General Discussion

xocet

(4,013 posts)

103. I disagree with your premise that the alerter is analogous to a jury member and thus has a vote....

Mon Mar 10, 2014, 03:33 PM

Mar 2014

The alerter is more properly analogous to a prosecuting attorney who has to make his or her case to the jury: it is the alerter who brings the charges. Prosecutors do not vote for conviction in a jury system, so an alert should not be considered to be a latent vote against a post.

Beyond that point, if the implications of your argument are to be fully manifested, how would you count the number of people who have viewed the thread, but who have not sent an alert. By your logic, they should be counted as an overwhelming number of latent DO-NOT-HIDE votes. That would be absurd, because if it were so, no post would ever be hidden without a variable jury size that, at least, offered the possibility of totaling more than the number of latent DO-NOT-HIDE votes. So, for a thread with 1 alert and 1000 views, the jury would have to be ridiculously large to overcome the 999 latent DO-NOT-HIDE votes.

At any rate, I respect the time that you put into your analysis, but I believe it to be faulty.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

387 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should Democratic Underground switch to seven-person juries? [View all] Skinner Mar 2014 OP

Either way's good. Iggo Mar 2014 #1

it increases the amount of people hfojvt Mar 2014 #112

You can chose to not serve on juries by clicking "Willingness to serve on Juries" to off uppityperson Mar 2014 #123

you have served, yourself on 532 juries hfojvt Mar 2014 #273

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

my point, though, hfojvt Mar 2014 #320

i think it diminishes the trolls' effect on juries CreekDog Mar 2014 #340

You ever spend more than a couple minutes on a jury? I haven't. Iggo Mar 2014 #134

Or if it's something you can't be impartial about. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2014 #241

I don't time it hfojvt Mar 2014 #272

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

It's not really that much work. Madam Mossfern Mar 2014 #322

No. All you're doing is changing the statistics... brooklynite Mar 2014 #2

+1 aikoaiko Mar 2014 #78

DU should switch to Decaf 1000words Mar 2014 #3

uh, truedelphi Mar 2014 #92

I wish there were a way for the offending poster to explain themselves NightWatcher Mar 2014 #4

Agree seveneyes Mar 2014 #12

That wouldn't matter. Two people could post the same thing The Straight Story Mar 2014 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #268

Agree. In which Democratic land does accused not have the right to defend? nt griloco Mar 2014 #288

agree, agree, agree nt clarice Mar 2014 #321

No. I think more posts will be hidden. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #5

At the moment, it's sort of a "Tie goes to the runner" idea. (edited) A HERETIC I AM Mar 2014 #6

I voted no just because it would take longer to line up a seven person jury Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #7

That's my reasoning, too. Sometimes it takes too long to find enough willing jurors. randome Mar 2014 #10

Really? How can you tell. joeglow3 Mar 2014 #100

What I wondered pipi_k Mar 2014 #138

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

It is a rather long time, but... pipi_k Mar 2014 #162

Well, kudos for taking it seriously! randome Mar 2014 #171

Same here with the borderline posts. JimDandy Mar 2014 #263

I am the same way in terms of taking time to look at stuff davidpdx Mar 2014 #277

I've taken close to that long when I land in a thread Ms. Toad Mar 2014 #327

That is correct pipi_k, everyone should look into the discussion to make a decision mrdmk Mar 2014 #222

k&r for exposure. Laelth Mar 2014 #8

Yes. JNelson6563 Mar 2014 #9

YES MindMover Mar 2014 #11

I'm indifferent quinnox Mar 2014 #13

An odd number makes more sense to me. TNNurse Mar 2014 #14

I would rather the jury system be changed sufrommich Mar 2014 #15

I would stop participating in juries at all, and here's why: TygrBright Mar 2014 #80

Hi, TygrBright bvar22 Mar 2014 #143

^^Agree. bvar22 Mar 2014 #83

I already do so I'd not have a problem in the world with that. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #120

Me too. Agschmid Mar 2014 #164

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

That's a good point - but IMO anonymous is better Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #156

Yes, anonymous is better. n/t A Simple Game Mar 2014 #157

You'd end up with a much smaller jury pool. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2014 #127

I agree. There would also probably be folks thanking you for not hiding it... Blanks Mar 2014 #144

