I just exited a DU jury service because I didn't have a clue.

[Laffy Kat]

After seeing the only two posts allowed when I "expanded" I still didn't understand the context. I had to exit because I was incapable of coming to a conclusion with what I had to go on. Has this happened to anyone else, or am I just dense?

[applegrove]

1. Happens a lot to me.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

101. Me too. I just exit jury service. Sometimes when I look at the whole thread I'm confused.....

Some people are a bit too sensitive too at times.

[LuckyCharms]

2. I have not served on too many juries, but yes...

I had to exit once I think?

I just couldn't figure it out.

[Laffy Kat]

3. Seems like it was easier before everything changed. nt

[LuckyCharms]

8. I don't know...

I have not been here too long. EDIT: Well, I created my account in 2013 and then kind of forgot about it until recently. I don't think I ever did a jury under any other system.

[jberryhill]

4. I probably cancel more often than voting

[hlthe2b]

5. More and more lately, I've had to back out because I simply coul not follow

I need to see much more of the thread than is normally provided and even then I don't always get what is going on.

I miss the days when there was at least a comment provided as to the reason for alert...

[Laffy Kat]

7. Me too. That's why I finally mentioned it.

Totally understand the need to protect everyone's privacy; however new system ain't workin' for me.

[coolsandy]

32. A lot of great posters were suspended or banned because Alerters seem to have the upper hand.

[dembotoz]

84. some sacred cows you dare not touch or the alerts comes flying

just be careful

[Snake Plissken]

6. If there's not enough evidence to convict I always acquit

[Jim Beard]

19. That has been my policy too!

[MyOwnPeace]

39. "If the post don't fit.......

you must acquit!"

(Sorry, O.J, your legal team made it ours forever!)

[Kaleva]

45. Yep. That's how I handle it.

if the post doesn't clearly violate the rule, then I vote to let it stand.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Same Here

And when i do have to vote to purge, i often go with the "close call" option. Unless it's really obvious, and the violation is clear, i'm prone to allow it as well.

[Xolodno]

9. Yeah...it really makes it tough...

I think the only jury I've ever felt confidant on was one where I had just viewed the thread...and recognized the content.

Another irritant, not knowing how it went. If I voted for or against...it was handy to know if I was reading too much into it or not enough, some subjects, I just really don't give a shit about. But would like to know if I was off base in a landslide.

[canetoad]

10. The DU Terms of Service

Are pretty clearly set out.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

In most cases you can read a post, ask did it violate the particular term of service in the alert, and on face value of the alerted post alone, make a decision; Yes/No/Maybe/Probably.

I rarely need to look for background or context, only the text of the alerted post. To search for motive, mitigation or excuses is the path to insanity.

[tymorial]

72. Half the time it is just bickering and whining

And honestly sometimes you can see both sides. The post kind of breaks the rules but not entirely and it's obvious that the flag was sent out of disagreement of point rather than breaking the rules. That is my experience with jury anyway

[hlthe2b]

74. Oh, please... Some use those as a cudgel-- applying to even satirical comments or even

the most oblique references to the last election/primary season in the most hyper-literal way. I do not, in any way, believe the admins meant for us to abandon common sense and that means CONTEXT.

[canetoad]

78. Life is too short

To go searching for context in juried DU posts!

[hlthe2b]

82. well, on that we can agree.... So, I back out after about my fifteenth jury request each day...

[canetoad]

83. Tell me about it!

And doesn't that screen pop up at the most inappropriate times?

I understand what you're saying and ocassionally need to look a little further to make a fair decision. Most of the time, my method reduces time and stress.

[Codeine]

91. Bludgeon. nt

[hlthe2b]

93. Cudgel... corrected. (iphone spellcheck)

[George II]

96. The TOS also prohibits discussing rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, rules, enforcement, juries.....

.....hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated.

[canetoad]

103. Didn't you mean to reply

To the OP?

[True Dough]

11. I have exited yet, but I came really close once

Had to re-read the posts a couple of times to really get the context.

What I encounter more often is the "no refighting the primaries" complaints and the flagged post violates the rule, but so do some of the posts that came before it. It's just a matter of one person bothered to alert and the other didn't.

Oh well.

[Brother Buzz]

12. The "Can't we skip forward to when he "sincerely" apologies..." alert?

The context, unfortunately, is in another thread by the OP. An OP that wasn't well received by DU, which was a weak sauce apology for an even uglier OP.

[Laffy Kat]

15. That was the one!

Oh well.

[Brother Buzz]

21. I was totally dialed into the background on that one so I understood the witty snark response

FWIW the alert failed.

