And that was 4 days ago. Before then, I was asked to serve in juries at least once per day.

1 hide means -20% chance to serve! No wonder the system is broken.

I don't think the people abusing this system are that unique. People in general will often exploit the flaws in a system given the chance. My hope is that the system itself can be improved since it's easier to fix the way that system works than to change the mindsets of those who would exploit it. The approach that I saw was a combination of immunity and a commitment to address those who abuse the jury. I don't think this works because what brought us the jury is the fact that the admins clearly don't have the time to monitor the site. I don't begrudge them that and can even relate as I've run much smaller groups on Facebook and even those can be taxing, but if they don't have time to address abusive posts, how are they going to have time to address abusive jurors? Will we have to have a jury for the jurors?

It seems to me that the problem is with the rules.

One major problem is that the number of jurors is too small. With only seven jurors, unless everyone is conscientious and fair in their jury duty, random fluctuations will ensure that many posts will be hidden unfairly. The second problem is that when a post is hidden, the poster's chances of serving on juries go down by 20%. Put these two things together, and what you get is what we see here. One side (let's call it side x) alerts more often than the other (side y) and systematically votes to hide anything posted by a member of side y. As a result, over time, juries get dominated by side x, and members of side y are silenced.

Even when there are no clearly defined sides, any post that disagrees with the majority's opinion will tend to be hidden. This means that posters who challenge the status quo and make the majority feel uncomfortable are silenced.

When you make up a set of rules for something like this, you have to be very careful that you don't end up with unintended consequences. That is what has happened here.

I think you're right in the sense that certainly the rules are important, but rules are only as good as the willingness of people to respect them and the willingness of those in power to enforce them. My guess is that people here don't have the time so they came up with a software solution to substitute the lack of ability to manage this. I think the admins themselves have recognized this is as software to some degree and intend to revisit it. If you are going to automate the system, there should also be a way to take it past automation and this system doesn't work that way. If you email the admins, you're lucky to get a response, so there's no jury for the jury, so to speak. If there is to be a jury system, there should also be a jury of appeal and maybe a second set of eyes. But even then, I honestly think that kind of appeals jury should be chosen by the admins from a pool of people seen to be more concerned with civility and good discourse than being biased for or against specific candidates. Having everyone able to become a juror doesn't work if the system is set up to favor the supporters of specific candidates. So, perhaps it is more of a rules and software problem, but the change in rules would definitely necessitate a change in the software. The immunity given to people recently was merely a band-aid on a broken system. The software of the site itself needs to be adjusted to reflect a jury system not so polluted by bias. Fine, have everyone be a regular juror if necessary (though I would never do that myself—my group's admins are chosen from people who I believe will make the best choice for the cohesion of the group), but then have an appeals component of the application that allows for less biased heads to weigh in.

profile. You only have a 46% chance of being selected for a jury, while I have an 80% chance. That's just based on length of time you've been a member, how many posts etc.

We all have to live with the jury system as it is now. On DU there are many more active Bernie supporters than Hillary supporters. Many HRC supporters are laying low because of the onslaught of new, aggressive BS "supporters" many of whom are probably RW paid posters whose job it is to disrupt and split the Democratic Party and ultimately get Bernie elected as they see him as more beatable than Hillary.

If you can hang in there until after the convention in July, I believe you'll see a change for the better in both the tenor of the site and the jury system.

I simply do not have the patience to be on a jury in a system like this. I will only end up frustrated if I am the one person voting for sense amongst a firing squad of nonsense.

from continuing posting?

"n the future, you can avoid additional account reviews by making an effort to remain civil, and avoid having your posts hidden. The more posts that you get hidden, the more likely that an automatic account review will be triggered. "

So I guess that explains it?

No wonder Hillary supporters are so quiet and inactive compared to Bernie supporters. The system is completely broken.

I learned a new term this week called Horseshoe Theory which, "in political science asserts that rather than the far left and the far right being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, they in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe."