This^^^^^^^^ ProfessorGAC Mar 2014 #302

Exactly. tammywammy Mar 2014 #314

Message auto-removed L0oniX Mar 2014 #207

I think more of my own alerts should result in hidden posts, but I also think struggle4progress Mar 2014 #16

I voted yes, but would rather see it as... TreasonousBastard Mar 2014 #17

3-3 ties drive me nuts, so yes, 7 is better. eggplant Mar 2014 #18

I'd like to see something done about jurors who vote BainsBane Mar 2014 #19

I was thinking that pipi_k Mar 2014 #118

I agree with you absolutely. It happens a bit too often. RC Mar 2014 #119

Mandatory names of jurors could help a lot with that. Whisp Mar 2014 #135

+100000000 JustAnotherGen Mar 2014 #292

That's An Accusation That Screams for Proof ProfessorGAC Mar 2014 #303

Take responsbility for your alerts and your jury comments Whisp Mar 2014 #312

That wouldn't make them any more fair. Codeine Mar 2014 #176

Agreed seattledo Mar 2014 #377

How would you measure that? Impossible. n-t Logical Mar 2014 #186

Some make it crystal clear in their comments BainsBane Mar 2014 #210

Sort of a administrative nightmare. And open for bias. n-t Logical Mar 2014 #212

Open for bias? BainsBane Mar 2014 #213

Well, people can eliminate people from their juror pool..... Logical Mar 2014 #214

Actully you can, under 'My Account' there is a 'Jury Blacklist' mrdmk Mar 2014 #227

But sometimes pipi_k Mar 2014 #307

Excellent point BainsBane Mar 2014 #354

"I am obviously one of the posters that many people dislike" pintobean Mar 2014 #358

Yes, I understand you would like me to abandon my concerns BainsBane Mar 2014 #359

That's what I'm talking about. pintobean Mar 2014 #361

I'm not interested in your assessment of who is or isn't an acceptable human being BainsBane Mar 2014 #364

Lol, yeah, I'm aware of who the OP is. pintobean Mar 2014 #372

Color me shocked Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #378

This message was self-deleted by its author BainsBane Mar 2014 #382

Didn't see it pintobean Mar 2014 #383

You really are relentless BainsBane Mar 2014 #384

WTF are you talking about? pintobean Mar 2014 #385

What happened BainsBane Mar 2014 #386

I'm very skeptical. pintobean Mar 2014 #387

I actually pipi_k Mar 2014 #379

This message was self-deleted by its author penultimate Mar 2014 #224

I agree with you in principle davidpdx Mar 2014 #278

Some people make it obvious in their comments BainsBane Mar 2014 #349

But those comments can be alerted on by anyone who sees the jury verdict, winter is coming Mar 2014 #353

Indeed, and I often do BainsBane Mar 2014 #356

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

I'm not sure how that matters BainsBane Mar 2014 #365

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

Yes, I read that BainsBane Mar 2014 #369

That's true, but... pipi_k Mar 2014 #380

Exactly Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #329

I think an uneven number of jurors is a good idea. Brigid Mar 2014 #20

Better idea: Have Ron Swanson review posts. Arkana Mar 2014 #21

The more jurors the better Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #22

I know you do not want to hear it nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #23

Your stats were posted in ATA pintobean Mar 2014 #63

I want to hear her espouse more Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #64

Jeez, that's like 1/3 of 1% of her posts. winter is coming Mar 2014 #308

When was the last time you had a post hidden? MineralMan Mar 2014 #75

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

When the Jury system first started I was even happy about it nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #182

I always thought the alerter should get a vote, counted as "hide." Brickbat Mar 2014 #24

I think that's why 3-3 ties get so many people upset Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #48

Agreed. Brickbat Mar 2014 #49

So you give the accuser a vote but not the accused? Makes no sense. Bluenorthwest Mar 2014 #65

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 kinda like that idea, except... cyberswede Mar 2014 #67

So you would hide a post if the alerter was on a vendetta? bluestate10 Mar 2014 #181

Then, would all the people who didn't alert mindwalker_i Mar 2014 #69

But the whole point about juries is that they are supposed to be disengaged! Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #159

Oh god, that's a horrible idea! Codeine Mar 2014 #178

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

The 5 strike rule has worked to make DU more civil pipoman Mar 2014 #25

Yes, but for a reason not cited: Reduces the possibility of "swarming". Scuba Mar 2014 #26

