HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A note on Jury Service. (...

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:15 PM

 

A note on Jury Service. (edited)

Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:24 PM - Edit history (9)

Please, PLEASE jurors, let the buffoons deservedly reap what they sowed. Don't hide their posts. Allow their ridiculous posts to get the shitstorm of disapproval they deserve through replies to those posts.

It seems to me that we may have recently passed the tipping point at times of being too quick to hide posts as jurors. I serve on juries and about the only thing that will get me to vote "hide" is if a person used the typically banned "n-word," "c-word," or was overtly bigoted, racist, homophobic or misogynist. Yet, I still allow quite a bit a leeway for those opinions if they do not venture into the "stone the heretics" territory. And yes, there have been some of the most vile posts about killing, maiming and otherwise harming others here on DU that certainly deserved to be hidden and their author banned. I would happily vote to ban them and did so when I was on MIRT.

I read the alerted post in context of the thread and in context of the post to which the person replied. If someone is a bit bigoted, racist, homophobic or misogynist then I feel a response to their post is more in order than hiding it. We cannot battle ignorance by ignoring and hiding it.

If you serve on a jury you MUST be willing to read the WHOLE thread and the context in which the alerted post was entered upon that thread. You cannot just read the single post that was alerted upon and make judgement.

Vulgar language is not going to get me to vote to hide a post.

When someone posts something that many of us think is out of bounds of normal discourse, that's not necessarily out of bounds with the TOS of DU.

I'd find it far, far better to leave their posts public and make intelligent responses to them rather than just hide them. How else can we hope to educate? Some people we'll be able to educate and change point of views. Others will be hopeless. We just have to recognize the difference between the two and put our efforts toward education.

If we continue to try to hide EVERY post we find objectionable this will no longer be a discussion board. It will be a campfire with all of us holding hands and singing "Kum Bah Ya"

I don't think that is what any of us desires. I think we are here on DU because we like lively debate. So don't squelch debate, but feel free to berate what you believe is nonsense and keep that nonsense public just to ensure everyone can see the paucity of some people's arguments.

ON EDIT:
Thanks BainsBane for pointing out where I was just wrong.

I'll admit that I was wrong about reading the "whole" thread. The content of a sub-thread between a couple or few people is usually enough to get the context and make a proper decision on an alerted post.

However, I still scan the whole thread for tone. To me, at least, that is important.

On Edit 2:

This OP was only meant to share how I do things and how I feel we ALL may need to adjust our thoughts from time to time. Why else would be here on DU if we didn't want a lively debate and an opportunity to have our beliefs challenged? We need not take offense to such challenges. We should appreciate them. I know I do when I stop being pissed off about those challenges to me.

I apologize if this was taken as some sort of instruction manual for people. That was not at all my intent. It was, however, my intent to get people on juries to think a bit before hitting the "hide" and offering no explanation of why they voted to hide. I find that very frustrating.

My intent, in concert with the purpose of DU, was open debate and have a discussion. Not at all to be overlord of sorts telling anyone what they should or should not do.

59 replies, 3701 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply A note on Jury Service. (edited) (Original post)
dballance Jun 2014 OP
djean111 Jun 2014 #1
pintobean Jun 2014 #2
dballance Jun 2014 #4
Aerows Jun 2014 #25
Warpy Jun 2014 #3
Tace Jun 2014 #5
Tace Jun 2014 #19
ohheckyeah Jun 2014 #6
Wait Wut Jun 2014 #7
dballance Jun 2014 #10
Wait Wut Jun 2014 #15
tammywammy Jun 2014 #21
dballance Jun 2014 #50
dballance Jun 2014 #8
riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #27
dballance Jun 2014 #45
L0oniX Jun 2014 #9
dballance Jun 2014 #14
KamaAina Jun 2014 #11
dballance Jun 2014 #13
tammywammy Jun 2014 #23
KamaAina Jun 2014 #52
tammywammy Jun 2014 #54
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #12
alp227 Jun 2014 #16
lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #17
LittleGirl Jun 2014 #43
lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #47
pscot Jun 2014 #18
JTFrog Jun 2014 #20
Bobbie Jo Jun 2014 #34
arcane1 Jun 2014 #22
Dustlawyer Jun 2014 #24
ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #26
Demit Jun 2014 #28
riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #49
Demit Jun 2014 #56
Orrex Jun 2014 #57
doxydad Jun 2014 #29
enlightenment Jun 2014 #30
hrmjustin Jun 2014 #31
tularetom Jun 2014 #32
BainsBane Jun 2014 #33
dballance Jun 2014 #37
BainsBane Jun 2014 #39
dballance Jun 2014 #40
catrose Jun 2014 #51
totodeinhere Jun 2014 #35
KG Jun 2014 #36
Logical Jun 2014 #38
obxhead Jun 2014 #41
petronius Jun 2014 #42
ROFF Jun 2014 #44
dballance Jun 2014 #46
Jim Lane Jun 2014 #48
littlemissmartypants Jun 2014 #53
Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #55
PDittie Jun 2014 #58
abakan Jun 2014 #59

Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:20 PM

1. Thank you for that.

 

When I am a juror, I read the thread, not just the post alerted on.
I do confess that I opt out if there seems to be a history between the alerter and the poster, or if there seems to be some sort of thing going on underneath, like gun posts. Sometimes I feel "played" as a juror, if the alerter refers to a history and not just the post, and it seems personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:21 PM

2. dballance standards

 

No thanks. I'll keep doing it the way I have been. Community standards = yours, mine, and ours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:31 PM

4. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

Could you share with us the guidelines as a juror you use in order to help us in this debate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:06 PM

25. Yep

 

and you and I don't always agree, which is the entire point of community standards being you me and us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:26 PM

3. That's been my new policy since the word jumpers and language nannies

decided it was time for them to take over. Unless it is outrageously right wing, insults a specific poster, encourages voting for a non Democratic candidate, or otherwise violates the rules in such a way as to be totally unambiguous, I'm voting to let it stand.

Lesser irritations can be slugged out in the thread. Calling out a bigoted post in the thread is what should be done. Running to a jury and hoping to get a bad one so a merely annoying post can be hidden is the coward's way out.

Besides, "Show hidden post" is too much of a temptation to me, I always read them. I don't think I'm alone in this. My reaction usually is "wow, what a jerk, too bad this can't be answered in the thread."

But that would take the courage of showing your own screen name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:33 PM

5. I had a post hidden by jury decision yesterday (my first under this jury system)...

and, while I suppose it is the prerogative of the DU jury to do what they see fit, I don't have any respect for the jurists. To me, they are like ostriches, with their heads in the sand. It's like they stuck their fingers in their ears and said "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah." Good luck with that. --Tace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tace (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:50 PM

19. I'll Add That It Was The Source, Not The Post That Was Deemed Objectionable

So, if somebody you don't like tries to warn you about something you don't want to hear about, hide the post! That's the ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:33 PM

6. And just what's wrong with campfires

and kumbaya?

I agree with you. I seldom hide anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:36 PM

7. I don't need to read the entire thread.

I can decide whether or not a single post is hide worthy. An entire thread of idiocy does not forgive a single stupid post. I've gone beyond the "He/She said it first!!11!" rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:38 PM

10. So context doesn't really matter to you?

 

That's too bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:47 PM

15. Absolutely.

But only the context of that post, I'm not going to forgive someone's OTT reply just because they got their feelings hurt. It isn't a jurors job to judge every post and poster in a thread and play psychologist. You're basing your decision on one post. If (A) calls (Z) a poopyhead and (Z) responds by calling (A) a moronic hangnail, I can only be asked to judge one or the other, depending on which alert I was asked to judge. I can only hope that the other poster gets alerted on, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:58 PM

21. Agreed.

You're only being called to jury one post and it's not to judge the whole thread. The thing I dislike is when you have two posters going berserk on each other and a juror comes back complaining some other post wasn't alerted on. You can only jury one post at a time, and it's possible if two people are being uncivil both are being alerted on.

I'll continue to vote to hide bigotry in all cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:34 PM

50. I agree with you. However, you just made a case for context.

 

"I'm not going to forgive someone's OTT reply just because they got their feelings hurt."

