General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSuggestion - If you are a fairly active DUer, use your jury blacklist
I never had one for years, and foolishly expected everyone would treat any alerted posts fairly. All of a sudden, in a week, I got 3 hidden posts, and all were unwarranted and frankly, ridiculous. I then knew shenanigans were going on, and I was being targeted for various opinions that rubbed the wrong way to a certain contingent. I then filled out a jury blacklist, being very strategic about it, putting names down that were likely to be bad jurors and also likely to sit on jurys, and have had no more trouble since. I can once again post freely, without worrying about any thought police trying to get me in trouble. Just some friendly advice. 
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)But rather if the post was offensive.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I get the op completely.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But I don't think I get alerted on too often.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Every once in awhile I will get a pm showing me results.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I have no idea how many are sent on me. Why do you know that information?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
5 days and we work together again in gd hosting.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and I dont seem to catch the alerts before they are pretty much decided.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
GP6971
(37,954 posts)
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It can't do you any harm, and can potentially do a lot of good. So, why not?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I don't have any banned posts currently, but I had a few weeks where I got several banned even though I was well within the site's rules.
When this happens to you, it will probably be preceded by some troll activity. Check the record of each suspected troll. If they have a fair number of posts, they are likely to be picked on a jury, unless they have several banned posts themselves. You can use that to be more selective in whom you ban.
Some of these trolls seem to run in packs that operate during the lighter usage times of the day. I don't know how coordinated they are, but certain if a bunch of trolls happen to be active at 4AM and they decide to alert on your post at that dark hour, there is a better chance that several of the trolls will be selected for the jury. So if you see a pattern of several belligerent users apparently acting together and spending a lot of time on the site, that is certainly a good profile to put on the jury blacklist.
7962
(11,841 posts)And the juries are randomly chosen. Seems like it would be hard to work as a group. But I dont know a lot about the inner working s here, so I may be missing something.
But its easy to piss people off here, too. And I cant help it when I see a blocked post, I always look at it. So far I've only seen a couple that were actually offensive. The others just didnt follow the thoughts of the majority here.
I only have 1 person on my list simply because that member seems to hate EVERYTHING I say.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Is that "organized" or does it just happen organically?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you don't have enemies.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)most "regulars" know who that contingent is, I imagine. 
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)They are often wrong. In fact, Skinner has said the same thing.
In your case, you had a post hidden and then reposted the same thing. If one was hidden, what make you think the second would be okay?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts) Jenoch
(7,720 posts)One of the jurors pointed out the typo and voted to leave it alone. Another DUer called me an asshole.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)let is stand. I was being facetious, but the "bot" had friends. I agree with the OP. Also, put the trouble makers on ignore so you wont be tempted to lash back.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I do not have anyone on ignore. I can do that without any help. I don't really even know how it works.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)respond when the bullies come out.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,672 posts)Those typos will kill ya.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Fozzledick
(3,920 posts)
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)[img]
[/img]
Really ... it was an auto correct. [img]
[/img]
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,592 posts)There's 13 on mine.
I haven't had any alerts in a long time, and have never had a post hidden.......but it's better to be safe than sorry!
We've got the tools.
Let's use them!
Skittles
(171,509 posts)I WILL KICK YOUR ASS
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,592 posts)You would never be on such a list of mine...
Skittles
(171,509 posts)
Paulie
(8,464 posts)Your on another list, that proves it! 
Skittles
(171,509 posts)YES INDEED
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Where is that information available?
MineralMan
(151,162 posts)I think it's too bad it's necessary.
Skittles
(171,509 posts)yup
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)One person got 5 posts hidden yesterday and is flagged for review. They won't be back for 90 days, if at all. There's no point in having that person on your list. But, if they do return after 90 days, they'll have a 100% chance of serving.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)And those duers who are active should have a good idea of who may treat them unfairly.
And you can see what percentage any duer has of serving on juries by their profile.
It only makes sense to put those who have a 100% chance, and who you suspect hold a grudge or will vote to hide just based on dislike.
7962
(11,841 posts)
Ohio Joe
(21,898 posts)I just don't believe it happens all that much.
RC
(25,592 posts)Most of the time the alerts I sit on a jury for, are frivolous or at worst questionable. You have to look at the context to decide.
This is supposed to be a fairly progressive web site. But some here treat the postings, depending on subject, in a stark, black and white manner. What they don't like, is alerted on and/or piled on... I know from being on enough juries. The same members always seem to be involved in the pile-ons.
Ohio Joe
(21,898 posts)"Most of the time the alerts I sit on a jury for, are frivolous or at worst questionable. You have to look at the context to decide."
This is something that gets repeated pretty often and has even been asked about in ATA. I know I've never seen any evidence of it being true and as well, Skinner says it is simply not happening. So unless you can come up with some actual evidence of it, I see no reason to believe it.
"I know from being on enough juries. The same members always seem to be involved in the pile-ons."
Juries are not rigged... I've been on more then a few Juries myself and it's complete non-sense.
RC
(25,592 posts)Others have posted how it is done here.
The evidence is in the jury results sent out.
The subject matter of a post not in agreement with the usual suspects world view, even though there is nothing otherwise wrong with the post. The alerter's comments not fitting the contents of the post. Juror's comments not in tune with the contents of the post.
I could post a few, but then you'd argue otherwise, so why bother?
The pile-ons are from a certain segment of DU. And always seems to be the same people.
Ohio Joe
(21,898 posts)"Others have posted how it is done here."
People have posted how they 'think' it could be done... Yet it is not happening, that is the fact.
"The evidence is in the jury results sent out."
There have indeed been some bad Jury results but not very many... That you might disagree with a given result does not mean it is unwarranted... It means you are not of the same opinion of what belongs here as the majority of DU.
"The subject matter of a post not in agreement with the usual suspects world view, even though there is nothing otherwise wrong with the post. The alerter's comments not fitting the contents of the post. Juror's comments not in tune with the contents of the post."
Again... This is not some group of "usual suspects" that can rig a Jury... It is a fantasy to keep up that argument... You have zero ability to know who is on a given Jury unless they put their name, and very few of us do, so to claim you know who they are is simply not true. Most times, if a post is hidden, it is because it is not appropriate for DU, not because of any one groups thoughts.
"I could post a few, but then you'd argue otherwise, so why bother?
The pile-ons are from a certain segment of DU. And always seems to be the same people."
Repeating the meme of the rigged Jury will never make it true.
RC
(25,592 posts)Most of the people here know who these "usual suspects" are. These people accuse the rest of DU, the same things they are doing. And deny they are doing anything wrong. And just because deny something, does not mean it does not exist.
And no, I am NOT accusing Skinner of lying or being stupid. He is neither. What he does seem to be, is overly tolerant of the behavior of some members though.
