General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould Democratic Underground switch to seven-person juries?
This topic has been discussed a number of times in the Ask the Administrators forum, and the DU Admins have discussed it here in the office repeatedly over the last two years. Currently, if a community standards alert is sent, it is evaluated by a jury of six DU members. Should we increase the number of jurors to seven? This would likely have the following effects:
- There would be no more 3-3 ties. Every alert would result in a majority decision.
- There would be a modest increase in the number of posts that get hidden. If the number of alerts stays constant, and if we assume that approximately half of the current 3-3 ties end up as hides, then the number of additional hidden posts per day would be less than five. Possibly two or three.
- There is a chance that the total number of alerts might increase. Some people have stated that the current difficulty in getting posts hidden acts as a disincentive to send alerts. It is conceivable that alerters might have a greater incentive to alert when the chance of getting a post hidden increases, and would therefore send more.
- Democratic Underground would probably see a modest increase in civility, for two reasons. First, uncivil messages that are posted would be more likely to be removed (and the authors of those posts blocked out of threads). And second, people would be less likely to post uncivil messages in the first place due to the increased likelihood that they could get hidden.
- There might be a modest increase in "misfires" or perceived misfires, in which juries hide posts based on some sort of misunderstanding. This occurs rarely, and would likely remain rare.
(Note: This poll has two options -- you can either vote to change to seven-person juries, or you can vote to keep six-person juries. If you came to this thread hoping to discuss the merits of the jury system as a whole, I want to make clear that it is here to stay -- we are not getting rid of it.)
247 votes, 13 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
Yes, switch to seven-person juries. | |
208 (84%) |
|
No, stay with six-person juries. | |
39 (16%) |
|
13 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Iggo
(47,565 posts)I understand the six person jury and I have no problem with 3-3 ties. I also understand why a lot of people want it to go to seven.
One less thing for people to get mad about, I guess.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)who have to give time to serve on juries.
Why create extra work for ourselves just to hide another 3 posts a day?
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)on "my account" page. That way you won't have to use all the energy.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)even at one minute per service, you have therefore donated at least 532 minutes of your time to DU - almost nine hours.
At two minutes per jury, it would be 18 hours of your time.
Now going from 7 to 6 requires 117% more jurors.
Your 18 hours has become 21 hours.
Sure, I can opt out, and the more people who opt out and the less you are getting input from the entire community. I can also choose to NOT vote. Let other people make the decisions.
I choose instead, to vote, to have some input, but that does not mean I want an election every week instead of once or twice a year.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)little time to decide to say no.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)such as it is, is that ties can be broken by going to FIVE person juries rather than by going to seven.
Going one way means you need 17% MORE jurors, going the other way means you need 17% LESS.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Iggo
(47,565 posts)And you can always opt out of that specific jury if you don't have time.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but I am pretty sure I have
like most things, I am sure it can be done quicker, but I prefer, myself, to be deliberative, like my decision actually matters.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that's kind of how it works.
if as a juror you're that divided on what to do, it's gonna get left 9 out of 10 times.
Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)Is it?
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Today, you need four "yes" votes to block a post. Tomorrow you'll need still need 4, but you'll have an extra voter to try and convince. Whether there's a tie or not is irrelevant.
1000words
(7,051 posts)no-o-o-o!
(people in this household need the caffeine.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I know it's probably impossible to fix in the system, a means by which we could appeal or explain our posts.
I've had a couple locked where I felt I was misunderstood.
Other than that, the jury system is working swimmingly, but a 7 member jury would be more democratic.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)I had one locked where I was agreeing with the poster that suggested I drop the subject. My words were twisted around to make it appear that I was agreeing with something previously posted. They alerted with their accusation intact and before I knew it, I was locked out with no chance to correct the attribution of my words.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)But some folks will interpret one person posting it differently than the other and vote more to hide on personality.
Post a crime story with a woman in it and it is either 'meh' or 'that person only posted it because they are misogynistic' and some would vote to hide based on their perceived intent.
It is all nice in theory, but in practice it seems to flourish more as a tool to intimidate.
Response to NightWatcher (Reply #4)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
griloco
(832 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,377 posts)7 member juries would give a more clearly defined opinion.
Edit to add this;
I think the Alert button is used too often, quite frankly. There are entirely too many members who seem to want to alert merely because they don't like the opinion and that the alerted post doesn't really break any rules.
Having said that, I'll say again, a 7 member jury would more clearly define the opinion, yay or nay.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)But the seven person jury would be fine with me. I'm sure the staff is best placed to figure out whether the delay would be any real problem at low-traffic times. If it is one of "those' posts, it's best to knock it out ASAP.
I know people complain about it, but I think the jury system is a brilliant idea that frees the moderators to actually moderate and keeps DU a highly active but relatively civil place. So my real answer is whatever the administrators think would work best. You could always reverse back to six if any problems arose. If you guys came up with this because you thought it would work better overall, run with it.
randome
(34,845 posts)Plus, I'm of the mind to let more posts stand on their own merits, for good or ill.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I think I have turned it down once, when asked.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)too.
How can anyone tell how long it's taking to choose jurors in comparison to how long it's taking chosen jurors to decide on their votes...
I don't recall ever turning down a jury request.
However, when I decide on how to vote, I don't just whip right through the post. I look at it, and the post(s) it's referencing, if any.
Sometimes if it's borderline, it takes a few minutes to decide.
So when people think it's taking a long time to find jurors, maybe the reality is, the jurors have been found, but they're putting some time and thought into their votes.
randome
(34,845 posts)I pretty much serve any time I get asked. It's good intellectual exercise!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I sometimes take ten minutes or so to decide on a difficult/borderline post.
Also, I've often found myself in the middle of trying to vote on a post when something in the house takes me away for five or ten minutes.
I come back and forget what I was looking at, and have to go back and read it again.
Then there are times when it seems real easy, and I vote in less than five minutes but end up waiting 15 or 20 minutes for the verdict to come in.
I always figure others are taking their time or maybe being interrupted as I've been on occasion...
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)And explaining my vote in the comments can often take a bit of time, too. I probably slow down the process for others who are waiting on the verdict because it seems to take me a while to get done.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Though I try to finish before I do something else not to leave it hanging too long. The first thing I do is pull up the full thread where the alert happened and read through as much as I need to make sure I know the context. If I have questions I look at other stuff as well. I think most people on DU simply read the alert and vote and don't write anything. I have a tendency to write something, especially if the alert is a bad one.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)where it is not clear what is going on and I need to review a cryptic (or inside talk) thread - RKBA, or I&P, for example. I could opt out, but I generally don't. So 20 minutes to a verdict doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of jurors.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)It is not just an exercise in mental thought. Somebody may have a good point, yet wrote it in an off-handed manner.
Or sometimes I need to give myself a moment and say, 'Am I not happy with this post because of an opinion different than mine, or is it truly offensive...' Some post are that close!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I like 6, personally, as it requires 4 out of 6 votes to hide. I say more speech is better than less speech.
-Laelth
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)MindMover
(5,016 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I suppose as an earlier post said, if it was done and turned out to have a negative effect, it could always be switched back, or further adjusted.
About alerting, I have to admit I no longer hardly ever alert any more, because my alerts have too often been rejected or end up in 3-3 ties, which is frustrating.
At the same time, I can see the benefits of having a high threshold to hide posts, in that it allows more freedom of speech, even if more rude posts are allowed to remain.
TNNurse
(6,929 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to having the jurors name attached to their vote. I think you would get a lot less "yeah that's a personal insult,but I agree with the insult" votes.
TygrBright
(20,763 posts)I don't spend a whole lot of time on the boards, and I don't get around a whole lot. That said, I go way back with DU, and have been a mod under the old system, and I think I'm (mostly) a decent juror although I'm usually in the minority.
When I'm asked to be on a jury, I look it over. Usually I have NO clue what, if anything, is going on in the thread or the forum on a "meta" level. I look at the post itself, I look at the post it may be in response to, if it still seems iffy, I try to read enough of the thread to get a sense what is going on. I follow links if necessary, and review background if it's clear there is any. Sometimes I review the TOS when I think something's on a line.
That said, I STILL don't usually perceive when a particular alert represents the latest iteration in some ongoing current highly-emotional issue or disagreement between posters or groups of posters. I don't track that stuff. But I know it happens, a fair amount.
Right now, I'll review info on the merits, and give my vote, and sometimes my opinion, regardless of that, even if I'm effectively inserting myself into an ongoing conflict. I don't mind, because I'm anonymous.
Take away my anonymity, and it will look like a minefield to me. I won't go in there, especially if giving my opinion looks like I'm "siding" with some particular poster or poster(s) in a current kerfuffle. I don't do that, and don't want people thinking I'm doing that.
explicatively,
Bright
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Good to see you,
and I wish you would post here more.
When I see your Screen Name,
it know it will be followed by a thoughtful, intelligent, well composed post.
You have helped make DU a better place.
You made some good points in your post.
What do you think about making the post that is Alerted Upon anonymous?
so that Jurors would have no idea who authored it?
The post could then be judged purely on the content of the individual post,
and not influenced by any clique bias.
