We have changed the way your "Jury Score" is calculated

[Skinner]

This discussion thread was locked by Skinner (a host of the Announcements group).

As most of you know, members of DU are eligible to serve on juries, which decide whether posts should be hidden when alerts are sent. If you are available to serve when a jury is called, the likelihood that you will be selected on a particular jury is based on a percentage score that you have been assigned by our software. That score is based on your history of activity on DU. You can see your own score by visiting your profile page and scrolling down to the line that says "Chance of serving on a Jury," followed by a percentage score between 0% and 100%.

Yesterday we made two changes to the manner in which your score is calculated:

1) We have increased the penalty for hidden posts from -5 percentage points (per hidden post) to -20 percentage points (per hidden post).

2) We have decreased the minimum possible score from 1% to 0%.

When we originally decided on the -5% penalty, we were still on DU2 where the worst offenders could easily rack up 50 or more hidden posts in a 90 day period. But it's clear that it's much harder to get a post removed on DU3, and after more than a year we felt that it was time to bump the penalty up to reflect the real-life seriousness of getting a hidden post. Serving on juries is a privilege, and we believe it is a privilege that should be available more often to those people who have consistently demonstrated their good judgment.

Skinner, EarlG, and Elad
DU Administrators

[hrmjustin]

1. Well it is incentive to behave then.

[corkhead]

4. Only civil people will be able to be on a jury; that will not be a fair representation of DU

[hrmjustin]

8. On second thought you have a good point. There are good members who had a few bad moments.

We will just have to see how this works out.

[William769]

90. Kind of like in real life.

Bad record no jury duty. Just saying.

[Skinner]

5. Yes, it is.

At least if someone wishes to serve on juries.

We are considering a number of other incentives for good behavior. Not sure which we are going to do.

[hrmjustin]

9. Does this mean that people with 100% or even 80% will serve on more juries?

[Skinner]

11. Yes.

But I don't think the difference will be very noticeable to the average person who is serving more often.

[hrmjustin]

23. I am sorry but one more question.

I serve on 2 juries almost everyday, does this mean i will likely serve on more or does this mean I am almost guaranteed to serve on 2 a day but no more?

[Skinner]

24. You are not going to serve more than that.

You are being limited by the exclusion period, which ha bit changed. If you are getting called that often you're not going to get called more.

[hrmjustin]

25. Thanks because that would not be fair to other posters.

[bluedigger]

26. Seems like an equitable adjustment to me.

Now about those "incentives".

Fabulous prizes?

Spend the day with Grovelbot?

Free star memberships for value added content?

[iemitsu]

2. Thanks for the explanation and for adjusting the scoring process

to address the current climate on DU.
I appreciate both efforts.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. So I guess

I'm going to be on the jury even more!

Willing to serve on a DU Jury: Yes
Chance of serving on a Jury: 100% (explain)
Number of times served on a Jury: 153


I just clicked on the detail - and I didn't realize it was weighted the way it was.

Just an aside - could we maybe work on having a link to the MIRT team in the jury request?

The reason being is I very rarely hide a post. It has to be a direct break of TOS. I also try and take the post at it's own value/merit.

But sometimes - you know see it's someone with a membership of a few days - and see a pattern of one liner disruptions - but you can't hide a disruption. You also can't hide the post based upon past history.

Just an idea and I'm sure it would take programming time - but I don't think I've ever seen a direct link to advise MIRT that, "Hey guys! We need to take a look at this poster and their reason for being at DU - even though they stood right on the line of TOS but didn't break it."

[Skinner]

6. You can hide a disruption.

As a juror, you are enforcing community standards:

"This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Thanks!

[NYC_SKP]

10. The penalty for hidden replies... This can't have been an easy decision. I hope it works.

You guys know how a handful of members alert on others in hopes of hiding a reply and shutting a member out of a thread, right?

As jurors have no training and as there are often malicious alerts that result in truly unfair hidden posts, I fear that some good members could suffer unjustly from the increase in penalty points.

However, it only reduces their chances of serving on a jury, so I suppose it's not the end of the world.

Thanks for your enduring efforts to tweak toward an ever better product- it continues to be the best board on the intertubes.

