I was a moderator on DU way back when.

[Avalux]

We were fair but tough, ensuring that the DU rules were being followed. We discussed and made decisions as a group when it came to removing posts or members - took our duties very seriously. Sure we still had the usual drama but it didn't fester like an infected boil, we lanced it and moved on. Sometimes the boil came back, and we'd lance it again.

Now I serve on juries periodically as most of you do, and a lot of stuff that slides by just makes me scratch my head. It's as if some jury members are making decisions on a whim, totally oblivious to the DU rules.

One of my favorites (seen frequently as a response to flamebait): "Let the post stay. The other person deserves it."

So.....are we children?

I may get in hot water for saying this stuff but as a long timer here, I'm voicing my opinion. It's as if we, as a collective, are not doing our job in guarding the henhouse. Maybe if those of us who serve on juries are familiar with the DU rules and then do our best to make decisions from a place of objectivity, this can change.

[Capt. Obvious]

1. You take your chances

[PeaceNikki]

2. Yeah, I see a LOT of the "The other person deserves it" bullshit.

And it makes DU suck.

[chillfactor]

78. amen! n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Thanks

Were personal attacks hidden when you were a moderator?

[Avalux]

5. Yes they were.

If a DUer was the target of a personal attack, there wasn't usually much discussion. It was a no-brainer.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Do you think the no-personal-attacks policy helped?

Would you see reinstating it as a positive?

[Avalux]

15. Well, we already have that.

"Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. These broad community standards of behavior are maintained through the combined efforts of members posting and serving on citizen juries, using their own best judgment to decide what behavior is appropriate and what is not."

In other words, play nice, and don't be an asshole to others.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. "No personal attacks"

Would be a fairly clear line, I think. As the rules are written now, they're a little less clear, so things have sort of slid downhill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Some of us are so jaded

and know some are more equal than others, even when the place was moderated. So my take...I don't bother with juries. I don't bother with personal attacks alerting because they never are locked. I just don't.

I don't bother with ignore either.

I just don't.

There is a certain glee as what I told the owners years ago that was happening has come to pass. And the worst has not happened yet.

I just munch on but the site owners decided, for whatever insane reason, to permit cyber bullying, which is a large part of it. I say let them sleep In that bed.

I have zero tolerance for personal attacks at my own site. It is tightly moderated due to the cave, and democratic underground. I have let through some weird stuff, but zero personal attacks. Ah spam folders are great

And I expect the site to become more of what I warned it would. And you know what? It actually makes me smile.

[m-lekktor]

9. I don't serve on juries and I don't alert on anybody.

I will probably donate and get a star soon and i might eventually serve on juries. I also never filled out a jury blacklist and I have nobody on ignore.

[carolinayellowdog]

18. speaking of the cave

one of the most aggressive trolls here is proudly posting there under the same username, announcing that he disliked everyone on this site with a few rare exceptions. WTF?

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. And likely here under another name

that's the way they roll. Cyber stalkers that they are.

[mopinko]

127. hmmm.

wonder who that might be.
i have my "fans" over there, tho i only rarely indulge my morbid curiosity. i dont know which is creepier, that i am such a frequent target, or that the owner has a crush on me.

can you pm me the name?

[Avalux]

21. I hear ya - you're probably better off with that approach.

I'm interested in your site - cool! Would you PM me the info so I can visit (if you don't want to post it publicly).

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. The site

Is a news paper.

Reportingsandiego.com

It is a pain to have to approve everything in the comments, but it is what it is.

I feel an editorial coming over FIFA. Silly wabbits, they reelected the president for a fifth term. Ah corruption...

[Renew Deal]

6. Your assumption is that people are objective and reasonable.

And no one in a presidential campaign is objective. The jury system can't work in a primary. The independent arbiter is much better. DU was the best moderated site on the internets because of the quality and objectivity of the moderators. Mistakes were made there too, but not as big and not as often.

[Avalux]

14. That would be idea wouldn't it?

I think we enjoyed knowing who was on our team, and who was here to cause trouble fairly quickly. Now, it's not so easy.

[Prism]

7. The only time I let things slide is trolls

I think the other day, a long-time poster made a reply calling someone "fucking scum". The person they were replying to had been Mirted.

I didn't want a valued community member to take a hide hit because they were intemperate towards a drive-by.

[Hekate]

10. Thanks for that, Avalux. The jury system is broken.

I have a lot more to say, but I've said it often enough recently.

