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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Should Democratic Underground switch to seven-person juries? [View all]
This topic has been discussed a number of times in the Ask the Administrators forum, and the DU Admins have discussed it here in the office repeatedly over the last two years. Currently, if a community standards alert is sent, it is evaluated by a jury of six DU members. Should we increase the number of jurors to seven? This would likely have the following effects:
- There would be no more 3-3 ties. Every alert would result in a majority decision.
- There would be a modest increase in the number of posts that get hidden. If the number of alerts stays constant, and if we assume that approximately half of the current 3-3 ties end up as hides, then the number of additional hidden posts per day would be less than five. Possibly two or three.
- There is a chance that the total number of alerts might increase. Some people have stated that the current difficulty in getting posts hidden acts as a disincentive to send alerts. It is conceivable that alerters might have a greater incentive to alert when the chance of getting a post hidden increases, and would therefore send more.
- Democratic Underground would probably see a modest increase in civility, for two reasons. First, uncivil messages that are posted would be more likely to be removed (and the authors of those posts blocked out of threads). And second, people would be less likely to post uncivil messages in the first place due to the increased likelihood that they could get hidden.
- There might be a modest increase in "misfires" or perceived misfires, in which juries hide posts based on some sort of misunderstanding. This occurs rarely, and would likely remain rare.
(Note: This poll has two options -- you can either vote to change to seven-person juries, or you can vote to keep six-person juries. If you came to this thread hoping to discuss the merits of the jury system as a whole, I want to make clear that it is here to stay -- we are not getting rid of it.)
245 votes, 13 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
Yes, switch to seven-person juries. | |
206 (84%) |
|
No, stay with six-person juries. | |
39 (16%) |
|
13 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
387 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You can chose to not serve on juries by clicking "Willingness to serve on Juries" to off
uppityperson
Mar 2014
#123
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
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
That's my reasoning, too. Sometimes it takes too long to find enough willing jurors.
randome
Mar 2014
#10
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
That is correct pipi_k, everyone should look into the discussion to make a decision
mrdmk
Mar 2014
#222
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
I think more of my own alerts should result in hidden posts, but I also think
struggle4progress
Mar 2014
#16
I'm not interested in your assessment of who is or isn't an acceptable human being
BainsBane
Mar 2014
#364
But those comments can be alerted on by anyone who sees the jury verdict,
winter is coming
Mar 2014
#353
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
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
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
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 would say we should go to 7 jurors but drop the amount of votes needed for a hide to '3'
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#370
Thank goodness Skinner and EarlG generously provide delicious catering during our
myrna minx
Mar 2014
#316
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
If the current system is perceived as a disincentive to alerts, then based on the number ...
11 Bravo
Mar 2014
#45
I've made that argument before but someone pointed out to me that I was forgetting to count
seaglass
Mar 2014
#57
5 members would be better, easier to form a jury and reduce the use on members.
CK_John
Mar 2014
#62
I ALWAYS click to see what was hidden. I'm also disappointed when someone is banned...
Blanks
Mar 2014
#148
I disagree with your premise that the alerter is analogous to a jury member and thus has a vote....
xocet
Mar 2014
#103
As others have pointed out, while the alerter is a HIDE vote, the poster is a LEAVE vote. nt
MADem
Mar 2014
#136
Yes, but please add a penalty for people who make a habit of frivolous alerts
BlueStreak
Mar 2014
#82
No hiding posts is an extraordinary move and I dislike the idea of making it easier
Kurska
Mar 2014
#89
I like that idea, most trolls should be caught by the time they hit 500
Flying Squirrel
Mar 2014
#252
If you want to buy a star, you have to mail a payment with the name of the designated DUer.
CrispyQ
Mar 2014
#109
I think the idea is that people are "invested" so they get a perk of membership.
MADem
Mar 2014
#139
If everyone refused to serve on juries, DU would have to get a new moderating system.
CrispyQ
Mar 2014
#107
No. As the pool of qualified jurors diminishes, the frequency of jury duty goes up.
lumberjack_jeff
Mar 2014
#113
No strong opinion either way. Could we try for a bit, on a "trial" basis and then talk again?
uppityperson
Mar 2014
#129
Your original rationale for 3-3 was well thought out. I think it still makes the most sense.
rug
Mar 2014
#163
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
Ahhh, you mad bro? What type of person gets mad about it? Nap time maybe??? n-t
Logical
Mar 2014
#194
Think you're projecting your own emotions, kiddo. It's just a poll about housekeeping stuff.
DirkGently
Mar 2014
#199
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
Especially since (in my case) I was banned from posting in that thread any more
rpannier
Mar 2014
#274
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
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
so, does this mean you think that there aren't enough posts being hidden?
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2014
#237
Something is wrong when folks are wringing their hands that it is too hard to block a person from
TheKentuckian
Mar 2014
#248
What's the point if perma-propagandists are allowed to soil everything?
Corruption Inc
Mar 2014
#255
I think a 7th juror is a great idea ... as would be having the alerter's name on alerts. nt.
polly7
Mar 2014
#282
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
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