If you are not going to forgive someone's OTT reply just because they got their feelings hurt. Then you must have had to read the post to which it was a reply and made a judgement they just got their feelings hurt in context of the post. That it was not really a violation of TOS or community standards. More like "I'm going to take my toys and go home" instead.

What you just said is exactly what I meant. I read the alerted post in context to what it might be a reply to and I totally agree. I won't hide a reply because someone got their feelings hurt in a back and forth pissing match and finally decided to alert rather than stand up to an argument any longer.

Sorry, you draw blood, that's your own fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:37 PM

8. Here is a PRIME example of my thesis.

 

The results of a jury on which I recently served. Notice that we voted 0-7 to KEEP - thank the spaghetti monster. I was juror #2. Someone alerted on a post that I had to re-read several times before I could even figure out what they thought was a problem. The alleged offense was buried so deeply in the post and so much a sidebar to the whole post.

----------
The Rude Pundit - A Few Notes on Our Continuing Gun Derangement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025140656

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Not this again. Didn't he get the message last time?
Penis envy really? Women are not so unempowered that we feel the need to acquire a male "weapon" between our legs to feel equal. Woman are far more powerful than the mysogynists would have us believe and wishing we had wishes to have penises is not only sexist but an attack on our very gender!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 23, 2014, 04:28 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Wow, "Penis Envy" is a new concept we should ignore and not just ridicule. The WHOLE post was about how men with small penises have issues with ONE SINGLE sentence thrown in about females. That is hardly worth hiding this post.

This post doesn't even come close to being misogynist. It is more about making fun of people who feel the need to carry weapons openly or concealed. Not about women.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meegbear does not deserve a hide for posting RP. This is getting ridiculous. Bite me Alert troll. Can a jury explanation get hidden?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I didn't find it disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate, and it did contain some information about the various open carry displays going on.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Well, he's not called the polite pundit, is he.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:17 PM

27. Someone alerted on another Rude Pundit column?? Really!!!!

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:16 PM

45. In the scheme of things it was pretty darned mild for the Rude Pundit. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:37 PM

9. It has to be MIRT material or border line MIRT and obvious TOS violation before I vote to hide.

 

Exceptions to that for me are members who obviously go out of their way to make DU suck! They better have me in their jury blacklist as I most assuredly have them in mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:46 PM

14. I served on MIRT for a couple of sessions. It does broaden one's opinions.

 

When I served on MIRT it was great to have the debate among others about a post and a new person who might be a troll.

The debate opened my eyes to other views than my own. There were times when I brought something to the MIRT forum and people there convinced me I was not reading the post in the way it was intended. So I voted to leave it. There were other times I argued my case and we banned someone. Seeing both possible sides of an argument is something that is very, very difficult for us humans to learn. Out instinct for preservation tends to cause us to form an opinion and stand by it no matter what. That, in the past, served us well. After all, we've survived so far.

So I try, I really try, to take that experience into account when I'm on a jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:40 PM

11. Someone just alerted on "penis".

 

Not "dick", "penis". Fortunately, it was shot down 5-2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:41 PM

13. So two people here found the word "penis" objectionable?

 

They are SOOOO in the wrong place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:03 PM

23. I voted to hide it.

Not the word penis, but I'm tired of seeing everything boiled down to the stupid argument of "penis size". The "Oh he drives a big truck, must have a small penis," etc. I think DU discussion should be above such infantile arguments. I already deleted the alert results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 10:13 PM

52. Not really a good reason to hide

 

the post to be hidden should be genuinely offensive or inflammatory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #52)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 11:13 PM

54. That's fine that you disagree.

But obviously I think it's a good reason to hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:40 PM

12. I don't recall ever voting to hide a thread ...

 

Though I have been close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:48 PM

16. What happened to erring on the side of "not feeding the trolls"?

A common trolling strategy is to draw attention to their own post and away from the original topic being discussed. It's possible to err on that side while still keeping this discussion board a discussion board, not echo chamber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:50 PM

17. I don't know. There are posts out there saying they won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee,

and I have a problem with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostincalifornia (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:13 PM

43. I doubt I would but then again

I'd rather vote for Warren or Sanders or both than Hillary. I'm sorry but I don't care for her and will not vote for her unless I have to hold my nose. Seriously, we don't need another Clinton in the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleGirl (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:31 PM

47. I hear you, but most likely she will be the nominee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:50 PM

18. I've become way more reluctant to hide

since the rise of the thought police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:51 PM

20. No thanks.

 

Sounds like a discussionist type board. Can't stand that forum.