[Capt. Obvious]

11. Admin disagree

We have no evidence that any person or group of people is systematically abusing the jury system. Occasionally people get upset and try to send a bunch of bogus alerts, but jurors aren't fooled by that, and in every case the person quickly gets a 7-0 hide and gets blocked out of using the system. After that, they realize it's not a very good use of their time.

The admins still feel that the jury system has been a big success. We look at it pretty much the same way you do: "not everyone agrees with every decision but that is the nice part: Not everyone has to. The system stochastically averages over different viewpoints...." Exactly.

[Avalux]

17. I actually like the system...

like I said, it's US - as a group we aren't using it to make things better around here.

[geek tragedy]

12. The first rule of jury duty is there are no rules.

Pretty easy to see why things don't work

[Avalux]

16. Yes I read that.

It's what got me thinking, and spawned my post.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. Skinner has also repeatedly written "You take your chances."

So, the jerks have had posts stand seemingly unchallenged for years now and this latest statement from Skinner won't change that.

[NaturalHigh]

22. I disagree.

Back in olden times, it seemed to me that moderators strove to maintain a homogenous point-of-view with which they agreed. It's not fair for just a few people to say "Well, I don't like this. Let's hide it."

To me it seems like the old system was run by a small clique that went out of its way to squelch dissent with its opinion all too often. I've been here more than a decade, and I've seen it more than a few times.

[Avalux]

23. Sorry, it didn't work that way. It wasn't perfect,

but different opinions weren't removed so long as they weren't Republican views or attacks.

[NaturalHigh]

25. Okay, I guess we just see it differently.

That's okay too. That's just another reason I like to see different opinions here.

Frankly, back in olden times, I believe that what I just wrote about those particular admins would have been hidden.

[TransitJohn]

27. yes they were

Many non-attacking posts were removed for ideological reasons, over years here pre-jury system. It's simply a fact.

[dreamnightwind]

39. I can vouch for that

I had a few posts hidden back then, it shocked me, I can't recall their content but it felt like the view I was expressing wasn't permitted, not that I had attacked anyone. Since the new jury system, I have had no posts hidden.

Some of it may be that I have learned where the lines are, but I also believe dissenting opinions were too quickly removed in the old system. This is supposed to be a discussion board, and our opinions and beliefs should benefit from consideration of people coming to opinions from other than a group-think perspective.

[Lithos]

44. The issue wasn't who was moderating things

The issue is that there was no transparency. The software did not allow it. Posts could be removed for a reason which had absolutely nothing to do with what the person thought at the time. As for dissenting opinions, the standards which were in play at the time varied from election to election. Ie, the degree and timing generally came from Skinner and the Admins.

For the record I was a Moderator, probably longer than most. I probably have one of the best viewpoints of the Moderator Tub and what happened in there. And I can most definitely assure you there was actually a very concerted effort to respect different opinions and to make sure Moderators seldomly acted without some consensus of the other Moderators. The only exceptions were for Obvious Trolls (ex: those who helpfully outed themselves with "You lib'turds" type of language.)

Sometimes the debate that went on in the Moderator Forum was as involved and passionate as the posts that people alerted on.

I will not comment about what I think works with DU3 and what doesn't as it would be inappropriate. I expressed my opinions of the new system back on DU2 and believe what I said then has proven correct in practice.

Regards,

Lithos

[Avalux]

57. Thanks for adding to this thread Lithos.

I respect your opinion, and thought you were a fantastic moderator.

[Lithos]

96. Thanks!

DU2 was an eternity ago. Miss the friendship of the mods.

[Avalux]

105. I do too.

I think about that time very fondly, remember the hot tub?

[TransitJohn]

26. Fuck yeah it was!

Many, many, not simply locked, but disappeared posts.

[Capt. Obvious]

29. Was Stalin a moderator?

[TransitJohn]

31. No.

But posts did get disappeared.

[Elwood P Dowd]

28. Skinner needs to hire this guy to clean this place up.

[Omaha Steve]

30. A lot of good DUers have left or gone silent over crap like we have now

[paulkienitz]

32. hear hear

I've seen some awfully lax fellow jurors when I've participated.

[stevenleser]

33. The mod system needed to have a few things fixed but they were fixable. The jury system isn't.

DU was a much nicer place to visit under the mod system.

I think there were a number of issues, not least of which were serious LGBT concerns about moderation policies, but they could have been fixed.

There is no fixing the jury system. As an example, Skinner's recent pronouncement where he articulated his desires for how some things should be done will sadly not find itself into the decision-making process of jurors.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Heck ...

That would put me at greater risk ... I get called "divisive" in just about every thread on the matter of race and/or civil rights.

