The Jury System Works--For The Most Part

[cer7711]

No whining!

This is an attempt at constructive feedback and the eliciting of thoughtful, sober-minded discussion from concerned others on DU. I'd appreciate your feedback here; please give me your thoughts.

I would recommend a couple of additional tweaks to the process of hiding comments on this board.

(1) If a poster's comment is hidden, make it very clear to the poster why that particular comment was hidden. Require every judge voting on the post to type a brief one-or-two sentence explanation of why that particular posting was judged beyond-the-pale, and then share those replies with the poster. Please!

(2) Give the poster-in-question one hour to revise his or her comment and re-submit. If the comment is still judged to be wildly off-the-mark, hurtful, intentionally rude or disruptive, etc., then penalize the infraction as doubly injurious: x2 the points subtracted from the poster's profile.

I say this because I believe I had a post hidden today because it was misread. I was firing off an e-mail reply to a discussion started by one of our more controversial members, and if I had had a chance to do one more revision I would have unitalicized a word and added a brief "I agree!" sentence to one of the three, PRO-Democratic Party points I was attempting to make.

This baffled me. I've posted far, FAR more strongly-worded content on other issues on other days. I can only believe most of the people judging this particular comment today either (a) misread the first two points--in which case poor-wording and poor punctuation on my part contributed to the issue, and/or (b) I was penalized for being too colorful, descriptive and effective with my verbiage.

Here's the LARGER POINTS that trouble me:

(1) I am concerned that we may drive strongly-opinionated (pro-Democratic Party, in the main) contributors from the board simply because they don't express themselves the way we do.

(2) I see a danger of penalizing effective writers--writers who can thrust-&-parry with the best of them; who can move others with their words--by judging not the content of their message but the qualifying adverbs and adjectives that just happened to rub someone(s) the wrong way on the wrong day.

(3) Hiding (leftist or Democratic-centrist but strongly-worded) posts hinders the free-exchange of ideas and has a chilling effect on vigorous debate, amongst the very leftist/Democratic Party/Socialist members who might best benefit from that debate. I mean, if we can't even dialogue amongst ourselves without reaching for the thick, black "redacted" marker . . .

(4) As Orwell remarked, there is no such right as "I must never be offended by anything I see or hear." Not in a free society. I hope that never becomes the "community standard" here. (The very idea of a community standard, IMHO, is absurd and meant to have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech.)

(5) What contributors are we losing or driving away from these rich public discussions? Before you say, "trolls and right-wing sock puppets" I urge a moment of reflection: Don't agent-provocateurs out themselves in time? 90% of the bad eggs are identified and driven off right-quick; let's not be too hasty/paranoid/contemptible in our attempt to quash right-wing duplicity with left-wing sanctimoniousness.

Again I state: This is an attempt to start a sober-minded, thoughtful, pertinent discussion of these issues. I hope the tone of respondents is, in the main, respectful, cogent and helpful to admins and users alike.

[yeoman6987]

1. The jury we have now is fair

I had two posts hidden when I first joined and rightfully so. You should be able to explain differences of opinion on posts without getting personal which I have done twice and other have done so from time to time.

[1000words]

2. I saw that

I got the sarcasm. It would be fair if folks solicited some clarity from the poster before submitting an alert.

[JaneyVee]

3. Jury should have uneven number of jurors, also

There is the possibility of a jury mafia, in which posters could shut down a post due to personal feelings toward a certain poster instead of content, which I guess could be overcome by your great idea of giving a poster an edit grace period. Although i would make the grace period less than an hour.

[Capt. Obvious]

5. I assume you mean to say "odd number" and "jury mafia"

as separate issues?

As the number of jurors doesn't alter the implication of jury mafias.

And of course you know, the way to win over jury mafias is to pay rent.