I realize this would deny access to information contained in the rest of the thread,
but am undecided whether that additional information is relevant in judging a particular post.
I believe that I would support making the Alerted post anonymous,
but I still believe that screen names should appear on both the Alert,
and Jurors decisions and comments.
I have never posted a comment as a Juror or Alerter that I would be ashamed to have my name on,
but have seen that anonymity abused.... a lot.
Again,
Good to see you on DU.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I would be more than happy to have my screen name attached to every alert I have sent,
and every jury decision I have made.
Transparency in our community at DU is a GOOD thing.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Although I forget sometimes, I've been experimenting with signing my alert as well.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)it then I won't deliberate but it hasn't come to that, I think I'm consistent and fair to friend and frenemy alike within the context of that consistency. Backing out usual means I can't make heads or tails over what is the issue is to the point where I can't even say there isn't a problem (out of my element).
Alerts (admittedly rare) are the same. If I have to alert on it then somebody better put eyes on it because it probably is some hot garbage in school on Saturday.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)needs to be an automatic post in response to the offending post with the name of the alerter and the reason for the alert.
You can't subject the jurors to retaliation and not the alerter.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Isn't the real point of the whole system to avoid conflict? Attaching names just gets more personality into it. We want to cool down conflict, not make it more intense.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I suspect at least half of DU would opt out if juries' names were revealed. No one comes here to get into some pointless back-and-forth in PMs (or, worse, in a thread) about how they voted on a jury. And you gotta know that would happen...
Blanks
(4,835 posts)A lot of unneeded conversation about nothing.
I like the 'majority rules' concept, but I'd prefer to officiate in private.
ProfessorGAC
(65,168 posts)Juries are, in principle, anonymous in our judicial system. (In theory anyway)
Hanging a name on someone's opinion about the merits of an alert or the alerted post, when the juror is a volunteer is a horrible idea.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)That's why I don't sign my name to my decisions now.
Response to sufrommich (Reply #15)
L0oniX Message auto-removed
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)fewer of my own posts should be hidden
It's a toss-up
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)an experiment for a limited time.
I agree with everyone who says far too many alerts are trivial. Alerts because some don't like the poster, some don't like the opinion, didn't really understand the post, or other such reasons have been far too common with the juries I've been on. Could larger juries help with that? They might not, but we won't know unless we try.
eggplant
(3,913 posts)But a much bigger issue is the huge inconsistency of rulings, with a great many voting to keep posts because they've "seen much worse on DU". Each time a post is kept, it pushes the bounds of acceptability a little bit further.
So I'd like to see a clarification of the things that make a post alertable.
But I'd ALSO like to see an additional "this is a troll" choice on the alert box.
AND, when alerting on a post that has already survived a jury, just show me the jury's finding right then (or give me the option). Posts that have been alerted on but survived should be identifiable, just as hidden posts can still be read if you want.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)based on who they like or don't like rather than the content of the post. Juries should not be popularity contests and treating them as such is a to fail in one's responsibility as a juror.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)myself.
Too bad there wasn't some way the post being voted on couldn't link back to a thread where all the names in the thread are hidden from view.
Of course, that wouldn't prevent someone bent on voting according to personalities from opening a new window, logging out, and then viewing the thread that way.
But it would be nice if people would vote only on the posts themselves, and not on personalities.
RC
(25,592 posts)I read about that quite often on various threads. Some reasonably benign post is alerted on and the jury says keep it. And some clique or other goes nuts.
I very seldom alert, but when I do, the post in question is in violation of the SOP. As for being on a jury, usually I do not know the people involved, which pretty much me impartial in that respect.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I am sure some would not be so bold in flying camp colours if their names were attached to their jury comments. And darn sure there won't be any more comments even worse and rule breaking than was alerted on.
JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,168 posts)I've been on many juries. I am part of no clique. Your using a pretty broad brush if you want my name attached to a jury decision when i volunteer to be on that jury. You cannot prove i ever voted on personaility (since i never did) but you're assuming a significant number of jurors, selected more or less at random, do that.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)just like we are supposed to be for our posts.
I don't see any bad parts about that. On those special shit flinging days and subjects, there will be a notable change in tone toward the better. Can't be anything but.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)People would just as quick to rally behind DU's Chosen Few -- perhaps even quicker, now that they can have public credit for being on The Right Side and backing the One True View.
And frankly, people who vote to hide because they dislike someone are usually already pretty vocal in their dislike of a particular poster.
A majority would be better than the current 3-3 thing.
Logical
(22,457 posts)BainsBane
(53,066 posts)They should be removed from the jury pool.
Logical
(22,457 posts)BainsBane
(53,066 posts)The whole systems reeks of bias.
Logical
(22,457 posts)And lets face it, some posters are asses and tend to piss off everyone. If you have 70% of the DU hating you then maybe work on that issue first.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)If you really feel someone is out to get you, their name can go there...
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)it's not the poster's issue.
I know of a few DUers who get attacked on a pretty regular basis because of the way they're perceived. Or the way they (perhaps inelegantly) express themselves.
People don't cause others to hate them unless they're doing hateful things like raping, pillaging, and murdering.
What's to hate on a message board? A difference of opinion?
If person A hates person B because person B has a different opinion (and isn't rude about it), then it's person A's issue to work on.
Hate is a strong word, and it almost always originates within the hater.
Haters, IMO, are the ones who need to work on their issues.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)It's really a function of not liking the person's opinions, which should not be in any way relevant to whether or not a post meets community standards (unless of course it's RW or bigoted). I am obviously one of the posters that many people dislike, which means I get alerted on ALOT and I get juror comments making clear the person is voting because of how they view me or my opinions rather than whether I actually insulted someone. I know I am not alone in this. I've seen many similar comments on juries I've served on. People will also vote based on their view of the person being attacked. An insult, even a F U, against someone a juror doesn't like is allowed to stand by justifying it as the person "deserved it." That is a clear violation of a juror's responsibility. It isn't a vote for homecoming king or queen. It's meant to simulate an impartial and fair juror of one's peers.
I'll also admit that the more I see these sorts of comments, that the less concerned I become in exercising fairness as a juror, and I'm guessing I'm not alone on that. The issue of personal animus and bias infects the entire jury system. I would bet if we posted some random posts, without names, that have been hidden and ones that haven't, people would have a difficult time telling which were actually hidden.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Maybe you should work on the reasons for that, rather than blaming "many people".
It's not like people aren't telling you why you have the reputation that have.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)for equal rights and gun regulation, but it won't happen. I have a right to express views, even if you dislike them. I will not parrot the prevailing views just because they are popular. To do so would be intellectual and moral cowardice, and that I cannot live with.
I have also gotten countless emails thanking me for having the courage to speak out about what others wish they could. That coupled with the fact I received a lot of hearts for only having been on this site for just over a year tells me that people do appreciate what I say.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Your reply had nothing to do with what I posted. Your reputation doesn't have anything to do with those views. It's the way you treat people. You don't show any respect to anyone who disagrees with you. You distort and manufacture facts, twist people's words into what you want them to be, make ridiculous accusations, and refuse to back anything up with links. Then, there's your alert sock and your bait and alert tactics. It seems like you have no idea how to have a civil disagreement.
Sometimes a juror will include a body of work when judging a post. I don't see anything wrong with that, unless it's the sole reason for a hide vote.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Clearly our criteria for that varies a great deal. I would submit the fact that you use this site for the purpose of pursing personal vendettas rather than discussing politics or matters of substance is a far greater detriment to anything I have done. Yes, I had a sock for a couple of days. That has nothing to do with juries a year later. Your bait and alert accusation is specious. (It should be obvious the alert Nikon posted was not mine, since I didn't know what poster he was referring to, as is evident in my posts throughout that thread). Every single day people ask for links or evidence of what people say. I haven't seen you accusing them. I have links demanded routinely, and I provide them. Despite your view to the contrary, you are not King of DU. Yet you are here as exhibit A for precisely how the jury system is biased. What someone did a year ago should have no impact on a jury verdict for any honest juror. That you are here arguing it should shows the contempt with which you treat the responsibility of fair self-governance.
You think it acceptable to use this discussion to pursue your personal grudge against me. Why you consider your feelings about a particular posters more important than the issue of this OP, I can't begin to imagine. I suspect few other people care, least of all me. I suggest you take a hard look at yourself rather than constantly pointing the fingers at others. I will hold my posting record against yours any day because I talk about issues of substance. I could post a long list proving evidence of exactly how you use this board, but that is not germane to the OP. Suffice it to say you are in no position to pass judgment on anyone else.
You do realize Skinner is reading this thread? Yet you still can't resist sticking the knife in someone. It truly is astounding how little awareness you have of your own behavior.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You were whining about being disliked, so I explained why that is. Accusing me of having some vendetta, when I offered constructive criticism, is par for the course. You obviously recognize a problem; you just want to blame everyone else. Only you can repair your reputation.
Or, keep whining about it; I don't really care.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)that that poster is so concerned about juries voting based on personalities instead of on the merits.
Why could that be?
Response to pintobean (Reply #372)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)That's a new tactic for you.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)You seriously need to find a constructive hobby.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You replied to me in an archived thread, then self-deleted it within minutes. I'm the one with a problem?