[Shrike47]

13. I often find them extremely puzzling. There's simply not enough there.

Also, I don't recognize some of the current insults. Urban slang dictionary is extreme helpful.

[ecstatic]

14. Yeah. A couple of times. If it's too confusing, I just exit. lol nt

[LeftInTX]

16. Happens to me alot

Another thing that gets me is: A post is alerted on, but the problem post is higher up in the thread.

[Laffy Kat]

17. Why can't we see it when we "expand all"? nt

[kentuck]

29. Yep.

I noticed that also.

[CTyankee]

18. I do that more and more.

It is getting too hard to figure out truth and/or sincerity. I try hard to do the job but I can't in good conscience vote where I don't know the answer...

[kentuck]

30. It's impossible to figure out without thelink to the thread....

so it can be analyzed.

Often, the post that has been alerted is not the offending post.

It needs to be changed.

[FormerOstrich]

20. I am so glad you started this thread

There have been many times I thought I must be just too stupid to understand.

Then there was one that I had misread the post (I don't remember all the details) and didn't "get it" until I was reading the thread the next day.

I do wish we could see the results like when the jury first started.

I cringe when the request pops up....but now I'll remember I am not entirely alone!

[spiderpig]

27. I am too. I used to vote as best I could

but now I find as I'm getting selected several times a day I just don't want to participate.

It seems people are going out of their way to be offended. I'm sure that statement will be offensive to some, and they'll complain.

One of the reason we're Democrats is that we don't march in lockstep and healthy debate is welcome. I now find myself constantly editing before posting because a misused pronoun might send someone into an uproar.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Ain't that the truth! Use the wrong word in someone's mind, which they then use to mangle

the meaning you intended and look out... the "sharp knives" come out!!

I've never even THOUGHT of alerting on a post, though, no doubt, there are those that clearly deserve to go to the jury. I just leave it to others, I guess, to take care of cleaning up the mess people leave behind... kinda like the peeps at the circus who follow behind the elephants.

[Buns_of_Fire]

46. ...

[sarah FAILIN]

43. People alert for nothing now imo

IMO there are people that are not dems trying to isolate us by disbanding the board 1 person st a time.

[rusty fender]

22. Happens to me, too

especially when I have to determine if something is a right-wing talking point or conspiracy theory; how am I supposed to know what right-wing talking points and/or conspiracy theories are out there

[fierywoman]

23. Yes, it happened to me too.

[Solly Mack]

24. Same here.

[PufPuf23]

25. DU should just go back to Moderators and do away with the jury system.

I serve on juries nearly every day, sometimes two and three.

The situation is usually that the rules and format pretty much determine one's ruling unless one rules on personal emotion than fact.

Far too often the situation is wtf? because it is so hard to get the issue complete and in context from what is provided (and on these I opt out).

I also do not like not knowing the result of the jury. A learning moment is lost, at least to the involved juror.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. We Agree And Disagree

Being a mod is a burden. The jury system spreads that out, and like you i'm on one to three nearly every day.

So i don't want to go back to mods.

However, i would like to be able to link to the thread, as long as there was a way to remove the username from all the posts. The current system was intended to prevent hiding posts from being a personal thing, which i like. But, not being able to read the whole thread and see where the thing started and how it built to a potential alert is inconvenient.

Me, i don't care about knowing the result. I'm not going to change the way i review these things based upon my "success rate"

So, mostly we're on the same page, but we differ on details.

[kcr]

106. Oh, hell yes.

And for a while, I thought at least the system had been improved but now I'm not so sure. I think too many just try to game it. It often gets rid of the more obnoxious posts but it takes out some good people with it with the awful, arbitrary FFR system. It really just seems like you're just taking your chances every time you post unless you stick to extremely safe subjects. It's ridiculous.

[Goonch]

26. 12

[Laffy Kat]

89. .....

[kentuck]

28. I left for the same reason.

I no longer can participate in this "jury" system.

It is not fair.

[Kaleva]

33. Don't bother with context. Just look at the alerted post itself.

If the post does, in your view, violate the rule it was alerted on, then vote to hide.

If there's ambiguity, then follow Skiner's advice and let it go.

[kentuck]

36. Not good enough.

In my opinion. There has to be some context or it is useless.

[Kaleva]

44. I think people make this much harder then it needs to be.

The alerted on post either violates the rule or it doesn't.

[phylny]

34. When I'm confused, I open a new tab, go to DU and search for the post/thread in question.

Then I can read the alerted post in greater context. Sometimes the post that's alerted on is the mildest in the thread. If the entire thread is one big taunt-fest, it helps to know that.

[kentuck]

38. There may be the solution?

Just put a link that the jury can read. It would be more fair, in my opinion.