[JaneyVee]

9. Yes, 2 separate issues. Other than that, cant complain.

Like OP said, it works for the most part. To tell the truth, i usually excuse myself from about 80 percent of them. Only RW trolls and highly offensive posts get me to accept

[JaneyVee]

7. I doubt anyone here is paid to post here

Thats ridiculous and unfounded and you have zero proof, which just makes it hyperbole.

[cyberswede]

8. godlessness? Are you serious?

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Woo-hoo, that was fast. I was just on a jury for...

that post and the trollsock was dead before I could send it in.

[JaneyVee]

11. Welp, that jury system sure worked.

[greatauntoftriplets]

14. Someone got lost in the woo section of the library.

She's a frequent flyer in MIRT.

[maddezmom]

42. ....

[greatauntoftriplets]

43. ...

[hrmjustin]

67. Wow library girl! Nothing better to do?

[cyberswede]

25. LOL

[Control-Z]

15. MIRT was on the ball. (nt)

[Brother Buzz]

6. If we provide jurors with a "Please edit" option...

the posters will no longer have an incentive to be civil because they'll always get a chance to fix their post if they cross the line.

The point of the jury system is to create an incentive for posters to avoid posting inappropriate stuff. The threat of a hidden post is the incentive which causes people to think about what they post.

Skinner's words

[Laxman]

12. I Like The Jury System...

I try to always explain why I vote to hide-after reading this I think I agree that maybe all decisions should require a juror explanation. Sometimes I think a deliberation function would be helpful but probably unwieldy.

[Control-Z]

13. Would you mind

posting to link your hidden post? It's difficult to understand your point without seeing it.

[cer7711]

17. I Think That Might Irritate the Admins . . .

. . . and be seen as an attempt to weasel around the "hide" feature.

Look for cer7711 and WillPitt's discussion today.

The intent of my post: Yes, WillPitt (spelling?) can be a pain in the you-know-what but he's our pain; definitely one of us.

[pintobean]

16. It works fine the way it is.

It looks like we are going to seven jurors. I really don't think that's going to have much of an impact.
Hidden posts aren't a big deal unless someone just doesn't care, or refuses to conform to community standards, and racks them up frequently. Most of us know where the lines are and make an effort not to cross them. For us, a hidden post just defines the line a little more clearly.

We don't need to lower the bar so more assholes will feel welcome.

[CreekDog]

79. it doesn't work fine, or the troll posts from RC and troll socks would've been hidden

instead, we got post after post calling a member who had been raped "damaged" and saying that she was too emotional to discuss the issue.

meanwhile, we had brand new trolls, one after another, and they'd post all kinds of crap and they'd get left by juries, because they're infiltrated by a decisive number of trolls and/or people who really don't know what they are asked to do.

[Kaleva]

18. I just read your hidden post and see no reason why it was alerted on and hidden

But I wouldn't be too concerned about the occasional bad hide. It's happened to other members and will continue to happen. We are human and mistakes will be made.

[pintobean]

19. What do you think of this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4326688

[Kaleva]

22. That looks like a good hide.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

23. Oh. My. God.

I missed that one.

[PowerToThePeople]

28. Serious, that is a pizza post if I ever read one. n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

30. That concluding sentence was chilling.

And I thought the same thing -- pizza-worthy.

[KoKo]

70. Can't believe 2 Jurors voted to leave it!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

72. Yeah. But those two jurors could be bored assholes from that creepy cave...

here to do nothing but shit-stir.

Someone (RC?) survived juries, but was kicked out by the admins. There is a chain of command if members are dissatisfied with jury results.

[cer7711]

31. That One I Understand and Approve of Hiding. One in 264.

I fired off a provocative/sarcastic comment after reacting to initial reports of boorish, intimidating behavior on the part of the texter. It was a knee-jerk, ill-thought-out impulse posting I almost immediately regretted (all Id; no fore-brain) and spent many, many posts clarifying afterward.