In fact... Complete non-sense. It is no "nerve" you have hit, it is simply that you are trying to keep a dead meme alive... Why is that? I do agree that Skinner is overly tolerant of some things but he does not cover them up or lie about them and in the case of the so called 'rigged Jury', he states very clearly that it is not happening. I suspect that those trying to keep it alive are simply deluding themselves into believing that a small group of people have somehow rigged the system against them rather then believe the plain truth that their bullshit is not appreciated on DU by the majority of posters.
nt
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I posted something about trumad coming to save DU from itself (in the context of all the stupid whatever wars) and it went over some heads like a 747 I guess. I don't even think it cast a shadow on them when it flew over. At least 6 people actually thought I was posting something critical of trumad, while more posted their disgust at my dissing a DUer who wasn't here to defend himself.
I guess they missed my post raising a glass in his honor and asking him not to leave, that got over a hundred recs.
So it really doesn't matter sometimes; you buy them books, and they eat the pages... go figure.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I misread sometimes but that is effing ridiculous. Sorry you were misunderstood. It's hurtful.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)but you can at least help your chances, perhaps to a large degree, by using the blacklist.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I think the system would be a lot better if a hide required 5 votes instead of 4. All the nonsense jury verdicts I've seen were on a 4-2 vote. I have yet to see a bad one go 5-1.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)and also wondered what was going on there. It leaves me to wonder what has become of good ole DU. It definitely has changed and not for the better. We're going the way of Ebay. Large, cluttered and watered down with shite. By the way I frequently enjoy your posts.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
penultimate
(1,110 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Bad hide.
maindawg
(1,151 posts)just like everywhere these days.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)At Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:09 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
A few good reasons why being a man is awesome
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024252782
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS:
Both sides in this 'war' need to stop this shit.
This thread, if posted without the intent to disrupt, belongs in the lounge. But its intent is to disrput as is evidence by the "Note to the perpetually outraged brigade".
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:18 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: This is probably the first time the alerter's comments totally changed my mind. "Both sides in this 'war' need to stop this shit. This thread, if posted without the intent to disrupt, belongs in the lounge. But its intent is to disrput as is evidence by the "Note to the perpetually outraged brigade". The alerter is correct
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yeah, I agree with the alerter. If it was just a joke, then the final sentence wouldn't have been included.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Someone is being a tad oversensitive.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: This plays on gender stereotypes and is inappropriate on DU. Misogyny is often masked as "humor". DELETE!!
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Quinnox belongs to the Perpetually Outraged at Women Who Speak their Mind Brigade.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
quinnox
(20,600 posts)let's just say that is a matter of opinion.
Ohio Joe
(21,898 posts)I wonder just how "unwarranted" the other ones were.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)You seem to think you're being treated unfairly, prove it.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Which is also a matter of opinion.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
JohnnyRingo
(20,842 posts)Unless this list was part of a behind the scenes war I'm unaware of, it's something that would be typical on sites like "Bits n Pieces" or "Neatorama". I'm sure most people wouldn't take it as hurtful to women in general or in any way a serious claim of gender superiority.
If there's something personal going on I don't know about, I may understand the slight, but I'm not sure what public good was done by shielding that tongue-in-cheek list from the eyes of adjusted adults.
From my perspective, I may have chuckled inwardly had I stumbled upon it, but I'm positive I would not have paraded around the house thumping my chest like Tarzan after reading it.
I don't think anyone had to actually hide it from me.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The alert results I posted explain that. And the OP got nasty in this very OP as well. Frankly, that shit just needs to stop. It will only stop if the community thinks it should stop. And, in the case I posted and several more the OP is bitching about, they wanted it to stop.
JohnnyRingo
(20,842 posts)I went back and read the jury comments, and I think I understand what's going on now.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Mine is full, but a couple were no longer active and a couple more needed to be added. All fixed now.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
<-Whats the username for that guy?hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
I like DU a lot. Prolly too much.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)where/how is it accessed? 
quinnox
(20,600 posts)This is only for those who might of got a hidden post and thought that it was unfair to them.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)and after clicking it you'll see a line of horizontal tabs. One of them says "Jury Blacklist", and there will be some info there explaining it.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
The Wizard
(13,715 posts)invites disruptions and trolls. I recently had a post removed because I quoted Boy George when I asked Christie to "take it like a man."
Maybe the complainant didn't understand the context to which I referred.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Sounds like something is over the top when clearly it isn't.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It's part of my charm.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)sucks more than anything that has ever sucked before.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)even with posts that have the same violation of DU rules.
Since the Christie scandal broke, most of you have noticed the weight jokes. Very few of them have been hidden. Yet, I have seen posts hidden for that reason. That's a little different from what you are talking about, but it could be true if one of the hides were a 4-2 decision.
I guess if you can figure out who specifically is targeting you, put them on the blacklist. I'm not sure how easy that is with so many users.
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I'm always willing to be enlightened.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)He/she obviously thinks otherwise. It will be interesting to see if the person responds.
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)"Skinner (58,811 posts)
89. Juries arent enforcing TOS.
Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Juries are judging community standards violations. In other words: whatever the community deems to be inappropriate."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=2750
"DU Juries are made up of discussion forum members who have opted to allow themselves to be selected at random whenever a Jury is needed. Juries handle potential violations of Democratic Underground's Community Standards. For more information see the DU Juries section below."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Perhaps that's what you meant by "unless you are talking about TOS violations and juries don't deal with those", but people do send alerts to juries on allegations of TOS (and SOP) violations even though they should be admin/host responsibilities.
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)If checked, the alert would go to Admin for review regardless on whether or not the jury voted to hide. That was removed last October and now Admin reviews every alert for possible TOS violations. Again, it doesn't matter if the jury voted to hide or to leave alone as juries only deal with community standards violations and not TOS.
And we individuals ought to alert on posts we believe violate TOS. The alert will first go to a jury for a vote (because that's the way the system is set up) but even if the jury votes to leave alone, Admin will later look at the alert and take appropriate action if they see fit.
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)
QC
(26,371 posts)If they do not like the person who was alerted on, the post gets hidden.
At least that's how it seems to work in many cases, if not most.
Quite a few people here seem to approach jury duty like ninth graders considering a homecoming court election.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)I've seen on juries where the juror acknowledges an insult but votes to allow it because they agree with the insult. I've started alerting on those jurors,I wish others would too.
QC
(26,371 posts)I've even seen one or two where people admit that they are not willing to hide a post by a particular poster they like.
The jury system is utter and complete crap, and the proof is seen every day in the increasingly dumb and mean tone of this place.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If I knew I certainly would as well.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)with the jury results. Bottom left corner. It opens a message box where you can explain your concerns and send it to admin.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)If enough jurors decide to protest vote all the time it will promote ending this bad idea. The admins review hidden posts and they see how jurors vote.
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)Looking at the results in my in box for the past ten juries I served on, I knew 3 of the alerted on members, 3 had their names removed by MIRT and the remaining 4 members I didn't know.
mythology
(9,527 posts)I don't know that I can be as objective as I feel like I should be. So in those cases I've excused myself from the jury pool.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)How exactly would one "rig" a DU jury?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)But theoretically you could argue that "fake accounts" people who have no such interest that is going on with DU could build enough of a percentage that they end up on juries often. They could get up to 60% on the ability to jury service and a buck (donation) will put you at 100%. One or two of those types accounts on a jury could conceivably change an outcome if they voted to hide. The other scenario is people regardless of what the content will hide it just on the users name alone (outright bias). I think this is much more probable and what the OP is talking about.