[Skinner]

13. I don't think that is true.

Yes, there are some malicious alerts, but if they are utterly without merit they always fail. There is a very simple and effective method to avoid getting your post hidden: Be civil.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Of course it's not the alerts that are utterly without merit.

It's the alerts that might be offensive to the sensibilities of many or most but aren't breaking any rules, but get hidden anyway.

We can be civil and still have posts hidden if our statement isn't a popular one to the jury drawn to the alert.

As I said, thanks for the effort.

[Skinner]

16. What rules?

If your post offends the sensibilities of a large percentage of people on this website, you are taking your chances.

[NYC_SKP]

18. It's not even a large percentage. Take Greenwald or Snowden as examples.

If you post something that goes against even a minor opinion about a topic or person a post can be hidden.

It doesn't have to be an offensive statement. It doesn't need to be uncivil.

And, by rules I mean the TOS and SOP.

I maintain that unpopular thought that is civil and unoffensive can be hidden by juries because juries are fickle and random and, sometimes, mean.

It ain't the end of the world.

[RILib]

39. yes, DU shuts out unpopular thought. Legitimate, rational, unpopular thought.

Does not reflect well on DU.

[SunSeeker]

52. Yes. My first and only hidden post was based on such a reason.

I was not being uncivil to anyone, just noting what the Boston bombers' uncle had said about their mother, namely, that her starting to wear a hijab and her two sons' radicalization were "not a coincidence." I even included a link of the video showing him saying that, where he suggests that the mother had a hand in their radicalization.

My post was hidden as a "bigoted" statement, 4 to 2. The alerter basically accused me of making the "bigoted" statement that wearing a hijab means you're a radical islamist. That of course was not my intent nor what I said. Nonetheless, with the successful alert I was immediately locked out of the thread and unable to defend myself.

I figured it was no big deal since I was just knocked down to a 95% chance of serving on a jury. But I just checked and now I have only an 80% chance of serving on a jury because of that now pretty old hidden post. I guess this new rule applies retroactively. Oh well, 90 days is about to pass, so I should be back to 100% pretty shortly.

Still, I think there should be a way to appeal ridiculous jury results, especially now with the much stiffer penalties for a hidden post.

[BlueStreak]

64. I've had several blocked, and I was guilty

of at least minor misdemeanor on these. I think it was a bit nit-picky, but I accept the judgment of the jury.

But there were two others where it is clear the jurors either couldn't read plain English or else just did a hand-arsed job of their duty. There was absolutely nothing wrong in those cases, other than maybe a lame attempt at a joke -- which shouldn't have been offensive even if it wasn't very funny.

The point is that the juries do get it wrong in a lot of cases, and I would like to see changes that make it a little harder for juries to block posts that they obviously don't even take the time to read. Penalizing people for "serial alerting" and requiring all "block this post" decisions to have some kind of comment from the juror would go a long way toward making this a fair system.

I'll admit I have almost voted to block posts on several occasions when the posts didn't violate any TOU, but were against my opinion. I think I have always gotten past that, but it is easy to block posts just because you disagree with the point of view. A juror should at least have to say WHY they are voting to block it.

[Kali]

100. the beauty of the jury

is that YOU aren't hiding a post, it takes at least 5 people to do so - the alerter and 4 jurors
so even if one or two are maybe not being completely fair, it still takes the rest to push it into hiding territory.

[panzerfaust]

114. "The beauty of the jury" - Censorship is never beautiful

Sorry, but, as a liberal, I believe censorship to be morally wrong - and thus have no interest in exercising "my privilege" to silence the voices of others. If they are rude, abusive, etc, etc then I just ignore them and am thankful that I am not (*usually*) like that.



Guess this will likely join my other hidden posts ... but it is still true: Censorship is the enemy of free speech, of free thought, and of freedom itself.

[Kali]

115. it's a private website

with community standards, if you offend enough people you get a post hidden - you can still open it to read so that is hardly censorship.

but the fact is this isn't a place where all veiwpoints are welcome, not my rules, just a fact. if you want to argue with rightwingers and other dumbasses, there are plenty of places to go. If you want ugly, personal attacks to be the normal form of conversation you can find that elsewhere too.

do you tollerate every kind of speech in your living room? can somebody come in and just start screaming insults at you?

choosing not to judge others here is fine, but the way you choose not to be judged here is to behave in a civil manner and support Democratic candidates for the most part. It isn't that difficult, really.