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Is for some strange reason something from you popped up as a recent reply. So I responded, essentially with what I said above. I then realized it was a glitch ,and I had responded to an old post, so I deleted. Yet you couldn't pass up a chance to bicker.
Now, do you have anything to say about the Democratic Party and the current discussions going on about Democratic loyalty vs. ideological conviction? There are countless threads available for you to engage in something besides poking members you've decided you don't like.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You couldn't have explained that the first time, rather than attacking me for responding to your mistake? Even your explanation has to include an attack. You're just proving again what I said up-thread.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)think you're right about this...
Although I also think it pretty closely mirrors the general inconsistency of RL.
The other thing it would be interesting to see would be, as was mentioned somewhere else, how people would vote or not vote if they couldn't see who posted what.
Would they be voting to let stand a post by someone they don't like? Horrors!
Voting to hide a post by someone they consider a friend? Double horrors!!
Response to BainsBane (Reply #19)
penultimate This message was self-deleted by its author.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)But then again trying to administer something like that would be hard. How do you measure bias? Most people don't even bother to write anything during their response to an alert. Those people could just as well be gaming the system to vote for or against people they like or don't like. I mean short of shoving a probe up their ass there isn't much you could do (I'm kidding about that of course).
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)That really is the only way.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)so we already have a mechanism to address this issue.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)But the person should be removed from the jury pool after making such comments. They have not been. My point is that people who have proven themselves to vote unfairly and made clear they are doing so in their comments should be removed from the jury pool.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Clearly I don't know who the people who make those comments are because I don't know who the jurors are. The administrators have access to that information, and it is they who can remove biased jurors from the pool. My contention is they should do so.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Putting aside the possibility that your idea of "biased" may not be the same as the admins', if you don't know who's making the comments then you don't know whether they've been removed from the pool. Maybe it's a different "biased" person each time.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)so at least at that time it had not happened. He also referenced jurors who use the anonymity of jury service to make personal attacks, which is indeed an important concern. I'm simply suggesting the administrators also take into concern clearly stated bias and act accordingly.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The administrators are getting increasingly concerned about the small number of members who repeatedly post rude juror comments while serving on juries. The vast majority of jurors are doing the job in good faith, but unfortunately a small number of people are not. Some people seem to be using the juror comments as a "free" opportunity to make extremely abusive comments to people -- that's not ok. If any juror has a history of inappropriate comments, or if any juror makes a single comment that is way over the line, then we are going to exclude that individual from jury service. If we do take away any person's jury privileges, we will do so transparently and make a note of it on that person's profile page. (Look for the words "Eligible to serve on Juries?"
I would think that evidence of bias would count as not performing jury service in good faith. No idea how many instances of that it takes to get someone removed from the jury pool.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)along with everyone else at the time. A while back hrmjustin asked in ATA if they had actually removed anyone and Skinner said they hadn't.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)even though something can be done about the comment, the other damage done was that the person voted unfairly, and made it perfectly clear that s/he was being unfair. Not that it's life or death, but an unfair vote like that only serves to convince people who already think the jury system sucks that it sucks even worse.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I've seen some of the most egregious personal attacks allowed to stand for that very reason.
Community standards sure have taken a nosedive.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I think the results of a jury vote would be clearer that way.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)If he doesn't like them, the poster is sentenced to death by crushing.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)How about 9?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But the fact that members have voluntarily disqualified themselves from the whole system, and recently have had my impression of how useless it is, confirmed ... And civility is truly in eye if beholder I s'pose.
Some of us no longer post original material, of add knowledge even when we have it. We are walking on egg shells. And will continue to, and alert stalking is not civil either.
Said my piece.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)During that time, her posts were alerted to a jury 9 times. And not a single one of those posts was hidden.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595193#post1
I wouldn't call that alert stalking, but if you want to, you have to admit that it's failed.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)on the jury system and how she doesn't donate and why.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Her "stalkers" don't seem to have much of a work ethic.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)I can't remember one.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Seriously, nobody is alerting on you. Over two thousand posts with a mere 9 alerts -- that's probably statistically lower than average.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)There are some personal animosities that have played out through the jury system. One of the most dispiriting events that I have witnessed on DU is groups of members cheering another member being banned from DU. One of the difficulties is that cliques exist on DU, members of the cliques that get called to jury duty must look past their sensitivities and evaluate alerted post using a simple question, regardless of whether they like the member whose post was alerted. That question is "Would I want a person posting like the alerted member did in response to something that I wrote?"
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I was an eager participant.
I have seen it used over and over again for vendettas, some directed at me, so I am not a fan of it.
I have disqualified myself from the system, and except for ONE recent alert, a nasty personal attack that was let stand. I no longer trust the system.
So I do not jury duty, or alert for that matter. And yes, we do have cliques. It is worst than Hight School.
And some of us no longer post anything of significance here, that I wrote. I no longer post LOCAL news either, never mind other posters do, and some of them are covered by me.
Some things that I no longer post. We had a school strike, first since 1996. It was an unfair labor practices strike. In another era, that might have interested people here, but given I will be attacked by a band of merry brothers and sisters for the who wrote it, I did not.
We have E Cig issues tomorrow at the county board. I will not bother posting the story here when it runs. Mostly it is part of a national trend, but I do not live in the same country anymore, Magically my county moved somewhere else cause I live here.
We had one of the early stories on Draper's little plan to break California into six states. Hell, we considered the economic consequences for my county, well before HUffpost did such for the state.
We have had local coverage for the Fight for 15, never mind.
We already had our first fire of the season. No reason to post it here, mostly. I did post a couple photos in the California and Photo groups, because a few people might be interested. I took those near the fire zone as to how dry the ground cover is.
So you could say that this merry band of bullies has essentially silenced me, and I do not expect management to do a thing about it, they have yet to admit they have a real problem with cliques or cyber bullying. We have any news from my town, my county actually, people can look for it on CNN.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)As it is now, the alerter simply raises the issue, makes a case, and hopes for the best.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Because counting the alerter, that's really 4 in favor of a hide. Maybe they should stick with 6 jurors but hide the post on a 3-3 tie.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I assume the accuser votes 'hide' the accused 'do not hide' and thus they cancel each other out. I've never heard of a system in which the person making an accusation automatically gets a jury vote, have you?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)chance to confront their accuser before a jury. IMO, a fairer system would be to notify the accused that his or her post has been alerted and give that poster a chance to explain his or her post before a jury, while the accuser defends the alert with justification on why the alert was done and why it the post should be hidden. Such a system would eliminate chicken-shit alerts and force anyone alerting to think deeply before going through the multiple steps required to send an alert to Admin. Such a system would also sink members that traffic on insult, because those people wouldn't be able to put up a valid defense before a jury.
7962
(11,841 posts)"disruptive, rude, over the top". Its usually just something that someone doesnt agree with, therefore it should be blocked. Free speech, as long as its the right speech.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)the alerter could have an agenda, whereas randomly-chosen jurors are less likely to have an agenda on any individual post to which they're called.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)I take the opposite view. The 3 jurors that vote to keep the post were pulled out of the ether, they had no horse in the show prior to being called to render a decision. The three jurors voting to take a cautious route, given their status, have as much or more standing than the alerter, IMO.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)count as votes against hiding?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I don't think that's a good idea at all. I have never alerted on a post and I may never, but if I did, I would hope that a random group of DUers could see why I thought it was so offensive that it should be hidden.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)That's like putting a a murder victim's mom on the jury -- a juror cannot be impartial when they've already shown they consider a post alert-worthy, now can they?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If out of a pool of DUers who dont like to hide things anyway and err on the side of free speech you get three DUers out of 7 to agree that something should be hidden it should probably be hidden.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)We should try..
Scuba
(53,475 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)There was du'er in a Safe Haven, trying to set up a system to do just that and not all that too long ago either.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)And the alerted and author of the offending post should agree to select 12 jurors through a voir dire process, then each side should present evidence and any arguments, then the jury must deliberate and come to a consensus on the offending post.
klook
(12,165 posts)-- virtually, of course, with a Bluetooth ankle bracelet verifying that they haven't moved more than 30 feet away from their computer during deliberations. Also, we need somebody with artistic skills to do the "courtroom" drawings.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to vote to HIDE!!!!
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)long sequesters. My god, trying to agree in a foreperson is a long process. I vote to have Oscar the Mixed Animal be our amateur court sketch artist and a pit bull as our court reporter.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 10, 2014, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)
Only a unanimous verdict can convict.
Yep, on DU it should take 5 people out of 5 voting to hide, before a post can be hidden.
Then any alert and vote should be publicly displayed in a reply to the post.
That's how it is done in the real world. Might work here.
On Edit: A link to a page which has the jury's decision would be all that is needed. Kind of like a sig line appended to the post. Whether is is hidden/censored or not. It would be like having a free press!
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 10, 2014, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Insults would fly left and right. People would know they could get away with virtually anything.
I don't think alerts should be displayed, and I think people should quit posting them. They only serve to stir up more shit.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Sounds like a recipe for collusion and dishonesty. A free press is the answer. Let it all be known. Open it up. A person has the right to know who it is that judges him or her.