Right now the only persons who get the results of a jury are the alerter and the persons on the jury. The person alerted does not see the results unless it is a hide. I'd like to see that changed. People should be aware that there posts are being alerted whether they are hidden or not.
7962
(11,841 posts)Now I wonder how many times I've been alerted. Only had 1 ever hidden, and that jury was a joke.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If someone is alerting a person a lot then maybe someone needs to look into it. The OP said he/she had 3 hides in a short period of time. The thing they don't know is how many alerts there were. My guess is there were more than 3.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)Do you think that a statistically significant number of people are joining and (maybe) donating and building up their post-counts and staying on DU for 200 days and posting 200 times in 90 days all so that the have a chance of having a one-seventh share in deciding the fate of a particular post on the off-chance it's alerted-on and they're selected for the jury?
How many of these enterprising souls to you suspect DU is currently harboring? It would have to be quite a few in order to have any impact worth talking about.
Frankly, it seems like a stretch.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)do you make a jury blacklist? I never knew there was an option for that here.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)you can have up to 15 names there, and they will never serve on any of your juries.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Thanks for the tip, quinnox! 
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Orrex
(67,047 posts)Even more pervasive than Yetis or Mapinguaris.
Number23
(24,544 posts)"alert stalking" and being "unfairly" targeted by juries.
There are some assholes around here (I have personally asked several to put me on ignore) but it just tickles me to no end that the folks with the most INNNNteresting views that they know are not allowed in polite or educated society are always the ones screaming the loudest about being alert stalked or folks trying to "silence" them. Yes, it is all a conspiracy and has absolutely nothing to do with their conduct or truly odious views on certain topics. 
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)You and I, on the other hand, if we have the audacity to post a differing opinion in the wrong place, will get a pile-on and alerts. It happens often enough, one can put together their own list of the 'usual suspects'. It is always the same people. Those are the ones that need to go in your jury Black List.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Who alerts, who is alerted on, number of alerts per day, successful versus unsuccessful alerts, etc.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Even before they eliminated the TOS button on alerts. They said that the TOS button was being misused and they've been looking at every single alert for some time.
Now, maybe they are exaggerating and not examining every alert because of time constraints, who knows? But the people who run this site have said that they review every alert and that "alert stalking" is a boogeyman conjured out of thin air by people with piss poor communication skills and who get their posts hidden. They've also said the same thing about the "paid disruptor" foolishness and the "persona" crap that a few special folks were trying to peddle around here. I really don't understand why they would lie about that.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)An utterly ridiculous hide...and admin took care of the issue. So I can see problems happening...but there's always a way to solve them.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And to be honest, that hide said much more about the person who alerted and his crew than it did about you.
So yes, it does happen every now and again but not nearly as much as some folks want to pretend it does. But it just tickles me pink to see folks who can have a post with four words in it and five of them are profanities, or who are simply incapable of not launching the most needless personal attacks, or (my personal favorite) say the most questionable things that are damn near mirror images with slightly better spelling of what we see from our Freeper friends (and we ALL know who they are) that are always the ones running around screaming that they are being "targeted." These folks make Glad Wrap look like lead, they are so transparent.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Kaleva
(40,341 posts)I had a post hidden back in the summer 2012 but none since and as I said in the title, I am unaware of a single post being alerted on.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)HEEHEE
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,812 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)
of a poster with less than 5 hidden....
type in the name, then
This message was hidden by jury decision,
in quotes...
"xxxxxxx This message was hidden by jury decision"
Otherwise, never mind, carry on....
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)A-Schwarzenegger
(15,812 posts)You're welcome!
seaglass
(8,185 posts)
uppityperson
(116,015 posts)
groundloop
(13,803 posts)Think about it... Juries are picked randomly from most of the DU members, what are the chances of getting 4, 5, or more jurors on the same jury, all from that "contingent"?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)A 100% chance of serving means they will be on a lot of juries.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I've had 100% chance since nearly the start if DU3, and I've served on 573 juries. However, I've only served on 3 in January and 12 in December. There are significantly fewer alerts since the new rules, so fewer juries for everyone.
The idea of multiple jurors from a specific "group" of DUers judging a single post is a fantasy.
ETA: by the way, there are typically a couple dozen alerts in a 24-hour period, and I think there's a several-hour wait before a juror can serve again, so people don't usually sit on many juries on a given day.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)A 4-2 decision hide could be a 3-3 tie, which makes the post "leave alone", so even one juror who votes in bad faith can make a big difference.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)and it seems to me if 3 people (plus one "bad-faith" voter) feel a post should be hidden, they may have a point.
quinnox
(20,600 posts) cyberswede
(26,117 posts) seaglass
(8,185 posts)
JVS
(61,935 posts)
petronius
(26,696 posts)and I've been off-line more than usual in the past few weeks, but I do feel like jury calls have slowed down a bit. I'm also feeling more disinclined to vote 'Hide' now that there are stiffer consequences - I'm really reserving that vote for the most egregious of offenses (which has left me on the losing side of more than one 5-1 hide recently)...
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)Orrex
(67,047 posts)You seem to perceive that you are the target of malicious alerters and juries. Do you feel that Skinner is incorrect?
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)He said it wasn't a problem, which isn't the same thing. I'm satisfied the methods they have implemented are twarting alert stalkers in most instances which is why it isn't a problem, but the very reason they have had to take action to prevent it suggests they are out there.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Star Member Skinner (58,762 posts)
1. The alert stalking claim is bogus.
The number of alerts is very small, and even if they don't result in a hidden post the vast majority of them are legitimate. Certainly some people alert more than others, but we don't see anyone doing it in a manner that is abusive. Yes, some alerts are occasionally bogus, and yes sometimes people alert on other people multiple times -- I have even done so myself from time-to-time. But the system has shown itself repeatedly to be self-regulating -- juries rarely if ever hide posts that do not deserve to be hidden, and if a person sends an alert that is found to be bogus they temporarily lose their ability to alert.
The alert stalking claim persists because some people here want it to persist. They don't want to consider the possibility that their own posts were hidden because they deserved to be hidden on the merits.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=4510
BOGUS. is what he said.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Now why would regulation be required if they aren't out there?
We've had this conversation before. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by repeating yourself.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Bogus.
He would know.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Which I agree with and have told you before. You are barking up the wrong tree.
kcr
(15,522 posts)with blacklists for members and and percentages of chances of serving on juries, and then is surprised that so many have this perception of alert stalking? He shouldn't be.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)Or else it's their proxies, complaining on their behalf. Witness yesterday's front-page lamentation about the scancalous time-out imposed on two people each with a spate well-earned "Hides."
I am less convinced by the perceptions of self-identified targets of an alert-stalking conspiracy than I am by the assertions of the person in a position to see the hard data.
At the very least, it takes five people to hide a post: the alerter and four members of the jury. So unless you're asserting that we have a band of malicious jurors working in tandem with serial alerters, I don't see how alert-stalking could work in practice.
