In the old days, we had mods here on DU.

[FourScore]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the General Discussion forum).

They sent shit-stirring stuff to it's appropriate forum or locked it altogether. From what I'm seeing lately here on DU, the mod system worked better than what's in place now. Posts like the SI cover or the fact some guy got his SI magazine today would get sent straight to the men's forum or the lounge. If threads became too contentious, they got locked. It was at times frustrating to see some OPs get swooped to the dungeon, but overall, it was the right way to do it. For some reason, the jury system doesn't seem to manage this sort of thing very well. Maybe it's because there are only 2 choices, leave it or hide it. Maybe there should be a way the jury could vote to send it to a different forum. I just don't know how that would work.

It's sad. I think the quality of DU has been diminished by this dumbing down.

On EDIT: Maybe there could be a "send it to the mods" option. Then the mods can decide if it should go in a different forum or get locked or whatever. That way they don't have to check EVERY thread, only those that are sent to them.

[NightWatcher]

1. It did cut down a lot on the Wars DU Jour

Things got shut down before there were 20+ threads all gnashing of teeth or in uproar that teeth weren't being properly gnashed.

[Scootaloo]

2. The two systems would work best if combined

Juries to enforce "day-to-day" standards, with active moderation to preserve overall quality and site / forum rules.

Of course the trick is getting mods worth the time of day. I can look on the MIRT list as-stands and see about a half-dozen people who should never have any say over such things.

[FourScore]

3. Yep. I think that was one of the complaints about the mod system.

But your idea of a combined system sounds good. Maybe instead of leave it or hide it, there could be an option for mods to check it. That way the mods wouldn't have to check EVERY thread like in the old days.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. I agree that DU needs some more active moderation, but I think

the mods were overzealous sometimes about striking individual posts. I saw a lot of posts get stricken that I didn't see anything particularly wrong with. I think the jury system is good for handling individual posts in threads, but we do need someone to handle OPs more. I would've moved or locked that SI thread before there were any replies. It was stupid to post that in GD. Virtually anyone should have recognized that it would be offensive to some of the women members. I guess everyone knows now. Anyway, I think you're right that we need a moderator for this forum.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. The jury system lets stand a lot of posts that could legitimately be hidden.

(that's paraphrasing a Skinner response to a 3-3 tie question recently.)
I don't think that's a good jury system but I am in favor of juries assessing based on TOS, which is the broad framework for moderation. Currently though, jurors just go with their gut/personal biases and that leads to at least as many uneven outcomes as the old mod system.

IMHO the layer of oversight that is missing is that no one other than admins can shut down forum threads that go off the rails quickly and completely. Forum hosts should have this ability. As a group host I can shut down threads for that reason and have. It's an effective tool for keeping discussion civil and on point.

[LuvNewcastle]

17. I definitely agree that hosts should be able to handle shutting down threads.

I don't really understand what the purpose is of having hosts if they don't have that power. As far as individual posts go, sure, the jury system does let too many posts slide, but I'm of the opinion that too much freedom is better than too little. That's just my personal preference, though. But yeah, I would really like to see hosts to be given the authority to shut down threads.

[Lex]

5. True.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. Back in my day everything was good and pure.

It was a simpler time. Everybody knew their neighbors. We left the back door unlocked.

[FourScore]

7. LOL.

[jsr]

8. There were no nipples in movies

How boring.

[kairos12]

52. Kids didn't need bike helmets, seat belts weren't need, etc.

[DonCoquixote]

10. I hate to agree with you

As I thought the jury system would democratize the whole process, but sadly, a group of would be elite and thugs made sure the jury system was abused. It gets bad when people say "one more ban and that (insert feminist here) gets banned!"

At the very least, there are two reforms that need having:

One, get RID of that "no explanation given" crap. That is often the tool of people who act in collusion and do NOT want to get caught! If you can rule on someone, you can at least EXPLAIN WHY. The sort of people who are afraid to explain their decisions are the sort of people that should not be given the power to make decisions over a person's fate!

