Received a msg. about being on a "jury." Options were yes, no, and "what is this?"

[senz]

I clicked on "what is this" and received the following message:

Unfortunately this jury has already been seated.

In order to make sure that alerted posts are dealt with in a timely fashion, we need to seat Jurors within five minutes. Unfortunately you did not accept the Jury Service request in time, and a full Jury has now been seated. We very much appreciate your willingness to serve on a DU Jury and we hope that you will try again in future. Thank you for your time.

However, I did not "accept," nor did I "try." I just wanted to know what a DU jury is.

Would like to suggest that a programmer might check the address connected to the "what is this?" link. Seems to be some kind of bug there.

Thank you.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

1. It's likely not a bug at all

It's entirely possible to click "Yes", and not get seated because the jury filled up just before you clicked, for example. I think even if you click "what it is" and it's filled up, it will inform you it's too late and move on.

[Phentex]

2. Agree. Sometimes you are just too late...

even if you click yes or no.

[senz]

3. Okay, I can see that.

But wouldn't it be better if when you click on "what is this" that it would actually tell you what it is? Or take you to some kind of fact page? I'm still a little fuzzy on the subject.

Thanks for your replies.

[Phentex]

4. What would you like to know?

There's a page that describes jury duty here:

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

If you haven't done so, you should look at the Terms of Service link at the bottom of this page. It will tell you what kinds of things to look for when serving a jury.

From the TOS page, click on the Community Standards link. It describes the Moderating System and provides the first link above about Jury Duty.

[senz]

5. Thank you, Phentex!

That is an excellent link, very useful.

It's also a bit ironic, as I had one of my comments "hidden" earlier today, shortly after posting it. The decision was not unanimous, but I was surprised at the vitriol expressed by a couple of the jurors, especially since that comment was my perhaps clumsy attempt to understand a group that disagrees with me, to -- basically, make nice. The upshot is, now I don't even want to understand them; at this point, I simply, and finally, dislike them. Maybe that will change, don't know.

[-none]

6. If you think any of the comments is too vitriolly, you can alert on the alert.

That will send it to the administrators for them to look at.
Don't forget the explanation for alerting on the alert.

[senz]

7. Thank you for this. However, I get the impression that the "alert" system is

too often misused for partisan reasons. I can understand a truly frightening, threatening, or utterly disgusting comment being taken off. And I seriously appreciate your decision to forgo the typical clunky moderation that some sites use.

As for making alerts myself, not sure I can do it except in the cases mentioned. Too many people seem to use it in a fit of hostility rather than a concern for the overall good. But I may have a touch of wimpiness. Love to argue, don't like to "hit." Maybe that will change. Hope not.

[-none]

8. You have a pretty good assessment of the situation here.

DU has too much of its share of one issue authoritarians. They are known to pick targets and do searches on them, to try to find something they can twist into alertability. If you mostly keep your head down when out in the open (General Discussion for instance), you should be OK. The various Groups are usually safer. A little common sense will keep you out of the few that aren't.

[Hortensis]

10. DU needs people who love to argue and don't like to hit. Welcome to that side of this scale.

[DaveNews]

9. Thx

Thanks for pointing us in the right direction. New member myself and was curious.

- Dave