[SharonClark]

49. I do that, too.

[mia]

58. I do the same thing, when I have time.

The taunt-fests are usually about refighting the primaries.

[Madam45for2923]

35. woohoo night crew! I don't recognize most names. Ab jury duty. I have never had to exit.

Laffy Kat
0. I just exited a DU jury service because I didn't have a clue.
View profile
After seeing the only two posts allowed when I "expanded" I still didn't understand the context. I had to exit because I was incapable of coming to a conclusion with what I had to go on. Has this happened to anyone else, or am I just dense?

[kentuck]

37. It's difficult to be fair with so little information.

It's a matter of conscience.

[Ilsa]

40. Happens to me a lot.

I don't understand why something is alerted. Seems like petty alerts.

[Vogon_Glory]

41. I've had the same problem when trying to judge posts

I used to get empaneled a lot for jury service here. Under the older, pre-hack system, I could read the allegedly offending post, then go back and see the context in which it was written. Now I can't. I also feel that I'm far less able to make informed, fair decisions than I used to be.

[kentuck]

42. I agree with you, Vogon_Glory.

Everyone wants to make an informed and fair decision.

[tblue37]

47. Yes, occasionally. nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

48. Juries are incredibly simple.

Here in this thread, you have people saying they shop around to read the thread in its entirety, or are looking for more context; That's unnecessary when doing jury duty on an individual post. You're not Jurying the thread, or a subthread, or a line of thought, you're jurying -one- post and only the content of that post. If that post breaks the rules, regardless of outside circumstances, it's not within the purview of the jury.

Two people going back and forth, attacking one another? Doesn't matter, hide it. Post bashes a Democratic public official? Doesn't matter. Hide it. I've had posts stand that were blatant, direct personal attacks and -nothing- else ("You are less than me as a person and your opinion doesn't matter" comes to mind) and the jury votes to leave it not on the merits of the post but because they agreed with or just liked the person who posted it.

Our job as jurors is to maintain the community standards. "Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate." The alerter is given the option of tagging -why- they think a post is against the CS or ToS, and that's all the context you need. You don't need to know the "why" of why I call a poster "Insert stock insult here", nor do you need to try to discern my motivation or if the poster in question "deserved" it or was "asking" for it. Our job is simply to decide whether or not breaks the CS/ToS.

I've had to hide people I have agreed with simply because the individual post broke the rules. There's no context to it, or partisanship, it's just the duty we have being on a jury. If the post in question breaks the rules or community standards (not the subthread, or the personality involved, or the entire thread), hide it. Otherwise, let it stand.

[betsuni]

50. Maintaining community standards:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511459520

[Decoy of Fenris]

55. And?

The community decided it was up to snuff. Do I regret what I said in that post? Not a bit. I knew what I was saying, I typed it, I edited it and I hit the post button with the 100% certainty that it -would- have been hid. I knew the consequences of it full well, and the community decided that it didn't break the standards they expected.

Would I have voted to hide it? Damn right. But the jury didn't, and that's my point: Jurors decided not on the post itself, but the atmosphere and context of the posts around it, and decided "This post is not as bad as [others]".

If anything, your linked thread should be a standing testament to the point I made in this thread: Judge the post, not the context.

[betsuni]

56. "Madame Secretary ... kindly go fuck yourself with a brick."

Oh right, this is "constructive criticism."

[Decoy of Fenris]

57. You can flog that horse all you want but it ain't going anywhere.

The Community Standards are what they are, and to stay on point to the OP, if a post doesn't meet the standards set by the population of the forum, it will be hidden. Getting further context is irrelevant to our duty as jurors.

[betsuni]

59. Yah, telling Hillary Clinton to go fuck herself with a brick isn't hurtful, rude, insensitive,

over-the-top or otherwise inappropriate.

[Decoy of Fenris]

60. Nope, it's still dead, oddly enough. o.O

Since you seem intent on straying off-topic, I'm going to withdraw from this and wish you nothing but the fondest.

Have yourself a great day.

[betsuni]

63. With a brick?

[ehrnst]

68. Bam!!!

[still_one]

110. Thank you betsuni for standing up to those who believe that making violent innuendos against women

is cool, BECAUSE IT ISN'T COOL, and suggests some very dark latent tendencies in those who make such statements

[ehrnst]

70. +1000 (nt)

[betsuni]

77. Can you imagine if such things were said about certain other politicians.

[lapucelle]

94. Don't be so harsh.

Nothing wrong with feminist allies speaking for the womenfolk in their lives.

[betsuni]

100. LOL

[Eliot Rosewater]

80. Please tell me the person who said that is NOT, I repeat is NOT allowed on this board?

Because if they are, then I dont understand anything anymore.

