Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Either way's good. Iggo Mar 2014 #1
it increases the amount of people hfojvt Mar 2014 #112
You can chose to not serve on juries by clicking "Willingness to serve on Juries" to off uppityperson Mar 2014 #123
you have served, yourself on 532 juries hfojvt Mar 2014 #273
I also volunteer on MIRT and as a Host. It is a choice. At 10 seconds per "don't serve", it takes uppityperson Mar 2014 #318
my point, though, hfojvt Mar 2014 #320
i think it diminishes the trolls' effect on juries CreekDog Mar 2014 #340
You ever spend more than a couple minutes on a jury? I haven't. Iggo Mar 2014 #134
Or if it's something you can't be impartial about. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2014 #241
I don't time it hfojvt Mar 2014 #272
i have but rarely. once you need more than a minute to decide, the post isn't going to get hidden CreekDog Mar 2014 #341
It's not really that much work. Madam Mossfern Mar 2014 #322
No. All you're doing is changing the statistics... brooklynite Mar 2014 #2
+1 aikoaiko Mar 2014 #78
DU should switch to Decaf 1000words Mar 2014 #3
uh, truedelphi Mar 2014 #92
I wish there were a way for the offending poster to explain themselves NightWatcher Mar 2014 #4
Agree seveneyes Mar 2014 #12
That wouldn't matter. Two people could post the same thing The Straight Story Mar 2014 #81
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #268
Agree. In which Democratic land does accused not have the right to defend? nt griloco Mar 2014 #288
agree, agree, agree nt clarice Mar 2014 #321
No. I think more posts will be hidden. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #5
At the moment, it's sort of a "Tie goes to the runner" idea. (edited) A HERETIC I AM Mar 2014 #6
I voted no just because it would take longer to line up a seven person jury Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #7
That's my reasoning, too. Sometimes it takes too long to find enough willing jurors. randome Mar 2014 #10
Really? How can you tell. joeglow3 Mar 2014 #100
What I wondered pipi_k Mar 2014 #138
If you serve on a jury and the post doesn't get ruled on for 20 minutes or so, that's a long time. randome Mar 2014 #158
It is a rather long time, but... pipi_k Mar 2014 #162
Well, kudos for taking it seriously! randome Mar 2014 #171
Same here with the borderline posts. JimDandy Mar 2014 #263
I am the same way in terms of taking time to look at stuff davidpdx Mar 2014 #277
I've taken close to that long when I land in a thread Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #327
That is correct pipi_k, everyone should look into the discussion to make a decision mrdmk Mar 2014 #222
k&r for exposure. Laelth Mar 2014 #8
Yes. JNelson6563 Mar 2014 #9
YES MindMover Mar 2014 #11
I'm indifferent quinnox Mar 2014 #13
An odd number makes more sense to me. TNNurse Mar 2014 #14
I would rather the jury system be changed sufrommich Mar 2014 #15
I would stop participating in juries at all, and here's why: TygrBright Mar 2014 #80
Hi, TygrBright bvar22 Mar 2014 #143
^^Agree. bvar22 Mar 2014 #83
I already do so I'd not have a problem in the world with that. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #120
Me too. Agschmid Mar 2014 #164
I may forgotten on occasion but I try to be diligent. If I don't feel comfortable putting my name on TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #264
If the jurors names are published then when the post is alerted upon there A Simple Game Mar 2014 #111
That's a good point - but IMO anonymous is better Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #156
Yes, anonymous is better. n/t A Simple Game Mar 2014 #157
You'd end up with a much smaller jury pool. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2014 #127
I agree. There would also probably be folks thanking you for not hiding it... Blanks Mar 2014 #144
This^^^^^^^^ ProfessorGAC Mar 2014 #302
Exactly. tammywammy Mar 2014 #314
Message auto-removed L0oniX Mar 2014 #207
I think more of my own alerts should result in hidden posts, but I also think struggle4progress Mar 2014 #16