Insults fly left and right on DU as it is. A few of the insulters get shown the door, as it should be. Some skirt the scene via --- damn what's the word for petty little clubs of people?
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)it's okay when I insult but not when you do.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I've seen you post quite a few.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)"quite a few" seems like an exaggeration. I do often PM failed alerts to the person who was alerted on, as people do for me.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)When some uses a vulgar sexist term like "c...t" and it isn't hidden. I've posted those in HOF as examples of tolerance for misogyny.
Separation
(1,975 posts)I alerted on this one in GD the other day and surprisingly 1 voted to leave it. Do you check the box that sends it up the chain to be looked at by more than just a jury? Because if blocking out "cunts" with ***** is slipping past a jury and a from what I understand passed on up higher for TOS violations than there more problems here that one more jury member is gonna fix.
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
On Sun Mar 9, 2014, 06:16 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
Let's face it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4635397
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
Using c***'s instead of spelling out CUNT'S doesn't make it any better. That word is no better that any other racist, homophobic, or sexists term. Sorry, you had me until cunt.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Mar 9, 2014, 06:22 PM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Even with asterisks, hide
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: asterisks do not change the reason the word is offensive.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No use of the C-word allowed here, deal with it..
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: ! Read right past the bad "c" word and more upset about blaming Baby "Boomer" for listening to AC, and Reagan and Rush, ad nauseum. As a Boomer, I clearly remember it was my granny who like Reagan, NOT me. Hide for broad brush and sexist wording.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter. Plus the disparaging broad-brush remarks about boomers.
Thank you.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)My Irony Meter just pegged and melted!
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)After casting my vote I respond to the alerted on post so that in case it gets hidden I can edit my reply to post the results.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)But why not make it 12, good enough for a decision regarding your freedom, should be good enough for speech.
LOL,...."The DU Administration will not be bound by the result"....... in the spirit of "art imitates life" ? < elections> Go to the polls vote for whom you believe in, and once elected he/she may or may not pay attention to popular opinion....lol.
Just having a little fun, DU is a business,.... I think everybody should keep that in mind, .... and as a business, it is important to control the flow of information so as to ultimately NOT disrupt the goal of the business, which is ... growth.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)If I'm on a jury and 3 people disagree with me, I want another opinion. If they agree with me, 6 is plenty.
I think this will have to be your call, Skinner. I've seen some close calls that I believe should have gone one way or another.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)for a few months and see how it goes. I would guess that it won't really matter as to how many, or who, complain. The whiners are going to whine, regardless.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)of a strain on the jury pool, we can always change back.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Only by trying it and seeing what the resulting metrics are will we know for sure.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)I like 6.
If anything we should decide 3-3 ties with penalty kicks.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Made me look! Nice post headline...
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Unless we will have a 'supreme court' decide on the 5th hide
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I think that would have to probably be adjusted, if this system was changed. 5 posts being hidden seems too easy to achieve, maybe, under this change.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)No reason people can't just be civil.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)A seventh juror chosen, when necessary, from a pool of proven civil, non-shitstirring posters (not me, obviously.)
rpannier
(24,338 posts)for a gratuity
Thomas would also be available, but he'd just decide, "Whatever Scalia thinks." So eliminate the middle man
underpants
(182,877 posts)I voted YES
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Going to seven will only lead to more ugliness. A 4-3 decision is too weak to be given any credence.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)I'm not sure it will mitigate the increasing number of jurors who seem to vote based on who the "accused" is, rather than what they said.
Wounded Bear
(58,706 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)But what the hey, go for it.
klook
(12,165 posts)Definitely a good idea. My only concern is that we might see more "Meta" type posts deconstructing jury votes, complaining about Hides and non-Hides, etc.
I say we give it a trial run for a month or two and then let the Admins evaluate.
Thanks, guys -- really appreciate all you do to make DU a good place.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)of specious, purely personality driven, or just plain stupid alerts I have been called to adjudicate then PLEASE keep it in place! We need more disincentives, not less!
lpbk2713
(42,766 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 10, 2014, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)
In some instances more jurors voting could sway the vote in favor of a popularity
contest, depending on who the focus of the alert or what the topic may be.
Also, seven jurors would take the burden (and the onus) off the hosts in the event
of a 3 - 3 tie as is now the case.
Edit: And BTW, isn't that an invalid poll? No "I like pie" option.
Javaman
(62,534 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Keep it at 6, but hide on a 3-3 tie.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)the DUer whose post we are voting on - most likely that would be a vote against a hide.
Javaman
(62,534 posts)it always drives me nuts that "the tie goes to the runner" concept rules supreme.
malaise
(269,157 posts)There's nothing wrong with a tie.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Only the worst posts should be hidden, which seems to be the case with the current system.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)really didn't need to be hidden. It's okay that it was hidden, because it was a rather vicious PM sent to me by a now-banned DUer claiming I would never post it. He had already posted it in the Men's forum...so I went ahead (because that isn't against DU rules). It was hidden because the jurors thought they were acting against the person who sent me the PM. It was no big deal, but I have seen several dozen cases where posts that shouldn't have been hidden are hidden and posts that have no place on DU are left to stand.
wryter2000
(46,081 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Iggo
(47,565 posts)Crap-shoot City!
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)I think 7 is ridiculous. 6 is pushing it and never did make sense to me - not sure why we need ties.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Any odd number is better than an even number on these types of issues
CK_John
(10,005 posts)On a political forum you should have known that an odd number was needed to make a decision. But... we are becoming a nation and a party of non decision makers.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)There are some folks where "Ignore" just works best, and then there are times when even good folks have "make DU an ugly place" moments. If 4 out of 7 see "incivility" as opposed to "different valid opinions politely expressed" then I say "hide it."
I also confess to regularly clicking on "hidden posts" just to see what happened - accident rubber necking, I guess, but interesting.
Appreciation for all you do - and I like the "try it, and if it doesn't work, do something else".
Blanks
(4,835 posts)And their post is just gone. It's a shame we can't look to see what they had to say in their final hour.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)In either, the alerter, no matter how you slice it, is a "hide" vote. The alerter doesn't alert on a post he/she wants to keep... they make a statement that amounts to a hide. So what we have now is a 7 vote jury.
We would be going to an 8 vote jury which means a hide is 5 hide votes and 3 leave it votes, a leave it is 4 hide votes and 4 leave it votes. So we would be switching around which outcome has even votes that rule.
Now:
3 hide + 3 leave it + 1 alert hide vote = 4 hide + 3 leave it = leave it (makes no sense)
4 hide + 2 leave it + 1 alert hide = 5 hide + 2 leave it = hide (makes no sense - one sided)
After change:
3 hide + 4 leave it + 1 alert hide = 4 hide + 4 leave it = leave it (makes more sense)
4 hide + 3 leave it + 1 alert hide = 5 hides + 3 leave it = hide (makes some sense ??)
That's how I see it... I'm for the 7 jury system. In a 6 jury system 4 hides against 3 leave its = leave it... is illogical.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Well Done.
I learned something.
The initial Alert is indeed a vote to hide.
Way Off Topic,
but are you familiar with The Monty Hall Paradox or the Lets Make a Deal Conundrum?
At this point, the imperfect wad of meat called the "brain" fires up it neurons, and usually informs its owner that revealing the contents of one of the other doors simply changed the contestant's odds from one-in-three to fifty-fifty. But that isn't the case. It has been mathematically proven that if the contestant were allowed to switch her door to #3 after seeing the goat behind #2, she'd be twice as likely to win.
How can this be? It isn't intuitive, but it's true. Great mathematicians have puzzled over this, as well as great scientists at Los Alamos and professors at MIT.
http://www.damninteresting.com/lets-make-a-deal/
Your analysis of our Jury system reminded me of that.
Anyway...Thanks.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)But it contradicts itself. The first part discusses their probability argument, then it goes to the gamblers folly argument which contradicts the very argument in the first part.
This is an exercise in separating the human propensity to see pattern in chaos, but the actual logic fails. The math itself fails by inserting the "set" analysis. When three doors are available 1 in 3 is the probability of a hit. If you add sets to the analysis, you are taking the side of the gabler when the probability is still 1 in 3. When you remove a door in the possible choices for a hit, the equation changes to a completely new problem, it becomes 50/50 similar to the gamblers inability to see the odds are the same as always no matter how many rolls/spins whatever.
The trick in this conundrum is mixing math and arithmetic. This problem is arithmetic... not math. Arithmetic has limits to its logic where math does not, therefore going beyond the bounds of simple arithmetic makes for a profound argument but does not address the simple arithmetic that it takes to solve the contestant's "real" issue at hand.
It's a fun argument though.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)or by design.