It dovetails into things I've said for years about extremes meeting. For two decades I've said that, if aliens were observing the Earth, they'd look at Hitler on the extreme Right and Stalin on the extreme Left and say, "two mass murderers killing anyone and everyone they disagree with." What difference ideology make if it makes you into a monster?

I'm definitely on the left side of the Horseshoe but not so far over that the damn thing tips over. Primary seasons generally favor the most extreme candidates so it stands to reason that the kind of ugliness that I've seen here with certain extremists is par for the course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

Broken...we have been caged.

Activity like that, whether you feel the hides were warranted or not could automatically cause your account to be reviewed. It's a tough time here right now, lots of egos pushing the boundaries, as well as disruptors trying to upset the apple cart. Think twice before you jump into a discussion on GDP. You will be challenged by BS supporters and your instinct is to hit back in kind. That's when you'll get alerted on. Most of the Hillary supporters are staying out of GDP for just that reason. It's a pile on and frankly not worth the effort. No matter what facts, or how sound your argument, you will be ridiculed and snarked at. Stick with us in the Hillary forum, or the Pet forum, or the DU Lounge. This won't go on forever and DU is actually a pretty great place, or at least it was.

I wouldn't mind so much if the snarky thing I bit back with wasn't as snarky or nasty as what I was responding to. It's like those things never get alerted on!

I often enjoy a good discussion with people who think differently than I do but the civility in GDP is basically non-existent at this point. I'm looking forward to calmer seas. I've lurked for years and remember how ugly 2008 was but it had nothing on this.

your chances of serving on juries go down significantly with each hidden post. That's why one side is now so comfortable posting increasingly outrageous content, while the other is afraid to post a simple statement of personal opinion.

I have zero interest in participating in juries since I don't think the system even works and so it just feels like a waste of time. And I just realized I can turn it off completely.

Just about the time I should eligible again, the throw a hide on me.

Usually for some pretty stupid stuff.


And on edit, many times a BS er has mined thing I have posted long ago and regurgitated to me.

but I serve on one jury a day, it seems, from that forum... it's the only way I can catch a first-hand glimpse at what's flying over there. Nothing I have seen so far has compelled me to untrash it.

But they will come after posts in this group.

Stalking!

It would be one thing if it were just our posts (and thus our ideas) that were being silenced but it is also our ability to share more of them. Moreover, it's difficult to be part of the ongoing flow of a conversation when you're constantly knocked out of the discussion. Bernie's most ardent supporters know this and that's why they do it. They would rather this be a Bernie echo chamber but the political and social reality they fail to realize is that the echo chamber does not read as well to the undecided observer. The passion that comes from defending your ideas in a space where people disagree with them helps to strengthen those ideas to the people reading. Remember, most great debates aren't about changing the minds of the you're debating. It's about changing the minds of the audience. An echo chamber doesn't do that.

Maybe we could do a poll thread in this group to see how many folks have been alert stalked? Sometimes raw numbers speak louder than testimony. Just look at Hillary's delegate and vote count compared to the loud testimony against her.

I hope the new system will not have the problems of the current system.

That's what I meant by software problem in the other thread. When it's an application that is doing the workload, that application must be changed in order to implement rules changes and that's not always easy to do. I've recoded websites that took me many, many hours and when you've got multiple commitments, as I imagine the admins of this site do, it's probably hard to find the time. Of course, that doesn't help when you're in the thick of dealing with it! :-D

solid TOS.. no wiggle room. Mahalo, Athena~

"In a speech to supporters, in which she declared that "victory is in sight" in the race for the nomination, Clinton reached out to those who had backed Sanders, saying, "I believe there is much more that unites us than divides us."


Hillary Clinton celebrates with her husband after winning the New York primary.
(Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-new-york-democratic-primary-20160419-story.html

Iaaahttp://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=108832

Hillary

Exactly the type of person DU should be trying to attract. Not at all the type of person DU should push away. Unfortunately, this is exactly the consequence of the system that is currently in place.

A few years ago, I got a hide for posting something that was too feminist for most people's liking. I was so disturbed by seeing how the jury system silences those who challenge the status quo that I did not come back for years. I didn't even lurk. Frankly, if there had been any alternative out there, I wouldn't have come back at all.