I voted yes, but would rather see it as... TreasonousBastard Mar 2014 #17
3-3 ties drive me nuts, so yes, 7 is better. eggplant Mar 2014 #18
I'd like to see something done about jurors who vote BainsBane Mar 2014 #19
I was thinking that pipi_k Mar 2014 #118
I agree with you absolutely. It happens a bit too often. RC Mar 2014 #119
Mandatory names of jurors could help a lot with that. Whisp Mar 2014 #135
+100000000 JustAnotherGen Mar 2014 #292
That's An Accusation That Screams for Proof ProfessorGAC Mar 2014 #303
Take responsbility for your alerts and your jury comments Whisp Mar 2014 #312
That wouldn't make them any more fair. Codeine Mar 2014 #176
Agreed seattledo Mar 2014 #377
How would you measure that? Impossible. n-t Logical Mar 2014 #186
Some make it crystal clear in their comments BainsBane Mar 2014 #210
Sort of a administrative nightmare. And open for bias. n-t Logical Mar 2014 #212
Open for bias? BainsBane Mar 2014 #213
Well, people can eliminate people from their juror pool..... Logical Mar 2014 #214
Actully you can, under 'My Account' there is a 'Jury Blacklist' mrdmk Mar 2014 #227
But sometimes pipi_k Mar 2014 #307
Excellent point BainsBane Mar 2014 #354
"I am obviously one of the posters that many people dislike" pintobean Mar 2014 #358
Yes, I understand you would like me to abandon my concerns BainsBane Mar 2014 #359
That's what I'm talking about. pintobean Mar 2014 #361
I'm not interested in your assessment of who is or isn't an acceptable human being BainsBane Mar 2014 #364
Lol, yeah, I'm aware of who the OP is. pintobean Mar 2014 #372
Color me shocked Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #378
This message was self-deleted by its author BainsBane Mar 2014 #382
Didn't see it pintobean Mar 2014 #383
You really are relentless BainsBane Mar 2014 #384
WTF are you talking about? pintobean Mar 2014 #385
What happened BainsBane Mar 2014 #386
I'm very skeptical. pintobean Mar 2014 #387
I actually pipi_k Mar 2014 #379
This message was self-deleted by its author penultimate Mar 2014 #224
I agree with you in principle davidpdx Mar 2014 #278
Some people make it obvious in their comments BainsBane Mar 2014 #349
But those comments can be alerted on by anyone who sees the jury verdict, winter is coming Mar 2014 #353
Indeed, and I often do BainsBane Mar 2014 #356
I'm not clear on how you can be sure which person it is, or even if it's only one person. n/t winter is coming Mar 2014 #363
I'm not sure how that matters BainsBane Mar 2014 #365
It matters because you believe that biased individuals are not being removed from the jury pool. winter is coming Mar 2014 #366
I know that Skinner responded to an ATA post saying he hadn't removed anyone BainsBane Mar 2014 #367
From http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=2863 winter is coming Mar 2014 #368
Yes, I read that BainsBane Mar 2014 #369
That's true, but... pipi_k Mar 2014 #380
Exactly Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #329
I think an uneven number of jurors is a good idea. Brigid Mar 2014 #20
Better idea: Have Ron Swanson review posts. Arkana Mar 2014 #21
The more jurors the better Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #22
I know you do not want to hear it nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #23
Your stats were posted in ATA pintobean Mar 2014 #63
I want to hear her espouse more Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #64
Jeez, that's like 1/3 of 1% of her posts. winter is coming Mar 2014 #308
When was the last time you had a post hidden? MineralMan Mar 2014 #75
The only time your posts are hidden now is via one of your patented Self-Delete Sprees. Codeine Mar 2014 #177
I think the jury system is useful, but have concerns about how some jurors vote. bluestate10 Mar 2014 #180
When the Jury system first started I was even happy about it nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #182
I always thought the alerter should get a vote, counted as "hide." Brickbat Mar 2014 #24