[cyberswede]

103. But assholes are often dispensed with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=299318&sub=trans

[hrmjustin]

104. Well said!

[L0oniX]

48. This is going to increase the lock step and quash legitimate criticism.

I have seen exactly what you explain ...many times. Another example: If the "majority" wants to idolize then the minority that criticizes that idolatry can and will be penalized because the majority will have a better chance of skewing the jury. It's a bad system without proper peer review ...but I can't say what I really think about it w* t* p* o* g* t* **.

[BlueStreak]

59. I agree with NYC-SKP.

I think the system needs one of the following two precautions:

a) force the juror to enter some kind of explanation. That is the minimum the accused deserves, and that would ensure the juror is actually making an effort to reason through the "infraction". Well-thought-out juror comments help the accused person understand better how they should avoid problems in the future. "Hide it" without any comments is BS, as far as I am concerned. It only takes 60 seconds for a juror to get the context and offer a polite response. If they are not willing to do that, they should not accept the jury service. Of course, a "let it remain" response shouldn't require an explanation.

b) impose a penalty on people who consistently raise alerts that are not upheld by juries. If a member alerts on 5 threads in 90 days that are not upheld, then that member should no longer be permitted to alert on anybody else until those malicious alerts have rolled off the history.

The point is that collegiality is a 2-way street. Right now, the penalty only goes one way.

[dbackjon]

113. Agree completely - explantions are needed

[MineralMan]

111. I'm not sure that's true. I take many positions that are

unpopular with some DUers. I don't know if my posts get alerted, but I haven't had a post hidden for a long time. I try to be reasonable in my approach and to avoid personality conflicts. That seems to work.

[NYC_SKP]

112. Personality conflicts are one thing, taking an unpopular position is quite another.

If a person disagrees with one's unpopular position and alerts, and if the jury consists of four or more who are equally in disagreement, then it matters not if the post is OK, within TOS and SOP, it will be hidden.

That.... is suppression of open discussion.

Suppression of discussion as a result of arbitrary and emotional, and sometimes personal, jury decisions, makes DU suck.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. Agreed, why I don't play rigged games

Hence I won't alert, but I won't play in juries either.

The system has some serious problems, and I can see why skinner won't see the problems. But there are problems.

I can foresee more swarms and more mass alerts. It's just the way it is. Henceforth I will assume every one of my posts will be alerted on, every one.

[NYC_SKP]

125. I've come to a similar conclusion, Nadin, and make the same assumption.

There are people who work hard to target members and alert on them, and there are juries that will remove anything.

The DU "Brand" of years ago, the one that provided a sense of consistent moderation and free speech, is no longer with us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. I expect things to get worse as elections approach.

I expect old timers to simply give up, if that is the goal they should just be open about it.

[dbackjon]

21. Disagree completely

[Android3.14]

53. Unfortunately, the number of posts a person has is an inappropriate metric

Two things -
One, a malicious person could create a programmed 'bot to post inane pap ("love this post", "I agree", "EOM", etc.) to multiple threads in order to to artificially boost their count, as could an organized group of trolls. As a journalist, observing some of the high-count posters and some of the memetic trends they tend to promote, my BS detector goes off in a serious fashion.
Anyone with long-time experience in marketing and media recognizes you have a problem in this area, specifically.
Second, the posting guidelines are far too strict when it comes to identifying a personal attack.
For example, suppose a poster claims to be...I don't know...a journalist. Yet a responder to the OP, using logic and data, challenges that poster on the validity of the claim, saying the poster is lying about being a journalist, or casting doubt on the poster's motivations. In any other community that thrives on informed rhetoric, it is the responsibility of the poster to defend his or her expertise, or to ignore the challenge to that expertise. At DU, someone slaps the label "personal attack" on the post, and suppresses the informative debate that should follow such a challenge. It is unnecessary and damaging to the purpose of debate for a jury to defend challenges to a poster's credentials, especially when the the juries tend to base their decisions more on the thread count than on the merits of the challenge.
(Now that being said, as a person who runs a website, I recognize that you will run it the way you see fit, and congratulations on having a popular site.)