Stop that! You're changing my mind. RC Mar 2014 #121

What we need is a 200 person jury pool. Glassunion Mar 2014 #27

...and the jurors should be sequestered klook Mar 2014 #50

WOO! in GD!!!!! MADem Mar 2014 #133

Thank goodness Skinner and EarlG generously provide delicious catering during our myrna minx Mar 2014 #316

Our RL judicial system of juries should be followed RobertEarl Mar 2014 #28

That can't work here BainsBane Mar 2014 #34

You are in favor of hiding decisions? RobertEarl Mar 2014 #66

That looks like a case of BainsBane Mar 2014 #70

Cliques. RC Mar 2014 #124

That's funny pintobean Mar 2014 #71

I've probably posted some BainsBane Mar 2014 #72

I know when I have done it BainsBane Mar 2014 #77

That should never get pass a jury. Separation Mar 2014 #284

Ah, the Gungeon Days. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #286

OMG! oldhippie Mar 2014 #201

I post every jury that I serve on Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #60

It's a shame that "juries" are even necessary at all. NM_Birder Mar 2014 #29

Yes. Or, no. Wait Wut Mar 2014 #30

I say, lets try it pintobean Mar 2014 #31

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

Agreed. It sounds good in theory. riqster Mar 2014 #42

This message was hidden by Jury decision. Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #33

lol quinnox Mar 2014 #36

No - not when you have a 5 strikes and you are out policy The Straight Story Mar 2014 #35

Oh yea, I forgot about the 5 posts hidden and suspension rule quinnox Mar 2014 #41

I disagree on upping the 5 hidden posts. It's already too many imo. cui bono Mar 2014 #145

Hey, not a bad idea. Codeine Mar 2014 #179

I heard Scalia is available rpannier Mar 2014 #275

Oh here we go with the "odd number privilege " underpants Mar 2014 #37

No. Juries need to be unanimous. Period. HuckleB Mar 2014 #38

I think it's worth a try. enlightenment Mar 2014 #39

Yes. Should avoid "hung juries" if we can...nt Wounded Bear Mar 2014 #40

I voted yes, but I'm not sure if this will improve things. closeupready Mar 2014 #43

Pass the Civility, please klook Mar 2014 #44

If the current system is perceived as a disincentive to alerts, then based on the number ... 11 Bravo Mar 2014 #45

Certainly no more than seven. lpbk2713 Mar 2014 #46

although "12 angry DUer's" has a theatrical ring to it. LOL nt Javaman Mar 2014 #53

, blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #47

Counting the alerter, 3-3 is actually 4 votes to hide. So maybe Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #51

I've made that argument before but someone pointed out to me that I was forgetting to count seaglass Mar 2014 #57

I like the tie breaker concept. Javaman Mar 2014 #52

Leave it malaise Mar 2014 #54

No. I like that there is a hurdle to overcome to get posts hidden. Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #55

Not really the case... the one post that I had hidden ScreamingMeemie Mar 2014 #58

Where's the "hell yes" button? n/t wryter2000 Mar 2014 #56

three person juries would solve the hung jury issue as well geckosfeet Mar 2014 #59

Now THAT's what I call taking your chances! Iggo Mar 2014 #221

Three or five. Easier to get a jury. Faster resolutions. No ties. geckosfeet Mar 2014 #242

I think it should switch to 5. For the same reasons as a 7 person. morningfog Mar 2014 #61

If getting jurors is a challenge, then go to five Gothmog Mar 2014 #357

5 members would be better, easier to form a jury and reduce the use on members. CK_John Mar 2014 #62

73 is the perfect number so... randome Mar 2014 #68

Voting for 7 and Kicking. IdaBriggs Mar 2014 #73

I ALWAYS click to see what was hidden. I'm also disappointed when someone is banned... Blanks Mar 2014 #148

I vote for the 7 vote jury on logical grounds... defacto7 Mar 2014 #74

I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this analysis. bvar22 Mar 2014 #86

Interesting article defacto7 Mar 2014 #97

well, it all depends on whether the goat is revealed by accident geek tragedy Mar 2014 #116

Yes.... defacto7 Mar 2014 #153

Your analysis is missing a vote... opiate69 Mar 2014 #94

nice point! defacto7 Mar 2014 #102

Yes, but in your analogy, you've made the prosecutor a juror jberryhill Mar 2014 #104

I don't think I did. defacto7 Mar 2014 #110

Then why did you first make the analogy in your original reply to me?? opiate69 Mar 2014 #117

