DU Juries: Is the Accused Given a Chance for Self-Defense?

[Voice for Peace]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Stinky The Clown (a host of the General Discussion forum).

There are always two sides to a story.

It bothers me when I have to make a decision on a jury,
and the accused can't defend his/her post.

4 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Poll closed
	Accused has right to self-defense before jury renders verdict
	4 (100%)
	Accused has forfeited his/her right to self-defense, by being offensive to somebody
	0 (0%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[HooptieWagon]

1. And the ID of the accuser (alerter) is unknown.

I think there are a number of chronic alerters who abuse the jury system.

[Voice for Peace]

3. That's an interesting point. Someone must be keeping tabs on that, right?

So many of the alerts are frivolous, or part of a long-
standing feud which makes no sense to jury out of context.

But sometimes there's a post for which I'd like to hear
both sides in order to make a decision.

[TroglodyteScholar]

15. I've been on dozens of DU juries, and only a small number were frivolous alerts.

I end up agreeing with the alerter 4 times out of 5.

Am I being frivolous?

[Voice for Peace]

17. My experience has been different, more like 50-50.

many which seem either frivolous, or just part of an
ongoing feud. Rather than resolve the dispute, or just
walk away, they alert & hide.

So then the jury, to be diligent, must do the work of reading
the whole ridiculous thread wherein the offending post
is buried, and try to figure out wtf they are disputing about.

It almost always appears both parties, or all parties,
are equally offensive, and wasting my time -- which inspires
me to vote leave it alone.

Other times I want to hear the other person's side,
before agreeing to hide.

[cbayer]

2. I tend to agree that this is the biggest fault in the system and could be remedied pretty easily,

it seems.

If the alert first went to the member being alerted on, they would have the opportunity to edit, self-delet and/or add comments on what the post means.

It could then go to jury with input from both the alerter and alertee, which seems fairer.

[Voice for Peace]

7. yes, I agree

But then I started to wonder, isn't that already in place?

That before going to a juror, the offender gets the
chance to edit?

[cbayer]

10. You don't even know you have been alerted on unless the jury votes to hide.

I think a notice that you have been alerted on would be a good thing.

[Voice for Peace]

13. agree

[former9thward]

4. That would add another unneeded layer to the process.

This isn't life or death. It is just a post on an internet discussion board. Besides anyone can read the post anyway even if the jury rules against them.

[Bjorn Against]

5. None of the above

You can't forfeit what you don't have, and there is no inherent right to self-defense on an internet message board. I would be all for a system in which the person alerted had a chance to defend themselves if such a system could practically be put into place, the problem is that there is no way such a system could work. What happens if the person alerted on stepped away from the computer? How long do you wait for them to get back? A troll would game the system to delay the deletion of the post for as long as possible.

Your post should be able to stand on its own, if you need to explain it then it was probably not a great post that everyone needs to see.

If you have a post deleted it is not the end of the world, don't worry about it and just move on.

[Posteritatis]

6. Meh. The "accused"'s defense is their post, not that it's that important in the first place.

And no competently-run forum drags individual post reports into that sort of paralegal setup anyway. I've seen it tried a few times and it's a disaster without exceptions.

People take this sort of thing far too seriously.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Jury is not deciding on the poster, but the post

The post can be adjudicated according to the standards of posting regardless of intention or any other factors. It sits objectively there. The jury interprets it. There's no need for yet another set of arguments to ensue. Post good posts, and you won't need to defend your posts. This isn't complicated.

[Voice for Peace]

11. ok, maybe an appeals board?

in case someone really really really feels misunderstood?

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. They can appeal to the board of learning how to write more effectively

[Skip Intro]

9. Accused should have a means to respond to the alert.

The alerter should be named as well.

Trials are public.

DU Jury system should be too.

[Voice for Peace]

12. thanks, I tend to agree -- but other posters are making good points

about giving these individual transgressions too much attention.

The jury in my brain is still out.

[TroglodyteScholar]

14. A post stands on its own merits

We, as jurors, have the ability to examine the OP and all subthreads before reaching a conclusion. The poster knows this when they hit the "Post" button. What more needs to be said?

[DisabledAmerican]

18. your system is weird

It's funny how you have a system that allows people to call anyone who doesn't agree with them delusion that starts a flame war just because others had a disagreement with their view point. I mean some of the post I saw here were unreasonable after the Debate night. I do not mind a good back and forward, but to call people delusional just because we have a different view point. I always go on the side to agree to disagree and may calmer heads guide us.

[pinboy3niner]

19. We could refer the matter...

...to separate forums for the defense and the prosecution, a trial forum, and post-conviction appeal and supreme appeal forums.

Because obviously, having a post hidden is just like being incarcerated in prison, and the rights of the accused should be treated with the same gravity.

[porphyrian]

20. It's fair in that it is applied to everyone, and everyone who signs up agrees to it.

I suppose it could be made more fair by giving the accused a chance to defend themselves, but do we really want to spend that much time on people who don't follow the rules they have agreed to?

Also, shouldn't this topic be in Meta- ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I simply refuse to participate in a broken process

either as a juror, or alerter. At this point I just put the offender on Ignore.

The system does not work.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Your thread is righteous, but off topic for GD. Please repost in Meta.

[AzSweet]

23. ImHO..

It works just fine. As someone else pointed out, it is an internet board. The jurors are chosen randomly, and your post is your post..whatever it may be. I have only passed once, because it was clear it was a personal feud, and I'm not going to play a part in those. About 50-50 on the rest. I think its a good, fair system.