[Ms. Toad]

66. There are no such posting guidelines identifying a personal attack.

And, for that matter, personal attacks aren't banned.

Whether they should be or not is a different question, but for good or bad juries on DU3 don't have a set of rules they can apply.

[Android3.14]

91. yes there are. and here is the link

Guidelines
From the Discussion Forum Rules it states, "Do not personally attack any individual DU member in any way."

[Ms. Toad]

92. Those are the rules for DU2. This is DU3.

While I don't necessarily agree with it - when people ask about the rules, Skinner has repeatedly said there are none. You take your chances with whatever the community will tolerate.

[Android3.14]

96. Thanks, but even the About page has this

Community Standards
Which states
"It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. "
Unfortunately, a jury that appears unwilling to consider the broader implications of any individual post makes the determination of "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."
A jury hid one of my posts, in which I compared an OP's fawning opinion of President Obama and the NSA issue to one expressed by Britney Spears for Bush the Younger, and I challenged the OP on the fact that they have a suspiciously high posting count for someone allegedly operating as an individual.
I understand the need to keep the nutbags off of the site, but the jury method Skinner currently employs is flawed, because it allows organized outsiders to manipulate debates and silence thoughtful dissent and reasoned suspicion.

[Ms. Toad]

98. I'm not suggesting I agree with it -

I think it is generally ok for run of the mill civility - and I think it stinks to high heaven when the majority gets to vote on whether things like jokes about trans* individuals, for example, are appropriate.

I was just pointing out that there are no specific rules against personal attacks - or much of anything. I would like a clear statement that - at a minimum - violations of TOS are against the community standards. A number of people have requested it, and Skinner has declined to endorse that viewpoint. So - according to the powers that be - even posts which clearly violate the terms of service of this site are not necessarily "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."

[Android3.14]

99. Thanks Ms. Toad

It's refreshing to run across some of the more thoughtful folks, and as I have become more active with DU, I'm starting to encounter them. The jury structure is annoying and prone to exploitation, though, and I'd bet it drives away folks who would otherwise promote some of the broader ideals expressed here.

[Ms. Toad]

61. Although I disagree with what

what feels like a lack of concern about malicious alerts - and on the opposite side the lack of concern you have expressed about the volume of posts which are bigoted (particularly mysogynistic, homophobic, and biased against people of faith) which are not hidden.

That said, I agree that being civil is a pretty effective method of keeping your posts from being hidden. I have yet to have a single post hidden - even though I express views which are often targeted for groundless alerts (a few of which have been forwarded to me by a juror).

[krispos42]

12. Improvement suggestion

I am glad to see you are constantly tweaking the processes here on DU. Thank you for that.


I did have an idea for a suggestion that I wanted to present to you.


We currently have the option to add people to a "jury blacklist"; a list of people that we do not want to serve on a jury about one of our posts.

However, there are some cases where when a jury decision is made and the results are transmitted that one or more of the jurors was, basically, being an asshole, to put it bluntly.

They do not judge the alert on merits, but allow personal opinions on issues or members to guide their voting instead.

They might think that a member is a troll, and not only vote to hide based on that, but then expressly state that that is reason they voted.

Or it might be because they are protective of Democratic politician, or they don't like supporters of a particular viewpoint, or whatever.

The problem is that the alertee cannot add, for example, "juror #5" to his/her blacklist because jury duty is anonymous.



Is there a way to prevent an anonymous juror from serving on a jury that is judging a particular member's post, while preserving the anonymity of the jury process?

I envision in the email the alertee gets, a hypertext link next to each juror that says "add to jury blacklist". And when that juror is added, it gets put in the blacklist as "juror #5 12Jul2013".



My 2 ¢

[Skinner]

14. If you think a juror is doing the job in bad faith, you should alert on the notification.

But I'm not sure about giving people the ability to block jurors without knowing who they are.

[dbackjon]

22. What he is saying is that there are jurors that DO act in bad faith

That target certain posters - will vote to hide a post SOLELY because of who posted it.