I think that's why 3-3 ties get so many people upset Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #48
Agreed. Brickbat Mar 2014 #49
So you give the accuser a vote but not the accused? Makes no sense. Bluenorthwest Mar 2014 #65
One of the weaknesses of the system used on DU is that the accused doesn't have a bluestate10 Mar 2014 #184
Yes. Because most posts i see hidden never meet the description thats given TO hide it, i.e. 7962 Mar 2014 #244
I kinda like that idea, except... cyberswede Mar 2014 #67
So you would hide a post if the alerter was on a vendetta? bluestate10 Mar 2014 #181
Then, would all the people who didn't alert mindwalker_i Mar 2014 #69
But the whole point about juries is that they are supposed to be disengaged! Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #159
Oh god, that's a horrible idea! Codeine Mar 2014 #178
I would say we should go to 7 jurors but drop the amount of votes needed for a hide to '3' stevenleser Mar 2014 #370
The 5 strike rule has worked to make DU more civil pipoman Mar 2014 #25
Yes, but for a reason not cited: Reduces the possibility of "swarming". Scuba Mar 2014 #26
Stop that! You're changing my mind. RC Mar 2014 #121
What we need is a 200 person jury pool. Glassunion Mar 2014 #27
...and the jurors should be sequestered klook Mar 2014 #50
WOO! in GD!!!!! MADem Mar 2014 #133
Thank goodness Skinner and EarlG generously provide delicious catering during our myrna minx Mar 2014 #316
Our RL judicial system of juries should be followed RobertEarl Mar 2014 #28
That can't work here BainsBane Mar 2014 #34
You are in favor of hiding decisions? RobertEarl Mar 2014 #66
That looks like a case of BainsBane Mar 2014 #70
Cliques. RC Mar 2014 #124
That's funny pintobean Mar 2014 #71
I've probably posted some BainsBane Mar 2014 #72
I know when I have done it BainsBane Mar 2014 #77
That should never get pass a jury. Separation Mar 2014 #284
Ah, the Gungeon Days. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #286
OMG! oldhippie Mar 2014 #201
I post every jury that I serve on Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #60
It's a shame that "juries" are even necessary at all. NM_Birder Mar 2014 #29
Yes. Or, no. Wait Wut Mar 2014 #30
I say, lets try it pintobean Mar 2014 #31
Let's give it a try. If it doesn't help matters and you find that 7-person juries puts too much winter is coming Mar 2014 #32
Agreed. It sounds good in theory. riqster Mar 2014 #42
This message was hidden by Jury decision. Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #33
lol quinnox Mar 2014 #36
No - not when you have a 5 strikes and you are out policy The Straight Story Mar 2014 #35
Oh yea, I forgot about the 5 posts hidden and suspension rule quinnox Mar 2014 #41
I disagree on upping the 5 hidden posts. It's already too many imo. cui bono Mar 2014 #145
Hey, not a bad idea. Codeine Mar 2014 #179
I heard Scalia is available rpannier Mar 2014 #275
Oh here we go with the "odd number privilege " underpants Mar 2014 #37
No. Juries need to be unanimous. Period. HuckleB Mar 2014 #38
I think it's worth a try. enlightenment Mar 2014 #39
Yes. Should avoid "hung juries" if we can...nt Wounded Bear Mar 2014 #40
I voted yes, but I'm not sure if this will improve things. closeupready Mar 2014 #43
Pass the Civility, please klook Mar 2014 #44
If the current system is perceived as a disincentive to alerts, then based on the number ... 11 Bravo Mar 2014 #45
Certainly no more than seven. lpbk2713 Mar 2014 #46
although "12 angry DUer's" has a theatrical ring to it. LOL nt Javaman Mar 2014 #53
, blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #47
Counting the alerter, 3-3 is actually 4 votes to hide. So maybe Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #51
I've made that argument before but someone pointed out to me that I was forgetting to count seaglass Mar 2014 #57
I like the tie breaker concept. Javaman Mar 2014 #52
Leave it malaise Mar 2014 #54
No. I like that there is a hurdle to overcome to get posts hidden. Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #55