Second, if you cannot bring back the mod system make the mods the ones that JUDGE who gets banned. There should be someone NOT in the grip of a hackable system (which the juries are) to act as a failsafe.

The sad fact is, DU is no less manipulated than other forums, more so because we have caught conservatives red-handed. Worse yet, there is a faction that may be liberal to the extent that the GOP elephant's tusk gores their behind, but are willing to see others they do not like get stomped. These are often (though not always) the folk that hiss like vampires at the mention of "privilege"

rarely will I vote to bring back old evils, but frankly we do need the lunge as a separator between silly and serious threads. Granted, the line between the two can be thin; a thread about sports can easily be relevant to politics, but let a mod decide that. The Jury system has turned Duers against each other,which is exactly what the shit stirrers want.

[pipi_k]

20. As I've seen

Skinner state regarding this:

One, get RID of that "no explanation given" crap. That is often the tool of people who act in collusion and do NOT want to get caught! If you can rule on someone, you can at least EXPLAIN WHY.

Even if a juror is forced to leave a comment, there's nothing to stop him/her from saying "I agree" or "I disagree" with the alerter.

Which tells us shit about the reasoning behind the vote.

PS....I leave a comment 99% of the time, explaining the reason behind my vote, so I'm not advocating for not forcing people to leave a comment because I have an agenda. I just think there's no way people can be forced to leave comments.

[DonCoquixote]

22. there is

"Juror, you must explain your reason. A simple "I agree" will not suffice, we want to know WHY.

[hfojvt]

48. that would make being on the jury a lot more work

some people have been on 200 juries.

It already takes some time to be on a jury. Myself, I don't just read a post, I look at the context, sometimes requiring reading an entire subthread or following links, etc.

Mods used to be able to delete entire subthreads. Sometimes I hate to delete an insulting post if I feel the person was provoked. It is fair to delete the one post and leave the provoking post?

[Agschmid]

73. I sign mine with my username when I serve.

[Whisp]

30. I would like to see mandatory names on the jury list.

I think a lot of this tomfoolery would stop if you had to put your name beside your sometimes stupid reason for Leave or Hide. Some of the jury comments are worse than what was alerted on.

[winter is coming]

41. You can always alert on jury verdicts. I certainly have. n/t

[Agschmid]

75. I do it already. I think it's a good idea...

Sometimes I excuse myself if I have no idea what's going on rather than voting and signing my name if I voted "incorrectly".

I do think the system works.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Some of us simply refuse to participate in the farce

I will not alert on anything, and trust me, there have been a few posts where it was real tempting. Nor will I play jury on anything. Yes, I voluntarily disqualified myself from the system and do not intend to play jury again, EVER.

But because of the abuses and shenanigans and cyberstalking, I refuse to post anything important anymore either. The place is a shadow because I know I am not alone.

[Agschmid]

76. I think your vote would be meaningful...

Especially if you feel that way about the system. You can't make a change in the way things are done if you don't participate.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

68. right you are. Juries only work when there is an intelligent, impartial judge

I also advocate considering the whole interaction. Too many times, the "shit-stirrers" purposely reply dismissively or even viciously, but hide it behind a wall of wordy sarcasm. Or sarcastic one-liners.

The result they want is to make their target explode--understandably-- to such treatment: With Anger!


Then, the "Angry, Puritanical, Feminist" gets banned. For not reacting politely enough to outright attacks.


by the way, when I'm on a jury, I always give my reason and sign my name. If I can't give my reasoning, I don't participate.

[geek tragedy]

11. juror accountability seems like a good idea.

people are free to abuse the jury system to their hearts content, to the point where homophobia/transphobia/race-baiting/misogyny is likely to be given a pass and thus deemed reflective of DU community standards.

And where women who relate their experience as victims of sexual violence barely avoid getting hidden.