We should be able to know who is one the jury or our "peers"

[L0oniX]

45. This happens a lot ...which makes the jury system a farse.

[DallasNE]

49. I've Seen Sites Use Like/Dislike Functions

To hide posts. Not sure of the exact formula as it can't be a simple dislike count but say a post has 3 likes and 15 dislikes it is hidden whereas a post with 15 likes and 25 dislikes is not hidden. Does DU have enough traffic to be able to use something like this?

It is not that the jury system isn't working but it is a little cumbersome if it is done right. Also, I had one incident where I thought it was unfair. It was a case where I was defending myself from attack by another poster and responded in kind (no better, no worse) yet neither that original attack nor the response attack were blocked leaving me defenseless. Now I have no problem with the jury blocking me but I did not understand the other equally offensive posts not likewise being blocked as it didn't strike me as being evenhanded.

[Skinner]

84. The problem with like/dislike...

...is that it can be gamed by organized groups of determined partisans. The jury system isn't perfect, but the random-selection aspect of it addresses the problem of organized gaming.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. If your game theory is very simple that makes sense....

but the random selection in fact only adds a tad of prevention from 'gaming' the system not anything like a total protection. If you think it is a problem solved it is even easier to game that system.

[krispos42]

95. Well, food for thought, if nothing else.

It could be an indicator of people that make bad jurors in general.

If a member gets anonymously blocked by a bunch of people. that it probably an indication they perform poorly.

some sort of ratio between blockage and total jury service works as a metric.

[Blanks]

107. I agree with that.

I would think the number of star members ignoring you would be better jury selection criteria than number of posts.

There's nothing preventing someone from posting simply K & R just to get their post count high.

[intheflow]

17. Sounds good, Skinner. The only suggestion I have for the system

is stating that only unanimous hidden posts will be reviewed by MIRT in big, bold letters. Too often I've served on juries adjudicating trollish posts where a juror will vote to "leave it", commenting that it's MIRT's decision to do something about trolls. It's like they don't understand that MIRT can't make any decisions about trolls unless trolls are brought to their attention by an unanimous jury. Kinda catch-22-ish.

But otherwise, I think the jury system is working well. And it's lovely not having Shark Week every day now that Meta is gone.

[riqster]

27. I didn't know that.

Thanks!

[pinto]

32. I've seen that. One note - if TOS is checked all hides go to MIRT. 4-2, 5-1 or 6-0.

Admin gets all TOS alerts, hidden or not.

[intheflow]

105. Good to know all TOS alerts with hides go to MIRT.

You, as always, are a font of wisdom, Pinto m'dear!

[mike_c]

19. Chance of serving on a Jury: 100%

DU taught me online manners, LOL.

[dbackjon]

20. 20 points per hidden post is far too much

There are way too many cliques on DU. Certain posters have a free reign to post without reprisals, knowing that their posts don't get hidden.

Others have posts hidden because they take unpopular stances.

You end up with an echo chamber - this just makes it worse.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

34. That would be in the Obama Forum.

[JustAnotherGen]

63. The solution to that

Would be to post in General Discussion.

[railsback]

28. I like when I was told to DIE

and the DU jury voted that that was appropriate. Its still a joke if DUers can cast aside 'guidelines for violations' in favor of pettiness.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. Hell,....I've had people on line wanting to track me down and kill me for decades...

It's part of my charm.

[liberal N proud]

50. Exactly

[MrSlayer]

29. Then we need an appeals system.

I've had posts hidden for no good reason at all. Because people decide to be mind readers or interpret things incorrectly or simply aren't sophisticated enough to know humor when they see it. We should be able to appeal these ludicrous censorings.

And further, if you're going to do this, it should be implemented from now on instead of lowering people's chances based on past hidings that may or may not have been merited.

Personally, I find this whole system to be incredibly juvenile.

[bunnies]

31. Its already done.

I had 1 post hidden now Im down to 80%. Same as people who've had 20 posts hidden I guess. Not really fair, imho.

[MrSlayer]

33. I know, me too.

This is really getting ridiculous around here. I thought I was associating with adults.

[bunnies]

35. Agreed.

Its the only post Ive had hidden EVER. I believe I told someone to seek professional help. I see dozens of posts worse than that every single day but the one I said it to was popular so... done deal.