Not really the case... the one post that I had hidden ScreamingMeemie Mar 2014 #58
Where's the "hell yes" button? n/t wryter2000 Mar 2014 #56
three person juries would solve the hung jury issue as well geckosfeet Mar 2014 #59
Now THAT's what I call taking your chances! Iggo Mar 2014 #221
Three or five. Easier to get a jury. Faster resolutions. No ties. geckosfeet Mar 2014 #242
I think it should switch to 5. For the same reasons as a 7 person. morningfog Mar 2014 #61
If getting jurors is a challenge, then go to five Gothmog Mar 2014 #357
5 members would be better, easier to form a jury and reduce the use on members. CK_John Mar 2014 #62
73 is the perfect number so... randome Mar 2014 #68
Voting for 7 and Kicking. IdaBriggs Mar 2014 #73
I ALWAYS click to see what was hidden. I'm also disappointed when someone is banned... Blanks Mar 2014 #148
I vote for the 7 vote jury on logical grounds... defacto7 Mar 2014 #74
I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this analysis. bvar22 Mar 2014 #86
Interesting article defacto7 Mar 2014 #97
well, it all depends on whether the goat is revealed by accident geek tragedy Mar 2014 #116
Yes.... defacto7 Mar 2014 #153
Your analysis is missing a vote... opiate69 Mar 2014 #94
nice point! defacto7 Mar 2014 #102
Yes, but in your analogy, you've made the prosecutor a juror jberryhill Mar 2014 #104
I don't think I did. defacto7 Mar 2014 #110
Then why did you first make the analogy in your original reply to me?? opiate69 Mar 2014 #117
I was making an example asking whether the murderer defacto7 Mar 2014 #160
Yes that is it exactly. I think as it is now, it is a better system. n/t truedelphi Mar 2014 #253
I disagree with your premise that the alerter is analogous to a jury member and thus has a vote.... xocet Mar 2014 #103
Very nice... defacto7 Mar 2014 #106
The purpose of Jury blacklists is to deny that power to the alerter. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2014 #114
I won't disagree with you on those points. defacto7 Mar 2014 #147
As others have pointed out, while the alerter is a HIDE vote, the poster is a LEAVE vote. nt MADem Mar 2014 #136
OK... but I don't agree. defacto7 Mar 2014 #168
The act of posting is a vote to leave. MADem Mar 2014 #293
That's a reasonable argument... defacto7 Mar 2014 #346
Alerting. Doesn't fit SOP for GD. opiate69 Mar 2014 #76
It would still take the same number of votes for a hide. Four. CBGLuthier Mar 2014 #79
Yes, but please add a penalty for people who make a habit of frivolous alerts BlueStreak Mar 2014 #82
There already is a penalty. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2014 #132
I don't think I have ever seen any unanimous decision BlueStreak Mar 2014 #189
I have. winter is coming Mar 2014 #362
I like your ideas defacto7 Mar 2014 #247
That makes sense. RC Mar 2014 #154
As annoyed as I am with the three stooges system at times, I say no... Scootaloo Mar 2014 #84
DU does the best job at moderating of any site mackerel Mar 2014 #85
I agree, that is why I want to keep the current system n/t Kurska Mar 2014 #96
No per Brooklynite. (nt) TacoD Mar 2014 #87
By all means yes madokie Mar 2014 #88
No hiding posts is an extraordinary move and I dislike the idea of making it easier Kurska Mar 2014 #89
Also every post is indeed a seven person decision already. truedelphi Mar 2014 #93
I like the idea of adding a 7th juror. npk Mar 2014 #90
No, it'll only make it easier for the post police tularetom Mar 2014 #91
There is a person here in town who calls the police dozens of times a day nilesobek Mar 2014 #99
Makes no difference to me DFW Mar 2014 #95
If a 12 person jury is good enough for the real world, a MADem Mar 2014 #98
I like that idea, most trolls should be caught by the time they hit 500 Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #252
One thing I became aware of a few days ago was that one of the reasons Cleita Mar 2014 #101
If you want to buy a star, you have to mail a payment with the name of the designated DUer. CrispyQ Mar 2014 #109
No, they don't do that anymore. MADem Mar 2014 #137
