I rarely think about DU's jury system

[drmeow]

unless I'm asked to serve. However, I have to say it feels very gratifying when I get an e-mail back like the one below! Nice to see that sometimes we all agree (I deleted the one explanation cause the details of the post aren't relevant to this post.)

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 13, 2014, 03:05 PM, and the Jury voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation:
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[LostInAnomie]

1. Other than the Nuclear Ignore, the Jury system is the dumbest thing...

... DU has ever put in place.

I never vote to hide anything out of pure disdain for it.

[still_one]

2. I do one better, I will not participate in the jury system. The problem for me is that too many who

become part of it judge an alert based on their own bias, not on the validity of a difference of opinion verses an actual TOS violation.

To a large degree I agree, most things should not be hidden. That should be the exception.

[LostInAnomie]

3. That's pretty much what gets me.

I wish we would just go back to mods that enforce the TOS and that is it. At least then you had something concrete to base hiding comments on. The subjectivity of "community standards" or a post being "rude or hurtful" leads to abuse and gaming of the system.

I've noticed a huge drop in quality during the discussion of sensitive subjects on here just because people with opinions that go against the zeitgeist are afraid of getting their posts removed incurring a suspension.

[Efilroft Sul]

4. Many alerts are petty attempts to silence discussion.

This post will be alerted on in 3, 2, 1…

[pinboy3niner]

5. The jury system was the admins' response to constant complaints about moderation

It's kind of ingenious, actually, the way they threw it back to the community to be responsible for enforcing the rules. It must have taken a lot of work to set it up, especially for Elad.

So now the complaints are about the jury system.

Moral: It just goes to show you, you're doomed if you do and doomed if you don't.

[LostInAnomie]

11. Oh, I remember the complaints that mods were against certain people.

And, to be honest, it wasn't a perfect system. What was good about it though is that the rules for hiding something were pretty concrete. Violate the TOS and you get deleted. Call someone a name, post something from banned sites, sex threads, call out the mods, etc., and your post gets hidden. It was simple and hard to game.

The jury system with it's "community standards" and "rude and hurtful" statements is geared to be abused. It allows for petty revenge, alert stalking, and hiding based on nothing but sheer subjectivity.

[pinboy3niner]

13. I don't think there is a "perfect" system

But I thought it was kind of funny and appropriately perverse of the admins to say, You guys don't like the way it's done? Okay, you guys do it.

I learned in the Army that making a decision is often more important than what that decision is. Nothing's perfect, and the important thing is having a way of addressing this task--however imperfectly. Whether the mods or the jury is a better system really doesn't matter as long as there's a functional system in place.

I liked the mods (and hats off to those who served) but in the scheme of things, how DU is moderated is the least of my concerns. If it was a really serious problem, well, there always are other websites...

[Nye Bevan]

9. So you would prefer DU to be totally unmoderated?

Kind of like the comment sections of sites such as Youtube?

[LostInAnomie]

12. No. Moderation is important if you want to keep a discussion forum...

... on topic. Without moderation DU wouldn't be able to maintain itself as a safe place for Democrats to discuss politics without RW trolls interfering. I thought the old mod system did a perfectly reasonable job of keeping out trolls, allowing intense and thorough discussion, all while enforcing the TOS.

The jury system (as I've been reminded repeatedly) isn't here to enforce the TOS. It's here to maintain "community standards" which essentially means nothing other than "Don't like it, hide it". This lends itself to abuse. Have an unpopular opinion about a sensitive subject? Prepare to get alert bombed and not be allowed to discuss. Make an enemy with a certain group? Get alert stalked until you get suspended. Comply with TOS but phrase something inarticulately or without the proper buzz words? Get your post deleted.

The end result is a forum that is afraid to discuss heated topics because the posters know they are putting themselves at risk.

[Nye Bevan]

17. I just voted to hide this spam, and I expect it will be 7-0 to hide.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025663424

Would you have voted to leave?

[LostInAnomie]

18. Can't see it...

Chances are I would though.

Unless something outright violates the term of service, who cares what people post and discuss? The standard of "This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate." is so subjective that it can literally mean anything.

[flvegan]

6. I find it in grand comedy that they call it a jury.

I won't say why, outside of the definition of a jury which this site couldn't grasp with two hands, a lasso and a taser.

[LawDeeDah]

8. What I find strange is that jurors are unidentified.

I mean, why should you be ashamed of your verdict? Unless it is not honest and with ulterior motives.

I would put names in automatically and I am pretty sure this prom king/queen clique group stuff would go away or reduce drastically in short order.

[MrMickeysMom]

10. The administrators don't want it that way… I asked...

Personally, I think names should appear. That removes the weasel factor of why you should be ashamed of your veridic, which is more subjectively based, rather than rule based.

I wish it would go away, too, but maybe they never had enough objective moderators. I everyone was fair like (example) California Peggy, I'd be happier with mods.

You can't have it all and it isn't my board, so I'll have to settle for what I can get occasionally, which is a good explanation for a good reason to hide. Most of it should be left unhidden.

[AgingAmerican]

14. They shouldn't be thrust into the drama

...which would inevitably happen if Juries were not transparent.

[LostInAnomie]

15. I think everyone in the process should be identified.

Alerter and jury members. It would keep the process honest.

[hifiguy]

19. I have been signing my verdicts since I returned

this past summer. I have no reason to hide.

[Ron Obvious]

7. I take jury duty seriously...

And I always leave a comment. An inane, imbecilic comment maybe, but I always leave a comment. Next time you see a jury with "No explanation given", you'll know it wasn't me.

[pinboy3niner]

16. Hats off to you

I don't participate in juries for my own reasons, but I appreciate those who do and who take that responsibility seriously.