So now a non-paying DUer with no hides has a better chance of serving on a jury than you or I do. Thats pretty messed up. And now we'll have alerts just for the purpose of keeping people of juries. Fantastic.

[Iggo]

44. I dont think that's true.

I am a non-paying member with no hides and with max bonuses (I think?) for posting frequency and length of membership, and I'm sitting at 60%.

So yeah, if you get two hides and you were at 100%, then you're right down there with me.

Three hides and now I have a better chance of serving than you do.

At least that's how I understand it.

[L0oniX]

46. I agree ...there's no point in donating anymore.

[hrmjustin]

47. Sure there is. Donate to keep Du running.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. I don't donate anymore.

I only donate to places with transparent finances. There are such things as shelters for abused women. Much more worthy in my view.

[Ms. Toad]

69. You would feel a lot better if you would actually took the time to read the rules.

The maximum chance of serving on a jury for non-donors is 60%, not 100%. So with one hidden post, you still have a higher chance of serving on a jury than every single non-donor.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. You would be surprised as to how many here were born during the Clinton years.

[RC]

51. Or act like they were.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. I just started a poll on it. So far,...zip...

However this could change.

[Iggo]

57. There's one as of right now.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

101. Spooky,...ain't it.

[Iggo]

106. Yeah, weird.

It does add up, though.

Still, pretty weird.

[Ms. Toad]

67. Once people hit 5 posts they are not eligible for jury duty

(i.e. their chances of serving on a jury are 0%). It is 20% per hidden post.

[bunnies]

70. per post?!

Holy shit! I didnt know that. Thanks.

[treestar]

122. Exactly, that's the whole problem

Some people can't tell the difference between an attack on an argument and an attack on them.

Or find a way to take offense, and then manage to get lucky enough to have the right number of jurors enable their bullshit.

[cyberswede]

123. (that person you replied to is no longer here)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=131739

[bunnies]

30. The penalty % should increase with the amount of hidden posts, imho.

If the penalty is going to be that high. 1 post hidden shouldnt have the same penalty as 10 posts hidden.

[Ms. Toad]

71. (Edited, since I see you saw my earlier post)

Just in case anyone else is confused: 1 post is 20%. 10 posts would be 100%. (5 posts is also 100% - you max out of jury duty at 5 hidden posts x 20% each)

[bunnies]

74. I get that now.

Thanks. Id probably have known had I more than 1 hidden.

[Ms. Toad]

77. I saw a discussion yesterday -

which noted that once your transparency page was visible you were off jury duty until it was hidden again - so I was anticipating this thread...

[bunnies]

81. See. I didnt know that either.

Thats a damn good rule, imho.

[Ms. Toad]

83. It's just 5 posts x 20% = 100% of your chance of being on a jury obliterated.

And I agree - people who can't be civil aren't the ones I want determining community standards.

[Skinner]

72. One post hidden is -20. Ten posts hidden is -200.

The penalty is 20 points per hidden post.

[bunnies]

73. Yes. Ive been schooled. :)

I didnt realize it was per post. Thanks.

[Skinner]

75. I just re-read my OP and realized it was unclear.

I have edited to clarify. Thanks.

[Pale Blue Dot]

37. Great idea.

Don't forget to change the explanation page:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem

[iandhr]

40. I am at 60% but I have not served in a while

[msongs]

41. you should also change the order of steps in the jury ->

right now the first thing you see is a generic complaint. you cannot see the actual reason for the complaint until you have made your decision. seems like one should see the specific complaint/evidence FIRST before voting. that is how it is done in a real court.

[SunSeeker]

56. Excellent idea. nt

[Skinner]

60. The point is for jurors to form their own opinion before they are biased by the alerter comment.

A juror casts the "official" vote after reading the alerter comments.

[Ms. Toad]

79. It might actually help with the posts about which I am most concerned

to flip the two.

Once people form opinions, even private ones, they are often reluctant to change them. When the issue is that from the perspective of a minority group many people just don't have a clue. If they can be educated, without needing to admit (even to themselves) that their initial opinion was wrong, the attempts at educating on issues the majority doesn't inherently understand might be more fruitful.