If the host chooses which door to open based on the fact it has the goat behind it, the initial probabilities hold and there's a 2/3 chance that he wins the prize if he switches. If the door was chosen at random (meaning there was a chance it would have revealed the grand prize), then the odds shift to 50/50.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)All bets are off if things can be changed without the contestants knowledge or if there's a monkey in the machine. In that case there is nothing to analyze, no arithmetic, no math.. no reason for the debate, only ESP.. because they may or may not switch anything or they may switch even after the decision has been made. There isn't even the notion of knowledgeable intuition for the player. At that point it's a cheatable parlor game. No need for MIT.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)The poster of the hypothetical post in question can logically be assumed to be a solid "leave it" vote. So as it stands, it's ostensibly an 8 person pool:
Original poster - 1 vote to leave
Alerter - 1 vote to hide
Jury - 6 votes
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I think it enters the realm of personal opinion once you enter the posters point into the analysis. The post is a position that is allowed to be posted simply because the programming allows for any opinion and there are no holds barred by the programming, there is no value set by it's admittance. When that opinion needs judging by a group of peers it stands alone like a murderer on trial. Does an accused murderer have a vote? or does the accused stand separate under judgment? I think the latter to be true. Therefore the poster has no vote, they simply have automatic admittance to the system.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If you are going to count the alerter, then I can't see why you aren't counting the poster. By posting, the poster is making an affirmative statement "I want this posted". Yes, the software allows posting anything. The software also allows alerting on anything, which is the source of a number of 0-6 non-hides.
Does an accused murderer have a vote? No, and neither does the prosecutor.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)See post 106. I see very little that makes the DU system analogous to the US legal system so the prosecuting attorney analogy doesn't work.
Thanks for pointing that out though. Under other circumstances you make a good point but not in this case as I see it.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)has a vote. I wasn't making an analogy about the US legal system in general which includes the prosecutor who has very specific operation with complicated rules. The prosecutor analogy doesn't work. Mine was an example of many possibilities which don't have to be about a murderer or the legal system at all. Just for argument, even my wording doesn't exclude all legal system analogies, "I see very little that makes the DU system analogous to the US legal system" although I could change "very little" to "nothing" and I would probably still agree with my statement.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)xocet
(3,872 posts)The alerter is more properly analogous to a prosecuting attorney who has to make his or her case to the jury: it is the alerter who brings the charges. Prosecutors do not vote for conviction in a jury system, so an alert should not be considered to be a latent vote against a post.
Beyond that point, if the implications of your argument are to be fully manifested, how would you count the number of people who have viewed the thread, but who have not sent an alert. By your logic, they should be counted as an overwhelming number of latent DO-NOT-HIDE votes. That would be absurd, because if it were so, no post would ever be hidden without a variable jury size that, at least, offered the possibility of totaling more than the number of latent DO-NOT-HIDE votes. So, for a thread with 1 alert and 1000 views, the jury would have to be ridiculously large to overcome the 999 latent DO-NOT-HIDE votes.
At any rate, I respect the time that you put into your analysis, but I believe it to be faulty.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I don't agree that the alerter is analogous to a prosecuting attorney. A prosecuting attorney is not a part of the judging body but is analogous to programming that displays information and analysis of preexisting conditions . The alerter is part of the judging body. The alerter being one of the whole of the constituents of DU is a good point but it does not uphold your point of view. The administrators and their system they program choose the jurors, the alerter is a member of the constituency that has made an accusation, but the whole of the rest of DU has not done so; they are a null point. It's the job of the administration and their programming to decide who is added to the voice of the alerter to make a judgment. Whether DU in general agrees or does not agree is not in the equation.
Therefore the comparison to our legal system is not completely applicable. My point stands.
Thanks for trying the analysis. You made a thought provoking point.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In general, I suspect that 90% of alerts could be sourced to a person on the alerted party's blacklist. Grudges and long memories are the source of more alerts than message content.
I say leave it alone for that reason.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)It may be the jury system doesn't accomplish that objective if what you say about grudges is a fact. I have no way of knowing though.
MADem
(135,425 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)Too many points of separation. A poster is composing an idea. The poster doesn't have to make a judgment of removing his/her idea or leaving it, unless the poster makes that decision completely on her/his own after the fact. The poster has complete control of the idea without outside interference because it's automatic by design.
The alerter on the other hand is making a judgment of the posters idea or manner being out of bounds and is joined by jurors in making a judgment whether there should be outside intervention. Posters are posters and jurists are jurists and the alerter is making a judgment in the same manner as the jury. The poster is not making a judgment of their own post's bounds if they decide their post is relevant, they just post.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The reasons for wanting the post to be left can be varied; the poster can really believe what he or she is saying is valid and should be disseminated; the poster could be trying to "stir up shit" and would most definitely want the post left because they want to upset people (a troll on a jury would vote the same way); or the person could be one of those Free Speech Advocates who believes that anything and everything, no matter how offensive, should stand.
There's no more separation between the poster causing the kerfluffle by posting the "offending" post and the jurors, or the alerter objecting to the post causing the kerfluffle and the jurors. Everyone has a part in the little playlet.
That said, I agree with the concept iterated by others, that the poster of the "offending" material is the defendant, the alerter is the prosecutor, and the jurors are "the deciders." And here at DU, so far, anyway, with the 3-3 business, even a Naughty Poster gets the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder if those who are most adamant about changing the system are more or less likely to have perceptions of being victimized by the present one? I.e., do they alert a lot and find themselves presented with a great deal of 3-3 leaves?
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I have a different take on it and I'm sure we'll vote accordingly. Concerning your last paragraph, I think most comments in this thread are prejudiced in some way by their experiences and expectations of the system whether they feel victimized by the old system, feel they would be victimized by the new or are so fed up with it that they choose to make a decision based on how much they could disrupt it or flee from it. As I see it, the more we are cognizant of the fact we are to some point affected by our experience, the more likely we are to make decisions that are realistic if we are in fact seeking to be so. I like to break everything down to their lowest commonality and do the math if there is any. In doing so, I do see some possible advantage to 7 but my choice isn't fully based on some absolute mathematical probability, it's mostly my choice because of what can't be determined. I don't think the system has worked all that well but only marginally. I think the only real way to find out if it can be improved is to give 7 a try.
Just for the record not that it matters, I always do jury duty but rarely alert. I think I have alerted 3 times in the last year??? give or take with different outcomes. I don't put much weight in it but I do participate. I am curious to see if 7 would actually be an improvement even though the specs don't change the bias balance by much of a perceivable amount. It will be subtle if anything.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)I keed, I keed...
Having said that, I say keep it as it is.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)But increase the voters by one so people are not offended by ties. No. Seems dumb to me.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)If a person makes an alert that is not upheld by a jury, then there should be some consequence. For example if you have more than 3 frivolous alerts in 30 days, you can't make any alerts for 90 days. If an alert is upheld there should be no penalty.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If you alert on a post and the post is unanimously sustained, you get a 24 hour "time out" from alerting on posts at all. Perhaps there should be an accumulation penalty, too (like accumulated yellow cards in football...er...soccer). An even longer ban from alerting...
The vote has to be unanimous, and I think that's fine. There should be strong consensus that the alert was indeed frivolous or malicious.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)That's a pretty high bar. There will almost always be one juror who votes to ban anything.
I definitely think there needs to be a higher penalty for abusing the system, and the cumulative approach ensures it only kicks in after a pattern of abuse, not just a single alert in the heat of the moment.
IMHO, a person should not alert unless a post is so outrageous that it clearly violates the site rules beyond the shadow of a doubt.
And while this is being rolled out, how about a pitch for honest human interaction instead of everybody flaming from behind the safety of their keyboards. My guess is that in more than 90% of the cases, a PM that politely asks the poster to reconsider his words would achieve the desired result without all this stupid drama we have here.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)A few of them were bogus alerts, a few were clearly someone alerting on the wrong post in a thread, and most of them were alerts on an extra-nasty post in a thread of nasty posts where the "everything in this thread sucks so I'm not going to hide this post" rationale was used.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)both the yellow card idea and keeping the strong consensus like we have now. I would support them. I've been in several unanimous decisions most of which seemed reasonable but a couple that smelled a little like it was an "unusual" decision. I'm not sure that is fixable. We will probably always have some inconsistencies in a system like this but doing the best we can to providing a fair call is good and I think your points fit that challenge.
RC
(25,592 posts)I think this or some similar needs to be implemented. It would cut down on the the frivolous alerts by some people.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The concept behind it - that the tie-breaker goes to the poster themselves, basically an err on the side of caution - made sense, at least within context of the system.
mackerel
(4,412 posts)I've ever participated on
Kurska
(5,739 posts)TacoD
(581 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)We just went though a rough time in the EE group where a single poster who should never had been allowed to continue the way they were for as long as they were and I think that with a seven jury pool they wouldn't have been allowed to continue as long as they were. It was as if anyone who is anti nuclear was being stalked, night and day. There is a lot of reason I'm anti nuke and lies by that industry are at the top of that list
Sorry but I take my time here serious
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I like that the burden is generally on the alerter to provide a compelling reason. I've seen far too many frivolous alerts to to think that making hiding posts easier will have a beneficial effect on the community.
I'm a donor to the website and I've served on hundreds of juries. My experience with that leads me to believe that making hiding posts easier will have a stiffing effect on free discussion on this website.
A post should only be hidden if it is way outside appropriate standards of conduct. Sadly, I see the jury system more often used for personal vendettas. I wish there were most punishments for frivolous alerts, like a week long ban on alerting if you alert goes down 0-6
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)A tie of 3-3 from the jury means the winning vote for the post is that of the poster, who put it up.
npk
(3,660 posts)Too many cases where hung juries end in 3-3 tie and some quite despicable posts remain. At least with an extra juror it allows for one more set of eyes, whether that will help I don't know.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The burden of proof should be on the alerter. An alert that consists of two or three words does not make a case for hiding a post. The current system forces the alerter to get a 2/3 majority of the panel in order to hide a post and that is how it should be.