As of when? CrispyQ Mar 2014 #195
Look in ATA. You were never supposed to do that. MADem Mar 2014 #290
Interesting. CrispyQ Mar 2014 #291
They probably think that you are that other person. nt MADem Mar 2014 #297
I think the idea is that people are "invested" so they get a perk of membership. MADem Mar 2014 #139
I am unsure how I feel about this . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #105
If everyone refused to serve on juries, DU would have to get a new moderating system. CrispyQ Mar 2014 #107
It's an excellent idea. In_The_Wind Mar 2014 #108
No. As the pool of qualified jurors diminishes, the frequency of jury duty goes up. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2014 #113
It would mean it takes 57% to hide a thread or post krispos42 Mar 2014 #115
I think the # of jurors should be an odd # bigwillq Mar 2014 #122
This has been suggested many times! nt Logical Mar 2014 #125
I've seen too many bruised feelings when a tie Warpy Mar 2014 #126
I say Yes. thank you, Skinner~ Cha Mar 2014 #128
No strong opinion either way. Could we try for a bit, on a "trial" basis and then talk again? uppityperson Mar 2014 #129
I think if you're going to make changes... one_voice Mar 2014 #130
Try it for 3 months, or 4 months, or 6 months... SidDithers Mar 2014 #131
This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #140
Heh Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #146
I agree with A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #149
Dam ties, I don't have one to match my jacket mrdmk Mar 2014 #238
This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #243
LOL Cha Mar 2014 #266
So many pintobean Mar 2014 #161
This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #165
Poetic justice nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #191
Thank you. A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #216
You welcome nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #217
... Cha Mar 2014 #265
It's always Juror # 4 who votes the wrong way. Gormy Cuss Mar 2014 #338
I vote yes, change it to 7 - nt Ohio Joe Mar 2014 #141
I think censorship sucks. PeteSelman Mar 2014 #142
7 Rex Mar 2014 #150
If there has to be a jury system - which doesn't work btw - then yes, 7. cui bono Mar 2014 #151
What you've got works fine. rrneck Mar 2014 #152
Alternet suggestion. What if you allowed the alerted a chance to speak Skip Intro Mar 2014 #155
Your original rationale for 3-3 was well thought out. I think it still makes the most sense. rug Mar 2014 #163
Not the jury, it's the alerters that are the problem. edbermac Mar 2014 #166
One time I actually alerted on the wrong post Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #258
That claim has been made repeatedly, and Skinner has refuted it Orrex Mar 2014 #295
A good idea DonCoquixote Mar 2014 #167
It already requires 4 votes to hide. Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #173
I realize that is how it should work DonCoquixote Mar 2014 #250
I don't buy into conspiracy theories around hides, sorry. Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #257
yes there is DonCoquixote Mar 2014 #259
You probably want to pace yourself, then Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #270
I am generally in favor of this change dsc Mar 2014 #169
I think there should be a per-day alert limit, personally. Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #170
I agree with you nt steve2470 Mar 2014 #175
I'm willing to give the 7 juror idea a try, as long as it can be reversed down the road if it proves scarletwoman Mar 2014 #172
Seems like a "comfort" change to appease frustrated alerters. DirkGently Mar 2014 #174
No downside. And it makes more sense. Win or lose. End of story. nt Logical Mar 2014 #185
Even numbers are good enough for real juries. "End of story." DirkGently Mar 2014 #190
Well, 80% - 20% you are losing this one. :-) Logical Mar 2014 #192
What kind of asshole would view a DU poll as a personal win or loss? DirkGently Mar 2014 #193