I was making an example asking whether the murderer defacto7 Mar 2014 #160

Yes that is it exactly. I think as it is now, it is a better system. n/t truedelphi Mar 2014 #253

I disagree with your premise that the alerter is analogous to a jury member and thus has a vote.... xocet Mar 2014 #103

Very nice... defacto7 Mar 2014 #106

The purpose of Jury blacklists is to deny that power to the alerter. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2014 #114

I won't disagree with you on those points. defacto7 Mar 2014 #147

As others have pointed out, while the alerter is a HIDE vote, the poster is a LEAVE vote. nt MADem Mar 2014 #136

OK... but I don't agree. defacto7 Mar 2014 #168

The act of posting is a vote to leave. MADem Mar 2014 #293

That's a reasonable argument... defacto7 Mar 2014 #346

Alerting. Doesn't fit SOP for GD. opiate69 Mar 2014 #76

It would still take the same number of votes for a hide. Four. CBGLuthier Mar 2014 #79

Yes, but please add a penalty for people who make a habit of frivolous alerts BlueStreak Mar 2014 #82

There already is a penalty. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2014 #132

I don't think I have ever seen any unanimous decision BlueStreak Mar 2014 #189

I have. winter is coming Mar 2014 #362

I like your ideas defacto7 Mar 2014 #247

That makes sense. RC Mar 2014 #154

As annoyed as I am with the three stooges system at times, I say no... Scootaloo Mar 2014 #84

DU does the best job at moderating of any site mackerel Mar 2014 #85

I agree, that is why I want to keep the current system n/t Kurska Mar 2014 #96

No per Brooklynite. (nt) TacoD Mar 2014 #87

By all means yes madokie Mar 2014 #88

No hiding posts is an extraordinary move and I dislike the idea of making it easier Kurska Mar 2014 #89

Also every post is indeed a seven person decision already. truedelphi Mar 2014 #93

I like the idea of adding a 7th juror. npk Mar 2014 #90

No, it'll only make it easier for the post police tularetom Mar 2014 #91

There is a person here in town who calls the police dozens of times a day nilesobek Mar 2014 #99

Makes no difference to me DFW Mar 2014 #95

If a 12 person jury is good enough for the real world, a MADem Mar 2014 #98

I like that idea, most trolls should be caught by the time they hit 500 Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #252

One thing I became aware of a few days ago was that one of the reasons Cleita Mar 2014 #101

If you want to buy a star, you have to mail a payment with the name of the designated DUer. CrispyQ Mar 2014 #109

No, they don't do that anymore. MADem Mar 2014 #137

As of when? CrispyQ Mar 2014 #195

Look in ATA. You were never supposed to do that. MADem Mar 2014 #290

Interesting. CrispyQ Mar 2014 #291

They probably think that you are that other person. nt MADem Mar 2014 #297

I think the idea is that people are "invested" so they get a perk of membership. MADem Mar 2014 #139

I am unsure how I feel about this . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #105

If everyone refused to serve on juries, DU would have to get a new moderating system. CrispyQ Mar 2014 #107

It's an excellent idea. In_The_Wind Mar 2014 #108

No. As the pool of qualified jurors diminishes, the frequency of jury duty goes up. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2014 #113

It would mean it takes 57% to hide a thread or post krispos42 Mar 2014 #115

I think the # of jurors should be an odd # bigwillq Mar 2014 #122

This has been suggested many times! nt Logical Mar 2014 #125

I've seen too many bruised feelings when a tie Warpy Mar 2014 #126

I say Yes. thank you, Skinner~ Cha Mar 2014 #128

No strong opinion either way. Could we try for a bit, on a "trial" basis and then talk again? uppityperson Mar 2014 #129

I think if you're going to make changes... one_voice Mar 2014 #130

Try it for 3 months, or 4 months, or 6 months... SidDithers Mar 2014 #131

This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #140

Heh Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #146

I agree with A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #149

Dam ties, I don't have one to match my jacket mrdmk Mar 2014 #238

This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #243

LOL Cha Mar 2014 #266

So many pintobean Mar 2014 #161

This message was self-deleted by its author A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #165