[betsuni]

97. It's incredible.

[mcar]

90. That is illuminating

And horrific. Thanks for keeping track, betsuni.

[betsuni]

98. It IS horrific.

Disgusting.

[George II]

64. Speaking of which, you should re-read the TOS carefully.

[Decoy of Fenris]

65. Already ahead of ya, mate. :) n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

81. I am STUNNED that a person who would say that about our party's fucking LEADER

is not banned.

And I cant mention anything about last year , yeah, that makes sense IN NOWHERE on earth




As much as I like to vent here, I dont think I can continue if people like that are allowed here.

[mcar]

92. 2016 was the most distressing and frustrating

time on this board for me. I've never experienced anything like it. And I will say no more.

[Eliot Rosewater]

95. I was gonna make a statement about how certain comments put us where we are

today, but I cant do that here on Democratic Underground





And we WILL repeat that which we are not allowed to discuss.

[betsuni]

99. +1

[kcr]

105. This is just too much n/t

[Ninga]

52. Yes. I expand and read through. Sometimes I vote for a not quite because there are

many other posts just as egregious or worse.

I miss being able to comment on why I voted as I did.

[DUgosh]

54. Fair decisions can no longer be made

With the limited amount of information we are given.

[stonecutter357]

61. The posters names are hidden for a reason.

[Nay]

62. No, you're not crazy. I've exited out of several because I couldn't understand how

the comment even related to the supposed violation in any way.

[kentuck]

66. And when you go back and read the thread...

..many times you see other posts that might be more offensive. It looks as if the wrong post was alerted. It's a waste of time.

[Nay]

67. That, too! Very confusing!

[mercuryblues]

73. When that is the case

I vote to not hide.

[PDittie]

69. This thread and all the responses in it are a violation of the TOS

Don't interfere with forum moderation

Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum).

Why we have this rule: The purpose of Democratic Underground is to discuss politics, issues, and current events. Open discussion of how the website is run tends to distract from our core purpose.

I know this because I've had a post hidden for discussing juries. Quire recently.

Don't worry; I'm not alerting on anybody.

[fescuerescue]

86. So we can't talk about what we aren't supposed to talk about

Cool. Kinda like Fight club

[PDittie]

87. That's exactly right.

[tymorial]

71. Nope

It happens often. More often I just don't care about the complaint or the post in question...

I.e. someone is posting about Sanders or rehashing the primaries, petty bickering ensues, someone gets offended and demands satisfaction (post removal)... rinse repeat.

[mercuryblues]

75. I very rarely exit

or have that problem. The idea is to decide the merits of the post. Not if the poster was goaded into saying what they said. pretty much like this:

I don't agree with what you said = don't hide

anyone who says that is a jerk = hide; barely breaks the rule

only a fucking asshole would say that = hide; obviously breaks the rule

It doesn't matter what the person said at all. Even if it was offensive. I have actually gone to the thread/OP and alerted on the previous post. Even though I voted to hide the post in question.

[Evergreen Emerald]

76. I have had the same thing happen.

I did not have enough information to make a decision.

[Brainstormy]

79. Happened to me a lot

I now refuse Jury service

[fescuerescue]

85. I've not yet been invited to be on a jury

But the notion of convicting or acquitting someone sounds extremely serious - untill I put it in the context that its about an Internet post on an Internet chat board.

[OriginalGeek]

88. the canned reasons alerters have to choose from are insufficient

People who alert should at the very least have to explain why they alerted. I understand turning off juror comments and I understand why admin switched to this version of the alert system but sometimes I need to know WTF the problem is. If it isn't painfully obvious to me I vote to let it stand.

[northoftheborder]

109. I often serve on juries

about half the time I exit without judging because of confusion about what the alerted thread was actually saying, or the whole context was just a bunch of ranting back and forth- childish grumbling.

[rzemanfl]

102. Happens to me frequently. Particularly since jury duty seems to come up when I have

been away a while. "Dense" may apply to some of the people who alert.

[kcr]

104. I usually just vote to let it stay in those cases, but that happens all the time.

It's really hard to tell sometimes.

[ucrdem]

107. This system is faster and probably fairer than the old way

as it's not easy to figure out who is being alerted on, thus making personal bias possibly less determinative. All good, but I liked reading what other DUers thought in the jury comments, and didn't mind that they occasionally got posted in the threads, even when I'd really prefer they weren't. No permanent damage. And I personally thought the Metaforum was brilliant and would love to see it return.

[janx]

108. It happens.

If the context makes no sense to me, I do what you did: I exit. But most of the time, enough context is there to choose from the options available.