General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should Democratic Underground switch to seven-person juries? [View all]TygrBright
(20,775 posts)I don't spend a whole lot of time on the boards, and I don't get around a whole lot. That said, I go way back with DU, and have been a mod under the old system, and I think I'm (mostly) a decent juror although I'm usually in the minority.
When I'm asked to be on a jury, I look it over. Usually I have NO clue what, if anything, is going on in the thread or the forum on a "meta" level. I look at the post itself, I look at the post it may be in response to, if it still seems iffy, I try to read enough of the thread to get a sense what is going on. I follow links if necessary, and review background if it's clear there is any. Sometimes I review the TOS when I think something's on a line.
That said, I STILL don't usually perceive when a particular alert represents the latest iteration in some ongoing current highly-emotional issue or disagreement between posters or groups of posters. I don't track that stuff. But I know it happens, a fair amount.
Right now, I'll review info on the merits, and give my vote, and sometimes my opinion, regardless of that, even if I'm effectively inserting myself into an ongoing conflict. I don't mind, because I'm anonymous.
Take away my anonymity, and it will look like a minefield to me. I won't go in there, especially if giving my opinion looks like I'm "siding" with some particular poster or poster(s) in a current kerfuffle. I don't do that, and don't want people thinking I'm doing that.
explicatively,
Bright