A note on Jury Service. (edited)

[Jim Lane]

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.