I don't feel that trolls, bigots, disruptors and the likes should have free reign on DU. I prefer some community standards and repercussions for those who repeatedly make DU suck.

And, by the way, juries uphold community standards, not the TOS of DU. A post does not have to violate TOS to be alerted or hidden. Also, juries get called for only one of the four "Reasons for your alert" options (This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate).




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:36 PM

34. This is true....

Guess I'm old school here, I will still vote to hide personal insults. It's been interesting to watch how far we've come from DU2 as far as the personal sniping is concerned.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:00 PM

22. I have around a 5% hide rate, but that's mostly due to stupid alerts.

 

That said, if I have to read more than two other posts in order to get context, I vote to leave it.

My purpose on the jury is to judge the post, not the conversation. If I have to read an entire thread in order to decide if a post is a violation, then it's not.

The same goes for alerts that say "it's not this post, but look at the other posts in other threads, and you'll get an idea of the poster's motive." It's a complete waste of time and I will happily say so in the comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:04 PM

24. I find this an enlightening discussion. Myself, I vote to hide it if it is a personal attack/snark.

I get so tired of that shit (obviously bad language is not an issue with me). If they have a point to make in addition to what an idiot the other person is it becomes tougher for me. I am not afraid of hearing an opinion radically different from my own, but the snark is just depressing and childish, especially when two go at it back and forth forever. I have yet to alert on anyone in all my years here, and have blocked only 1or 2 people, though the latter may change soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:08 PM

26. I hide for personal insults, bigotry and trolldom

Not language-- unless it violates community standards. And I do read the threads context if I don't understand why the post was alerted on.

For instance, There are people I personally almost always disagree with, but I don't hide their posts because of that. They are entitled to express there opinions. Words like those n your example that obviously cause hurt or harm, and are deliberately used that way I'll vote to hide

I do hide for defense of republicans, third party voters, over the top Obama haters, anti Democratic statements, bigotry of all kinds

I don't hide for frivolous alerting, swearing, things like that. And how the alert is phrased does make a difference, if the alerter takes the time to explain why they alerted, that helps a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:18 PM

28. Except that we can still opt to read the hidden post. So we get to judge the judgers.

 

What's wrong with that?

I like being able to still see what was judged so terrible. I like being able to see when it was a close vote. I like being able to see the judges' explanations (I think explanations should be mandatory).

As someone said upthread, it's members here who eventually set community standards. It's like way finding: a way to somewhere gets beaten into a path by many feet, and the path becomes a road, because it was the most logical/most used way to get there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:08 PM

49. There's been a trend to " swarm" a poster and make multiple alerts.

 

Multiple hides means many good DUers have been TSed because of a concerted effort to get the required number of hides.

This whole brouhaha started with someone getting a long time DUers OP hidden who had linked to a Rude Pundit column.

Its either purity police or a vindictive attack on a long time DUer.

Either one is bad imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:09 AM

56. There will always be people who want to game the system, whatever the system is.

 

I read through the Rude Pundit thread. I didn't agree with the hide. I did get to see some genuine feeling about what was hurtful to some people, and that was a learning experience for me.

It seems to me that whether an alert is purity police or a deliberate attack, it kind of works itself out. The vindictive alerters get rejected by the jury as frivolous, or become known to Skinner et al as such. The purity police alerters will either be rejected by the jury or mocked by members afterward; if they get agreed with enough times by juries, maybe they have a point. So the shape of community standards is revealed, or community standards get reshaped & evolve.

I don't agree, when they succeed in getting posts hidden, in calling a jury 'bad'. A jury is the luck of the draw. Seven people who have—along with that other thing everyone has one of—an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:49 AM

57. This claim has often been made. Please provide evidence of this practice.

Skinner has addressed this as recently as 6/20/2014:
We know who the most prolific alerters are.