On a tangential note: One would think that, if a poster relates an opinion, informed by his/her life experience is being called "divisive" by people that do not share that poster's demographic attributes ... AND the majority of people that DO share that poster's demographic attributes agree and/or have similar opinions ... one would pause to reflect on whom is being "divisive."

[stevenleser]

107. A cadre of mods getting direction from Skinner and EarlG have a much better chance of

Getting that right than 7 random anonymous jurors who may know nothing at all about diversity issues. (And in my experience the majority of jurors behave at least as if they know nothing about diversity issues)

Moreover, mods could reverse a mistake they made or be overruled by Skinner. There is no such mechanism here with juries. The jury result is final even if it is completely screwed up.

[arcane1]

34. I take my role as juror perhaps too seriously.

That being said, the majority of juries I serve on tend to be stupid alerts. I so rarely get to use that mighty power. It's like being able to cure the flu and all I ever get are people with allergies

[SoapBox]

37. arcane1 was much more clear...

Many alerts are just stupid.

Yup.

[Avalux]

59. I'm sorry....

we need to get you a particularly vile post to jury.

[arcane1]

65. Serving on MIRT makes up for it somewhat

But there's nothing quite as satisfying as voting to hide

[SoapBox]

35. Well...

Seems I've been on a lot of juries over the last few months...

I always go back and read the OP and then the ensuing posts.

Not to be using the "they deserve it" line but there are more than a few times that the person finally couldn't take the repeated attacks, finally responded and then got reported...I let those go.
If there is a swift and direct, clear attack then it gets my hide. There are so many that feel like "I was dishing it out, they disagreed with me, so I reported them"...I call that whining.

And call me dumb but I'm not sure I would know "flamebaiting" if it hit me...I just know what hits my gut wrong.

I take my juries serious and as using report as very serious. Maybe my feelings on being fair, aren't what DU is about? If we aren't to be fair and honest on a jury, then juries should end and Mods just do as they feel.

[Logical]

36. I would like to go bck to the admin days, I don't think skinner cares. I would volunteer to be one.

[Hekate]

47. Possibly you don't understand that the Admins are 3 people who founded the site & own it.

Their handles are Skinner, Elad, and EarlG. The "admin days" date from shortly after Bush was selected to now. Regarding who is an Administrator: There can be only Three. Their goals -- that is, the stated goal of DU and its reason for existing -- remain the same: defeat the GOP, elect Democrats. It was not about ripping Democrats to shreds.

What we are arguing about now is whether the jury system is or is not working, and whether the old Moderator (Mod) system worked better and can or should be reinstated. Both Mods and Jurors are selected from among volunteers who are DU posters/members.

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. I see no problem at all with the contributors to the discussion handling the job.

[lpbk2713]

41. I've noticed what you say regarding jury decisions.

The only conclusion I can draw is that in the DU of 2015 agendas
are much more important than rational thinking.

[Avalux]

60. I agree with your conclusion.

It seems that way to me as well, agendas and cliques. But we do that to ourselves, labeling everyone and putting ourselves into groups. Heck, I have a Bernie Sanders avatar, so I'm a target for those who want to marginalize him.

[Cleita]

42. I liked the old system and you guys did an excellent job 99.9% of the time.

However, I did see a post in Ask the Administrators some time ago where Skinner stated that the goal is for a self moderated board. With the jury system, it is a true democracy run that way, but it seems to be flawed with the results we are seeing. So I'm sitting back and comparing it with real life jury systems. When you go on jury duty in our justice system, we are vetted first before we are allowed to sit on a jury. Often, the person on trial is allowed to testify in his defense, which the alert system doesn't allow for on this board. So I don't have an answer but it is something to think about to improve it. I don't think the Ads will change back to the mod system.

[Gormy Cuss]

56. and don't forget, IRL jurors must deliberate before voting .

The jury system here is a straw poll allowed to stand as a final decision.

[C Moon]

43. I'm sure you're right about "on a whim"

I think that's any jury works. I was on one in which a few people said, "Guilty. Now let's go home."
But yeah, at least the level headed jurors demanded discussion, which doesn't happen on DU.
So, my reply is kind of lame because it went nowhere, so never mind. :/ I need coffee.

[Avalux]

62. Yes, what we have here doesn't allow for discussion among jurors.

And sometimes maybe people don't take the time to venture into the thread where the post is located to get a feel for what's going on.

Being in a hurry and not really caring doesn't serve the system well at all.

[Agnosticsherbet]

45. I am convinced tha the practice of Jury nullificaton is alive and well at DU

I prefer a moderated board, and am not fond of the jury system. But it is what we have.