We need a place on the internet where intelligent liberals who don't enjoy low-level attacks can discuss issues. I believe DU was meant to be such a place. It's too bad that the challenges of keeping out trouble-makers make this ideal so difficult to achieve.

Anyway, I hope the new system is better, and I hope you stick around.

That means a lot and I'm not surprised given you chose your name from the Goddess of wisdom.

I have my snarky side with the best of them but I try to have fun with it. If I am a tiny tad insulting on occasion, it's meant to be the fun of the moment, not the anger of it. My commentary could have been considered a little edgy in places but it's meant to be in fun.

I'm successful entrepreneur. No matter who wins this election, I'm going to win some things and lose others. I support more progressive social policies. I also support more progressive economic policies, not out of desperation or anger but because I think they're fair. I grew up dirt poor but I don't forget what it took to make it. While I will never support dictatorial socialism, I believe we should encourage and enable people to pursue their success. I am very concerned over global warming also. I like many of Bernie's policies and many of Hillary's. When I took the isidewith.com test, I was, if I recall correctly, 94% Hillary, 92% Bernie.

I supported the Clintons on welfare reform. I do not believe that a safety net should mean inaction. I grew up on welfare and I saw first-hand how it created a sense of apathy. We frequently cite FDR as having created all these programs but let us not forget that he gave us the Works Progress Administration. I don't believe that just handing people checks makes anything better. However, I also do not believe, like most on the Right, that we can just let people starve either. Heck, I've done work-at-home jobs before. I'm sure there's something folks could do that the government needs. I think we should do whatever we can to encourage a strong work ethic in our populace as well as a strong ethic for responsibility to the home we live in, meaning the environment.

Does all that make me a fiscal conservative? Not at all. Those bastards would let people starve on the corner. I think we can afford all sorts of safety net programs if we stopped giving so many tax cuts to the mega rich and stopped spending so much on stupid wars. That said, I do think we need a strong defensive military because the world is a dangerous place, but we had that with Mr. Clinton. The only big conflict I recall us being involved in during Bill's candidacy was the Bosnian War and that was for a good cause ... protecting people from human rights atrocities. But, I think if we're going to invest in our people, we must do so in a way that encourages the productive. I'm no limousine liberal. I grew up on welfare and I saw the impact of people who received just enough to get by but not enough to want to strive harder. I put my entire will into not staying in that mindset and I sometimes wonder if the very idea of that kind of baseline is to keep the poor from revolting.

Finally, I nearly always vote social issues and my marriage to my husband matters most to me. I'd never call myself a one-issue voter but since my marriage became legal here in red-state Louisiana, I've gotten a lot more defensive about it and I get very irritated with the Bernie or Bust types who have the luxury to throw away what some of us weren't able to have access to for so long. Yeah, Hillary might have been late to the game publicly but, let's face it, politicians take the steps they can get away. Obama would probably still be against it if Biden hadn't stuck his foot in Obama's mouth. But either way, Obama is one of my favorite presidents ever, even if the Congress has stopped him.

Prior to the Pope situation (which compelled me to finally post here), my one real issue with Bernie was the minimum wage hike, not because I don't think there should be a higher living wage, but because I think it has to be handled carefully. I don't think you can pull only one lever and expect not to cause a systemic maelstrom of some kind. I am no economist but my hope is that this is done in a way that keeps the small business in mind. I'm a small business owner. I'm a damn good one so I might actually be able to weather an immediate shift like that but many small businesses couldn't that quickly. I have seen it callously said by Bernie supporters that, "well they shouldn't be in business if they can't afford $15 per hour." Well, that all sounds well and good on the surface but consider what that statement really means. If Bernie supporters think that small businesses, who struggle more than any businesses do, should be sacrificed at the altar in order to express their rage at corporations, we ultimately end up with fewer small businesses ... and more corporations. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think if you take small businesses down in an attempt to bring the corporations to heel, the corporations will just use their wealth to juggle. My husband was a retail manager for a mall chain in Washington State. When they went to $15, the corporation he worked for didn't pay a single dime more in budget. They cut hours. They cut benefits. They required greater production output. Small businesses do not have the power to juggle like that and so they run the risk of collapsing altogether. And, in another element to consider, my market is in spiritual products. There is no corporate version of what we do and if our small businesses were all to collapse under changes made too quickly or radically without care, the fastest growing religion in America would no longer have access to some of the products that serve its spiritual needs. Now, I'm all for a $15 an hour wage. I just think it needs to be done in a way that adjusts other levers as well, perhaps with tax incentives for small businesses versus large corporations, to help us juggle and actually keep all the people we employ off the unemployment lines.