[Comrade Grumpy]

47. Yes. I'd like to see names attached to alerts and juries. Get it out in the open.

[pipi_k]

12. It's not the system that sucks...

it's people's attitudes.

There are two main sides...

On one side: the "I'm-so-persecuted" types

On the other side: the "I'm entitled to post any damned thing I want to" types.

With a few in the middle willing to take responsibility for their actions.


Why was the mod system changed to the jury system? As I recall, it was because the admins and mods got sick and tired of accusations of favoritism from the mods.

Fine. Now the mods are gone.

No matter what system we have here, people are going to wretch and whine.

Someone wants to see an option for juries to have mods check questionable posts. How would that work? If four people out of six check that option, it will go to the mods, who make a decision that a jury felt it couldn't make on its own? Here's a tip...a juror who can't decide how to rule has the option to get the hell off the jury. Imagine that!

So, say a jury sends a post to a mod to "check" and the mod decides contrary to what the alerter wanted. OMG!!!!! FAVORITISM!!!!

So not only are jurors being called out and insulted, now the mods are back to being insulted as well.


No. It's not the system. It's people's shitty, childish attitudes.

[FourScore]

18. I think you misunderstood something.

The jury has only 2 options: hide it or leave it.

Many, including myself, might want to err on the side of less censorship. However, if there were an option to send it to another forum, I might do that. It's impossible to set that up with a jury because there are too many forums. If, however, there were an option to send it to a moderator so THAT person can send it to another forum, that might work.

It's not about letting them decide to leave it or hide it.

Maybe there could just be a mod alert button seperate from the jury button, so a moderator can decide to lock or move a thread. That's all.

[pipi_k]

21. Well...

out of the 207 times I've been called to adjudicate a post, I have never been asked to rule on one that was in the wrong forum.

Never.

That is a job for forum/group Hosts, who can be contacted personally, i.e. not through the jury system.

Juries are for deciding whether a post violates Community Standards...that's all.

[FourScore]

29. Of course you haven't been asked that. It's not an option to the juror.

I was suggesting implementing it. You don't have to like the idea. I just don't think the way it is now is truly effective.

[bvar22]

23. What good does "Hide It" really do?

Is there anybody here that does NOT push the "View Post" button?
So the post isn't really "hidden".

[L0oniX]

26. IMO it's like grade school punishment ...go hide your face in the corner shit.

If it were up to me I'd let it all fly except for extreme offensive responses and posts. (extreme to be defined by ...)

[Cleita]

31. It puts people in line for having their posting privileges revoked.

It makes it possible for vendettas to be played out by those who want someone they don't like banned. We have some real cultish behavior here where certain groups hound a member relentlessly until they are banned. Maybe each member should be allowed a limited amount of alerts like 1 every ten days. That would cool down the chronic alerters. They would have to be more discriminatory in which posts to alert on.

[bvar22]

39. I've noticed that.

I don't remember the stalking, baiting, and swarming being that bad back when we had moderators.
Still, it is fairly easy to avoid getting banned or having posts hidden.
Just pretend your mother is watching you type (LOL),
and know that MOST of the people reading DU can tell the difference between those who sincerely want to discuss issues/policies & politics,
and those who belong in The Beavis & Butthead Chatroom at AOL.

I believe we should have our Screen Name in public view for Alerts and Jury Comments.
At one time, Alert Transparency was going to be a feature of DU3,
but it was never activated.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Some of us, due to those vendettas

refuse to post anything of real consequence here.

Life and property (amber alerts, tornado warnings) that is the extent of it. Oh and the weather alerts, AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT EVEN IN MY STATE AT TIMES. And that is due to the cyberstalkers.

[Cleita]

62. Yep. There's is only so much putting words in ones mouth

and disingenuous accusatory remarks about your intent that you can take. I don't blame you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. I did post the photo of the fire outside my window

in the photography forum. I do not care to even post things that other members feel free to post in GD, but Skinner told me that we do not have a cyberstalking issue. Then he followed to my own blog. Yup, we don't have one. So they got their wish. Even when we cover news that are part of the national zeitgeist, I dare not post it here. People can go look for it at CNN.