When we see complaints of alert-stalking from a bunch of people who didn't clearly earn their "Hides," then I'll be more receptive to their claims. Until then, it a case of someone getting caught with her hand in the cookie jar and then saying "I'm the real victim here."
kcr
(15,522 posts)And I stand by what I say. If you're going to institute a system like this, be prepared for harsh criticism. And I've seen plenty of it by people who don't get posts hidden. Indeed, he's the only one who sees the data. It seems to me that if there isn't a problem, why have jury blacklists in the first place? I'm not saying there is a problem. I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily instill a lot of confidence by having measures like blacklists.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Because some (not all, some) members are pretty paranoid and this gives an illusion that they have some control over their actions not having consequences.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)kcr
(15,522 posts)But then it kind of makes it hard for him to turn around and say there's nothing to worry about.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Skinner or the people alert stalking me?
kcr
(15,522 posts)I don't blame you for feeling the way you do.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)kcr
(15,522 posts)"I can't speak for Skinner, but based on his responses, I have to conclude that he is prepared for harsh criticism, and he has addressed the critics' points rather definitively."
I'm sure he is. I'm really addressing the doubling down on the argument that he says there's no problem.
"So that the people on the blacklist don't get to serve on juries for the person's posts, obviously."
Duh, obviously. Starting to get circular, here.
"Actually, I think that it does a great job of instilling confidence. If a DUer is such a nuisance that they can blacklist 15 potential jurors and still piss off enough people to face a statistically likely chance of alert-stalking in spite of Skinner's assurance that it doesn't happen, then maybe the jury system isn't the problem after all."
It isn't only the nuisances that can do this. It's an option available to anyone, and was available from the very beginning of DU3. It's nothing new.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)Duh, obviously. Starting to get circular, here.
It isn't only the nuisances that can do this. It's an option available to anyone, and was available from the very beginning of DU3. It's nothing new.
What's the objection, exactly? That a system put in place at the inception of DU3 was later construed by a statistically tiny number of DUers to have been put in place to combat a phenomenon that is perceived to exist but which really doesn't?
kcr
(15,522 posts)Your paraphrasing does not state my point at all. I am not stating that alert stalking must exist. My point is the paranoia exists because the very nature of the system creates it, and that things like the blacklist don't help.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)and so there "appears" to be a real problem.
More and more people have been speaking up that there is no alert stalking or jury rigging but they're not loud enough.
Maybe a poll would help quantify where everyone stands though I'm sure the results would sway no one.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)It's a perceived problem because a vocal minority insists that it must exist, and if it doesn't exist then why would Skinner bother denying it?
It's a lot like crop circles. The confessions by the actual creators of the circles only makes the believers believe all the more passionately that the circles must be supernatural.
The more that knowledgeable people confirm that alert-stalking doesn't exist, the more passionately the believers insist that it therefore must.
kcr
(15,522 posts)It seems to be enough of a problem that there's at least one thread discussing it, and I know it's not the first time it's come up. A feature to prevent it was programmed into the jury system from the very beginning. Regardless of how much of a problem it is, I have a hard time finding fault with anyone who feels this way.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)kcr
(15,522 posts)Why are we even discussing anything?
Orrex
(67,047 posts)Despite a few outliers, the most passionate believers in the perceived phenomenon of alert-stalking are, as stated above, either those with visible transparency or those who explicitly advocate on behalf of those with visible transparency. If you're aware of other people posting to complain that they (or their friends) are being alert-stalked, I would be interested to read those claims.
Again, when the time-outed DUers were time-outed specifically because of posts hidden for obvious reasons, then it's simply not reasonable for them to claim that they're also being alert-stalked in addition to having authored 5+ hide-worthy posts.
I'm less worried about those hypothetical souls who aren't on time-out but who fret in paranoia about the menace of alert-stalking.
kcr
(15,522 posts)Admin set up a system, jury and included a tool, the blacklist. For them to then turn around and claim that alert stalking isn't happening is problematic because there it is, the blacklist. Whether or not it's happening is really beside the point. Why is it unreasonable for anyone to make that claim? In fact I think it's a tiny bit unreasonable for admin to just say hey, take our word for it, it isn't happening, when right in the system they designed is a tool to defend against it. That makes no sense to me.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)The blacklist enables me to exlude as potential jurors those DU members with whom I have a conflict of personality, so that this conflict will not unduly influence their vote in the unlikely event that they wind up on the jury for one of my alerted-on posts. Since the blacklist predates the claims of "alert-stalking," I infer that this is its intended purpose.
You are speculating, perhaps on behalf of the paranoid, that the blacklist exists in order to chase away alert-stalkers. This fails for at least several reasons, chief among them Skinner's assertion that claims of alert-stalking are "bogus" and also the fact that a blacklist would be a woefully clumsy tool for dealing with such a problem even if it existed.
I would be interested to learn whether you believe that Skinner is correct, incorrect, or lying when he states that claims of alert-stalking are "bogus." What is your view?
I accept that some small few might still fear that alert-stalking exists and is cynically denied by the admins, but that's really a problem of their perception rather than a problem that the admins have any responsibility to manage.
kcr
(15,522 posts)So how can excluding the DUers you don't get along with help in that regard? They won't be able to influence anyone else. You are inferring to its intended purposes. That's all anyone who isn't admin is doing. I'm not speculating behalf of anyone although I can see how it looks that way. I don't think Skinner is lying, and is most likely correct. I believe I said that before. The blacklist is indeed a clumsy tool, and I don't even understand why he included it in the first place. My speculation on that front is it was meant to give DUers a measure of control going from moderation with rules to random anything goes. I think he would have been better off thinking it through and scrapping the jury idea entirely.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)So how can excluding the DUers you don't get along with help in that regard?
It allows you to exclude a prejudicially negative vote. The fact that jurors don't collectively deliberate is immaterial.
However different it might be from criminal juries, I find the DU jury system greatly preferable to the old mods-ruling-by-fiat system of DU2.
kcr
(15,522 posts)How so? If we're discussing alert stalking and whether or not it exists, and that using the blacklist allows you exclude prejudicial votes, then I'd say that's pretty relevant, actually.
"However different it might be from criminal juries, I find the DU jury system greatly preferable to the old mods-ruling-by-fiat system of DU2." This I'll never understand. Random people selected to decide any old way they choose with no oversight, over mods deciding, with deliberation and discussion, based on rules, with oversight by admin. The only thing I figure is it was packaged and sold as a "jury" system. People think jury, they think justice, fairness. It's none of those things. It's just random internet button pushing.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)Can't excerpt from my phone, so forgive me for paraphrasing. Why should the inability to deliberate collecively have any bearing at all on alert-stalking? If anything, the fact of isolating jurors this way prevents jurors from unduly influencing one another.
Why do you think that deliberation is relevant to the question of alert-stalking?
I don't see how a longterm panel of annointed mods is better than a randomly chosen jury, and it's not as though they're truly anonymous or unaccountable. The readership at large doesn't know who's on a jury, but Skinner certainly does. If you see abuse occurring, then report it to him.
kcr
(15,522 posts)I think it's especially relevant. Your point that it prevents jurors from unduly influencing each other? Perfectly valid point. And another tick in the column of it's absolutely relevant to the discussion.