Poetic justice nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #191

Thank you. A-Schwarzenegger Mar 2014 #216

You welcome nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #217

... Cha Mar 2014 #265

It's always Juror # 4 who votes the wrong way. Gormy Cuss Mar 2014 #338

I vote yes, change it to 7 - nt Ohio Joe Mar 2014 #141

I think censorship sucks. PeteSelman Mar 2014 #142

7 Rex Mar 2014 #150

If there has to be a jury system - which doesn't work btw - then yes, 7. cui bono Mar 2014 #151

What you've got works fine. rrneck Mar 2014 #152

Alternet suggestion. What if you allowed the alerted a chance to speak Skip Intro Mar 2014 #155

Your original rationale for 3-3 was well thought out. I think it still makes the most sense. rug Mar 2014 #163

Not the jury, it's the alerters that are the problem. edbermac Mar 2014 #166

One time I actually alerted on the wrong post Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #258

That claim has been made repeatedly, and Skinner has refuted it Orrex Mar 2014 #295

A good idea DonCoquixote Mar 2014 #167

It already requires 4 votes to hide. Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #173

I realize that is how it should work DonCoquixote Mar 2014 #250

I don't buy into conspiracy theories around hides, sorry. Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #257

yes there is DonCoquixote Mar 2014 #259

You probably want to pace yourself, then Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #270

I am generally in favor of this change dsc Mar 2014 #169

I think there should be a per-day alert limit, personally. Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #170

I agree with you nt steve2470 Mar 2014 #175

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

Seems like a "comfort" change to appease frustrated alerters. DirkGently Mar 2014 #174

No downside. And it makes more sense. Win or lose. End of story. nt Logical Mar 2014 #185

Even numbers are good enough for real juries. "End of story." DirkGently Mar 2014 #190

Well, 80% - 20% you are losing this one. :-) Logical Mar 2014 #192

What kind of asshole would view a DU poll as a personal win or loss? DirkGently Mar 2014 #193

Ahhh, you mad bro? What type of person gets mad about it? Nap time maybe??? n-t Logical Mar 2014 #194

You obviously missed my added "winky" emoticon. DirkGently Mar 2014 #196

Sorry it it hurt your feelings. Just a discussion. n-t Logical Mar 2014 #198

Think you're projecting your own emotions, kiddo. It's just a poll about housekeeping stuff. DirkGently Mar 2014 #199

OK, you win. You can respond one more time and I will not! n-t Logical Mar 2014 #202

No, by all means, have the last word. I insist. DirkGently Mar 2014 #203

Yes! nt William769 Mar 2014 #183

Sorry jury system Puglover Mar 2014 #187

80% - 20% - Looks like a clear winner!!!!!!! n-t Logical Mar 2014 #188

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #197

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

Message was hidden by jury decision L0oniX Mar 2014 #205

I have had no problem in getting my posts hidden ... JEFF9K Mar 2014 #206

I say go to 7. tammywammy Mar 2014 #208

Honestly, I think the Jury System as it is Enacted Sucks rpannier Mar 2014 #211

You think that's bad, I was PPR'd for posting a cartoon once Flying Squirrel Mar 2014 #261

Especially since (in my case) I was banned from posting in that thread any more rpannier Mar 2014 #274

I vote yes on one condition: ucrdem Mar 2014 #215

I'm Sympathetic To The Math... But I Still Like... Tie Goes To The DUer... WillyT Mar 2014 #218

Sure. kentuck Mar 2014 #219

Going To 7 Is A Good Idea nt Liberal_Dog Mar 2014 #220

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

Yes, but 4 of the 7 should be drawn from the Lounge. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #226

Misfires could decrease Motown_Johnny Mar 2014 #228

I am for seven but think the jury system is being abused doc03 Mar 2014 #229

yes, I have been called to a number of juries for petty matters Kolesar Mar 2014 #234

I made a what I considered just a harmless joke and was turned in by doc03 Mar 2014 #236

either way--i trust you dembotoz Mar 2014 #230

The all white male jury pool needs to go too Botany Mar 2014 #231

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

Personally I think D.U. samplegirl Mar 2014 #233

This message was self-deleted by its author KoKo Mar 2014 #235

Edited post above to say 7.... KoKo Mar 2014 #249

so, does this mean you think that there aren't enough posts being hidden? Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #237

Sure seems like an overwhelming answer... Wow! Agschmid Mar 2014 #239

I was in one that tied today. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2014 #240

I can see how some alerters feel it's unfair to them as it is. herding cats Mar 2014 #245