[Number23]

83. Skinner has responded time and time and time again to the "serial alerters" rumor

And each time has said that they do not exist.

[cstanleytech]

63. I agree a few more options on what to do with a post would be welcome including a warning option

that when it reaches a certain level in under a certain number of days that their posting privileges will be suspended for a few days.
I would also like an option though that we can use to report abuse of the alert system because there are people who seem to alert on some stupid things.

[seaglass]

24. The system is us. The jury system will only work if jurors operate in good faith and they are not.

There are DUers who have stated outright that they will never vote to hide - that is not good faith
There are jurors who vote to leave alone a post saying fuck you to another poster because they like the person being judged
There are jurors who vote to hide because they don't like the poster
There are jurors who are too stupid to understand the post or think because a different post is not hidden they don't want to hide the one they are judging

Do you not read the jurors comments?

[cstanleytech]

65. Well the last one might be able to be resolved by allowing the jury the option to vote

to hide the sub thread.
Ya the sub thread being hidden would suck but if it helps encourage everyone to treat people who dont share their viewpoints better rather than behaving rudely I'm willing to give it a shot.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

13. I love democracy.

Until the majority of voters disagree with me......

[progressoid]

35. heh.

[Vashta Nerada]

14. Threads like the SI cover are pretty trivial

When compared to the rest of the crap happening in this country, like water shortages, NSA spying, minimum wage increases, fracking, etc. etc. etc.

Isn't this thread "whining about DU"?

[Whisp]

33. Until everything else is solved let's just forget about womens' issues...

that's so trivial compared to everything else.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

38. An internet message board is trivial.

And what goes on on this website isn't always indicative of the real world. The internet is useful but thinking that arguing about Sports Illustrated on the internet is making a difference is dangerous thinking.

[ElboRuum]

51. Why, yes. Yes it is.

25 recs and counting. Whining about DU is the core of DU these days.

[Cleita]

70. You know what's really obscene? It's children having their school lunches

taken from them and thrown away, yet nary a care here from the guardians of all things female here. No discussion of why their mothers couldn't pay for those lunches and what solutions could be offered.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

71. How dare you display a Gay/Human Rights Equality Sign…..

When there are more serious issues like water shortages, NSA spying, minimum wage increases, fracking, etc. etc. etc. going on.

[WilliamPitt]

15. You know, you can always choose to not read/trash those threads.

It is an option.

I don't read them, and have been using the shit out of Ignore. Improved my experience dramatically.

[FourScore]

54. I haven't tried the trash option. I'm going to have to explore that avenue.

Thanks for the tip!

[MineralMan]

16. Back in the day, things were way better, you know.

They were, for sure. How? Well, give me a minute, and I'll come up with some cliche to explain.

[LittleBlue]

19. We have both hosts and juries, and also

trash thread and even hide keyword.

There's no excuse for having to see a thread you don't want to see.

[Cleita]

34. My thoughts exactly. If you don't want to look at women in bikinis use

the trash thread function and it disappears off your screen. To insist that everyone can't see see it because you don't like it is what would happen at Free Republic.

[Ms. Toad]

46. And should I just stick ear plugs in and wear blinders IRL

because, after all, everything is hunky dory as long as I don't hear it?

[L0oniX]

25. "DU has been diminished by this dumbing down"

IMO not only that but it is subjective to the whims of who ever is selected ...agenda against someone or not ...agenda against said op or respondents subject or not. It certainly is not as consistent as I think we had with the mod system.

[bvar22]

27. Jury Transparency & Alert Transparency would help clean things up fast.

Many members are now using their Jury Comment to take Free Shots at either the Alerter, the post in question, or other groups at DU. Having one's screen name assigned to their comments would slow that way down.
I have never posted a comment to a Jury Duty that I would be too ashamed to include my screen name.

