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.

who have to give time to serve on juries.

Why create extra work for ourselves just to hide another 3 posts a day?

on "my account" page. That way you won't have to use all the energy.

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.

little time to decide to say no.

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.

And you can always opt out of that specific jury if you don't have time.

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.

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.

Is it?

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.

no-o-o-o!

(people in this household need the caffeine.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

I think I have turned it down once, when asked.

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.

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]

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...

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.

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.

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.

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!

I like 6, personally, as it requires 4 out of 6 votes to hide. I say more speech is better than less speech.

-Laelth

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Although I forget sometimes, I've been experimenting with signing my alert as well.

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.

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.

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.

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...

A lot of unneeded conversation about nothing.

I like the 'majority rules' concept, but I'd prefer to officiate in private.

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.

That's why I don't sign my name to my decisions now.

fewer of my own posts should be hidden



It's a toss-up

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They should be removed from the jury pool.

The whole systems reeks of bias.

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.

If you really feel someone is out to get you, their name can go there...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

that that poster is so concerned about juries voting based on personalities instead of on the merits.

Why could that be?

That's a new tactic for you.

You seriously need to find a constructive hobby.

You replied to me in an archived thread, then self-deleted it within minutes. I'm the one with a problem?

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.

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.

think you're right about this...