The readership at large doesn't know who's on the jury. The very definition of truly anonymous. And utterly randomly chosen. Skinner may know after the fact. If you're fine with an essentially unmoderated board, that's fine. I prefer a moderated one.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)and I confess that I'm growing weary of arguing a point that really seems self-evident to me and to a lot of other people, so much so that I'm not sure that you're being deliberately obtuse about it.
You have advocated on behalf of the allegedly alert-stalked, on behalf of the hypothetical paranoids cowering before the threat of persecuting jurors and alert-stalkers, and against people who embrace the term "jury" to describe the post-review process.
No, the DU jury system isn't a seated oath-bound body of twelve peers plus alternates hearing sworn testimony in a recognized court of law. This seems to be a central objection for you. What term would suit you better? Why does it matter what it's called, really?
My point can be summarized as follows: there is no compelling evidence that "alert-stalking" is real phenomenon on DU, and there is nothing to indicate the jury system is broken, as is commonly asserted. That includes the blacklisting option.
What, ultimately, is your point in all of this?
kcr
(15,522 posts)and keep making points I'm not making which is why you think I'm all over the map. Case in point? I'm not advocating for anyone, a point I've already made once, yet you're repeating again. Ultimately, my point is that the way the jury system is set up invites suspicion.
Orrex
(67,047 posts)It only invites suspicion if you assume that alert-stalking happens and the the admins are wrong/lying about it. If you don't assume that, and if you don't assume that the admins are wrong/lying, then I see nothing to invite suspicion.
You can simply think the whole jury system wasn't well thought out and doesn't work very well. I maintain the black list in particular was a bad idea in the context of this discussion. As I said from the beginning of this discussion, it doesn't inspire much in the way of confidence. OOooooooh, you better watch out who serves on YOUR jury!
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)I'd have less confidence in our judicial system if only the prosecuting attorney could okay the members of the jury and the defense lawyer didn't have any say in it at all.
kcr
(15,522 posts)When we serve on the DU "Jury", we don't deliberate amongst ourselves. SKinner calling it a jury to make people compare was genius on his part. I wonder if it would get less support if he hadn't. But it is nothing like it. It really couldn't be more random. We have no idea how anyone even came to their decisions. You could flip a coin. No one would know. I see people talk about whether or not juries are allowed to use TOS and I think it's ridiculous because it doesn't matter. You randomly get called up, and you click a button, and you can click yes or no for whatever reason you want to. And you don't even have to leave a comment. That blacklist doesn't mean a thing. It's to make you feel better about the fact that this board isn't moderated anymore.
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)In real court cases, people are picked at random from the jury pool.
The jury blacklist allows everyone of us to preclude up to 15 other members who we may believe to prejudiced against us or not view the alert with an open mind from adjudicating an alert made on any of our posts. In a similar fashion, a defense lawyer can prevent any potential juror from being seated for the same reasons.
kcr
(15,522 posts)So they do have some measure of accountability amongst themselves. I've served on a real jury. It is absolutely nothing like what happens on DU. Not even close. I've also sat through the process when attorneys pick and choose who will be on the case. I imagine the process is also very different. It has nothing to do with squabbles on an internet message board. It had nothing to do with internet message board moderation. For one thing, they've had no personal interaction with any of members of the jurors. They are choosing based on criteria for entirely different reasons.
Festivito
(13,878 posts)That person, perhaps a friend or two, know when the alert started and can hit refresh a lot until the request shows up because they know when it will.
Elad is smart and may check for that route though. Don't know if he does.
There are some groups that work in concert on DU who are against particular points of view. Despite the fact that my point of view bothers them, I've not been bothered with an alert to their credit. And I respond to posts rather than the person unless I have something good to say.
Kaleva
(40,341 posts)By responding to the post and not the person who wrote it.
DonCoquixote
(13,955 posts)The social scientists will probably look at sites like this, and be able to spend time arguing whether the GOP did send sitepirates, or whether people just got stupid.. In the meantime, take caution.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)I've chosen to let the best teacher I know handle the ignorance and prejudice that I encounter in life.
- KARMA.
K&R
marble falls
(71,818 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)In fact I was able to add another one just after reading this thread!
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I must admit, that same thought crossed my mind!
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)Sadly, unlike real jury decisions, I don't believe there is a way to appeal juries on DU.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Maybe you simply said something very perceptive.
Happens all the time.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)
redqueen
(115,186 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Except those rare occasions she slips out for more strychnine.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Is trying to flame out, IMO.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)it's the patriarchy in action.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)now that's funny
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts) Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Than deal with a certain group.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
You might consider posting under a new username... it could be liberating.
In an era of NSA and cave dwelling stalkers a little anonymity can't be a bad thing. When they attack you online, you won't feel they are attacking Nadin but you'll see they are attacking your online persona. We are all more complex in real life than our online selves.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And as far as the NSA is concerned, fuck Hoover!!!!!!
And as to the spellonkers, they are a joke at this point.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts) lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)5 hides from the same thread...ouch
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)The OP said "Call me gullible, call me stupid, insult me, I will not alert it! " So I did. Got hidden for a personal attack even thou the OP said he had no problem with it.
It was 6-0 decision. I think I was set up on this one. Entrapment?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)"Entrapment?"
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It was
7962
(11,841 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,898 posts)The OP did ask for it and I bet a mention of that would have kept it from being hidden... I expect the Jury did not look at the OP though, so it was hidden.
arthritisR_US
(7,810 posts)did you find this. I would have thought that with a jury of six that one malicious sod would have been out weighed by the remaining jurors, shows what I don't know! Sorry you've had to go through such BS. 
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)and filled my blacklist at the time. Eventually one person went on ignore, although with the benefit of hindsight I think we were both being passionate advocates for special needs issues / just had different viewpoints on what was going on and how best to help, and we were eventually able to make peace. I took the opportunity to clear my blacklist, which was risky based on the "woo wars" and my stance on the same.
I believe the "ignore" feature has been a blessing to DU, and probably some of the folks I irritate with my various stances use it on me as needed. There are people here I disagree with on a variety of topics, but still respect regardless of their opinion of me (see: woo wars).
It is a great message board, and we are lucky to be able to participate. I frequently wonder if the trolls just want to join "the cool kids" and are desperate to be included.
I am ever an optimist.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Wow.
K & R !!!
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,848 posts)
.
FSogol
(47,608 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)I don't think there's any real solution to the problem except by making it a habit when writing a "hot" post to think about it for 1/2 hr or longer and only then send it.
And to keep in mind that "the SOB deserves it" isn't likely to be #1 consideration of a jury. That excuse is designed to satisfy the poster, and it may even be legit from a broad perspective, but it isn't part of a jury's duty to do so much investigation.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)recently.