We also know how often a person's alerts result in a hide, and how many of their alerts are getting shot-down 0-7.

There isn't any evidence that the people who alert regularly are doing it in bad faith.

The person who is in a position to determine if "alert swarming" is occurring has stated repeatedly that it isn't occurring. I wonder what evidence people can somehow see that Skinner somehow can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:19 PM

29. AGREED!

There are some thin skinned peeps in here, and the LOVE to alert on basically nothing. I know of 3 DUers who have told me that if they get to jury they ALWAYS VOTE TO HIDE. Regardless., and that just ain't kosher! Can't we all just get along?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:20 PM

30. I follow the DU guidelines and rules.

They are slightly more stringent than your criteria, I think (vulgar language isn't an automatic hide, but it could be depending on the context and the intent). It isn't a question of what I personally find objectionable, it is attempting to fairly (and to the degree that I can, objectively) determine if the post is in violation of the guidelines and rules of this forum.

It is time-consuming - and, unfortunately, it more often than not drops me into the middle of a thread that I was studiously ignoring for my own peace of mind. That said, it's the system we have and I agree that we should do our best to take it seriously.

Edited because I'm repeating myself (CRS strikes again - in a single sentence).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:24 PM

31. I hide rw trolling and personal insults.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:32 PM

32. The people who alert on everything are the same ones who used to tell the teacher

that you had a comic book on your lap and you were reading it during class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:33 PM

33. You do NOT have to read the whole thread

Skinner has specifically said so many times. For your information, the C word has been left repeatedly. Certain people have seized on the recent discussion to reveal their views of women by hurling it gratuitously and even directly as an insult. Juries are not hiding it.

It's not a question of too much being hidden per se; it's posts being hidden or left for the wrong reasons--because jurors dislike one of the parties involved,. IMO, anyone who votes according to personal feelings about a poster rather than the content of the post is not fulfilling their responsibility as a juror and lacks the integrity necessary to do the service.

Jury hides make nothing go away. The post remains. The reason for them is to show that such speech is disapproved by the community. When jurors allow misogynistic insults, they make clear that it is okay to treat women as inferior. That kind of behavior has grown tremendously over the past year and will continue to increase because jurors allow it.

What should NOT be hidden is an idea that someone disagrees with. Bigotry violates TOS. It is not simply another opinion. It is hateful and uncivil.

The major reason more posts are being hidden is the 7 person juries. It is now easier to get a hide with a margin of only one vote. I knew that would be the result, which is why I voted against it. The vast majority of DUers voted for it. Now you are seeing the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:51 PM

37. You are correct. In very long threads often only the sub-thread is important. Not the WHOLE thread.

 

I'll admit that I was incorrect about reading the "whole" thread. The content of a sub-thread between a couple or few people may be enough to get the context and make a proper decision on an alerted post.

However, I still scan the whole thread for tone. To me, at least, that is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:53 PM

39. I read the subthread

No way am I reading the whole thread, especially the long ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:55 PM

40. I updated my OP to reflect your very appropriate comment.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 10:00 PM

51. Depending on the thread,

I might or might not read the whole thread. I do look at the accused's profile and try to find something else s/he has posted. I hide for personal insults, TOS violations, and maybe other stuff that I can't think of right now. And it's been awhile; most of the alerts that I've judged have been frivolous, a mon avi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:43 PM

35. The thing is hidden posts probably get more attention than non hidden ones.

What's the first thing I do if I go to a thread and see that a post was hidden? I click on it so I can see what it was about and why it was hidden. But if it hadn't been hidden I probably wouldn't have even looked at it. I think it's just human nature to be curious about things like that. It's the same reason why people crane their necks to see a car accident when they drive by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:49 PM

36. checked out of jury service not long after it appeared. it's getting as fucked up as I foresaw...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:51 PM

38. How about I do what I think is right and you do the same? n-t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:00 PM

41. I let them all ride.

 

As long as it's not a direct personal attack, regardless of language, I let the post ride.