Ahhh, you mad bro? What type of person gets mad about it? Nap time maybe??? n-t Logical Mar 2014 #194
You obviously missed my added "winky" emoticon. DirkGently Mar 2014 #196
Sorry it it hurt your feelings. Just a discussion. n-t Logical Mar 2014 #198
Think you're projecting your own emotions, kiddo. It's just a poll about housekeeping stuff. DirkGently Mar 2014 #199
OK, you win. You can respond one more time and I will not! n-t Logical Mar 2014 #202
No, by all means, have the last word. I insist. DirkGently Mar 2014 #203
Yes! nt William769 Mar 2014 #183
Sorry jury system Puglover Mar 2014 #187
80% - 20% - Looks like a clear winner!!!!!!! n-t Logical Mar 2014 #188
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #197
Skinner, will there ever be a chance that jurors can communciate with each other to sort a post out? freshwest Mar 2014 #200
3-3 ties? I thought at least 4 hides were needed to hide a post. No such thing as a tie. nt valerief Mar 2014 #204
you are right, in a way. 3-3 ties go to the poster and are a Leave It Alone. In this regard Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2014 #209
Message was hidden by jury decision L0oniX Mar 2014 #205
I have had no problem in getting my posts hidden ... JEFF9K Mar 2014 #206
I say go to 7. tammywammy Mar 2014 #208
Honestly, I think the Jury System as it is Enacted Sucks rpannier Mar 2014 #211
You think that's bad, I was PPR'd for posting a cartoon once Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #261
Especially since (in my case) I was banned from posting in that thread any more rpannier Mar 2014 #274
I vote yes on one condition: ucrdem Mar 2014 #215
I'm Sympathetic To The Math... But I Still Like... Tie Goes To The DUer... WillyT Mar 2014 #218
Sure. kentuck Mar 2014 #219
Going To 7 Is A Good Idea nt Liberal_Dog Mar 2014 #220
I have just finished reading a book on the strange, tortured and somewhat brief life man4allcats Mar 2014 #223
I say program an AI jury that is always right and impartial. All problems solved. penultimate Mar 2014 #225
Yes, but 4 of the 7 should be drawn from the Lounge. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #226
Misfires could decrease Motown_Johnny Mar 2014 #228
I am for seven but think the jury system is being abused doc03 Mar 2014 #229
yes, I have been called to a number of juries for petty matters Kolesar Mar 2014 #234
I made a what I considered just a harmless joke and was turned in by doc03 Mar 2014 #236
either way--i trust you dembotoz Mar 2014 #230
The all white male jury pool needs to go too Botany Mar 2014 #231
The all white straight male jury of privilege. I bet they don't even know they are white The Straight Story Mar 2014 #296
People alert threads and hope that *three* Snowden fans will be called in the jury Kolesar Mar 2014 #232
Personally I think D.U. samplegirl Mar 2014 #233
This message was self-deleted by its author KoKo Mar 2014 #235
Edited post above to say 7.... KoKo Mar 2014 #249
so, does this mean you think that there aren't enough posts being hidden? Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #237
Sure seems like an overwhelming answer... Wow! Agschmid Mar 2014 #239
I was in one that tied today. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2014 #240
I can see how some alerters feel it's unfair to them as it is. herding cats Mar 2014 #245
Yes. The troll infested, tie prone system was total crapola. nt onehandle Mar 2014 #246
Something is wrong when folks are wringing their hands that it is too hard to block a person from TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #248
+1 Couldn't agree more! B Calm Mar 2014 #323
They're not juries because they are not deliberative. nt Deep13 Mar 2014 #251
I vote for people to stop being dicks. rufus dog Mar 2014 #254
What's the point if perma-propagandists are allowed to soil everything? Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #255
I voted yes. nt awoke_in_2003 Mar 2014 #256
Anything that gets rid of those stupid 3-3 ties is perfect to me. Nanjing to Seoul Mar 2014 #260
go back to the moderator system dlwickham Mar 2014 #262