I will follow your advide, but just dont know how to choose.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)MWAHAHAHA!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)even though I do get a bit cantankerous every now and then. What am I doing wrong?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)You must be cantankerously nice.
seaglass
(8,185 posts)a personal attack if he thought the person deserved it so he went on my blacklist. Why take the chance of having a juror who says he is not participating on the jury system in good faith? Posters like that make DU suck because it removes fairness from juries and creates distrust. His privilege to be on a jury should have been revoked along with anyone who states they will never hide a post. Both types of DUers contribute to the failure of the jury system.
Since then I have recognized some game playing going on so I have added 14 of the least trustworthy DUers to my blacklist.
Again - never had a post hidden. I don't vote to hide anyone's post just because I don't like them and I don't alert on any posts unless I think it should be hidden no matter what my personal feelings about the poster are.
LeftishBrit
(41,451 posts)because you can disagree with someone civilly without personally attacking or sneering at them.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)is all this arguing to talk people out of using their blacklists. What's that about? Why should anybody else care if someone uses their own blacklist?
And odds are, that everybody downplaying it and naysaying it, has their own filled out.
Do yourself a favor, DUers, fill yours out too.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I mean, really, it is none of anyone elses business if a duer would like to use the blacklist feature! That is the bottom line. I think it is strange to see some try and use red herrings such as bringing up things like - "alert stalking is bogus!". So, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but using the blacklist doesn't harm a thing. I would think so anyway.
petronius
(26,696 posts)Just discovered the Blacklist, but don't know where to start? Overwhelmed by the choices? Paralyzed by the possibilities?
Have No Fear!
Professional Jury Blacklist Consulting is now available from P. Arbiter, LLC! Our certified blacklist designers will produce a fully-personalized jury blacklist guaranteed to keep every DUer trolling participating with impunity. Alert-trolls and stalkers will be a thing of the past! No job too large or too small.
Reasonable fees apply. 48-hour turnaround. Cash only. Offer not valid in ATA, Hosts, or Cooking & Baking. One blacklist per customer, no sockpuppets will be served. PM for details, or to arrange an appointment.
PM on its way! My list needs some help.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)I've only had one or two posts hidden.
And most my posts have nothing to do with vet stuff, but I've made some enemies among that crowd.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)my jury blacklist. Way too many are being offended by any little thing. They'll accuse you of saying things you never said with the hopes of seeing how many posts they can have hidden. By using political correctness, it's amazing how many mind readers we have on GD!
quinnox
(20,600 posts)If you consistently see a duer seemingly greatly offended or outraged over the tiniest of alleged slights, then that is probably a good candidate for the blacklist. Especially if they have a jury percentage of 100% of being likely to serve on a jury.
seattledo
(295 posts)I've had two completely sensible posts removed by a jury, and I would love to know who the idiots are that are trying to ruin this site.
JVS
(61,935 posts)people who always pick a fight with you.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There's little reason to have someone on your list that is banned or has a 0% chance of being asked to serve on a jury.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)If you "all of a sudden" have 3 posts alerted, AND hidden, you probably deserved it.
demmiblue
(39,659 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Some DUers have been kind of enough to admit they will hide posts based on what I consider to be unfair criterion. I really like some of the DUers on my blacklist, but I don't my posts to be hidden for exploring ideas.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)that after the 155 posts so far in this thread.. the roaming gang of normally prevalent alerters have not posted once. That speaks volumes as they are normally all over every thread. Instead this thread is a normal civilized discussion so far. Who'da thunk it? Almost seems like old DU for a sec.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)"I never had one for years, and foolishly expected everyone would treat any alerted posts fairly. All of a sudden, in a week, I got 3 hidden posts, and all were unwarranted and frankly, ridiculous. I then knew shenanigans were going on, and I was being targeted for various opinions that rubbed the wrong way to a certain contingent. I then filled out a jury blacklist, being very strategic about it, putting names down that were likely to be bad jurors and also likely to sit on jurys, and have had no more trouble since. I can once again post freely, without worrying about any thought police trying to get me in trouble. Just some friendly advice. "
Let's see:
Those who have alerted on the OP are ridiculous, guilty of "shenanigans", "targeting the OP" and some "certain contingent"? "Bad jurors", "thought police trying to get him in trouble".
Bullshit.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)that if the OP has not been using his jury blacklist, that he has been at a disadvantage compared to others who have been using theirs? That seems rather obviously true. If you do deny it, then the alternative point would be that the blacklist is ineffective
And if so, then why should you care so much that he decided to use it? He doesn't need a reason, he doesn't need to need it. It's simply there, and available to all.
Maybe you don't like him finally getting the same break from juries that others have been getting? Or is it this... that you simply don't like him criticizing you as the alerter and the jurors who hid his post? Isn't that a pretty natural thing to do? Isn't that what nearly everyone would do -- well, at least lots of people?
I'm just curious... what should he have to do in your opinion to make you happy... kiss your ring or something?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)right over your head.
all of it.
and... "kiss your ring or something?"
are you talking about??
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)That's still an answer, and it says a lot.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)You know nothing.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)What makes you think it's about knowing you? I know what I see here, and that's all that is relevant to here.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)If not,I'd love to hear how you know who the "prevalent alerters" are ,because you obviously have some info the rest of us don't.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)to observe the behavoir of bad students who roam in gangs. They are obvious for all to see. DU is not much different than a high school play ground as of late. The depth of subject matter and discussion that used to be here is now as watered down as a water skiing squirrel on CNN.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)And we all know why.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)I just filled 15 slots.
Found all my potentials in one location...
Thanks, quinnox!
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)in a coordinated manner to attack other members by abusing the alert system. I just had a post hidden because I suggested in coarse terms that women have always been attracted to money and power. I am fairly confident I know which posse of extremists is behind it. I also think this posse communicates with each other and has a list of other DU'ers they want to target for alerts in the hopes of getting the targets tombstoned.
I appreciate your advice as I had no idea that I could prevent some members from sitting on juries of my posts. I would bet that the list I make today and the OP's list share many of the same names.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Form your own alerting gang.
It will be just like the League Of Justice. If we send enough alerts on Lex Luthor we may be able to stock the jury with the Wonder Twins, Batman and Aquaman and get him banned (for at least 90 days).
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)I saw that post was deleted and thought my god, are some that thinned skinned in here! Way too much political correctness going on.
Heidi
(58,846 posts)I wasn't the alerter nor was I on the jury, but your implication that money motivates women to have sex is pretty close to calling women in general and throughout history whores or prostitutes. That's a far cry from "...because I suggested in coarse terms that women have always been attracted to money and power." The overt sexism of your post, I suspect, is why it was hidden.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4319177
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Other than the offensive sexism there's no reason that post should have been hidden.
The Contingent is out to get him.
demmiblue
(39,659 posts)
I expect these kind of comments from the rabid right.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I can't believe this place
B Calm
(28,762 posts)If you want to post AMEN, do it!
That was a joke, right?
I really hope that was a joke.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Political Correctness, that's what we want, right?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)but most people here disagree with you.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is not sexist and misogynist?
Go ahead. saying "it's just a joke" does not explain how it's not an insult to women.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Explain how breaking up "amen" into two syllables and interposing the word "fucking" for emphasis exhibits bias against or hatred of men.
Or, in the alternative, admit your claim that it is sexism was actually mere trolling.