I try to determine if someone actually broke the rules and guidelines of the site, without referencing whether or not I agree or disagree with the stand made by the post or the OP.

I think there are many here who approach sitting on a jury with a different approach.

[Avalux]

63. I think that's how it should be.

Leave personal feelings out of it, and focus on the rules and whether a line has been crossed.

[awoke_in_2003]

46. I served three terms...

which included the 08 primary (talk about a primate cage shit fight). I don't care for the jury system at all. I have seen too many post stay that should have gone, and vice versa.

[Flying Squirrel]

48. I keep saying we should add moderators to review 3-4 and 4-3

Decisions during the primary season. But it seems like it means more to Skinner to be able to openly show his support for the establishment candidate because this time around "the jury system is in charge, not me."

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Decisions on a whim? ...

Heck ... I can give you a window of time when anything I post (that gets alerted on) will get hidden, without comment ... and if the post is in response to a couple DUers ... well ... The fan-clubs are strong these days.

[Avalux]

64. That's really unfortunate.

It shouldn't be that way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Agreed ...

I suspect that if: 1) the screen-name of the Alerter was made public with the alert; the screen name of the poster alerted on, and the screen name of the poster the alerted on poster was responding to, there would be fair few fan-base hides.

[yardwork]

50. I have a completely different perspective on the old mod system

I was a moderator, too. I've also served on MIRT. As a gay person I can report that DU's old mod system allowed great biases and abuses against minorities, especially gay folk.

Juries are not perfect but it's a much better system than what we had.

[Avalux]

66. Thank you for your perspective.

I do remember that (and I remember you). I also remember the intolerance of criticism about the Jewish people/Israel.

[stevenleser]

112. I liked the way the mods handled criticism of Jewish people. I think they understood the difference

between what is a valid criticism of Israel versus an antisemitic remark or dog whistle.

What do you think the chances are of a random anonymous juror being able to understand those things?

[Rex]

85. Yeah some of us oldtimers remember the old moderation system and the inherent flaws in it.

The jury system seems to be okay, I don't know if it is better or worse...but at least you don't get groups that have a agenda since it is totally random selection.

[stevenleser]

109. But one could envision that being fixable. We are stuck with a system that is not fixable

Last edited Fri May 29, 2015, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Skinner and EarlG could very well tell mods to go get informed about diversity issues regarding LGBT, women, people of color, religion, etc., or be booted off the mod team. And mod decisions could be removed and if necessary reversed.

How are you supposed to tell seven random anonymous jurors that? And the jury's results are not addressable/reverse-able. I hope Skinner doesn't mind me saying I've seen responses from him to folks about jury decisions along the lines of "yeah, your hide wasn't really fair/right." or "that should have been hidden", but nothing can be done.

I absolutely stipulate to what you said regarding the problems with the old mod system, but Skinner as much as admitted in his mending fences and other posts that those were as much about things he should have done better as anything else.

The average juror seems woefully uninformed about diversity issues and what constitutes biased language and dog whistles, and it is impossible to ensure otherwise. That doesn't seem a good remedy for the issues with the mod system to me.

[Prism]

117. I think it's just a function of cliquishness that's hard to root out of human nature

I've been on the net for over 20 years and moderated my fair share of boards.

It almost always happens that those with power tend to 1) clan together against those who do not have it and 2) fall into an easy groupthink where favorites and the unfavored are subtly formed over time. There were some posters under the old mod system that were absolutely bulletproof. They could do and say nearly whatever they liked and be left alone. With other posters, if they stepped one toe out of line, they could see their entire thread nuked.

Humans are arbitrary creatures. When that arbitrariness can be given names and faces, the "masses" have targets. On the old DU, there were mods I absolutely disdained. They were condescending, patronizing, and had no trouble wielding their privilege around with an unspoken stick of threat.

With an anonymous jury system, you don't really have a target. Your defense against DU juries is really, "Don't be a jerk," or as Skinner says, "You take your chances." Most hides I've seen (and participated in) were fairly clear cut cases. If I had to name a trend, it would be that people are more inclined to leave things that are borderline rather than hide them.

Almost every time-out I can think of involves someone who was wandering the board kind of being an ass in some way. I remember when, I think LoZoccolo, complained to Skinner that he was getting hidden because he was disliked, Skinner replied somewhere along the lines of, "Well, have you tried being the kind of poster people won't dislike?" (obviously I'm paraphrasing). The guy was a total troll, of course. But there was truth in what Skinner said there.

It takes 5 hides in 90 days for a time-out. You really have to be doing something wrong to manage it. Obviously I don't know every person who gets a time out (I'm not here very much usually), but the ones I am aware of involved people who needed to be knocked down a peg or two with their attitude.

