Alert stalking. Do you believe it exists?

[cwydro]

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

I don't, but I've seen so many posts about it that I wanted to poll DU to see what everyone thinks.

42 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Poll closed
	Alert stalking is a problem on DU
	35 (83%)
	Alert stalking is not a problem on DU
	5 (12%)
	I think most hides are justified
	0 (0%)
	I think most hides are not justified
	0 (0%)
	I think most jurors are fair
	1 (2%)
	I think jurors use jury duty to settle scores.
	1 (2%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I know for a fact some jurors are biased...

since a year or so ago I got a hide with one of the jurors admitting he or she voted to hide simply because while the post was actually OK, he or she simply didn't like me and wanted me to hurt.

Other than crap like that happening, I don't think the jury system is broken. Yet. But it might be on its way.

Some people on time outs don't seem to deserve it for simply being outspoken, and that hints at alert stalking. But only the admins would know.

[cwydro]

4. I've seen comments on juries like that also,

and I really hate that.

I serve on juries a lot. I rarely vote to hide except in obvious call-outs or personal attacks.

I very rarely alert.

When I serve on a jury, I truly try to be fair. I don't care if the alerted-on poster is one who has called me names; I'll still judge only based on the post. I have voted to leave alone posts from many posters who would be surprised that I did so.

I just can't believe I'm the only one who tries to judge fairly. I think most DUers take jury duty seriously.

I hope I'm right.

[Blue_In_AK]

94. You're not alone.

See my post below.

[melman]

19. Bias works both ways

Some will vote 'Leave it' no matter what it is if it's posted by someone they like.

[HFRN]

41. i've seen SEVERAL jury results and alert where the poster's 'other posts' are mentioned

or the poster is accused of 'being a troll' etc

a post should be considered on the basis of the post, and what it was answering to, alone

anything else, and it's 'alert stalking'

[ieoeja]

58. I disagree.

Other posts provide context. An alerter familiar with a certain poster may alert on a post that makes a statement subtle enough not to be seen unless you also know that poster's history. Knowing that, it can be easy to see through the bullshit to what they really mean.

[cwydro]

62. I see what you're saying, but I think I would only want to judge each alerted-on post individually.

That's just my thought.

[Blue_In_AK]

96. If our juries were conducted like criminal trial juries,

we would get an instruction about disregarding "prior bad acts."

[notadmblnd]

46. For the most part I don't pay attention to the screen name or group I'm responding in when I post

I don't build personal relationships or intentionally join the subgroups on a discussion forum with anonymous people which could cause me to make biased juror decisions. However, I have noticed there are many here who do. I don't believe in censorship simply because an opinion is unpopular, so unless it is a personal attack or blatantly bigoted- I never vote to hide a post.

I do however, hide groups who tend to be cliquish or clannish so I am not tempted to express an opinion that might offend their delicate sensibilities that might result in setting of the hounds on me.

In fact, I inadvertently posted in a group that came up on my latest page the other day calling BS on one of the members posts. I was immediately banned, no questions asked till after the fact but then I could not respond. This is the same group whose members are currently making a lot of noise about another member of their group who has recently received a time out. IMO, if you can do it to others- you shouldn't complain when it happens to you. I have since hidden the group so I no longer see their posts, I will not post there again.

[Nye Bevan]

2. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=4510

[stevenleser]

6. That post was outside of primary season. We are going to see the limits of the jury system tested

as we go into the first open Democratic Presidential primary season since the jury system was implemented.

It's already breaking IMHO.

[NCTraveler]

3. Possibly. I have no clue. Most of the decisions I do see seem fair.

If it were rampant, I would really feel for Hillary and O'Malley supporters. With over 90% of the board being Sanders, if many juried in a dishonest manner, alert stalking would be an issue at this time.

I also think we are about to find that out. Sanders and Hillary supporters are pushing it further and further daily. Lets see how many of each have offensive posts hidden. If it's a problem, it will become more illuminated in the weeks to come. Probably the only way to test it without the actual numbers and just being a member. Not very scientific, but if rampant as some think, it will be noticeable.

[stevenleser]

5. Unquestionably so. In your poll, I would choose one and six.

The idea of a jury based community policing like this is a good one on paper.

In practice, it is a complete mess and fails particularly badly exactly when you need it to perform well the most.

