Finding I have to decline jury service a lot more now, because I don't get enough information.

[MoonRiver]

I can't see the entire thread, so it's hard to know if something is really hideable or not. We get a little bit of information, but it is frequently not enough. Anyone else experiencing this?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

1. No, if it's not obviously a "hide", I vote to leave it.

I do miss the alerter and juror comments.

[WheelWalker]

2. The thing about juries in America is

that you only get to see what the advocates offer and the judge allows. Most jurors have questions that are unasked, and there is always "evidence" which under the rules of the court is not admissible, and not to be viewed or heard by the jurors. Jurors have to work with what they are presented with, and make the best judgment they can based thereon.

[Mosby]

7. but they know the vote.

Skinner et al don't think we should know the vote because drama. Fuck that.

[WheelWalker]

13. Excuse me... the OP dealt with having information to make a judgment - it had nothing to do

with knowing the results. If a juror is interested there is nothing preventing a juror from determining the ultimate judgment (hide/no hide) other than laziness.

[Mosby]

16. whatever.

[WheelWalker]

21. Exactly.

[Mosby]

24. touche

But the fact is that there are numerous problems with the new jury system, I pointed out the one problem that I find particularly irritating.

[WheelWalker]

28. I, also, would be interested in knowing how others judged the alert,

to assist me in validating my own judgment as an expression of the Community's shared values. I hope the PTB consider reinstating some measure of juror feedback.

[pintobean]

22. Excuse me

but who made you a thread cop? The OP is about DU jury service.

[WheelWalker]

27. It's a thankless job, I grant you... but somebody's got to do it. Appreciate your insight.

[In_The_Wind]

37. ~

[Chemisse]

29. Not knowing upsets me too.

And it is not easy to track down a post to find out, unless it happens to be an Original Post.

[WheelWalker]

30. Agreed, it is more difficult to track when not an Original Post; and, while it doesn't upset me

to not know results, I agree knowing would be helpful to me in shaping my judgment to conform to our Community's standards. I don't have as much time to track results with so many jurors opting out of jury duty. I'm asked to serve several times a day now... almost every time I swing over to DU for a look-see.

[splat]

3. There are usually links to the right of each headline you can use to expand the thread.

Took me awhile to notice them myself.

[MoonRiver]

31. Yes, but that is sometimes not enough to know what's going on.

[joshcryer]

4. I only decline if there's like a 15 min video.

Can't be bothered to watch the whole thing.

[flor-de-jasmim]

5. I prefer not to have to guess poster intentions.

[WheelWalker]

18. I certainly agree. Posts, and alerts, are now judged on their face alone, without comments

that might be probative of the poster's or alerter's intent. Often, I have asked myself if the poster is intending to be serious, or sarcastic. Absent clear evidence of sarcasm on its face, I must conclude it is serious. There is an utter absence of evidence on which to judge the intent of the alerter under the present system IMO.

[Mosby]

6. I opted out of jury service

The new jury system sucks big time.

Ill be happy to serve as soon as the admins fix it.

[pintobean]

23. Ditto

[malaise]

8. I'm not prepared for all the instructions

I can't see the entire thread and then we don't see the result

[MoonRiver]

32. Yep.

[procon]

9. I get too many calls to serve every day.

I don't think I really care for this new version as any better than the old one.

[Brickbat]

10. I dislike being asked to make an assumption on the alerter's intent.

[femmocrat]

15. I agree.

I wish they would delete that question!

[WheelWalker]

19. It is impossible to honestly discern intent of an alerter under present rules IMO

[mythology]

11. I think that's kind of the point

If I call you a poop head, it should be hidden even I you called me one first. It puts the onus on the individual to not say something against the rules rather than hoping that the jury will shrug and let it go as part of a larger argument.

[Johonny]

12. I agree completely

Many times without being able to see the whole thread I cannot make an informed decision and decline.

[Arazi]

14. Yes. Without context it's really hard to judge

[femmocrat]

17. I have run across a few that (I don't think) fit the rule.

I think alerters are mixing up the rule about "don't bash democrats" with the one about "stop fighting about the primary." I would vote to hide under the old rules, but maybe it doesn't fit the rule that is listed.

Or maybe it's just me.

[CTyankee]

20. Yes, I have a difficult time and sometimes just make a guess. That is unfair, tho...

so sometimes I just pass and ask for an excuse for jury duty...

[ChazII]

25. I hit the expand option

but that being said that option often does not give me all the information I would like. I now am receiving requests on a daily basis and sometimes 2 to 3 times a visit to DU. I do miss the information on how the jury voted.

[still_one]

26. Then present that in ATA to see what they say

[MoonRiver]

33. I will.

Just wanted to float the issue to other DUers to see what we all think.

[still_one]

34. ..............................................

[MoonRiver]

38. Still one

[demmiblue]

35. You're lucky your OP wasn't removed for a ToS violation. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

36. I did. Skinner says we have all the info we need to decide

Admins are very comfortable with it the way it is.