And as always, the admins have final say over who gets to leave the island. They may also show mercy if they so choose (Nance's reprieve for compassionate reasons).

Imperfect, yeah, but I just don't want a small group of chosen people to lord over the rest of us. It always ends in suck. JMHO.

[zeemike]

51. This always seems to come up when someone's ox is being gored.

The jury system is not working...the jury system is not fair...it is democratic and that means sometime I lose...lets go back to moderators because dictation by the few is much better.

Things that cannot be controlled by the smart people are scary thing.

I think the jury system works just fine and so does democricy until those who want to control want to change it.
A bad jury decision is not the end of the world...even if some think it is. The post is hidden but anyone can see it if they want and judge for themselves the merit of it.
What could be more fair?
Certainly not a moderator where you are at the mercy of that person's opinion and bias.

I think it is perfectly appropriate that Democratic Underground has a democratic way of dealing with things.

[Avalux]

67. Democracy, in any context, only works if the people are involved and take their role seriously.

I can't say I see that with DU's jury system.

[zeemike]

100. Ot maybe what you are seeing is that the majority are not as concerned

As you are about things.
I have seen what I thought were bad decisions by the jury, but for the most part they get it right.

No system devised by man will be perfect...but I stand by the democratic ones. put power in the hands of the few and tyranny and corruption will follow because power attracts it.

[stevenleser]

114. Right, who cares about posts that are biased or hateful. Why would progressives care about that?

[zeemike]

120. We are all biased in one way or the other.

And hateful is subjective...with some merely disagreeing with them is hateful.
But IMO progressives respect democricy and abide by it...to not do so is regressive.

[Buzz Clik]

52. The jury system sucks. But a question for you:

Are you the jackwagon that banned me in my first week of posting here? I committed the crime of blaming Gore's election loss on a poorly run campaign. And, bang -- I was dead.

[Avalux]

69. No I'm not the jackwagon who did that to you, lol.

I moderated later on. Nerves were very frazzled during that time I'm sure; you were probably the target of someone's despair.

How long did it take to get reinstated?

[Buzz Clik]

72. Excellent question!

They had an appeal process in place in which you could beg on bended knee to having your banning reconsidered. I pointed out to (Skinner or somebody) that I had donated generously to Gore's recount fund in Florida (which I did!), and that I was not a rightwing mole/troll. My appeal was accepted and the offending deleted posts were pulled from my "record." However, I was still banned for three weeks through some odd quirk in the system -- for each granted appeal, one week suspension was imposed, and I had three posts deleted.

So, short answer: three weeks.

[Avalux]

74. Thanks for sharing.

And I'll have you know, every time I see your name, I think of the Buzzcocks. Hope that doesn't bother you too much.

[Buzz Clik]

79. 70s English punk? Works for me.

[Prism]

53. LGBTers got hosed hard in the old system

Entire threads deleted arbitrarily by mod cliques.

I don't want to see it ever come back. Those were some dirty times.

I'll take the imperfect jury system any day. I actually like it. Posters who think themselves untouchable, wandering the board as jerkily as they can, are sometimes given time outs. It's lovely.

[Avalux]

70. I remember, and I'm happy about the positive changes here for LGBTers.

I don't mind the jury system, I'm just trying to encourage DUers to put more thought into their decisions.

[Prism]

88. Agreed

I try not to let personal preferences dictate. I've left lots of posts by posters I don't care for, and then there are times where someone I really enjoy has earned a hide. Which sucks, because you're sitting there, wincing, saying aloud, "I'm sorrrrry!" as you click the button. Explanation: frowny face.

But that's the only way the system works.

[stevenleser]

113. See my #109 above. nt

[progree]

54. "Let the post stay. The other person deserves it." - Actually I agree ...

If Person A gets personal and nasty first, and Person B responds in kind, and Person A alerts on Person B, am I going to vote to Hide person B?

Answer: Nope. However, I always put an explanatory note when I make such a decision.

I always consider the context, and never the post I'm asked to judge in isolation. Its a lot more work, sometimes a helluva lot more work to read a very long subthread of exchanged nasties to determine who crossed the line first. But much more fair.

[seaglass]

83. Except 1.) you have no idea if person A's post was alerted on and passed the hide vote or is still

in the process of being juried when you vote on person B's post and 2.) You are assuming person A is the one alerting on person B

[progree]

84. If A. clearly starts the nastiness and B. responds in kind, I WILL NOT vote to Hide B.

(unless it is a clear escalation). It is A. who deserves to have his/her post hidden, and I will alert on that if there is a reasonable expectation that it will get hidden.