Sure, in a regular debate outside of primary season if someone calls someone else an a-hole, typically a jury here will get that right and hide.

But in primary season, the supporters of the most supported candidate get fewer posts hidden and supporters of other candidates get tons of hides at the drop of a hat. Right when you need the jury system to keep things from getting out of hand, it becomes its most unfair.

In addition, race/religion/orientation/gender baiting comments are often not hidden. I am going to use the nice interpretation of saying that most jurors, since they are not members of race, religion or orientation minorities may not know all the ways that various statements can be baiting to groups and are voting not to hide out of ignorance. Any way you slice it this is a fail for a liberal/progressive board.

[cwydro]

9. Well, it certainly seems that your opinion is the majority one

so far.

Your post makes some good points in regard to the race/religion, etc. issue. I hadn't thought about that specifically.

I'm really curious about this and glad people are voting.

[Gormy Cuss]

37. Call someone a four letter word, a jury will hide it.

Imply someone is a four letter word, pass. As you wrote, far too many -ism baiting comments are allowed to stand too, especially if the alerter doesn't explain in detail why it's an offensive comment

Frankly, I'd rather see all the a-hole attacks stand and have the RW ones be banished but I don't think the jury system can accomplish that.

[HFRN]

48. 'Call someone a four letter word, a jury will hide it. Imply someone is a four letter word, pass'

heaven forbid, jurors judge based on what someone actually said, rather than on what YOU know they actually MEANT

really sounds like those one this site really aren't giving you your proper due deference

(and yes, I am implying something here)

[Gormy Cuss]

78. "FOAD."

Do you see an implication there? That's what I'm talking about.

[MelissaB]

106. Alert results:

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: FOAD may be a 4 letter word (and I don't know WTF it means), but some of us actually look for context.

I hope this juror passed the test.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just giving an example. QED.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why was this alerted?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Aerows]

61. Me too

I don't think everybody uses jury duty to settle scores, but I think that some people do.

[beevul]

7. Terminology.

By whatever name, its a known fact to just about everyone that the system is abused, repeatedly and often.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Alert stalking is less a problem than alert jurors being conned by offended alerters or not bothering to

get any context.

And it is not really a "jury" because all the jurors deliberate independently.

What DU has is unique, I have no really good label for it.

Notice to All Jurors

"The jury is now full and you will now be directed to the alerter's comments and the alerted comment thread. 5 minutes are allowed for closed discussion amongst the chosen jurors in the Closed Juror Forum", after which the Jurors will have 1 minute to render judgment."

Is that possible? Would be 5 minutes of fun, for sure.

Having said that what DU has beats the crap out of anything else in the Intertubes.

[cwydro]

12. I don't know if it's possible,

but I like your idea.

Sadly, I see so much animosity here sometimes that they would probably have to call the jury forum "Fight Club."

[Fred Sanders]

17. Yeah, I thought of that....maybe if the Juror's could do a juror deliberation alert?! Juror boot.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. The lack of deliberation is a problem.

Even if deliberation consisted only of each juror making a preliminary vote with a mandatory explanation for the vote and a summary of that prelim shared with all jurors before the final votes are cast, that would cut down on a lot of nonsensical outcomes.

[Fred Sanders]

21. Deliberation is lacking, no doubt. How about a Head Juror, selected by most posts from the random selection, to keep charge?

[Gormy Cuss]

33. I'm not sure that is needed

but I've seen enough juror confessions of regret because they misunderstood the issue to think that some level of comparing notes would be helpful.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. I think some of the more strident posters attract special scrutiny from multiple people.

It still takes minimally 4 random people to hide a post. If you're drawing a lot of hides it might be time to review your overall style and approach.

[cwydro]

13. I think this is true

on both points.

[Marr]

11. I definitely think it's happening, but I also think some of the biggest offenders are the ones who

most prominently complain about it, and accuse others of doing it.

[cwydro]

16. I also agree with this.

There are some on DU that I just "know" are constant alerters. I can usually tell by the alert and the subject.

I wish people would not alert simply because they disagree with a post; that is just silly.

[Blue_Tires]

14. I've been both a victim of it, and a perpetrator

And yes, the jury system is a hot mess...Most jurors only look at the name of the poster and give a verdict based on whether or not they like that person...