There are way too many frivolous alerts now. Raising the size of a jury from 6 to 7 will only make it worse.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)with false police reports, wild ones. I'm friends with one of the dispatchers who told me about it. This compulsive alerting and oversensitivity to nothing makes a sham of the process.
DFW
(54,436 posts)The one time I actively had anything to do with a jury, I alerted about a highly offensive post by a visiting right wing troll. A jury told me basically to f*** off and (in these words) "grow a thicker skin." Well, apparently several people had skins no thicker than mine, because the troll got banned several hours later, nevermore to be seen (under the name used, anyway).
However, it gave me a taste of the DU jury system. The result, which lingers to this day, was first was heard publicly as the last line in "Gone With The Wind."
MADem
(135,425 posts)jury half that size should be good enough for the virtual world.
And not all trial juries have to be unanimous, either.
It's not broken, Skinner. It doesn't need to be fixed. It's a great system as is. Sure, some posts might survive that would have not, but erring on the side of speech is not the end of the world. And those "misfires" of which you speak? People just might take those personally, if they start happening more often, and they might be less incentivized to continue participating here. Right now, you've said we don't have problems with "swarming," but if people start getting emboldened by successful alerts, we might see more of that. The danger there is that the range of voices here would get more narrow. I like the Big Tent aspect of DU, even though I don't always agree with my fellow DUers on every issue. I wouldn't want to see the focus narrowed.
I don't believe that anyone is truly demotivated to alert. They're simply annoyed because their alerts fail. Of course, adding the extra juror makes "Shut Out" votes, where the alerter's ability to alert is suspended for a day, less likely, too, I should imagine.
I think if people want their alerts to succeed, they need to be very clear in their alert verbiage. Many times I have served on juries where the alerter couldn't even be bothered to write a simple sentence about what was bothersome.
It's also always possible to simply tell a person how one feels about their post, if the alert fails (or even if one isn't attempted). The "jury system" isn't the only way to express disapproval. As it is, MIRT tosses out a lot of trolls and socks who have served on juries, and of course those people would be voting to disrupt, not to aid the system--maybe you should institute a hundred, five hundred or thousand post minimum before a person can serve on a jury--perhaps that might make a difference, and reduce the number of 3-3 results?
Good luck whatever you decide!
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)But if it makes a jury too hard to convene, maybe 200 would be sufficient.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)DUers can't buy stars for members who can't afford one, was it would affect the selection of juries. Frankly, I can't see the problem. I served on juries enough even without a star, but isn't this making the the rich judge the poor so to speak? Also, the poor have less choice in who might serve on their juries. Even in our lobbyist driven corporate government, jury duty is still one of the last democratic institutions left here in America and the government pays the juror. Not that I expect that from DU. However, the juror does not get selected by how affluent they are. I'm sure you did not intend to make it classist, but there it is.
CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)Just sayin' in case you wanted to buy one for someone. I most miss buying stars for people during the heart give away, cuz it lets them give out hearts.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Everyone has to roll their own.
CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)Just asking, not being hostile. It probably was about six months since I sent a check.
Too bad.
MADem
(135,425 posts)1. We do not do gift memberships anymore.
The reason is because jury service is calculated, in part, based on whether someone is a subscriber. If someone is going to earn that bonus, they need to support DU themselves.
If you want a refund let me know and I'll send it to you.
CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)They cashed my check & gave the star to who I wanted, but good to know.
MADem
(135,425 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It does sound a little bit like CITIZENS UNITED, though, doesn't it?
Money Equals Speech!
Well, I suppose it does reflect real life...in all its imperfections and sordidness!
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)I have served on a fair number of juries since the jury system was implemented. The biggest problem I have observed -- and I'm not sure a 7-person jury addresses it at all -- is that far too many alerts are made not on the basis of any actual violation of terms or community standards, but rather on the alerter's strong disagreement with the opinion expressed. It is admittedly a very fine line sometimes, but great majority of cases, at least of the ones I've observed, juries have made pretty good calls as to where that line should be drawn, I have seen a few occasions where, by virtue of the luck of the draw in jury selection, it has appeared that the decision was made less on the basis of community standards than on the majority of jurors' agreement or disagreement with the content of the allegedly offending post.
One of the things I like about the current system is precisely the way 3-3 splits are handled. As I said, the line between controversial content and violation of community standards is often very fine. I have been on both sides of 3-3 splits, but even in cases where I voted to hide a post, but it was left standing as a result of a 3-3 split, I appreciate the fact that the system errs on the side of allowing posts to stand. I don't always like or agree with the results in those cases, but I think it strikes a pretty good balance overall. And I think it helps DU to avoid falling into the Huffington Post syndrome, in which community standards and even terms of use often appear to be completely arbitrary.
I guess, as I write about this, I do realize how I feel. I think I prefer to keep the system as it is, with the understanding that no system is perfect and no system will ever satisfy everyone.
CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I never opted out of jury service until recently, but now I find it's happening with more frequency.
The change you made in January has already improved civility.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Down from the current 66.7%.
Works for me.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)So, yes, I support 7-member juries.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Warpy
(111,339 posts)has allowed an objectionable post to remain up. A clear majority might change that.
Cha
(297,655 posts)uppityperson
(115,679 posts)I do not have a strong opinion either way.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 10, 2014, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)
if a person has a post alerted on I think they should be notified, when the alert is sent. That way it gives the person a chance to 'fix' the offending post, make their case--via an edit on the post, or take their chances with a jury.
I've had two posts hidden since DU 3, one was something I said with a now banned poster, and a while ago when I wasn't clear. Two jurors knew what I meant but the others didn't.
I think it could lead to less hidden posts (differing views are good) and maybe more civil dialog. If I could have read the alert on my second hidden post could have either changed it so it was more clear, or did an edit and explained what I meant.
As for 6 or 7 on a jury.....I think either is fine. They system works well now, imo.
edited to add: I do think having a tie giving the benefit to the poster/DU'er is a plus. So I'm leaning leaving it at 6
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)keep track of the stats.
Make a decision to stay with 7, or go back to 6, at the end of the evaluation period.
Sid
Response to Skinner (Original post)
A-Schwarzenegger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)A-Schwarzenegger
(15,596 posts)some of the comments.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)Somebody thinks they have a sense of humor. Maybe we should vote on that...
Response to mrdmk (Reply #238)
A-Schwarzenegger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(297,655 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)classic jury results lost in meta.
Response to pintobean (Reply #161)
A-Schwarzenegger This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts):snicker:
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,596 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yeah, your out standing in your field, namely, a vacant lot.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)I think Elad should just program the system so that Juror # 4 is ignored in the final tally.
Ohio Joe
(21,761 posts)PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)The whole idea of tattling on someone and hiding posts is ridiculous and childish.
But if you're going to do it, have a definitive result. 5 or 7.
EOM
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Too many posts that are disruptive and rude are left to stand.
There really needs to be a moderator system to just delete all the rude and disruptive posts. This place has become like the comments section of Yahoo!. DU used to have great discussions going on that I could read and learn from. Now there are too many who just post rude and insulting quips meant to ridicule. There are too many exchanges that are very angry and hostile. There are too many people who post in a tone that they would never use in person.
The jury system can't fix that. Only a moderator system can and it has to be almost zero tolerance and not tainted by anyone who thinks there are "sides" on DU.
As it is there were two people on a jury just today who didn't think someone saying "I don't give a shit what you think." to someone else was hide worthy. I don't get that. Is that what we want DU to be? The equivalent to Jerry Springer or Maury Povich shows? That's what it looks like atm.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)This is not that uncivil a place. If anything people are too sensitive.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)to the jury before the jury rendered its verdict? That might be more difficult to pull off, but would more closely emulate the reality of a fair justice system, imho.
As far as the number of jurors, I believe it should be kept an even number. Real-life juries are even numbers.
rug
(82,333 posts)edbermac
(15,947 posts)I'd rather see them penalized for their actions. Some are valid alerts, but I just checked my last 10 juries that I was on and a lot were 6-0 or 5-1 for leaving.
It's obvious that there are a pathetic few who are wrapped up in their petty little vendettas against other DU'ers and alert at the drop of a hat.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Instead of the one above it. So of course I got a 6-0 decision to leave it, which made it impossible to alert on the one I had meant to alert on. I don't alert very often (maybe once a month) and so far I've only gotten the hide about 25% of the time. System works fairly well overall I think.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)If the person who can see who's alerting on posts states that no one is alerting frivolously, how can we dispute this?
Incidentally, the majority of juries on which I've served have run either 3-3 or 3-4. Make of that what you will.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Because needing at least 4 to hide something will prevent the system from being gamed, while still allowing for hideous posts to get flushed. I do wish we had mods back, at least in such a way they could add a check and balance to things.
Also, as long as you allow the dread "reason not given response" you will invite mischief. If someone can judge someone, they can grunt five words to explain why, even Scalia can do that.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)This will increase the odds of a given post being hidden, because those 4 votes will only need to come from a pool 7, instead of 6.
It's an interesting point re: "gaming" the jury system. Since juries are called essentially simultaneously, they are particularly resistant to a form of gaming which has plagued DU for years ---- namely the use of sockpuppets to make a viewpoint appear more popular than it actually is.
I suppose a very quick fingered and clever player might be able to get 2 socks on the same jury, but it seems unlikely. So that particular measure of DU public opinion is more resistant to gaming and manipulation.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)But, especially against the feminists, you have people being egged on to hide people, with results that are not random at all, like when a certain lady got 3 posts hidden in about two days. There will always be able able to game the system...but we have to make it harder.
however, if you want to tweak things, let's make it 5 out of 7..or six out of 8, that way, any lynch mobs have a harder time.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I've been the victim of some shit hides, myself. It happens.
Still the fact is, if you're getting a string of hides, there's probably a reason- one above and beyond "they're all out to get you".
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and very often it is called being a liberal on a site that some want to drag to the center-right in time for 2016.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)it's gonna be a long road.
dsc
(52,166 posts)But I do think you are underestimating the increase in probability of removal. This can be modeled by binomial distribution. If a probability of a voter voting to remove is 0.25 then we would see 0.03 under the old system with a 0.07 under the new system. If the probability of a voter voting to remove is 0.50 then we would see 0.34 under the old system with a 0.5 under the new system. If the probability of a voter voting to remove is 0.75 then we would see 0.83 under the old system with a 0.93 under the new system. Again, I agree with the change but if the chance of a voter voting to remove is low then the probability of removal will increase quite a bit.
.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I suspect that some individuals are responsible for a massively disproportionate share of the alerts.
You know, of course, and may disagree... or not care.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)to lead to an increase in rancor.
I'm thinking of poor juror #7, who will surely be roundly vilified for every jury result that pisses someone off.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)As noted, it's already four to hide. Throwing another in the mix just because people don't like "ties" doesn't seem particularly useful.
I actually think the jury system is working pretty well. It's fairly hard to hide a post, which it should be. I wouldn't like to see a lot of changes based on the idea we need to hide more -- there are plenty of ill-conceived alerts as it is.
Logical
(22,457 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)... oh.
Logical
(22,457 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)That aside, I'd say the bizarre personal investment in the number of jury members is clearly wafting from your direction.
Logical
(22,457 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Maybe you're one of those frustrated alerters upset about all the "ties?"
Logical
(22,457 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)William769
(55,147 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)is a bad idea with 6, 7 or 25 people. Abstain.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Response to Skinner (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Because that is what is missing in the system. One person may have more than one meaning when being accused of being uncivil and the jurors may not do a lot of research on the poster or the problem on the thread.
A major problem with the system is that the person being alerted against is not able to meet their accuser and resolve the meaning. IRL we hear both sides.
Also IRL, most jurors have never met each other. The anonymous nature of jurors mimics that.
There is one function that I think would resolve part of this would be letting the jury pool, since they are all working in real time on a decision, should be able to communicate with each others for less errors.
I have no ideal if the software on the DU servers have the ability to conference that way.
That's it for me.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the poster is basically considered the "seventh" juror in that one would naturally assume that the poster would vote for his own post to remain visible.
Hope this helps explain the system as it stands now.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I'm for scrapping the jury system and going back to the mod system.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)I have had no problem in getting my posts hidden ... despite the fact they were 100% true.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)That way complaints about the rugged jury system will change to view the admins want more hidden posts. I mean no matter what you say (there's no alert stalking) there are people here that will always argue against it.
So let's ratchet up the excitement with threads about how 6 jurors was so perfect and 7 is ruining DU.
rpannier
(24,338 posts)I think the person who made the post should be informed to give them a chance to change or defend their post.
I've had one post voted against me by the jury and I had no prior knowledge or way to defend my position.
The jury usually only looks at the post, not the context of the conversation, to make their decision
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Somehow nobody got the actual point I was making (which was the exact opposite of the cartoon) and mistook me for a RW troll - would have been nice to have been able to explain myself at the time instead of the unpleasant shock of a PPR.
rpannier
(24,338 posts)So any negative comments about other posts I had made on that topic were left unanswered
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)bring back Meta for the duration!
But seriously. I'm a huge fan of the jury system. It's absolutely ingenious. As for this suggestion I'm intrigued, and see benefits to both, as well as one or two minor downsides. So I'd enthusiastically support going either way, maybe on a one or two month trial followed by another discussion. About the only suggestion I'd make is to bring back Meta, possibly with restrictions, as there were some great discussions in there about the jury system generally and individual decisions particularly. Loved it. That's how I remember it at least!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)If a jury is evenly split... nothing should be done.
If they're that big of a jerk, it'll catch up with them soon enough.
My 2 cents.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Why not?
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)man4allcats
(4,026 posts)of the brilliant physicist Hugh Everett III. According to his "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, DU already uses 7 member juries, albeit in another universe. No word on how that's working out though since inter-universe communication is not currently within the realm of possibility. Just thought you'd like to know.
For those who may wish to know more, the book is The Many Worlds Of Hugh Everett III by Peter Byrne.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Anyone who has posted about Ralph Nader should be immediately disqualified from the jury, or given first-in-line jury privileges, depending on the outcome of the monthly photography contest. Under no circumstances should members of the baking forum be permitted to serve on juries. The rest is negotiable.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)It seems less likely that four people will make the same mistake as three.
I believe your last point to be in error.
I hate ties. Please change it.
doc03
(35,364 posts)by some that want to hide any post they disagree with. We have a bunch of whiners here.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)that should not have been alerted.
doc03
(35,364 posts)someone that claimed it was hurtful. Some on here just hang around to find
something to run whining to the jury over.
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)Botany
(70,581 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)We should remind them when they serve on a jury
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)And there are plenty of them sitting in their chairs waiting for the chance to stomp someone.
I have seen some posts deleted on ridiculous, petty grounds.
DU is fucked up for the last three years. That is why I seldom read this place. I can pick up headlines from my Facebook friends.
samplegirl
(11,500 posts)was a better place when we did not have juries. I think this whole jury thing....just causes more grief than it is worth.
D.U. has changed over the years and now some people are just not happy unless they are picking a good fight!
Response to Skinner (Original post)
KoKo This message was self-deleted by its author.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)You already have 6 which causes ties...so 7 wouldn't be to big a burden on finding extra jurors which was my concern when I mistakenly thought you only had five who serve.
Sorry about that...
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)'cause that is the only justification I can see for adding another juror.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)herding cats
(19,567 posts)They obviously think something is amiss with the post, thus their alert. Yet three people disagree with them, even though three agree, and the post stands. If you count the alerters opinion, hiding was the majority opinion. So, they feel like they were robbed somehow of their justice.
I can see how some would think it would be worth trying a seven member jury to see if that satisfies more members. However, I don't know if we really need more posts hidden. Disagreeing on something shouldn't be hide worthy and I'm concerned this may shift things a bit more toward that type of hide.
I voted yes, but if too many posts which aren't honestly over the top or rude start being hidden, I am hoping you'll reverse the change.
Overall the system seems to work pretty well. It's not perfect, of course, but what is?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)conversation, hide their post, and push them a step toward PPR.
Some alert far beyond my opinion of reason, often with little to no articulated rationale.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)rufus dog
(8,419 posts)In alerting and posting.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)I'm sure you know that what I'm saying makes "Sense".
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)Even though I believe the jury system is misused and subjected to pettiness because a lot of posts are alerted simply because someone's pride or feelings were hurt.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)the jury system is fucked beyond all belief
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)It'd save a lot of time.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)I am generally in favor of open discussion and thus in favor of a "benefit of the doubt" and thus prefer the current system that is biased in favor of keeping comments
defacto7
(13,485 posts)the new version would still be biased in favor of keeping comments; the difference is minimal in that regard. What it does is cause fewer ties depending on how you count jurors. I think that is the confounding issue in these comments. Each side has a different take of who the "deciders" are depending on their personal experiences with the system and what they want out of it. The logic is pretty strait forward if it's math and not personal feelings that are considered. But I'm not worried about the balance of bias because the difference, believe it or not, is statistically small and still favors keeping the comments.
Just sayin'.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)My point was that assuming random jurors who will vote either way with 50% probability, a 7 person jury will hide (7c4+7c5+7c6+7c7)/2^7 = 50% of the time (also, intuitive) whereas a 6 person jury with a tie being keep will only hide (6c4+6c5+6c6)/2^6 = 34.375% of the time. (Honestly I hadn't calculated the probability before and didn't realize it was such a significant difference but I like that)
If you meant that people are inherently more likely to keep I understand, but I was referring to the systematic bias.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I made an example in #74 followed by a number of comments that challenged my perception of who the jury is made up of. That's the little quandary I was talking about in my comment to you. It's not just the difference between 6 and 7 jurors as there are 4 possible personal factors that muddy it up and people have to decide who the jurors really are. Do the votes include the poster? Do the votes include the alerter? Do they include both or neither? I guess one has to determine their philosophical position on those issues before you can do the arithmetic. I posted my position and reasons above that I think make the point that the alerter is part of the jury vote but not the poster. Others try to make a point that it's like the US legal system which to me is illogical. Well, it just goes into a lot of personal opinions probably based on experiences and expectations of the system. I guess we all just have to decide accordingly.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)I disagree with your analysis, but it's an interesting perspective I hadn't considered. Thanks for pointing it out!
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I guess we're all going to find out what the outcome of this change will be. Funny thing is, I don't really care that much but I do like throwing around ideas and possibilities.. so as I read my posts it seem like I'm possessed with finding the cure for Ebola or something. lol.
Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)I know this is a bit off topic, but....
Sometimes an alert is made on one specific post of a pissing contest and I do not want to vote to hide because what they are responding to should also be hidden if the post I am voting on should be hidden. In other words, I am happy to remove the alerted post only if I can remove all the trash that came with it.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You could always go back and alert on the other post.
I do know what you mean, but I think jurors should deal with the post before them.
Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)I am not going to vote to hide one post out of many in a pissing contest if they are all roughly the same crap. Either crush it all or none.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)my belief is that there was a significant change with the 2008 election cycle, for the worse
countryjake
(8,554 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)It's almost got the right amount but not quite there yet.
polly7
(20,582 posts)NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)instead of samurais meting justice wherever they went without repercussions, the switch to requiring samurai to commit seppuku after meting justice -- to cleanse evil deeds by one's honorable blood -- had a very important effect: it hence made samurai very selective about dishing out "justice."
so ante up posting suspension for an alert. if you succeed, both poster and alerter go to time out.
just sayin'. it's an idea.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)I find the current "ties go to the poster" rule both frustrating and somewhat illogical. If we assume that jurors are impartial and fair-minded, the fact that even 50% of the jury find the post to be the equivalent of poo flung by a monkey SCREAMS 'uncivil/disruptive/inflammatory'. If a 7-person jury makes it more likely that such posts will be hidden, I'm all in favor.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I would rather some posts that may or may not be objectionable remain than see more posts hidden than what may actually be offensive or against TOS. I think 7 person jury will have a silencing effect on dissenting opinions.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)After the jury vote - I'd like for the jurors to receive -
List of others who served on the jury - wouldn't be hard to code.
Name of the alerter - wouldn't be hard to code.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)A lot of the juries I serve on are food fights between members of various entrenched factions who apparently get their daily exercise slagging each other on DU. I don't really care who belongs to which faction or what their multiyear history may be -- if it's vindictive, hostile shit that makes DU suck, I'm going to vote to hide it.
If juror service ever becomes "transparent", I will cease being a juror, because nobody needs the aggravation of some asshat following them around DU attacking them for hiding their posts. I expect a fair number of DUers feel the same way, so the likely result of transparency would be that the juror pool would have lots of partisans hoping for a chance to ding their enemies, but not very many nonaligned DUers. How could that possibly result in a better system?
JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)But if people were 'known' . . .
1. It would stop malicious alerting. To your point - I think if someone knew that their 10th/11th/12th alert against someone - not because of community standards or TOS - but a personal axe to grind - was being made public . . . they might stop and think.
2. It would stop some of the assery and viciousness on the jury itself. I've served on a LOT of juries at du - look at my transparency page. Even the jurors need to know that if you have nothing nice to say - you ought not say nuttin' at all.
Then again - I think we need some solid moderators in GD and LBN. Not going to happen - but it's worth putting it out there.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)As to your points...
1. There's an old ATA thread where Skinner points out that very few DUers send more than 1 or 2 alerts per day. The admins would know if someone is truly being alert stalked. But let's say there's someone out there who actually alerts on another DUer a dozen times a day. If they're that hell-bent on alerting on someone else, "outing" them as an alert stalker is far more likely to prompt a round of complaints and self-justifications from the alerter than it will any degree of reflection or remorse.
Take a look through the ATA threads, and notice how many of them are, "Why was this post hidden!?!" as if they honestly can't imagine why anyone would have hidden their stuff. A lot of the "I'm being alert stalked!" stuff comes from the same reservoir: people who can't/won't believe that they might be at fault.
2. When you see asshattery and viciousness in a verdict, alert on it to the admins. They've said that people who don't take jury duty seriously will be removed from the pool, and I'm pretty sure that's actually happened.
JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)Looking to ATA is waaaay to much work! I just don't have the 'wed to DU' that a lot of folks have.
No problem if you do - I just find when it gets toxic I just slip over to CDAN or Lainey.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I'm on DU a lot, and sometimes at odd hours of the day and night. It's never going to get better if we don't at least try to hide some of the suckage.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)to deal with what you called "misfires"? Everyone hates feeling like they were treated unfairly. So an appeals court of sorts where one could defend oneself? After all, the stakes are higher these days in terms of people being temporarily silenced if they have too many hides.
That change in rules in and of itself seems to have made many DUers act more civil in our discussions.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Sentiment appears to run in favor of making the change, based on this poll. DU3 is an experiment in a user-moderated forum, so why not experiment with how the jury system works.
It should be interesting, and is reversible if the results cause a negative change. I doubt that will happen, though. In fact, I think the change won't affect DU very much at all.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)
Whiny children pouting and stomping feet. Pathetic
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Be a grown up
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)And who gets to define 'grown up' ? Your little whiny emoticon? Love me some irony
pintobean
(18,101 posts)By that reasoning, the grown-up thing to do would be to not participate.
I simply responded to what you defined. By your own definition, you've participated in childish behavior at least 43 times. You have the ability to stop that.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)I disagree.
Whiny, childish alerters should grow up and ignore, rather than tattle-tale on posts they don't like. Guess they can't leave mommy's apron
P.S. yes, participation to protest whiners. Let it be...let it be ...no hiding from me
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)over the years. I was a member of their original site and don't recall so much small and petty nonsense
ProfessorGAC
(65,168 posts)Lots of posts, so i didn't get through all of them, but it changes nothing. Still need the same number of people to hide a post. Seems much ado about nothing.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)The same people will continue to complain and fling conspiracy theories once we go to 7 jurors.
kcr
(15,320 posts)You're ignoring that. That additional vote will either go to a hide or a leave it. The same alert that might have been 3-3 tie may still result in a vote to leave it, but that additional vote could be the additional swing vote for a hide that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)jury blacklist to reflect this change?
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Prosecutors decide which cases they are going to prosecute, in, sometimes, a subjective way.
You could compose a panel of people, trusted people, to weed out ridiculous alerts so they don't have to go to jury.
This would save time and damper down the excessive drama. If its good enough for real courts why not here?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I don't think I'm simply neophobic, but things seemed more civil to me when there were moderators.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)For various reasons.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)DU was a much better place when there weren't all of these stupid rules.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Maybe it will cut down on a few of the anti-Jury complainers.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)The problem is that some people use the system as a way to suppress legit criticism. If the site limited the number of times a user can complain over a time span, say five a month, then I'd bet the number of complaints would go down, the complaints that came through would be serious enough to warrant intervention and the quality of the rhetoric would increase.
unblock
(52,317 posts)i voted yes because i think it's a mild improvement, but only very mild improvement.
tinkering at the edges.
FAR more important is to have an appeal process, perhaps limited to cases of 4-3 or 5-2 jury results.
there are two weaknesses of the jury system:
1) not all jurors can put in the time to get a proper perspective in cases where the alert isn't really a "just this one post" alert
2) jurors have quite varying standards, leaving many people with the sense that a different jury would have decided quite the opposite.
in either case, a small group of moderators could set standards to provide for a bit more consistency and predictability for the community, while preserving the jury system as the first step would easy the burden for the moderators.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)This isn't real life and no one's going to prison if they get a post hidden.
unblock
(52,317 posts)yes, it certainly pales in comparison to going to prison.
so? we all want something that works well.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I don't the the hosts will take any action on it, tho.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I don't know how other hosts feel about it but I don't make public the names of alerting members.
It might have just been done in jest!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I like that there has to be a distinct majority vote to hide a post.
I like the presumption that the post is fine unless the preponderance of the jurors say otherwise.
I think perhaps the alerter should have a persuasive argument as to why a post should be hidden.
On around half of the juries I have sat on, there is little in the way of an argument about the post beyond the alert.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)It will lessen ambiguity on rulings.
Kali
(55,019 posts)but my thought is give it a try for a while and then see how people feel. I don't have a preference. The system is like all systems, seems to work most of the time, and sometimes it can throw out total results.
I do like the idea and innovation of it all. I can see real differences in day and night results for similar types of alerts though. That is interesting.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I vote yes anyhow.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)obviously hasn't been eligible to serve on a jury.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)paradigm shift will be changing the DU landscape?
I mean, when the hell does it start?
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)I DO find the jury system subject to manipulation, if a well-organized group chooses to do so. It simply is not that hard to target an individual or group associated with multiple individuals. From that POV, going to 7 may make things worse.
Nonetheless, it appears that the overwhelming majority of DUers want to go that way, so it seems my opinion is not going to make a difference.
What I'd really like to see is a strengthening of the TOS language, though--that might indirectly provide juries a bit of guidance. given there is considerable overlap between terms of service and community standards.