And no, I don't care whether it was A or somebody else who alerted on B.

[seaglass]

90. I heard you the first time. You're not the only one who thinks that way I just don't believe that

kind of decision making helps to make DU civil. I don't play the "he did it first" game to absolve B of their part in the nastiness.

[progree]

92. I don't consider fairness a "game".

[seaglass]

93. It has nothing to do with fairness. When you are judging post B you have no idea what is happening

with post A unless you stop your jury, go to another tab to alert on A and wait for the jury to come back.

[progree]

95. What is happening to Post A is a separate issue. That is one that, in my example, began the

incivility and therefore deserves to be Hidden. Whether it is ultimately hidden or not does not influence how I will vote on person B's post. (And the sad thing is that usually Person A's post isn't hidden from what I've seen -- I often check on threads I've juried for many hours or a day later. But such is life...).

To me, it is unfair to hide a uncivil reply to an uncivil post unless it is a clear and gratuitous escalation and/or crossing another boundary. And that's just the way it is with me.

Actually, I would like to see more posts hidden than probably most DUers. For example, I often see something like person C saying "that was a really stupid post" in reply to someone's supposedly stupid post. Me, I'd vote to hide it. But I've rarely seen a post like that hidden. Excuses are, "its not a personal attack, but just an observation", "it was an attack on the post, not the person who wrote it", or "it really was a stupid post, I agree".

I see posts like that all the time and I've never seen one of those hidden (I often click on the "This post was hidden by a jury" just to see what kind of posts are hidden)

[seaglass]

98. We disagree about what would lead to a more civil DU. n/t

[progree]

99. And we also disagree with what would lead to a more fair DU. n/t

[seaglass]

101. No, you haven't made a case for fairness so I haven't disagreed. n/t

[progree]

102. You haven't made any case for fairness at all. Whatever. n/t.

[uppityperson]

55. It is up to DUers to create the community standards they want. Also, 1 post must be the first hidden

I see comments like "no other post is hidden and they deserve it also", which completely ignores the fact that one post must be the first to be hidden. If it is a bunch of nasty posts in a row, hide one and maybe, just maybe, the next jury will say "hey, nasty post was hidden, I'll hide this one also".

I am amazed at Duers with many posts under their belts who do not understand what the moderating system does or their part in it.

If you want better community standards, hide sketchy posts.

[Avalux]

71. Great take on a flame war.

Maybe since we've been around for so long, we pay more attention, I don't know. But as you said, it's up to DUers, what kind of discussion board we have here.

[treestar]

61. Yes. Or they outright say they are doing it for reasons of

whose side they are on or what side of an issue they are on.

A lot of times you see posts hidden that never would have been hidden under the old system.

I looked at the 5 posts that put Nance Greggs on vacation and only one of them was really a direct attack.

[Avalux]

73. That wasn't right.

There's no way she would have been banned under the mod system.

[Rhiannon12866]

68. Great post! And then there's always "Voting to leave, let MIRT take care of this..."

How is MIRT expected so see anything unless the post is hidden?!

Thanks for listening and for your long overdue post...

[progree]

82. How is MIRT expected so see anything unless the post is hidden?!

I agree. I saw that "Voting to leave, let MIRT take care of this...", and wondered what would happen if 3 or more other jurors felt that way.

Note that Administrators see all juried posts, even ones where the majority, even everyone, voted to Leave It:

Once the Jury has completed the review process, an email alert is sent:
to every member of the Malicious Intruder Removal Team as well as the Administrators, if the Jury voted to hide the post.
to the Administrators only, if the Jury voted to leave the post alone.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem

So at least such a post will get administrator attention. Anyway, in case anyone else was curious about that.

[Rhiannon12866]

86. Having served several terms on MIRT, I find that very frustrating...

MIRT hardly sees every post and the admins have lots of other things to take care of and often depend on MIRT to bring pressing issues to their attention. Thanks for bringing this up! Hoping that those who didn't get it see it!

[progree]

91. Yup. I wonder why the forum hosts aren't notified of these majority Leave It posts

instead of the Administrators, who like you say, hardly have the time to look at every alerted on DU post (since every alerted on post is ultimately juried, they get them all).

And then there would need to be a pathway for forum hosts to alert the MIRT -- there probably is, but I haven't run across it in the "literature" but I haven't read it word-for-word in years.