[cwydro]

24. Refreshing honesty here!

I'm sure this happens, but as I said, I have frequently voted to leave alone posts from posters I don't like. I wish everyone could do that.

I've been tempted, sure, but always talk myself down lol.

Really, I was interested in this in the wake of Bravenak's time out. I looked over her posts, and I don't think I would have hidden them. Or not every one of them.

I frequently don't agree with her and we've sparred, but I wouldn't have hidden all of those posts.

[ellie]

15. Yes, it is a problem

Some people need to get a life.

[Nay]

18. I am on juries a lot, and I just can't believe what some people alert on. I haven't

bothered to keep up with who alerts on what, but it sure seems like there's stalking going on.

[murielm99]

30. I have been on juries a lot, too,

sometimes twice a day. I read the entire post, and try to get context.

I refused a jury, probably a couple of weeks ago. I do not like that person, and I did not think I could be fair.

I think there is stalking. If I had solution, I would be running this website.

Let's see how things work out after the primaries.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

40. I'm not sure about stalking, but

it seems the "alert system" is being used a lot when in a losing or stalemated argument.

I haven't seen where the alerter is identified, so can't say this is fact, just feeling.

[TexasProgresive]

22. Nearly ever jury I have been on the alert has been unbelivably petty.

I seldom hide. I alerted once or twice, the one I remember I think I misunderstood the post and should not have alerted. Fortunately the jury was smarter than me.

[Lee-Lee]

23. It would be interesting of stats on alerts were public

Maybe they should be. Not votes, the jury should stay anonymous, and don't say what post someone alerted on.

But an addition to everyone's profile page that shows the number of alerts for the last week, month and year and the percentage of those alerts that resulted in a hide. If someone has lots of alerts and most don't result in hides than clearly they are abusing the system.

If everyone can see who the abusers are it may help slow it.

[cwydro]

28. I kind of like that idea.

I think the admins must keep an eye on that kind of thing though.

At least, I'd assume they do.

[Cosmic Kitten]

29. +1

Like in real life hearings.

You get to confront or at least
know who your accuser is.

It would cut out a LOT of pointless
alerts and end alert stalking.

[Kali]

66. there is a problem with that because when you serve on MIRT you tend to send a lot

more alerts than normal and then there are the people that are just on here more than others, and see more that might need alerting on.

[Lee-Lee]

67. So just note that or hide their stats

That's seems like an easy enough problem to address. I've never noticed is it public who is MIRT?

[Kali]

77. in the Announcement forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10134588

I think keeping alerts and jurors anonymous is best (and any are free to sign their comments) because otherwise you have a potential for even more whining and retaliation, not to mention the suppression of participation.

Admins have repeatedly said there is not a problem, and they are the ones with access to the real numbers.

[Tipperary]

87. I would agree with this.

I imagine the administrators keep tabs on this.

[TexasProgresive]

25. This is META but I think the jury system is the worst change in DU since I've been here.

The majority is not always correct.

[cwydro]

36. Well, I didn't mean to make a meta post (or maybe you were referring to yours?),

but with all the controversy lately, I truly wondered what people thought.

I remember the mods too, and never had a problem with them.

I don't have a big problem with the jury system, but wow, this poll is showing me that others do!

[TexasProgresive]

71. Not you, ME!

I had no problem with the moderator system.

[cwydro]

73. Yes, I thought I understood you there.

I had no problems with the mods either.

I was actually away from DU for quite some time, and I guess I missed the switch and the reason for it.

[TexasProgresive]

76. If I thougt is was you, I would've alerted the hosts----NOT!

[cwydro]

79. Well, since I'm currently a host.

If this was alerted on, I would have to abstain from any voting, and I would also apologize to the other hosts because I truly didn't mean the poll as meta.

I like the jury system. Really, I'm fascinated by the responses here and grateful for all of them.

[TexasProgresive]

80. Now Cwydro your being a host tickles me more.

I was joking you know.

[cwydro]

104. I know!

I was giggling too!

[Cosmic Kitten]

26. THese otions are not mutually exclusive.

Alert stalking is real.

The HRC group instructs members in it's use and misuse.
So either they are paranoid, or they know something

Most jurors are fair.
Some jurors use it to settle scores.
Just like in real life!