[dsc]

42. You may really regret this if we have primary wars here

I can easily see a scenario where one candidate has 2/3 support and another has say 1/3. That 1/3 group already will have a terrible time getting a fair jury but if the juries then get more skewed by this system you could have a real mess. I try to imagine if back in the Dean vs everyone else days, I think Dean supporters would have been obliterated by this type of system. I also think the same thing would have happened in the aftermath of prop 8 to gays. As it was we had the purge, under a jury system that would literally get more and more skewed with no brake, a minority could literally find itself unable to post anything at all without getting posts removed.

[Skinner]

65. There will never be another "purge" on DU.

And the jury system is the reason why.

As for primaries, I'm actually looking forward to them. The jury system will be more fair than the moderator system, and it will result in a lot less censorship. Which is not to say people will be nice all the time -- but I certainly don't think they will be any worse than previous primaries.

(BTW: Dean was by far the most popular candidate on DU in 2004.)

[dsc]

78. but in total we were well under half

especially in the end game. Frankly in the aftermath of prop 8 I think gay posters would have routinely had their posts censored while anti gay ones would have pretty much never had theirs censored. I will admit I can't prove that but I really do think we are quite likely to see one sided censorship in the next primary war type situation. I think your new penalty will make that much more likely.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. I agree with dsc on all points and hold my tongue because if I said more you'd be very upset.

nt

[MrScorpio]

43. Just checked, I'm still at 100%

So we're all good

[firenewt]

55. Golly gee whiz, I'm looking at 43%. Haven't done anything wrong, just haven't done enough

right.

[Kali]

58. oh sure

do this while I have two hides showing! you couldn't wait another 30 days? (or whatever it is)






seriously, I have no problem with this and I am a little ashamed to have two (and both related to the same problem, no less) - sorry about that.


EDIT - LOL! just got called to jury duty!

[Mosby]

62. why don't you allow for one hidden post per 90 days

With a -5 and for repeated hidden posts bump it up to -20 per?

This seems really heavy handed, it's not like hidden posts are always correct, especially involving certain topics or "unpopular" posters.

[zeemike]

68. Frankly I don't pay a lot of attention to the Jury system

But it sees skewed to me....I have served 16 times total sense it started...and yet I see others serve 2 or 300 times...and I spend a good deal of time here...so it seems like to me it is not random.

And I think some know how to game the system....I know I had a post hidden less than 10 minutes after it was posted....how can that be?...there was not even time to consider it.

But really I don't care...if clicks form and harass people that is your business not mine...and if they do it to me I am a big boy and can handle it myself...or find something else to do.

But thanks you for your efforts to make it work better....I hope it does, but I also know that the advantage goes to those with a desire to manipulate things.

[Blanks]

110. I served quite a bit more when I first started...

When my chances of serving were far lower. I may have been online more, but it wasn't significantly more.

Perhaps it was because I was posting more frequently. I don't know, but it seems odd to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Serve that majority, man.

Mendacity is not civil. Bigotry is not civil. There is no civil way to lie. And lying on DU is an art form enabled by choices like the one you make today.

[ThoughtCriminal]

82. The Gungeon isn't going to like this

I see quite few, who despite a large collection of hidden posts and members ignoring, seem to serve on a disproportionate number of juries ( I assume they also have more free time than most typical members).

[Behind the Aegis]

87. A couple of thoughts.

I feel this is too extreme; we went from one end of the spectrum to the other. I don't know how possible it is, but a graduated penalty would make more sense. Second, in all fairness, those who had posts hidden prior to today should not be penalized under the new system. Any hide they had prior to this should be "counted" under the old system. Basically, grandfather them all, except for the ones hidden today.

[bvar22]

88. Is there any possibility of activating the Alert Transparency Function?

I could be wrong, but it seems that we have recently had an increase in the number of frivolous, targeted alerts. In the tradition of Transparency at DU3, having to take responsibility for our alerts would cut down on frivolous alerts,
make members think twice before hammering the Alert button vindictively,
and reassure our community that a small group or individual is NOT targeting members with which they disagree.

Lately, it seems that many Alerts, even "successful" ones, have had NOTHING to do with TOS violations what-so-ever.

[Skinner]

89. Juries arent enforcing TOS.

Juries are judging community standards violations. In other words: whatever the community deems to be inappropriate.