[Rhiannon12866]

94. I do see your point, since it is tough to contact MIRT directly

And the majority of posts and posters we look at are those who just signed up, looking for those with bad intentions - and that is as it should be. However, it is possible to contact anyone who's currently on MIRT, like DUers did on DU.2 with the mods. We often get a heads up about obvious trollery, but those messages are usually from former MIRTers who know the drill. Here's a current list of who's on MIRT right now, if that helps...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10134588

[progree]

97. Thanks much. That's good to know. nm

[Nye Bevan]

75. There were just as many complaints about moderator decisions in DU2

as there are about jury decisions in DU3.

The difference is, in DU2 Skinner had to spend half his life dealing with "why was MY post hidden but not HIS?" whines.

[DonCoquixote]

76. so true

what is worse is that the very same people who alert for what little of the TOS is left are the same people who break it.

"No personal attacks" indeed, if I had a nickel for every time a LGBT slur, a racial slur, or a gender slur, was defended loudly on a jury by someone as "free speech" or simply as "you just don't like what the other person says, nyah nyah" I would be able to buy this site and discussionist, and gladly TRASH discussionist. This will only get worse in the primary, which has brought out people that both Hillary and Bernie should be seriously ashamed of, who go for low blows, outright lies, and HATE.

I also mention that other site because now, people who gladly break the rules here have a corner they can retreat to, get coached and encouraged, and if they get banned from here, they will have a sock puppet already stitched, complete with a set of brass knuckles hidden in the glove. People get angry about grave dancing threads, but one common thing that gets revealed is the way someone blatantly got away with it, and got people banned, all the while either being a genuine liar/operative or worse, a simple idiot that got promoted to genius because a lot of people liked what they said. How many repeat offenders have we seen get banned and come back again (WillTwain beign a recent example because his posts kept making the greatest page.)

It is NOT, as some say, that the internet makes insults easy, no, the tech is not to blame, but the people who have encouraged it, and to a large extent, that is because the BIG MONEY behind so-called political "journalism" has realized that the lowest common denominator sets the bottom line. Honestly, would Chris Matthews and his "hardball" have been considered serious journalism 10 years ago? Hell, as much as I love her, would Rachel Maddow with her snark every 15 seconds style? Walter Cronkite would spin in his grave.

And let's not get started with Faux Noise, whose commentators could have easily come out of a WWE locker room. Actually, that is an insult to Vice McMahon, because Vince at least has his major people coached on how to speak to a camera, and he knows when to CUT a stupid angle that is no longer getting applause. Yes, I -->am<-- saying that Bill O and Hannity are the sort of goons that would not have made decent pro wrestlers and now they are journalists.

[Avalux]

80. Maybe we are just a grand experiment by the admins.

By creating Discussionist, they can watch how the interactions happen here, then over there, and the crossover between. I don't know.

What I do know is that there are definitely people who show up here just to make trouble (and maybe are paid to do it). Has always been that way, but worse these days.

[DonCoquixote]

81. I can sincerely think that

Skinner et al thought Discussionist would contain the yahoos, but the problem is, just like the GOP sees bipartisan as "bend over and smile" the trolls will not stop if you show them kindness, because they see kindness as weakness.

[stevenleser]

116. The discriminatory language and dog whistles that do not get hidden are the worst consequence of the

jury system. And you can see posters right here under this OP who dismiss that pretty casually.

[dlwickham]

77. I was a mod way back when as well

I've come to the conclusion that people are familiar with the rules but choose to disregard them in reference to juries

[Avalux]

104. That's may be part of it at least.

They're apathetic about actually serving on the jury.

[dlwickham]

119. then don't serve

seems pretty simple

[stevenleser]

118. Imagine a jury in a courtroom that has received minimal instructions...

...jurors are not allowed to deliberate and are not vetted at all (no voir dire) and then sits in judgment of a criminal case, but each juror is hidden individually behind a curtain. Also, jurors are free to walk in and walk out during the trial or not attend at all.

How well do you think that jury would do in getting things right?

That's the equivalent of the DU jury system. Jurors are not required to even read the posts to which they are deliberating.

[Bobbie Jo]

89. I'm just curious

whatever became of this...

Members who are abusive while performing jury service will lose the privilege of serving on juries.
The administrators are getting increasingly concerned about the small number of members who repeatedly post rude juror comments while serving on juries. The vast majority of jurors are doing the job in good faith, but unfortunately a small number of people are not. Some people seem to be using the juror comments as a "free" opportunity to make extremely abusive comments to people -- that's not ok. If any juror has a history of inappropriate comments, or if any juror makes a single comment that is way over the line, then we are going to exclude that individual from jury service. If we do take away any person's jury privileges, we will do so transparently and make a note of it on that person's profile page. (Look for the words "Eligible to serve on Juries?&quot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=2863

The juror comments continue to be quite "abusive" at times, yet I haven't seen anyone who has been blocked from serving because of it.