That isn't the issue here. My question concerns the reason for the hiding of a fairly innocuous comment today and the larger issues it portends surrounding discussions (and the hiding of comments) on this board. BTW: I proposed a suggested refinement to the system to help moderate just such impulsive, overly-incendiary comments from otherwise sober-minded, sane people having a not-the-best day.

Yet even these kinds of comments can have their place and serve a function: jolting people awake and challenging group-think; firing up counter-argument and discussion. Consider: biting Swiftian satire; Mark Twain's goring of--well, just about everyone, really; Mencken's sly irreligiosity and exasperation with unthinking, self-righteous dunderheads. How might they fare on DU? Alert, alert, ALERT!

But this is to wander too far afield.

I would much rather--at the end of the day--roll my eyes at the occasional comment that transgresses the boundaries of good taste then risk a kind of regimented group-think as to tone, content and iconoclastic observation. I wanted to know what you think.

In general I respect, trust and admire the posters on this board. Many--the vast majority, I'd argue-- are extremely articulate, intelligent and well-informed. (Witness the great, on-point responses to this particular OP.) Today's "hide" got me scratching my head, that's all. And started me thinking: I must be missing something here . . .

[pintobean]

39. 2 in 79 when you posted that.

It's now 2 in 84. The system operates on the last 90 days. I can't claim that I have zero hidden posts out of 11,841 posts. I now have zero hidden posts in the last 90 days(of 963 posts).

So, you disagree with your most recent hide. Join the club. That's no reason to revamp the system to make it more accommodating to more assholery. I think most people here feel that not enough comments get hidden.

If you want people to fairly judge your hidden post, you need to copy and paste the full automated message that you received after the hide. Sometimes the alerter/juror comments can reveal something that isn't known or obvious to the reader.

[CreekDog]

34. no it didn't work

the 2 fools that didn't want to hide it were clueless or trolls and almost got the post left.

that's the same reason so many of the rape thread trolls' were left, again and again.

[morningfog]

36. Holy shit. The dude's a psychopath.

[Cha]

37. damn.

[Le Taz Hot]

47. What's chilling about that post

is that two people voted to keep it.

[pintobean]

51. Yes, that stunned me.

A 6-0 is pretty rare, but I would expect a 5-1 at worst. Hopefully it was 2 of the 'anything goes' type jurors, rather than anyone agreeing with the comments.

[City Lights]

62. Oh my!

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. It works so well

I refuse to alert, or participate in the process.

And yes, a small group has made sure we have a major disaster in my town, you can read it on CNN, political scandal, ditto.

So the system had rarely well silenced people. Oh I still post long, which matter material, just not here.

[maddezmom]

44. Huh?

And yes, a small group has made sure we have a major disaster in my town, you can read it on CNN, political scandal, ditto.

[pintobean]

46. A group of DU jurors went to San Diego and...

CNN's got nothing.

[maddezmom]

54. Sounds like some sort of conspiracy

[greatauntoftriplets]

59. Thanks, Obama!

[GeorgeGist]

21. TLDR

I don't need or desire additional help experiencing DU.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

24. I'll second that.

I'm really amazed at the heartburn over the jury system.

[cer7711]

32. It Isn't Heartburn; It's Confusion . . .

. . . and an attempt at clarification: What set off "hide-this-post" bells today?

I--like many others here--seek to contribute to the discussion, not derail it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

41. I'm not confused.

I've been here since 2004 and have had, I believe, a whopping two posts hidden. And even those could have been avoided had I been less "assholish." But I took my chances. And lost.

Are you complaining about yesterday's hidden post re: a member being/not being a "Troll, RW-Sock Puppet or Other Objectionable Type"?

I could be wrong . . . You may be that good . .

It appears you thought you were being clever. DUers disagreed. You took your chances and lost.

It's not that difficult.

[cer7711]

45. I Meant That Strictly On the Level

Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

That was an acknowledgement to the many critics of WillPitt that I, in fact, may have it wrong: He may be as his worst critics charge. But based upon the tone and tenor of most of his posts--not just an objectionable handful using unusually strong and/or intemperate language--I believe him to be a vocal, aggrieved Democrat voicing his displeasure on issues that vex him.