[Hortensis]

27. Not all kangaroos bother to analyze a post before leaping to conclusions.

It's interesting how infectious a twisted interpretation can be. In the real world people are not allowed to just choose to be on juries for good reason. I have no idea how jurors are chosen here, but if they're offering themselves, maybe that should be reconsidered.

No opinion on alert stalking, though. I only notice policing when I 'm here and happen to stumble over something. I'm sure many do try to be fair and succeed as well as anyone could reasonably expect.

[cwydro]

34. I'm not quite sure I get your meaning lol.

But thanks for responding.

[Hortensis]

53. Uhoh, I may be among the alert-prone. What Fred Sanders' post/responses above addressed.

Thanks for starting the discussion, BTW. Has to be good, right?

[cwydro]

60. Lol, ok.

I have to say that I'm blown away by the responses to the poll.

I'd no idea it was this one sided. (That being said, I understand not everyone votes, or cares, or even opened the thread lol!)

[Fred Sanders]

49. Now that you mention it, what other site is self-policing as much as DU? The system needs

tweeking, or twerking or whatever nerds call it, that seems to be the consensus of the thread, not outright overhaul.

For example, the fucked up cyber-police state known as Huff Post is as it ever was, a fucking mess of unknown alerts sent to unknown "moderaters" with dark rules of conduct for judgment. Never clicked on a Huff link, on purpose, again.

P.s. I assume Huff is the same as ever, I really have no idea.

[cali]

31. I know for a fact it does

[Hiraeth]

32. I voted for #1 but, if you combine #1 with #6, I think that is the absolute truest answer.

[cwydro]

38. I've never been good at composing polls lol.

Your answer seems to be what most feel.

[virtualobserver]

35. I don't really know...I've never alerted on anyone

I did make a decision to never be on a jury.....when I saw people
demanding that jury outcomes be investigated because they
didn't like the outcomes.

They were asking that jurors be banned from DU based on their jury votes.

[HFRN]

39. yes

'ask not, for whom Willis talks about, he talks about thee'

[whatthehey]

42. I generally ignore meta, but the kerfuffle here is intriguing

I think it's important to separate issues in this process.

The alert:
In such a (frankly, laughably) clique-driven environment, it's near certain that some silly childish member of clique A will decide to alert on anything close to objectionable from members of clique B, and vice versa. Well more than vice versa really as there are more than two "camps". That's a given. Even a relative neophyte like me has seen many alerts that refer in hyperbolic middle school rhetoric to he-said she-said disputes that have nothing to do with the alerted posts. The more interesting side is both why and how this becomes a problem.

The jury:
Alerts are useless unless you can either guess or predict a jury. Unless there is some secret hacker tools out there, jury selection is utterly out of the control of the alerter and only marginally via blacklists in the control of the alertee. So an alerter is wasting his time unless he thinks a majority of random DUers wiil agree on either clique-driven or rational grounds. The former option seems unlikely. Given the huge number of potential jurors at any given time, it would require an unworkably large and co-ordinated network of clique A members to communicate that one of their number intends to alert on a clique B post at 12:50PM on 8/12 in the alert stalking thread so all clique A network members need to be on the site at that time but refrain from posting in that thread to maintain eligibility. Honestly how likely is that, especially in secret to such a degree that no member of clique A has ever developed a grievance against a former ally and kept the PM/email/whatever to prove that such co-ordination exists. People shift allegiances and fake allegiances way too much for such co-ordination to exist and not be nearly instantly exposed.

That leaves

Majority rule:
Intuitively this is the way it's supposed to work. If a majority of site participants find a post objectionable, it gets hidden. But the complaints about the jury system seem, admittedly subjectively, to be coming mostly from the dominant rather than less numerous cliques. In the current primary, really way pre-primary angst, it's far more common to see ardent Sanders fans complain about being abused and chased out, whereas they routinely return 80%+ in DU polls. While not "scientific", it's ludicrous to assume that every single DU poll has it exactly backwards and 80% of jury members are HRC fans. The same with those whose views are further to the left than the center. They complain that DLC/DNC/DINO/Corporatist boogeymen are chasing them off DU, when every single DU poll shows that such centrist/conservative Dems are a tiny minority and strongly despised here. Since it's impossible for this minority to workably stack a jury to hide further-left posts on a doctrinal basis, the clear conclusion is that the are hidden by a group containing more allies than opponents because they are objectionable.