Now, with this Pope situation, I'm truly concerned. To me, Bernie is basically criticizing the influence of wealth and power in politics while manipulatively seeking tacit approval from the leader of one of the wealthiest and post powerful institutions on Earth, that is also the oldest existing foreign nation. And yes, he says it's not an endorsement. The pope says it's not an endorsement (and it does sorta seem like the pope may have tried to avoid all this). But by hosting a candidate for election at a major Vatican conference, there absolutely is tacit approval. And it annoys me further because, clearly, while so many Bernie supporters have said we're just jealous because Hillary wasn't invited or we're just butthurt, they prove my point by virtue of the fact that I've seen dozens of Bernie supporters on here gloat about the potential gain in the New York Catholic vote. If this wasn't a tacit endorsement, why would he gain any Catholic votes at all? I don't want the Church determining our elections anymore than I want corporations doing so. Not that I believe this pope is actually that liberal in the sense of U.S. liberals because I don't think you can put his pro-poor, anti-death-penalty, anti-abortion, anti-gay, sexist views in any one box of U.S. politics, but his focus has been more on the poor and, while that is encouraging, he could drop dead the day after we sell our political souls to the influence of the Church and we could end up with another Benedict. I call that the Department of Unintended Consequences™, which also include the Religious Right's lawsuit for after-school bible studies [thankfully] giving us gay-straight alliances and North Carolina's stupid bathroom law resulting in hairy butch trans-men using the ladies' room. Do we really want to hand the Vatican influence over our elections only to watch them use that influence in ways we didn't anticipate? No, I'm not butthurt, nor am I jealous. I would be just as irritated if they'd invited Hillary. Heck, I was irrupted at the Liberty University visits and never really liked Bill's incessant preaching from the pulpits of churches. This issue sets a dangerous precedent I don't want to see set. And the Sanders supporters who say this is all a mountain from a mole hill should look to the many of their brethren gloating over the potential gain of the Catholic vote. Clearly, those individuals see this for the tacit endorsement that it was. I can only hope that the Pope was hoodwinked into this by Msgr. Sorondo, and I suspect that he was.

And now we have this cult-like behavior of alert stalking, this determination to silence all opposition or disagreement any way possible. I have trouble supporting any candidate that inspires that kind

So yeah, I'll pull that lever for Bernie because he'll protect my marriage and supports many issues I care about, but I will do so begrudgingly.

Sorry for rambling. I started going and I couldn't stop. :-D

were able to return that had been alert stalked out of posting.

Maybe the hides shouldn't restrict one from being a juror and maybe the two hides in 24 hours should only hide someone for a few hours. The fact that I was out of commission for a whole weekend means that there aren't enough people to review those kinds of hides and that's not really going to encourage longterm participation. If you're going to have a system by which x number of hides sends the person into review mode, there should be someone who can review the issue within a few hours, even if you have to solicit or even people to do so.

I got a hide for this post in this group a couple hours ago. Berniebrats are definitely alert-stalking us!

Have a sense of humor people. Nothing you said was even close to the level of hatred and vitriol coming from their corners. I've seen Bernie supporters derailing Texas flood threads on CNN's Facebook to rant about CNN's reporting of the delegate count. Nothing so far sinks lower than that. I went back to get a link to paste and I think the person either blocked me for commenting against it or CNN deleted it. I wish I'd screen captures it. It was the lowest his supporters have sun thus far.