No more, no less.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

69. Fine.

Too many on this board are CONSUMED by personalities (Obama, Greenwald, Snowden, Pitt, etc.) without focus on the issues.

November 2014 -- onward and upward.

[liberal N proud]

26. Works very well.

[chillfactor]

27. the jury system here is a joke....

a jury needs an uneven number of participants ..being hung on 3-3 results is ridiculous.....

[Oakenshield]

53. I agree the number needs to be uneven.

Beyond that I kind of wish there was a character standard on the explanation part, where you explain why you said hide or leave it. It behooves us to explain ourselves when we serve in such a capacity in my opinion. Addressing the OP, I actually like community standards. Wish we could have them in politics, instead we have this freakshow.

[brooklynite]

68. You DON'T need an odd number...

The jury is NEVER hung; a hung jury means the issue is unresolved. IN this case, the issue is ALWAYS resolved; a post will be blocked if exactly 50% say yes. If you think the decision is more authoritative if the vote is 51% or higher that's fine, but you'll need to defend that assertion.

[Captain Stern]

76. A post is not blocked if 50% say yes.

A 3-3 tie means the post is not hidden. In order for the post to be hidden, it has to receive at least 4 votes (67%) to hide. With a seven member jury a post will still need to receive 4 votes against it, to be hidden. But that will only be 57% of the total votes.

[ProfessorGAC]

75. You Mean Like 12 People On A Jury?

Or 8 like in civil cases in some state?

[UTUSN]

29. The *bad* part is where jurors are free to make noxious personal comments

where personal bias is plain

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Get a star and use the jury blacklist. n/t

[davidpdx]

35. I was thinking about the same thing recently

I agree partly with your suggestions. People should take more time to explain why they voted whether or not they hide the post in question. I'm not sure about the editing part. Someone very well could go off-line after the post is alerted. In that case it really wouldn't benefit anyone. The other problem is another person (other than the one that wrote the post that was hidden) very well could copy paste it and do an excerpt and re-post it, in which case it would continue to cause conflicts.

I'll incorporate a few of your ideas below.

My suggestions:

1) Make it an obligation of a jury to give a short explanation either way. If people don't want to do it, they can opt out.

2) Go to 7 jurors to eliminate 3-3 ties

3) Make the number of alerts done visible in people's profiles during the last 90 days (this would sync up with the number of hides in the last 90 days).

4) Deliver the results of an alert to the person being alerted on regardless of whether it is hidden or not. The reasoning behind this is so the person can know how often they are being alerted on and whether they are successful or not.

5) Create a five strikes in 90 days and you are locked out of alerting. If five hides fail (this would be by a 3-4 margin given I believe we should go to a jury of seven) within a 90 day period you are locked out of alerting until one of those drops off. It is the same premise as getting five hides except instead of having your posting privileges revoked you have your alerting privileges revoked.

I think the only one that would fundamentally change the system would be the last one.

[CBGLuthier]

38. I think all posters with fewer than 1,000 posts should STFU about how DU works.

[In_The_Wind]

40. That's a DUzy!

[davidpdx]

50. It's sad that someone would encourage people to be rude to new members

Yes, a real DUzer indeed

[In_The_Wind]

55. Do you have any idea how many nasty people sign up just to cause trouble?

I usually treat newbies nicely or try to help MIRT show them the door.

[davidpdx]

60. Well in this instance you laughed when someone said that "newbies should STFU"

to a newbie. Not everyone is trouble. Usually those that are out themselves in which case MIRT takes care of them. I have no problem with getting rid of legitimate trouble makers. My point is laughing a bully when he is being intimidating is agreeing with him.

[In_The_Wind]

61. My apologies to cer7711.

[cer7711]

64. All Good!

This is actually a pretty good object lesson, demonstrated in near real time, of the two kinds of posts one is liable to make on an easily-accessible board like DU: (1) the knee-jerk, snarky response the Id originally errupts with and (2) the more reflective, constructive, super-ego moderated comment a moment's sober judgment, engaged empathy and critical thinking prompts one to leave.

Truth to tell: I enjoy reading both kinds of posts. And take each for what they're worth.

Nice to meet you, In_The_Wind! We're all newbies sometime, somewhere, eh?

[In_The_Wind]

65. Thanks

I think Imma going to enjoy reading your post. I had bookmarked this thread yesterday as one I wanted to get back to. Too bad I didn't have my coffee first this morning.

See ya around the site.

[davidpdx]

48. On the face value that fails

As a DU community we should welcome others. We have no idea how long the person has been reading. I lurked for about two years on and off before signing up.

I've seen no sign of the OP causing trouble aside from the statement where he said he got a post hidden. I have no idea the context of the hide as I am not about to track down the post.

So what is the real reason?

[cer7711]

52. That's What I'm Trying to Figure Out!

Yesterday's post was this. (Part of the problem here is that I did a piss-poor job of communicating, typing as I did between phone calls at work. It was an attempt to re-affirm that the Democratic Party, on its worst day, is better than the Republican Party on its best. Also: that I don't believe WillPitt to be "a plant". Also: that I could be wrong; there's always that possibility. That's it! That's the sum total of content and commentary that got this particular post hidden.)
.............................................................

I Don't Think You're a Troll, RW-Sock Puppet or Other Objectionable Type
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.) You admit you voted for Obama--three times--and that each time it was the correct choice.
>
> 2.) You have clearly stated--and continue to state--that the Republi-khan Plutocratic Party of the Oligarchic 1% has no answers--on anything!
>
> 3.) I don't sense the white-hot blast of sheer maniacal insanity, zero-sum-game thinking and jaw-dropping unreason that characterizes right-wing hate in your postings.
>
> I take you at your word: A "big-D" Democrat who's doing his best to uphold true FDR-like Democratic ideals in a kleptocratic, kow-towing, corporatized world that has "Shock-Doctrined" people who should know better into learned helplessnes, cringing servility and fearful, hand-wringing excuse-making.
>
> I could be wrong . . . You may be that good . . . .
>
> But I highly doubt it.

[davidpdx]

56. Could just be the contentious nature of the thread

While I haven't read those threads, I've heard about them second hand and have vowed to stay away from them. You have to learn who around here to ignore or avoid. Lots of good people, don't get me wrong.

[cer7711]

63. I Hear Ya!

That makes sense to me.

[pintobean]

58. Joined Aug 2010

and see post #19 and the replies to it.

Other than that, I took the 1000 post crack to be intended as a joke.

[cer7711]

49. Noted.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

74. Results are In -

On Tue Apr 1, 2014, 12:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I think all posters with fewer than 1,000 posts should STFU about how DU works.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4763413

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Telling a member to Shut the Fuck Up (STFU) is rude and insulting, regardless of how many posts they have or if one disagrees with them.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 1, 2014, 12:47 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I am allowing.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with what was alerted on. So I guess you can alert on this jury verdict also.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is foolish, and the poster hasn't thought things through, but that's common on DU and not a reason to hide the post.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This was borderline for me. Without the STFU it would be a no brainer but really that is rude.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[seabeyond]

57. jury allowed RC to stay, yet, adm kicked him off. jury kicks me off, yet i am so loved. meh...

i do not put much stock in jury

[WorseBeforeBetter]

71. "yet i am so loved" WHUT?

[seabeyond]

73. i know.

right?

[cer7711]

77. Houston, This Is Tranquility Base Calling . . .

Lovely! Does put things into perspective, doesn't it?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

78. LOL

Breathing s-l-o-w-l-y and d-e-e-p-l-y...

Or maybe I should just have a drink. It's been a long day and it *ain't* over!