Alert Transparency WAS a design feature of DU3 that was never activated:

I have alerted on very few posts since I believe it to be a waste of time,
but I would be more than happy to have my screen name on every alert and reasons for the alert.


A good rule for LIFE in general:
never do or say anything that you are too ashamed to sign your name to.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. That would be very helpful.

I've been getting a fair number of jury duty calls lately - could be coincidence, or could be that some folks are alerting on lots of stuff. Would be nice to see how many alerts people have, with some meaningful way to compare against other folks' alert rates.

[Cleita]

60. +1000

[hfojvt]

58. naming jurors is way too open to abuse

hfojvt voted to hide my post, eh, well I will fix his wagon.

Or, alternatively, hfojvt and some other fool were part of a 2-4 vote to hide. Well, they just made the list.

As it stands now, you and I can stay friends even though you have voted to hide a bunch of my posts, or vice versa, two faced backstabbing weasel that I am.

As it stands now, the jurors are not anonymous to admin, and they can keep an eye on comments, or juror comments can be alerted. They also have the option, perhaps, of running statistical analysis to figure if hfojvt is always voting to keep a post that five other jurors voted to hide, or vice versa.

[zeemike]

74. I agree with the transparency.

That is a feature we need badly.

But our system no matter what it is can be and is gamed...by people who are hear to stir the shit or here to control people...and transparency would do a lot to reveal who they are.
And in the past there were fewer of them than now...and they are more intent on stirring the shit and controlling what can be talked about on DU.

I guess it is just a sign of the times that everything is being divided and conquered.

[Jesus Malverde]

28. Democratic Underground is a business

Page views sell ads.

Use the hide function.

I lean towards getting rid of static sub forums in favor of hashtags creating dynamic associations.

As an example your post could be hash tagged:

#META #HOSTS #ASKADMIN #OLDTIMERS

Those hashtags would in the new way post itself to four groups. Creating more and not less engagement.

Groupings like the "Democrats" subgroups would be more dynamic and update as events happen.

groups could come and go as events happen

#Syria #Koney2012 #IRAN #WOODY #OLIVEGARDEN ETC

[FourScore]

32. Interesting... n/t

[tammywammy]

36. There were so many complaints about mods too.

The mods were accused of not hiding enough homophobic, misogynist, racist, etc. threads as well. I find this longing for the mods amusing. I think if Skinner brought back that system, which won't happen, we'd soon see threads longing for the good ol' days of juries and hosts.

[Rex]

43. +1

nt.

[FourScore]

50. I think what is being discussed is a combination, where you still have juries,

only they have the added power to tell a mod to send it to another forum.

[gulliver]

37. Our Alexa ranking is way down.

The traffic ebb could have caused the emergence of this recent "Democratic Underbelly" editorial feel. Or it could be vice versa or a vicious cycle. It was like this last year for a while too. With an election year coming, I have to think the traffic will pick up and wash out some of the dysfunction. But yes, I do think the mod system was good. The mods did a great job. Both the jury system and mods would be good imo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. I noted that a while ago

I was told by none other than one of my lovely stalkers that Alexa means jack and shit. Just for fun check free republic.

[Drew Richards]

45. THAT is a great ideal...send it to the mods to alert to move to the appropriate forum might also

Cut down om multi forum posts by some that get hidden and keep reposting..

[cbayer]

49. I would never go back to being a mod.

Although there were things I enjoyed about it, it created a second tier of authority that caused resentment and sometimes overt hostility.

There may be some previous mods who would go back, but I am definitely not one of them.

[FourScore]

53. The jurors could take the onus off of you. THEY tell you to send an OP

to a different forum.

[cbayer]

55. Moving threads might be a function that group or forum hosts could do.

I don't think this system is perfect, and I think the moderated system had some advantages.

But I think this is better overall. When the responsibility is more spread out and more people have the opportunity to participate at some level, the amount of hostility towards those in charge seems to diminish.