About the only group where such complaints may, repeat may, have a point in assigning ulterior motive is the current complaints of black DUers. Now I have no clue which posters are black unless they say so, but apparently a lot of you do. There is clearly some notable difference of opinion in the value and tactics of a few BLM activists, and many black members are expressing sincere frustration that their opinions are overlooked. Some of that frustration is yes indeed couched in objectionable terms, but the question is also open on whether hides are for the objectionable terms alone, or for the nature and origin of the frustration. Certainly a majority-white jury is very likely, and while many whites have equally strong and unconditional support for disruptive activism, I doubt most do. I doubt personally that there is a "hide the black posters on the basis of race" motivation here, but there very well could be a "I'm pissed off with these in-your-face activists and their defenders" motivation that makes it look, and in effect act, like there is a bias in hides.

[cwydro]

69. I'm not black, but the poll I posted was in part because of the recent "kerfluffle"

as you put it.

This poll is not meant as meta, but truly I wanted to see what posters think. As I've already said, I'm actually astounded.

I really had no idea.

It's not meant as meta, and I'm not complaining about the system.

Lol, I actually think it's a good system, but I find myself in the minority for sure.

[Zorra]

43. At least one Third Way sock was caught at it. Sock got tombstoned but

purported "real" poster who created the sock did not.

[QC]

51. Shhhhh! You're not supposed to remember that!

Is the memory hole malfunctioning?

[Zorra]

64. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me three times, shame on the both of us." ~ Stephen King

[mythology]

44. The admins have repeatedly said it doesn't

The people who claim to be a victim of it often tend to be posters who use insults or belittling terms in a significant number of their posts but either buy into their own bullshit or just want to pretend they are innocent.

It's really not that easy to get 5 hides in 90 days. I have said things that many people would find controversial, but I do my best to provide links to backup what I'm saying and avoiding using a tone that would be construed as belittling.

If some keeps getting hides and time outs, they should really be open to considering how they contribute to that. But that requires self-reflection.

[KittyWampus]

45. Ask Bravenak. OH WAIT!

she's can't post.

[Orrex]

68. Bravenak was unmistakably screwed by kneejerk pearl-clutchers, but consider:

Last edited Wed Aug 12, 2015, 03:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Four of her hides happened in just two threads in a single day, while two of the others happened in a single thread on one day. This doesn't look like stalking to me as much as comically over-sensitive kneejerk alerters getting their noses out of joint in a pair of emotionally charged threads.

"Alert-stalking" suggests to me a general pattern or campaign against a specific DUer over an extended period. Idiotic flare-ups by alerters like the ones that put Bravenak on time-out are petty bullshit, but these seem different from a longterm trend of stalking.

YMMV

[FSogol]

75. +1 n/t

[mythology]

103. Insulting and belittling people comes with a cost.

I didn't alert on her, but her hides were pretty valid (and she's said worse to others that weren't hidden but should have been) in my opinion.

I rarely bother to alert as the level of discourse is often overall low. I think a lot more posts should be hidden, but clearly I'm in the minority on that.

[Orrex]

47. Here's the point I made recently in a similar discussion:

Skinner has stated that Alert-Stalking does not occur. Presently we must defer to the people who have access to the data, because what other choice do we have?

We don't know how many non-hide alerts are called on these posters.
We don't know who is alerting on those posters.
We don't know how many of those non-Hide alerts are sincere.
We don't know who is serving on those juries.
We don't know how many of those Hide verdicts are sincere.

Lacking this information, we are not in a position to make objective statements of fact about it.

Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, "common sense" is subordinate to data to which we have no access. Other than anecdote-based guesswork, on what firm basis might we conclude that someone is being Alert-Stalked?

[Tipperary]

50. You should have put an "I do not know" option

I have not been here long enough to have an opinion. Despite lurking, I really just have not noticed this too much. I have only been on a few juries and I try to make a good decision.

[ileus]

52. anyone here more than 3 minutes can see this...

[cwydro]

55. I guess I'm just idealistic.

I don't really get how it can happen. I mean, I can see that someone can bounce around alerting all over the place on peeps they don't like, but how would they get jurors to agree with them?

Serious question.

[ileus]

59. You appeal to their emotions...instead of logic.

[notadmblnd]

84. I think it happens too, but I'd rather take my chances with a jury

than to have one biased person decide

[Kali]

54. I think it exists, but I think most juries are fair.

Of course all the other factors happen - but OVERALL. I have seen awful examples of very unfair hides (and shitty posts left as well) but nobody complains or re-posts about the average alert/jury result, which I think are the majority.

I think (and I love some of these posters, despise a few others) folks who are controversial and prolific NATURALLY generate more alerts and hides. That is the nature of being "a nail that sticks up" - hammers are attracted.

Anybody that gets emotional/passionate is going to say things that will get hidden. I think it is in the nature of our culture to shut people down who make us feel uncomfortable - whether that is with truths we don't want to hear or just trolling and attention-seeking.

[Aerows]

56. I also think

that sometimes people use jury duty to settle scores.

[onehandle]

57. The Jury System MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED!

Sorry, but you are banished from paradise for your impunity.

[cwydro]

65. No, no, I assure you I'm not questioning it.

I actually thought it works well. I see I'm in the minority here.

Really just wanted to see what others thought because of the recent uproar regarding hides.

I'm certainly being schooled!

[lpbk2713]

63. The paranoids are conspiring against me.

When I get a summons to vote I have no idea who else is in the jury with
me or how they are going to vote and I really don't care how they decide.

[cwydro]

70. Lol. Oddly, I seem to always vote with the others.

Only rarely have I been the one hold-out for either way.

Again, I usually won't vote for hide except in call-outs.

[BillZBubb]

72. I think it happens, but it isn't a major problem.

I also believe many jurors let their own biases shape how they vote. This is particularly evident in the Hillary/Bernie competition. Passions are running high and people tend to get easily offended when their side is the target.

I try to be as even handed as possible and almost always vote "Leave it Alone". The only time I don't is for an over the top personal attack.

[olddots]

74. we are all brain police to a certain extent

I'm still annoyed that I can't put myself on ignorre and alert on my spiffy remarks .

[redgreenandblue]

81. I assume juries are sometimes biased, but I consider this a feature rather than a bug.

I think even Skinner said as much once.

If a person has made so many enemies on DU that randomly picked juries will routinely be biased against them, then perhaps *they* are the problem and not everyone else.

All it means is that people reap what they sow and that is not a bad thing.

[Cleita]

82. I think there is a certain amount of trolling that goes on to

put up posts on controversial subject for the purpose of instigating flame wars or shit stirring if you will. This then sets off an alert storm and it's meant to, but I don't think there is deliberate alert stalking going on.

[George II]

83. When we see clusters of alerts/hides as we did over the weekend, there is no doubt...

....that it is going on.

[m-lekktor]

85. yes i do, popular , known, opinionated DUers get alert stalked

by people on the other side of the issues. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I admit people i disagree with all the time get alert stalked and wrongly alerted on.it is just my opinion, what is considered a worthy alert is a subjective thing I suppose. I personally don't care for this jury system, i don't serve on juries and i don't alert on people.

I could even name the DUers I believe are alert stalked but i won't call them out. the most recent one is obvious. I don't even have to post her name and people will know who I am talking about!.

[struggle4progress]

86. IMO some of our single-issue enthusiasts regularly engage

"I hate so-and-so because such-and-such so I'll findr any excuse to interpret his/her posts as offensive"

[Warren Stupidity]

88. The problem is the huge reward for a 5th hide.

The jury system was good enough when you needed 4 of 6 and all that happened was that the poster got her post hidden and was locked out of the thread. Now the reward for alerting is huge and success is easier so people will alert in order to get their opponents a time out even if the alert has zero merit.

[Kaleva]

97. You've had 0 posts hidden, out of over 1k made, in the past 90 days

despite being being strongly opinionated. Have you, to the best of your knowledge, been alerted on much during the same time period?

[Facility Inspector]

89. I had a poster

say they tried to actively MIRT me but couldn't because their friend got enough alerts to suspend their account (bravenak).

This just because they disagree with me. I haven't violated the TOS, they just disagreed with and it was enough for them to work behind the scenes to get me kicked off this site.

Kinda weird and creepy.