It seems insane to hide a post based on nasty words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:09 PM

42. My standard was to hide for bigotry of any sort, and unprovoked personal attacks

Trollery had to be very egregious, I rarely hid for content, and never for source as I recall, and my inclination was to leave when it was two posters having a slap-fight at the bottom of a 100s-post flamefest. 'Bad words' never triggered my hidey-sense. And where there was any ambiguity in a post, I took the interpretation that supported a leave.

My biggest temptation--which I fought--toward biased voting tended to be alert messages that were transparently dishonest, craftily spun, or about something other than the post in question...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:16 PM

44. I like the ARS Technia system.

There, a poster who makes a claim had better be able to back it up with facts. A poster can get 'dog piled' quite easily.

Mods issue warnings. Enough warnings can result in temporary or permanent 'Vacations'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ROFF (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:29 PM

46. It is a little hard to compare ARS Technia with DU.

 

I'm a tech geek from WAY back before there was an internet. So I'm pretty much a geek and I love ARS Technica, Slashdot and other sites.

It's a little more black and white on those forums than here on DU. One may certainly have an opinion about things on those forums but others will be quick to present empirical evidence to the contrary (well, not always. there is a lot of poop slinging). Empirical evidence is hard to dispute if one is a true scientist or one who holds the scientific method in high regard. As I do. One can set up tests of scientific theories about "hard" technologies much more easily on computers and hardware than tests of the minds of people and the hordes of people. Though the computer simulations of people and masses of peoples have come so far as to be truly frightening.

DU is a lot more fluid and not so rigid as the science of computers and technology. Where it is either a 1 or a 0 at any particular time in those fields; binary doesn't really apply to people. Perhaps the things we continue to discover about quantum mechanics and the sub-atomic particles that I never learned even existed when I was in school will eventually lead to models of the universe that explain the random nature of humans. Did I get deep there or what? LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:01 PM

48. I agree with you about the value of responses.

 

I've been called to a couple of juries where the alert came several hours after the challenged post. When I went to the thread to see the context, there were already responses pointing out the error in the post. That's usually better than just hiding it.

I'll generally hide for personal insults. It's for the long-term good of the forum that people learn to mind their manners. In a thread about Glenn Greenwald or Hillary Clinton or one of our other flashpoints, you can disagree with someone, but don't call another DUer an "asshole" or the like. If you do, you'll be locked out of the thread, and no one will be able to respond to your post -- not because it's so brilliant that no one can refute it, but because the jury has turned it into a conversational dead-end. The debate will go on but you'll be irrelevant. In this particular instance, it might be better if someone willing to ignore the insult would answer the substance, so the hide impedes the discussion, but in the long run it's worth it.

The long-term good of the forum is also served when people aren't able to game the jury system to hide opinions they disagree with or to cause trouble for other members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 10:41 PM

53. When I first started posting

My first hidden post was due to incorrect forum. My heart sank. Admittedly, aghast it forced me to respect the community overall. I know I am a very different person in my perception and opinions so I rarely expect to be understood. I try with reads, recs (sic) and kicks to support the community. The words, tone, context as well as intent are all helpful points of analysis of language samples.
And then there is "needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" concept. Personally, I am rarely surprised by trouble. When I stop loving DU, I cannot imagine.

Thank you for your interesting and informative post with its subsequent threads.

Love, Peace and Shelter. littlemissmartypants

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:25 AM

55. I think the Post Only should be judged and, without the poster's name available to be seen.

The jury should see the alerted post only. No thread, no sub-thread and, the poster's name should be removed from sight.

I also think Hosts should be done away with. I really don't see a need for Hosts.

But, hey ... I don't own the joint so, I will keep doing my best within the parameters given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:35 AM

58. At this point I am unlikely

to hide any thread or post for any reason whatsoever.

This system is completely out of control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Original post)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:56 AM

59. What makes you think.

The people on the jury don't take it seriously? I know I certainly do and from the results of the juries it looks to me like the jury is doing what it should. IMHO I think the alerters are just looking for something to be offended by. And in some of the instances there is nothing any reasonable person should find offensive, so maybe you should be instructing them. Just for the record I have never voted to hide any post. I believe in a free exchange of ideas and if language offends you, this might not be the correct place for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread