General Discussion

BainsBane

(55,244 posts)

354. Excellent point

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 03:05 PM

Mar 2014

It's really a function of not liking the person's opinions, which should not be in any way relevant to whether or not a post meets community standards (unless of course it's RW or bigoted). I am obviously one of the posters that many people dislike, which means I get alerted on ALOT and I get juror comments making clear the person is voting because of how they view me or my opinions rather than whether I actually insulted someone. I know I am not alone in this. I've seen many similar comments on juries I've served on. People will also vote based on their view of the person being attacked. An insult, even a F U, against someone a juror doesn't like is allowed to stand by justifying it as the person "deserved it." That is a clear violation of a juror's responsibility. It isn't a vote for homecoming king or queen. It's meant to simulate an impartial and fair juror of one's peers.

I'll also admit that the more I see these sorts of comments, that the less concerned I become in exercising fairness as a juror, and I'm guessing I'm not alone on that. The issue of personal animus and bias infects the entire jury system. I would bet if we posted some random posts, without names, that have been hidden and ones that haven't, people would have a difficult time telling which were actually hidden.

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