I suggest a mass-ignore feature to ignore everyone who rec's a post Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #267
no a2liberal Mar 2014 #269
As I see it, defacto7 Mar 2014 #276
How does it still favor keeping the comments? a2liberal Mar 2014 #310
I'm referring to the systematic bias but there are other variables. defacto7 Mar 2014 #348
Interesting a2liberal Mar 2014 #373
Thanks for reading.... defacto7 Mar 2014 #375
There needs to be a way to delete a whole pissing contest at once. Lucky Luciano Mar 2014 #271
Well Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #335
I dont care enough for that. Lucky Luciano Mar 2014 #360
I will vote for ANYTHING that makes this place more civil DrDan Mar 2014 #279
kickety countryjake Mar 2014 #280
This thread needs more Meta Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #281
I think a 7th juror is a great idea ... as would be having the alerter's name on alerts. nt. polly7 Mar 2014 #282
samurai judgment was mitigated through seppuku, y'know. NuttyFluffers Mar 2014 #283
Yes! ColesCountyDem Mar 2014 #285
Bad idea, imo Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #287
Don't see the need as per posts #2, and #170. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #289
Transparency JustAnotherGen Mar 2014 #294
That would actually weaken the jury system, IMO. winter is coming Mar 2014 #301
I guess I'm not afraid of some JustAnotherGen Mar 2014 #309
I'm not afraid. I just don't need their toxic bullshit. winter is coming Mar 2014 #347
Thanks JustAnotherGen Mar 2014 #350
Some days I do that. But especially now, when I'm serving a MIRT term, I see a lot of DU. winter is coming Mar 2014 #351
Maybe we need a way to appeal bad decisions? Generic Other Mar 2014 #298
It wouldn't hurt to try it out. MineralMan Mar 2014 #299
The alert system is flat out childish amuse bouche Mar 2014 #300
Here's the easy fix pintobean Mar 2014 #324
"Be a grown up" amuse bouche Mar 2014 #326
You claimed that the system is childish. pintobean Mar 2014 #331
"the grown-up thing to do would be to not participate. " amuse bouche Mar 2014 #344
I agree amuse Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #339
This place has grown more childish amuse bouche Mar 2014 #345
Somone Else May Have Mentioned This Already ProfessorGAC Mar 2014 #304
Oh don't worry Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #305
Yes, but there will be an additional vote with each alert now kcr Mar 2014 #355
If this goes through (and it looks like it will) are you going to be increasing the slots on the Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2014 #306
Just a quick suggestion. nilesobek Mar 2014 #311
I'm still stuggling to see how juries are better than moderators Matariki Mar 2014 #313
I think many of us have struggled with it. Dawgs Mar 2014 #319
What's the problem with a five-person jury? ancianita Mar 2014 #315
How about get rid of them altogether and bring back down votes. Dawgs Mar 2014 #317
Absolutely. MicaelS Mar 2014 #325
Limit the number of complaints a user can make Android3.14 Mar 2014 #328
VASTLY more important is an appeal process to moderators unblock Mar 2014 #330
Really, it's not that big of a deal Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #332
even you care enough to post about it, lol! unblock Mar 2014 #337
Kick. LOL that this OP was alerted on for not fitting SOP. NYC_SKP Mar 2014 #333
Who alerted? Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #334
I like to allow alerting members to maintain anonymity. NYC_SKP Mar 2014 #336
My vote was leave as is. blackspade Mar 2014 #342
Yes, I support this ismnotwasm Mar 2014 #343
missed this yesterday, I guess Kali Mar 2014 #352
Too late for me to vote? Jamastiene Mar 2014 #371
anyone who thinks more alerts need to be sent ibegurpard Mar 2014 #374
Does anyone know when this grave defacto7 Mar 2014 #376
After 687 jury stints.... I'm somewhat torn on this hlthe2b Mar 2014 #381
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should Democratic Undergr...»Reply #108