I implore you to let my friends speak and be heard, free from fear of retribution and retaliation!

[BumRushDaShow]

107. IMHO

I think that "protected groups" should really be "protected" from outside targeting. I.e., if those who follow the purpose of the group flee to that group for open discussion about issues that are being shut down in the forums, then they should not be subject to ad hominem alerting and hiding of the same messages posted in the group without a group host review of the alert and jury results for SOP violation and naturally, for DU TOS violation. This would be closer to the court model of "judge" and "jury" where a jury may decide guilt or innocence but the judge can impose the "sentence" (e.g., "suspended sentence" or "sentence per guidelines", etc) if there is "guilt" found or can sometimes nullify/vacate the results if tampering is found.

The way it stands now, both the forums and the groups are subject to a "grand jury" model, with no judicial intervention and the power to indict or acquit based on one side's point of view presented as evidence. But applying that model to "groups" is too over-arching as the point of a "group" was to narrow the subject and allow more in depth discussion on the group's subject focus, than would fit in the general forums. In essence, it is stated -

This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose,

Groups:

• Groups can be created by either the DU Administrators, or by regular DU members.[/il]
  
• Groups sometimes serve as safe havens for members who share similar viewpoints or interests.[/il]
  
• Members may subscribe to groups, and have them listed on their "My Subscriptions" page.[/il]
  
• Members may be blocked from a group by its hosts, or by the DU Administrators if no hosts are assigned.[/il]
  
• Blocked members may not post in a group or subscribe to that group -- but they are able to alert abuse in that group. Only members who have posted in a particular group may be blocked from that group.[/il]

The bolded part is where, IMHO, I think a group host should have some say - notably with "blocked members" of the group... who in this group's case, may be exacting revenge by alert stalking. Basically, some of the the most vocal posters within a group who may be following group guidelines, are treated to what amounts to pseudo-MiRT intervention via alert swarming.

In essence, what has happened with the jury system is that "protected" groups are no longer "protected" because they are subject to the whim of a "majority" who may have an opposite view of the purpose of that group and who may have started using the jury system to silence the discourse in a group that they already silenced in the regular discussion forums.

So I propose that any jury alerts in a group be available for adjudication by group hosts - notably the 4-3 hide decisions, which have been a bane to many of the more vocal advocates of the group's perspective, and sadly a number of whom have been relegated to enforced vacation. The group host(s) could have the power (if technically possible within the programming of the site) to say yay or nay on alerts. Of course the unintended consequence may be to "ghettoize" the groups by more strictly segregating discussion, but then most posters are not "single subject"-focused 24/7 and many subjects regarding politics (or other subject matter) are not necessarily as controversial as other subjects.