Production and Consumption

[swansont]

I was reading an article earlier about the use of "user" vs "customer", and how the former is more sterile while the latter humanizes the individual who is consuming a product or using a service. I think that's right, and I've talked about users of this site in some threads we've had on so-called censorship and also dealing with complaints about the speculations forum. And I should modify that — people who come to this site to follow a discussion are not users, they are customers. If we were to apply the adage that the customer is always right we should conclude that the staff, i.e. the people who run the site, need to bend over backwards to please the people who visit here.

 

However…

 

There's also the observation (more and more true these days) that if you visit a site that provides a service and you do not pay for it, you are not the customer, you are the product. And I think that's also true. When people post here, they are creating content for others to consume. And it falls upon the staff to try and make the product as high-quality as it is reasonable for us to do. Nobody wants to produce a product that is little worth, or is dangerous to the customer. Which is why we, to the best of our ability, don't allow for uncivil behavior, and demand that discussions contain a certain minimum of quality: facts being presented and supported with citations, not tolerating logical fallacies, etc. This is a science site, so we follow science protocols, and what you get is a science-related product.

 

So just in case other arguments about why the rules are as they are have failed to sink in, there's always this "economic" argument about trying to put out a quality product. And, like it or not, in this context the staff gets to judge quality.

[imatfaal]

From a legal perspective I would argue that 'user' and 'customer' have a distinct difference in that being a 'customer' entails both use of a service or product AND payment of a valuable consideration for that service/product. One could argue that members participation is a form of consideration - in that a forum is merely an empty plaza without debate and content - but generally it is impossible for the service/product and the consideration to be one and the same; additionally it is not necessary to create content in order to use the forum. There is no consideration, and no intention to create contractual relations - and thus I agree, no customer.

 

i think another analogy that might work is the sporting parallel - we are all keen players and fans of the sport called science, from the PHDs of the Premier League to the interested amateur of the Hackney Marshes Sunday League. Some of us take time from playing actively to referee, and run the lines as linesmen; others even provide the pitch, nets, and balls; and yet more people are content to watch from the sidelines - but we all play by the exact same set of rules. The rules are arbitrary but attempt to be balanced and fair-minded, and not subject to outside interference - but their consistency and constancy are paramount and implementation should be fair and balanced. The rules are not there to constrain or dampen enthusiasm, nor to oppress or discriminate; they are there because without the rules our activity would nothing other than a kick-around in the park. Thus, the rules are not there to benefit the players, nor the referees, nor club-owners, and not even the spectators - they create and maintain the game itself.

[GlassPilot]

1350646267[/url]' post='709061']

From a legal perspective I would argue that 'user' and 'customer' have a distinct difference in that being a 'customer' entails both use of a service or product AND payment of a valuable consideration for that service/product. One could argue that members participation is a form of consideration - in that a forum is merely an empty plaza without debate and content - but generally it is impossible for the service/product and the consideration to be one and the same; additionally it is not necessary to create content in order to use the forum. There is no consideration, and no intention to create contractual relations - and thus I agree, no customer.

 

i think another analogy that might work is the sporting parallel - we are all keen players and fans of the sport called science, from the PHDs of the Premier League to the interested amateur of the Hackney Marshes Sunday League. Some of us take time from playing actively to referee, and run the lines as linesmen; others even provide the pitch, nets, and balls; and yet more people are content to watch from the sidelines - but we all play by the exact same set of rules. The rules are arbitrary but attempt to be balanced and fair-minded, and not subject to outside interference - but their consistency and constancy are paramount and implementation should be fair and balanced. The rules are not there to constrain or dampen enthusiasm, nor to oppress or discriminate; they are there because without the rules our activity would nothing other than a kick-around in the park. Thus, the rules are not there to benefit the players, nor the referees, nor club-owners, and not even the spectators - they create and maintain the game itself.

 

 

Great post. Very thought provoking. 've never really looked at a forum this way. Thank you.

..."Hackney Marshes Sunday League". : )

Good stuff!

Edited October 20, 2012 by GlassPilot