At any rate, I don't think there is a chance in hell that the administrators would go back to that system.

[MADem]

57. The mods HID the reality, the current system is much better.

Most mods did their job well, but one or two may have played favorites.

That said, this system lays it all out there.

We know our fellow posters by their words, they aren't scrubbed away and hidden from view.

Much healthier atmosphere. Certainly more honest.

Weigh in on threads you don't like and give your view about why they suck. Alternatively, hit the HIDE THREAD button and banish the bullshit entirely. If someone gets your goat, ignore them.

The options are great; I use the HIDE THREAD often when these pit bull/Olive Garden/Smoking While Breastfeeding frenzies start up.

[Bennyboy]

59. As the guy who got his SI issue today...

I ask you why you think that I cannot talk about that particular current event? I never even opened one SI thread in the past, nor posted because I had yet to see the entire issue and knew (thought) I would on Friday....instead of seeing something out of context before I even discussed it.


Some of the posts downline are freaking so obscene it is not funny. It is a fucking magazine with pretty women in it. Stop the fucking presses. There are plenty of half naked men in the magazine as well. Pretty hard to tell where the advertising starts and the photo spreads start...

I actually though we could have a discussion abo`ut the mag but no, the insults start pouring in. Some of the posts in that thread, you all ought to be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

[Make7]

80.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b97zJxKEqAk

[steve2470]

61. I don't envy Skinner and Earl

On the one hand, they want a well-trafficked site with Democrats and progressives. They don't want it to be an echo chamber with all of us patting each other on the back in absolute agreement all the time. As if that would ever happen !

On the other hand, I'm sure they don't want this place turning into Free Republic Lite or Yahoo comments Lite or Youtube comments Lite. I think this place is trending way too much toward Youtube lite, imho.

If I was Skinner, I would absolutely be more strict on feminist-related threads. The fact that the SI threads lasted so long is not a credit to this site. You want to ogle the SI issue ? Fine, go elsewhere. I say this as a heterosexual male.

[pintobean]

64. Whining about DU threads got locked back then, too.

Now, they sometimes get locked, even though they violate the SOP.

[quinnox]

66. There already is a "SOP" alert that goes to "hosts"

Maybe more people don't use it because they don't know about it. If you think a thread doesn't belong in the forum, you can send one of those alerts.

Otherwise, speaking as a former host, I'm wary about the call to give more power to hosts, because (the system) it can be manipulated and hosts could make bad decisions based on personal bias and so on, if they had too much power to lock.

Hosts or mods are not perfect, and that has to be taken into account too.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. Yes, in the past there were mods. Some were good and some were horrific. There's no panacea. nt

[etherealtruth]

69. The issue I have is deciding in "contentious" sub threads

Some exchanges and sub-threads are so out of control, it hardly seems appropriate to to give one poster a hide over the other participant.

[fasttense]

77. Test

Cyber stalker test.

[HuckleB]

78. DU used to be quite intellectual and open.

Now, there are many factions that seem be anti-intellectual and anti-science. It really has dropped dramatically in quality.

[Cleita]

82. I remember the days when you could find at least three well researched and

well written essays on current events on any given day. Sure there was the silly stuff but there was also the great stuff. I liked it too when the administrators put their own writings on the first page which were always insightful, clever and often amusing.

[Demo_Chris]

79. I think it's fine as it is. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

81. The "old days"? You're kidding, right?

I guess you don't remember the shit-storm this caused:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/82


Look, fine, people are going to fight about the SI cover for the rest of spring. Okay, whatever. But let's not pretend this is something new, or -even more ridiculous- that in the past DU was some sanitized, wholesome, family-friendly haven, or that the exact same fights weren't going on, often with the same cast of characters.

There were 10 threads on whether the word "b****" should be acceptable in 2004. People are still fighting about it, now. None of this is new.

"The Good Old Days"- weren't.