Furthermore: the number of alerts is actually very small. Way lower than the number of alerts on DU2 -- by an order of magnitude.

[Ms. Toad]

94. I suspect the number of alerts is way down

in part because many people have just given up. The civility level has decreased - and jurors all too often use the anonymity of being a juror to attack the alerter - or to tell the alerter to stop being a baby about the funny joke about transexuals.

It gets really old, really fast - I try not to let it keep me from on things I really think need to be hidden, but there are times when I am just too tired to deal with the near certain (on identifiable issues) behavior of some jurors who know they can get away with it.

And yes, I do alert on inappropriate juror comments. I was one of the early people to point out that option back when we had Meta. But running across the offensive post, taking the time to try to educate in the tread, being smacked down, alerting, then being smacked down by one or more jurors, reporting it, and hearing deafening silence is way too much for the frequency it happens to those of us in certain relatively well defined groups.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. I suspect you are correct

I doubt only me gave up, will no longer alert, just put the offender on ignore, and self removed from the jury pool. I suspect you are very correct. Some of us simply see it as a rigged game any longer.

I wonder how much has the use of ignore gone up, and trash forums as well. Anecdotally I suspect in proportion to people giving up on the alert system.

This place, not logged in, is just not pretty.

[DonCoquixote]

128. I hear you

For example, when I alerted on a thread, I had several people trot out the old "anti semite" canard that happens whenever ANY criticism of a certain country in the Middle east is done. Now, people will pool together, and make sure that the worst are protected, and that a dissenting opinion is crushed.

The Jury system is rigged, sadly, we do need the old system back with mods. Yes, mods are a thankless job, but the jury system has allowed right wingers and others to totally hijack the place, and it shows.

[DonCoquixote]

129. exactly

I mean, personal insults are against the TOS, but now, the tos has been thrown out, for all intents and purposes, which means people will cut straight to the personal insults and bullying, especially to the cheering crowds that egg them on.

[rhett o rick]

93. I appreciate that you are working to improve DU. However, I think -20 is too severe. nm

[KG]

97. I guess this works if you feel compelled to be on juries. I long ago turned off the ability to serve

coz it was clear it doesn't really work.

[rdharma]

102. What an excellent move when the Right Wing Trolls already control the site!

Come on! Think about it!

If I wanted to take over DU, I would be a star member and establish many other low post non-star member identities who would throw in crazy rightie wing bombs.

This would provide star jury members the ability to ban folks for making remarks like "O tay, Pankee".

[Ptah]

108. Have you considered increasing the posting restriction time frame?

[Cha]

109. Yay! I've been serving on a lot of juries. lately..

I must be a really good girl.

Mahalo, Skinner~

[davidpdx]

117. Skinner, FYI

On this page it still says -5. You might want to correct that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem

[Skinner]

120. We'll fix that.

Thanks.

[boston bean]

118. Skinner, has anyone made a point in this thread, that has given you any cause to re think this?

Or is it that, we're good, nothing wrong, and no changes are to be made?

[Skinner]

119. No.

Serving on a DU jury is a privilege, not a right. It is in the interest of the community to have the people who have consistently shown better judgment to serve more often on juries. I keep seeing people complaining about trolls allegedly serving on juries -- I would think that most DUers would immediately understand and appreciate any change that improves the overall quality of the juror pool.

[dbackjon]

121. You have achieved the opposite

Limited the jury pool to a few self-serving cliques that censor ideas/posters they oppose.


Bravo!

[Whisp]

130. Someone got a post hidden for saying Fuck Ron Paul.

A very popular Elad post title at one time is now juried and locked.

There are huge problems with the jury system and the new rules will make those problems bigger.
I think one of the problems that has always been there, is that even a very new poster can be called to jury - posters that could be trolls, socks can look for their 'enemies' and try to make their mischief.

Being in the Barack Obama Group is a handicap as there are people here that resent our group and want to invade it. We have had to take on onslaught and insults being in that group or anyone who consistently supports the President. You are aware of people that think they have the right to come to a Group and disrupt, they have talked to you in ATA. And no matter how you explain it, it still is not absorbed and they still think they have the right to disrupt.

I am typing this in a hurry and so didn't re=read. I'll do that later.