[zappaman]

95. Cool story bro.

[Facility Inspector]

98. no feeding for you today!

Can't wait to read more of your insightful commentary!

[zappaman]

99. Ditto.

[Facility Inspector]

100. If you need something to do

I have work at home opportunities for you.

I'm just tickled that I'm on your radar, renting space in your head.

Btw, your graphic seems a propos of the OP's theme: very stalky indeed!

[LWolf]

90. I'm sure it happens,

although maybe not to the extent some are suggesting. Personally, I can't imagine having the time or zeal to search out someone's posts to alert on, but that's me.

I alert when I think a post violates the TOS, or is simply posted in the wrong place, or it over-the-top nastiness.

Based on the responses, it seems like much of DU is comfortable with a higher level of nastiness, personal attacks, and broad-brush attacks than I am.

I don't alert a lot, but when I do, it has nothing to do with whether or not the post belongs to a DUer I agree with or disagree with. Neither do my jury votes.

DU juries work just like the American justice system does. Sometimes they get it right; sometimes they don't.

An interesting thing is available that allows us to block posters from serving on juries judging our posts. I assume it's still there; I used it more than a year ago for 2 posters who seemed determined to be particularly antagonistic no matter what I posted. This feature could definitely be over-and misused, leaving juries nothing more than echo chambers, but used judiciously, it might help those with concerns.

[MindPilot]

91. The problem is you are not permitted to defend yourself.

If you respond in kind to some rude asshole, it is not the rude asshole who gets the hide.

And the juror's comments section are just another vehicle for the cliques to hone their stalking and bulling skills.

On Thu Oct 9, 2014, 06:59 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I asked a fucking question and I can read just fine.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5642338

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

rude. Just plain rude.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Oct 9, 2014, 07:07 AM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I suppose this was considered harsh, but the poster he was replying to was rather harsh as well.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: calm down, seriously.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just as rude as "you can't read." I know that isn't a direct quotation, but let's not pretend the post being responded to wasn't pretty damn rude, too.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "I am going to put you on ignore" would have served the same purpose.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "go fuck yourself asshole" will get a hide from me everytime.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I thought this fucker got tombstoned a while ago. Did Mindpilot somehow beg, plead, whine, and moan until he got reinstated? Or maybe I've been extremely lucky and just missed his posts for a while. DU is a far more interesting and nicer place without him.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 8:07 AM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=121983&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

[cwydro]

107. Well, the admins did make a new jury rule

that ensures jurors who make those kind of comments do not get jury duty again.

I think that's a good thing.

[Kaleva]

92. It may be attempted but I don't think it works

I've had 1 hidden post since the jury system started and that was back in the summer of 2012. Since then, I was informed once of an alert on another post but I can't recall what that was about.

Not long ago, I looked at the profiles of a random selection of prolific posters to see how many hides they had in the past 90 days. One can check that out by looking at "Chance of serving on Juries: 60% (explain)" and clicking on "explain". Most had no hides and the rest had 1-2. There is no way for me to tell if any of the members I looked at were the target of alert stalking but they were clearly in no danger of being placed on time out even if they were.

Some members who post a lot and dance up to and sometimes cross the line of community standards will attract alerts and get posts hidden even if they are not being alert stalked.

[Blue_In_AK]

93. I'm sure some jurors are biased,

but I would imagine (or hope) that some jurors are like me - I tend to cut the people with whom I heartily disagree on most everything a little more slack in order to avoid letting my biases influence my decision.

The jury system isn't perfect, but I think it works most of the time.

[Sunlei]

101. I'd like this feature better if jury could NOT read the other posts and no names visable.

[sibelian]

102. Yes, and I think people are misunderstanding how it works

It doesn't matter so much whether juries are biased, all that has to happen to make the alerting system into a lightning conductor for abuse is to reduce the threshhold beyond which alerting is justified for particular posters. It doesn't work by juries being biased, it works by individuals constantly being alerted on until the "right" jury shows up.

[Eleanors38]

105. Sure. But I'm pro 2A.

[cwydro]

108. My thread was alerted on, so rather than the hosts having to deal with this.

I'm going to lock it myself.

I didn't intend it to be meta. As I stated, I'm a fan of the jury system.

Obviously, I'm in the minority, but I do appreciate everyone's responses!