I turned down DU jury duty for the first time. I've done jury duty at least 100 times before but...

[BamaRefugee]

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2020, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)

this time, I just couldn't.
I don't want to get in trouble for posting about forum rules, so I'll state outright that I don't disagree with them. I support them. And that's part of why I opted out.
We are not supposed to bash Democratic figures on the forum. Fine. But that's what the jury was being asked to rule on. And something I've been thinking about for a long time prevented me from clicking the "yes I'll do it" button.
Those thoughts are about a certain female Presidential candidate. She's not a Senator. She comes from a place surrounded by water. But she gets savaged all the time here on DU. I don't in any way support her, in fact as soon as I became aware of her and did research, I knew that no way was she someone I wanted to become President. I could go so far as to say that most of the attacks on her are pretty much right on.
BUT...she's a Democratic public figure, so why is it ok to attack her all over DU? Or are there hundreds of juries passing judgement on posts about her and I just don't know about them?
Bottom line, I just couldn't see myself doling out punishment to someone for a forum infraction that I see going apparently unpunished all the time. It would have made me feel,ugh, REPUBLICAN doing that!

[hlthe2b]

1. I'll just say that during primary season...

a lot of rules seem to be at conflict with each other and the situation.

All we can do is to do our best.. (or back out if unable)

[rzemanfl]

2. Bookmarking

[SpankMe]

3. Jury service helps keep maintain some level of sanity around here.

If the post bashes that individual, and you want to follow the letter of the law, then vote that it does - even if the bashing seems warranted. This helps greatly with overall forum moderation.

I've been a juror on flagged posts that could be interpreted as bashing a Democratic figure. If it was true mindless bashing (subjective, I know) then I vote that it was bashing. But, if it was thoughtful opposition, then I vote that it didn't.

After a nominee is selected and we get closer to the election, I'll tighten up my criteria to vote down more posts that could be thought of as bashing - for unity's sake.

[hunter]

4. I turn down jury duty for any post about Bernie Sanders.

[Hoyt]

5. Almost always vote to leave posts alerted on. Too many Alerts are

on posts that deserve consideration, even if I — and others — immediately discount it as BS.

Threats, promoting GOPers, etc., are an exception. But that doesn’t happen often.

[The Polack MSgt]

6. Everybody brings their own views and thoughts to this forum

I get your point. Where exactly is the line between debating pros and cons of a candidate and BASHING a candidate?

I just do my best to be consistent - Whether I like a person or not, every group of supporters should have a consistent playing field.

So I usually err on the side of allowing posts that technically violate the bashing rule.

Unless it's really egregious

[LonePirate]

7. Wait. Someone reported a post that bashed a candidate besides Biden?

I learned something new today.

[BamaRefugee]

8. I don't know, didn't see the actual post before I opted out. But I like your point ;-)

[msongs]

9. hardly ever vote down a juried post unless its a personal attack. nt

[NewJeffCT]

10. I have never done jury duty and won't

I don't feel right judging other people's content.

[MarcA]

11. The jury system is used to censor unpopular views. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

15. I would say that depends upon the jurors.

Like the person above, I err on the side of leaving posts as they are unless it is an obvious personal attack. That has no place here. If I am not 100% certain of my vote, I excuse myself from jury duty.

I have lost count of the number of posts I disagreed with, some rather profoundly, that I voted to leave as is.

[MarcA]

18. Unfortunately, not all are as unbiased when it comes to "personal" attacks. n/t

[jcmaine72]

12. I don't do jury duty here at all. I have my own reasons. n/t

[Hekate]

13. First, just to get this out of the way:I don't think you're interfering with forum moderation to ask

...this question.

But to address your concerns as best I can:

I think it's legitimate to raise concerns about candidates' long-established public records, and people do that all the time with both Biden and Sanders, since they've both been in the public arena some 40 years. I may or may not agree with the conclusions of the observers, but as long as they're civil and truthful, fine.

But in extreme cases, I think it is legitimate for DUers to not just vet candidates but sometimes to vet them out, so to speak. We live in dangerous times, and not all are who they present themselves to be. Just as anyone can call themselves a Christian, anyone can call themselves a Democrat -- behavior to the contrary. Sometimes there are even people who swear an oath of allegiance to this country but whose allegiance remains elsewhere (Lev and Igor cough cough).

In the case you use as an example, what I have chosen to do is keep my personal descriptions brief, though sometimes admittedly sharp, but always linking back to a trove of research from respectable sources.

Finally: I may disagree heatedly with Bernie (since I mentioned him above), but I think he means well. I don't even bother to disagree with Tulsi: I think she does not mean well, and that she is or could be dangerous (see links), so I want to "vet her out." I don't see that as "bashing a Democratic figure," but as providing sources so others can make up their minds.

I take these views to Jury duty, and do the best I can. I trust you do too.

[BamaRefugee]

16. I tried to make clear I wasn't interfering with moderation but, as expected, my post has already

been alerted on.

[MarcA]

19. A prime example of the failure of the DU jury system. n/t

[Hekate]

21. That's why I said what I said in the first paragraph. I think it's a legitimate concern for ...

...the community.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I quite understand your position

In the primary season, I have always looked at a post before deciding whether to continue (and like you, perhaps only 1% of the time do I pull out). But that candidate is one where the conflict between the DU rules and my perception of the candidate is one I cannot resolve.

[AllaN01Bear]

17. ive been asked , but said no, was turned down anyway.

[Beringia]

20. I follow the rules when it comes to bashing

But I see the posts standing, so I know others don't.

[cwydro]

25. Same here.

[lame54]

22. I'll go with Yoda...

Repug in disguise she is

[hvn_nbr_2]

23. Half the time, I want another option: remove the whole f-ing subthread of flames.

When eight responses are just back-and-forth flaming, what's the point of deleting one of them?

Also, there seem to be a lot of frivolous alerts. Some people seem to alert on anything they don't agree with.

Seems like every time I get on DU, I'm on a jury almost immediately.

[nolabear]

27. I feel that way too. The whole conversation is on fire

and somebody wants to slap one hand. I do a lot of jury duty but pass more often these days than I ever used to because it’s like toddlers going at it.

[Omaha Steve]

24. After a review by forum hosts....LOCKING

Per the decisions and instructions of the DU Admins, all OP's regarding Democratic candidates for the Party's nomination for President are to be posted in the Democratic Primaries Forum. Please post your OP there. Thanks

[Omaha Steve]

26. Unlocking

[nolabear]

28. LOL! Thanks Steve. Indicative of how fraught it is.