Also, go ahead and alert and see what a DU jury does with it.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Maybe I have thicker skin and don't take everything so personally as some?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Tell women/feminists offended by sexist statements/'jokes' to 'just grow a thicker skin'
Heidi
(58,846 posts)Thank you for your accurate and succinct reporting, B Calm!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts) geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obvious hatred towards the male anatomy.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)about women and their viagra. Political Correctness is getting way out of hand.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)not so much.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)joke is a joke and people should just lighten up and enjoy them because really libby libs just have no sense of humor.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in contrast, "a fucking men" is not even conceivably sexist.
As I said before, just because you think that sexism/misogyny is a joke does not mean those who disagree with you have a problem. To the contrary.
Response to B Calm (Reply #226)
Bobbie Jo This message was self-deleted by its author.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)any woman who dares object to anti-woman bigotry is the problem.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)women are attracted to men with money. The comment was not about men paying for sex or women being whores or sluts or any of that nonsense.
For some here on DU, that observation makes me a horrible misogynist as a person. Often times, people see what they want to see.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Because I think that it's you "seeing what you want to see".
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Are you asking me if there is any evidence that women are attracted to men with money? Is that right?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Your comment was that money has a biological, physiological effect on women that causes them to be sexually aroused.
Not that they look for financial stability in a romantic partner, you essentially said they get horny because of the Benjamins.
You are a victim of only your own poor judgment in making that kind of sexist joke around here.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Your reply makes it clear that you get some perverse pleasure at hectoring others here on DU. Well, I am not going to play that game with you today. Let me simply ask from which University did you obtain your advanced degree in Human Sexuality?
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or "marrying up" more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman's reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner's income."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/18/do-women-want-rich-men_n_879760.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)by posting links you feel show that your 'joke' is actually true.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)How about we just call it a day!
Cheers!
redqueen
(115,186 posts) Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts) Heidi
(58,846 posts)My husband of 15 years, who had no money when we met and married, insists that I ask you for the evidence.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)You are seriously asking for evidence that many women are attracted to money and power?
Heidi
(58,846 posts)to have sex both in general and historically. It is not unreasonable to ask you to provide empirical evidence. The burden of proof is yours. If we are, in general, whores/prostitutes down through the ages, prove it.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)I will leave it to fair minded DU'ers to make up their own minds as to whether or not some women are attracted to money and power. Have a nice day!
Heidi
(58,846 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)all along.
That the vast majority of the folks whining about "alert stalking" are the ones who get posts RIGHTFULLY hidden for saying bullshit. Thank you so much for posting this. Totally nails the passive aggressive whining of this OP to the trash can where it belongs.
Response to Number23 (Reply #356)
Heidi This message was self-deleted by its author.
Heidi
(58,846 posts)we shouldn't whine when it's hidden by jury, or misrepresent the reason for the hide.
Good morning, Number23!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I post in HOF and if there were some kind of coordinated attack, or any kind of coordination, like people are saying, I would have gotten PMs or something to coordinate me. There just plain is not. It is 100% untrue.
If people are getting posts hidden, it's because someone is alerting and unrelated and random people on the jury are agreeing. That is all. There isn't even a way to stack a jury.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The real question isn't why 4 people vote to hide it, it's why two voted to not hide.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)LOL! I think they like you. It's awfully crowded in this sub-thread.
Btw, your joke was no worse than some I've heard of Jack Benny's or any other family tv show comedians' -- they all have some version of that joke, and it's pretty mainstream. I'd bet that your post might not even be hidden now with the blacklist filled out. Next point, it's true -- not of all women but certainly of some, for proof look at any Real Housewives episode. Last point, men get pretty turned on by money too.
I would not have hidden it, and I don't think I'm alone by a long shot -- although most of course will not say so, and I don't blame them, why should they? Most people aren't in the mood for a pointless harangue, most of the time, which is what saying so will result in. Every now and then I'll let myself in for a pointless harangue though, just for the hell of it, and to make a point.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)So, so very shocked
Jack Benny had some racist jokes in his repertoire which he learned were fucked up and he stopped making such jokes.
How pathetic that some won't do the same with sexist jokes, still.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)I guess.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Not sure how you missed that, but please continue defending sexist jokes.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)No, I really didn't. But thanks for your concern.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)I guess you meant to say sarcastically shocked?
Man this is sad.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)After all, your being shocked about the joke is what you're not shocked at me about.
I'm glad we cleared this up.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's not some group of man-hating, humorless arch-feminists who are persecuting thought crimes.
It's just sexist jackassery is generally frowned upon not only in progressive circles, but decent company, a certain contingent at DU notwithstanding.
P.S. Jack Benny was born in 1894. He was 26 before women got the right to vote, and was middle-aged before black people received it in practice. He is not relevant as a benchmark for what is acceptable in modern society.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Lol! Oh, educate me, oh font of wisdom!
Again, as it usually goes, you and redqueen set up a point I never made, and now you're refuting it, ho hum, so boring, same old hype. 
And what you know about "most people" comes from where-the-fuck. Exactly.
So if you mistakenly got the impression that I'm interested in your views on this, no I'm really not because I've read what you have to say to others here many times before, and I think it's invariably a load of hooey.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to whether sexist comments should be hidden.
Most people I know don't think sexism is okay. Obviously you disagree.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)I doubt that there is a comedian anywhere who doesn't have a version of that joke which is accepted and laughed at by the vast majority of a very mainstream audience.
I guess what I have to do in future is never mention anything specific, lest it be mistaken for the point.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)what was mainstream then is not mainstream now.
George Carlin's horrid comments about eating disorders would get any comedian nowadays drummed off the stage, for example.
Not saying that Carlin's body of work deserves to be excluded--a lot of brilliance there--but reposting Carlin's comments on eating disorders would get a post hidden, and possibly the person making it banned.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)My opinion is that DU should just let it all fly. I can see what direction the jury system and censorship on DU is going and I don't expect it to end up being better than the old DU. Just my opinion ...I'd much rather have the mod system.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)I think we're done. I'm not going to play straw men, or any of the other phony games that usually go on in these food fights that some insist are discussions.
I've given my opinion, you're welcome to yours, there is no more to get from this.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) This place has become so suppressive and censored ...is it like being in church yet? There's always some hot head with an agenda playing blog master. You know ...they would never say some of this shit to your face in public.geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)color to not be so sensitive yada yada yada.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)I don't tolerate it.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It was funny back when racism/etc was cool, but nowadays we saw with Michael Richards how that goes over.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I don't believe he was really racist. Like Archy Bunker portrayed the racist bigot ...I don't believe the actor was really a racist or bigot.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)That handful or two will never understand it but they are the problem, not some old joke from any given episode of most sitcoms. The constant overreactions and hyper-agressive replies and attempts to turn GD into a permanent meta free for all are tedious in the extreme.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of sexism doesn't trump what women of DU think.