[Avalux]

103. Interesting. I think someone would need to monitor jury comments.

That's about the only way those abusing the system would be identified. When we moved from DU2 to DU3 and the jury system, I think it was a choice by the admins so they could cut back on the amount of time they'd need to spend watching the site. So that it would run on autopilot, so to speak.

Maybe enforcing the loss of privileges for abuse jury members just isn't feasible.

[Starry Messenger]

106. I prefer the new system

It's just as arbitrary as the old system, but now it's decentralized and you don't have to wonder wtf is going on in the mod forum. Sorry. Lots of people I respect would like the old system back, but I just don't.

A couple of former mods have since admitted that they began to ignore alerts from people who alerted "too much", while the admins always said that you "must" alert to let the staff know there were problems. That magic sweet spot between the two was never explained.

And god help you if you posted something back to someone giving you shit without alerting and got your post removed while theirs stayed. You'd get the snotty assertion that if you'd known what was good for you, you would have alerted. But what if you were the poster who "alerted too much...?"

[hrmjustin]

108. If they went back to mods i would n8t become one.

I prefer the hosting and jury ssystem.

It has its drawbacks but i like this system.


I love mirt.

[BlueJazz]

110. I'm fairly happy with the way things are. I visit other sites and it's either a free-for-all or..

...moderated so bad that most people can't even say the word "damn" (I'm serious...it's an Astronomy forum)

[kcr]

111. Fellow old school mod. I so agree.

But I'm biased in that I think the jury system just simply doesn't work. I think there are some who do try to do their best and judge with the rules in mind but there are too many who come in from the outside and aren't acting in good faith. If this were a closed community it would be different, but it's not.

[Maeve]

128. Another old-time mod agreeing--some jurors won't ever vote to hide

I've been on juries judging Total Trolls (anti-gay, y'all going to hell type fly-ins) and a couple people voted to leave that crap. WTF??

And I've alerted on posts to bring trolls to MIRT's attention because there is no way to know who is on-line and available to handle a Total Troll. In fairness, the jury may vote to leave it, but I have yet to alert on one that didn't get tombstoned within a day or so.

[liberal_at_heart]

115. The answer to you question is yes. Many of us do act like children. For many the internet

is a playground with no consequences. That's why I am so grateful for the trash and ignore buttons.

[Joe the Revelator]

121. I like the jury system. I think its much more fair. You get the board you want. nt

[NanceGreggs]

122. I have never understood ...

... the "logic" behind moving from the Mod system to the Jury system. In fact, it seems totally counter-productive.

I keep seeing the term "community standards" being bandied about - but I am wondering how there can be a "standard" to be applied, when that "standard" literally changes from one jury to the next.

A post that is "hidden" by one jury can be posted verbatim in a different thread and voted to be "left alone" by a different jury. So again, what is the "standard" here?

I've been sent three jury decisions on my own posts that started with, "I can't stand NanceGreggs, so I'm voting to hide." I have also seen other decisions stating, "I always agree with (poster alerted on), and refuse to hide whatever it is they have to say."

That's not demonstrative of a "community standard" being upheld - it is demonstrative of the jury system being a popularity contest.

"You take your chances" has come to mean: Just hope there are more people on the jury who like you than dislike you, because that's what this all comes down to in the end.

From a lot of jury decisions I have read, it seems obvious that being liked or disliked, or having one's stated position being agreed with or disagreed with, is often the only criteria being considered. A post being "disruptive, hurtful, etc." doesn't even enter into the equation.

The Mods HAD a "standard" by which to judge posts, and they considered that standard before deleting a post or allowing it to stand.

Again, I am totally confused as to why that system - which worked incredibly well 99% of the time - was replaced by a system that really doesn't work at all.

[Hekate]

125. +1

[Go Vols]

123. I would never consider

turning from moderators on 2 sites I fool with to juries.

It would be non-stop havoc.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

124. Hey...were you the one who locked my post in Jan 2005? nt

[ileus]

126. This is DU...anything goes, people with fragile feelings aren't really progressive.

[totodeinhere]

129. The thing is different people take this forum with different degrees of seriousness.

To some like you it's very important that the rules be followed but others don't care if they are followed or not. I guess I'd place myself somewhere in the middle.

[Number23]

130. Trolls can and have been jurors. I don't think they were mods very often

And this place is so cliquish. I've seen posts where someone has straight up insulted someone else and some juror allows it to stay because "so and so deserves it."

It's bullshit.