Yes. The troll infested, tie prone system was total crapola. nt onehandle Mar 2014 #246

Something is wrong when folks are wringing their hands that it is too hard to block a person from TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #248

+1 Couldn't agree more! B Calm Mar 2014 #323

They're not juries because they are not deliberative. nt Deep13 Mar 2014 #251

I vote for people to stop being dicks. rufus dog Mar 2014 #254

What's the point if perma-propagandists are allowed to soil everything? Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #255

I voted yes. nt awoke_in_2003 Mar 2014 #256

Anything that gets rid of those stupid 3-3 ties is perfect to me. Nanjing to Seoul Mar 2014 #260

go back to the moderator system dlwickham Mar 2014 #262

I suggest a mass-ignore feature to ignore everyone who rec's a post Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #267

no a2liberal Mar 2014 #269

As I see it, defacto7 Mar 2014 #276

How does it still favor keeping the comments? a2liberal Mar 2014 #310

I'm referring to the systematic bias but there are other variables. defacto7 Mar 2014 #348

Interesting a2liberal Mar 2014 #373

Thanks for reading.... defacto7 Mar 2014 #375

There needs to be a way to delete a whole pissing contest at once. Lucky Luciano Mar 2014 #271

Well Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #335

I dont care enough for that. Lucky Luciano Mar 2014 #360

I will vote for ANYTHING that makes this place more civil DrDan Mar 2014 #279

kickety countryjake Mar 2014 #280

This thread needs more Meta Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #281

I think a 7th juror is a great idea ... as would be having the alerter's name on alerts. nt. polly7 Mar 2014 #282

samurai judgment was mitigated through seppuku, y'know. NuttyFluffers Mar 2014 #283

Yes! ColesCountyDem Mar 2014 #285

Bad idea, imo Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #287

Don't see the need as per posts #2, and #170. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #289

Transparency JustAnotherGen Mar 2014 #294

That would actually weaken the jury system, IMO. winter is coming Mar 2014 #301

I guess I'm not afraid of some JustAnotherGen Mar 2014 #309

I'm not afraid. I just don't need their toxic bullshit. winter is coming Mar 2014 #347

Thanks JustAnotherGen Mar 2014 #350

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

Maybe we need a way to appeal bad decisions? Generic Other Mar 2014 #298

It wouldn't hurt to try it out. MineralMan Mar 2014 #299

The alert system is flat out childish amuse bouche Mar 2014 #300

Here's the easy fix pintobean Mar 2014 #324

"Be a grown up" amuse bouche Mar 2014 #326

You claimed that the system is childish. pintobean Mar 2014 #331

"the grown-up thing to do would be to not participate. " amuse bouche Mar 2014 #344

I agree amuse Puzzledtraveller Mar 2014 #339

This place has grown more childish amuse bouche Mar 2014 #345

Somone Else May Have Mentioned This Already ProfessorGAC Mar 2014 #304

Oh don't worry Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #305

Yes, but there will be an additional vote with each alert now kcr Mar 2014 #355

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

Just a quick suggestion. nilesobek Mar 2014 #311

I'm still stuggling to see how juries are better than moderators Matariki Mar 2014 #313

I think many of us have struggled with it. Dawgs Mar 2014 #319

What's the problem with a five-person jury? ancianita Mar 2014 #315

How about get rid of them altogether and bring back down votes. Dawgs Mar 2014 #317

Absolutely. MicaelS Mar 2014 #325

Limit the number of complaints a user can make Android3.14 Mar 2014 #328

VASTLY more important is an appeal process to moderators unblock Mar 2014 #330

Really, it's not that big of a deal Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #332

even you care enough to post about it, lol! unblock Mar 2014 #337

Kick. LOL that this OP was alerted on for not fitting SOP. NYC_SKP Mar 2014 #333

Who alerted? Capt. Obvious Mar 2014 #334

I like to allow alerting members to maintain anonymity. NYC_SKP Mar 2014 #336

My vote was leave as is. blackspade Mar 2014 #342

Yes, I support this ismnotwasm Mar 2014 #343

missed this yesterday, I guess Kali Mar 2014 #352

Too late for me to vote? Jamastiene Mar 2014 #371

anyone who thinks more alerts need to be sent ibegurpard Mar 2014 #374

Does anyone know when this grave defacto7 Mar 2014 #376

After 687 jury stints.... I'm somewhat torn on this hlthe2b Mar 2014 #381