"The handful or two" are the men who just can't bring themselves to care what women think about sexism.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)That joke was actually told by David Letterman or Conan O'Brien on their show. I cannot remember which. The joke was merely a tongue in cheek observation that women are attracted to wealth and power. It was not at all offering that women are whores or sluts or about men paying for sex. People see what they want to see in many cases and they will go through quite impressive feats of mental contortions to find even the tiniest hint of something that they can be outraged about. You'll note that some of those taking shots at me not only take offense at a single post, they have labeled me as being a misogynist in all things and at all times.
Or, I could have diabolically posted on this thread just to remember the names of those I want for my blacklist. Your pick!
Cheers!
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)And what this sort of incident shows us is that some people's eyes must not be very pretty. And I don't mean that in a physical way.
To see so much ugly that isn't even there, you really have to wonder what's going on. I'm just glad I don't live in that headspace, or anywhere near it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Do you have a link to your post?
Rex
(65,616 posts)now have a great time posting on DU.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts) JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts) Kaleva
(40,341 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)I don't think I'm only one who does that?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Made ya look!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I have an decent sized blacklist. I still have some spots available, just in case. It works pretty good for the thought police. The only bad apples that will remain are trolls. They get pizza so often and come back under new handles that you can not keep up with them.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)minor infractions that didn't rise to the level of personal insults and name calling other posts on the same heated threads exibited freely. I wish I had known about the jury black list feature then. I know now and have already 8 people on that list.
Thanks for he heads up on this ability.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
redqueen
(115,186 posts)I'm reminded of the value in not banning certain types of humor. It is revealing, the kind of jokes people find amusing
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Let them stand so we can very easily identify the assholes.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)some people just don't have a sense of humor and are always on the edge.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)No matter how one alters the spelling.
Nice self edits. You could at least have the courage of your convictions.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Some people are never worth discussing anything with. Some people are always on the war path ...that's their choice.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Not allowing people to frame such calling out as simply a lack of a sense of humor is also not being "on the war path".
It is my choice to call out such things, and to not silently accept that framing.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)… that if I add up enough blacklisted jurists, no one can ever judge me?
Must be some kind of limit as to how many names you can add… I'll check this function out! Not that I'm worried or anything...
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)It was easy for me to fill mine up, even though I could only do 5.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is there a way to find out?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I never filled mine out until a few weeks ago and have maybe alerted 10 times since the launch of DU3.
I know I have enemies here for certain views I hold (or don't) but always assumed that most DU members serving on a jury would be objective on obvious personal attacks.
Jeepers, was I wrong. I was called a dog because I was laughing at some jokes made by men, I alerted on it and it was left to stand 2-4.
I no longer have the results, but within a few days of that happening I filled out my jury blacklist.
For those of you that have stood up for me I thank you and apologize to you for re-hashing this, but I think it serves as a prime example for having a jury blacklist.
Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4120434
MineralMan
(151,162 posts)I doubt very much that there's any way to game the Alert system. Statistically, it just doesn't make any sense. I do have people on my Jury Blacklist, but only after repeated replies to posts I've made that indicate some sort of personal animosity aimed in my direction. I doubt it has made any differences, or has anything to do with my lack of hidden posts.
I chalk that record up to not calling people names or making personal attacks and not posting offensive or bigoted stuff on DU.
Now, I suspect that some people have MineralMan on their own Jury Blacklists. In a couple of cases, I'm sure of it. However, that's a waste of that feature, since my policy is to leave juries where I'm being asked to judge someone's posts with whom I've contended in the past or who I just dislike. I leave the jury, unless the post is fine, in which case, I vote to leave it. I have very specific standards for voting to hide a post, and they pertain only to direct and ugly personal attacks, bigotry, and spamming. I apply those same standards for alerting, so I alert rarely, and rarely vote to hide a post.
So, putting people on Jury Blacklists is a crap shoot. Most frequent posters on DU don't use jury duty as a means of getting back at people, I'm sure. It's much more fun to engage them in threads.
So, I think you're probably incorrect in your assumptions, but I do have people on my Jury Blacklist, too, just in case.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Take a step back when things are getting heated.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)constructive and positive manner.
And I have to think that, regarding the tiny amount of what seems to be protesting, perhaps it makes it an even better idea and makes the case to use the jury blacklist! As that famous saying goes, it seems as if there are a few who "doth protest too much" over a harmless suggestion like this one!
meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)Most message boards/forums I go to have moderators. Is it because DU is too big to have a few people moderate? Or is it done so no one person or handful of people have that kind of control over the board?
I think the juries can be useful but this ability to alert so easily on other posters seems like it tends to cause unnecessary trouble and drama.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)There were too many accusations of favoritism one way or the other when the Mods were here. I like the Jury system.
I've served on a paltry 107 juries, and of that number perhaps two were questionable alerts.
The system works.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)And most of those were late at night or early AM, because I am up at night. Dec 28 was my last service. So, over 2 weeks and not called, and I am at 60% because I am not a Star Member.
meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)Is it random? I've been called to serve only a handful of times. Which is fine.
Again, just curious since people can blacklist certain members from being jurors.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)Javaman
(65,659 posts) 
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)Last week I got my VERY FIRST post alerted. I was completely flummoxed because I "thought" I was being funny. Guess I need to use "smilies" more often.
I will admit that I had stayed away from posting for some time, and felt I was unaware of some rules that had been incorporated during that time. Still, the jury didn't agree with person who alerted, not even sure I know who alerted either. I suppose there's some way to find out, or again I missed something.
Anyway, I will say I was shocked and didn't really understand WHAT I had done. It was called SPAM, but I didn't understand why.
I decided to post a little less again, but have to admit that worrying about TPP and if Christie is going to Bully his way out of being squeezed, I'm posting more than usual.
I do plan to step back again, but not sure if the "jury thing" is good or bad. For me, I felt it was unfair only because I had no idea why it was a problem.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)it makes one fear to post anything on DU.
seaglass
(8,185 posts)weren't afraid to post.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I first stopped posting for some time because it was depressing me too much and causing me a lot of anxiety!! NOT because of this issue. I've been a member of DU since 2004 and never ONCE did ever put anyone on ignore NOR to my knowledge was I ever put on ANYONE else's ignore.
I HAVE recently started posting again, but it has taken me a long time to come back. WHEN I started back again, I clearly stated that I must have missed some of the rules that had been incorporated in my absence!!
So, just to make myself VERY CLEAR... I never felt or had a feeling to BE AFRAID! I broke no rules that I knew of back then, and in fact the fact that someone alerted me was quite surprising! It's HAS only been recently that I've felt I should watch ANYTHING I say... AND to be sure I will be very careful from now on. As you can see, I didn't respond until because since I posted this comment, I haven't logged on since!
Soooooo, I do hope you can understand my statement more clearly. There are people here who have 50, 60, 70 thousands of posts that were here way back when I started. I think my count is rather low given the years I've been a member.
If, of course, you don't understand then I suppose I'll remain misunderstood by you. Do forgive me. I will be more careful and will try to avoid responding to your posts in the future. Perhaps that will be the beast I can do.
seaglass
(8,185 posts)are high. I have been here since 2001 and you can see my piddly number of posts.
I don't think there are any new rules but hostility has amped up so I will agree that it can be easier for a post to be taken the wrong way.