consequences.
So, about the rights. I came to the conclusion that in a web 2.0 project, users can no longer be regarded as a crowd that does not understand anything, but “everything is shh”. Taking, for example, the decision to change the blog engine, it is impossible not to take into account the opinion of people who write posts and comments in them. No one except users knows what needs to be improved. (Sometimes they themselves do not know, but this is a different conversation ...) If there is a forum on such a project, it is impossible to “quietly” change its rules without the consent of the majority of users. And so on…
I foresee that some readers of this post will want to develop a thought and draw apocalyptic pictures, as users of forums vote for lifting bans on offtopic and mats. Until it came to that, let's try without exaggeration.
I think all Habraludi faced with similar conflicts, and many were in the role of the administration. I would like to hear your opinions on whether it is worth mitigating the above-mentioned paragraphs of the Site Rules, to introduce in them any user rights or restrictions on the actions of the administration.
ZY It is clear that in the “normal mode” any imputed administration listens to the opinions of users and tries to do them well. It's about conflict.
ZZY UFO, please do not fly to this post, I tried very hard to be correct!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/13846/
All Articles