This message was self-deleted by its author

[A-Schwarzenegger]

This message was self-deleted by its author (A-Schwarzenegger) on Sat May 3, 2014, 02:33 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. ...

[hobbit709]

2. Here we go again.

more fun and games.

[Agschmid]

3. Cool!

I also think it's great if people sign their jury comments! It takes just a minute and I think it forces your to reflect on your vote.

I have been doing it for a while now and no one has used any of my votes against me... Just FYI!

[Capt. Obvious]

19. I do that too

I sign your name to all of my jury comments.

[KittyWampus]

23. LOL!

you really did get me to laugh out loud.

[riqster]

28. Brilliant.

[Agschmid]

44. Oh boy...

I see what you did there.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Awesome.

Of course now you've given everyone else the same idea.

[Capt. Obvious]

52. It's actually an old joke from Meta

Started doing that with Trumad and others followed suit.

My hope was that someday I'd see an ATA thread about seeing Trumad having more than one vote in a jury. And then it would have been cool if Skinner played along and said he'd have Elad look into it.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. It'd be even funnier now, since he only lurks.

he's here! he's there! he's everywhere!

[Capt. Obvious]

55. You could be onto something

[sufrommich]

4. I'm glad some of you DUers think to

check the Announcements forum occasionally. Thanks for the info.

[seaglass]

10. Haha - Announcements is one of My Subscriptions and I forgot so I thought everyone was getting

the Announcement at the same time (and was wondering why this thread was here).

Actually there are so few Announcements it makes sense to subscribe to them.

[Agschmid]

14. Good idea.

[sufrommich]

18. I always forget to check "my subscriptions" too.

What can I say,I'm a creature of habit.

[seaglass]

24. I'm a little OCD about the yellow tab - if it's lit, I have to click it. Cannot leave it

yellow.

[sufrommich]

38. Lol. I understand. nt

[hrmjustin]

5. I think it will mean more hides in the end.

[CFLDem]

6. Alright!

If anything, larger juries means a better chance of being seated. 👍

[PeaceNikki]

11. I voted to hide this OP

For real.

[Iterate]

32. Well you skated by this time...results

On Thu Apr 3, 2014, 08:12 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

7-member juries are on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024775801

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The OP asked me to alert on this thread to see if it works.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 3, 2014, 08:18 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So, presumably this should be 7-0 to leave it?
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Neat!! I am posting a jury comment. Oh, and I am voting to *hide* because I don't want the alerter to be bonked from alerting for 24 hours. I ADORE A-Schwarzenegger and would never really truly want to hide his loveliness. Ever. Love, PeaceNikki
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Inappropriate use of innuendo. Juries are on what, precisely?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think that's a good reason to "hide" a post. But good to know there are now 7 of us considering this!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I was wondering why this was alerted. Good thing I read the reason! LOL

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

#4 I took a reasonable chance, but at least one of us had to try the hide button. Whew!
Also alerted on the results. Might as well test it all.

[seabeyond]

34. love it peace. i did not see this subthread. such a hoot. nt

[Orrex]

8. Alerting.

Meta.

[chrisa]

13. Alerting on your alert

I challenge you to ze alert duel!

[riqster]

30. En garde, zee both of you!

[11 Bravo]

9. I just served on one. A 4-3 vote to hide. Let's see how it plays out.

[BainsBane]

15. Already?

I wonder if it would be okay to post the first few jury results so we can see how it works?

[LeftofObama]

37. Here ya go. I'm assuming this is the one.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:45 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Jesus Christ...I'm not defending them
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4775692

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Whoa, dude seems to step back.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 3, 2014, 12:02 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Whether defending them or not, no excuse to tell poster to Fuck themselves.
Simple.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster was NOT defending the rapists and Ohio Joe knows it. It has become common to attack any attempt at nuance, or anything short of a call for castration, as "Defending the rapists". It's inflammatory bullshit and should not be rewarded when it incites an uncivil reply.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: UGH
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Inappropriate due to word choice, but understandable through context. Guy was not defending the rapists, and it is an insult to be mentioned defending rapists. Guy was clarifying points on the case.

If he was wrong, correct it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The posting person needs a time out.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BainsBane]

39. 4-3?

He told someone to F himself. At that point it doesn't matter if the other poster had characterized his position accurately.

[Capt. Obvious]

43. I want to see if a 1-6 leave triggers the 24 hr timeout

because it's 6 leaves

[pintobean]

45. I was just wondering that, too.

I'm also wondering what those who are obsessed with their blacklist are thinking. More people will be judging their posts - that's got to cause a little more worry.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. Well, at least is wasn't another

useless 3 - 3 tie.

But I do get your point, that was pretty blatant.

[sufrommich]

41. Juror #3, you're doing it wrong.

"yeah it was a personal insult,but he deserved it!"

[chrisa]

12. I like this idea.

So much stupid crap has been left in GD due to 3-3 deadlocked juries. Hopefully this helps put an end to the annoying petty flame wars that are ruining for those of us who want to discuss politics without the High School drama.

[seabeyond]

16. ha. i alerted on you and you know what happened?

On Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:20 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

7-member juries are on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024775801

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

call out of skinner

k. i really just wnat to see 7 jury as opposed to 6 and everyone on the board is behaving as far as i know and no one to alert on.

A-S is a fav.

JURY RESULTS

Someone else already alerted on this post before you alerted on it, and only the first alert was sent to a Jury. A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of the post on Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:18 PM, and voted 2-5 to keep IT. Please note that even though your alert was not sent to a Jury, it has been forwarded to the Administrators who review all alerts.

someone had gotten to you first. lol. wtf????

[seabeyond]

25. ya. i bet my alert was cuter than the first one, lol. i want to see, too.

hoping the two that said hide, was in jest too, but gotta wonder about two that would vote to hide.

[seabeyond]

31. after the 6-0 i see on the alert on skinner, i would be happy with at least one voting to hide

so i do not lose alert privilege. hadnt thought of that. but i would have felt horribly guilty if you got a hide, also.

lmao.

probably good someone else hard alerted.

[seabeyond]

33. ooops. 7-0. nt

[BainsBane]

21. Aren't you naughty

[sufrommich]

22. Lol. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

42. Damn!

Why didn't I think of that? You are too cute!

[one_voice]

26. I just served on one...

Here are the results..

On Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Seven-person juries go into effect today.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10133677

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Whining about DU's technical glitches.




j/k Want to see if there are any obvious glitches right off the bat and what better post to send to a 7 member jury than Skinner's announcement thread.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:25 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh please.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is the most reasonable alert ever! El_Bryanto
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: LOL. LLP
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: hunh... whaaaaaaaaa???! is this one of those glitches or.......?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[seabeyond]

29. ha. i thought about alerting on skinner. bah ha. thanks. nt

[Feral Child]

36. K&R n/t

[Atman]

47. Proud to have served on one of the very first...

0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Works for me.

[AngryAmish]

50. can we see the results?

Just for fun.

[Sissyk]

51. Here's one for a 7-0 Leave

I ask Skinner in his thread if this increased your alerting time out. From 24 hours to maybe 36. lol!

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Thu Apr 3, 2014, 10:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You don't know if people who are depressed should be allowed to vote?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4776889

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack. ( last sentence ).

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 3, 2014, 10:59 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not an attack. Chill, alerter.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see any indication of a personal attack.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe not very nice, but not a TOS violation .
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stupid alert.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tsiyu]

53. Lucky Seven

Everybody BEHAVE!

[brooklynite]

58. What an incredible change! Now you need 4 votes to delete a message. And before you needed...

...4 votes to delete a message.

[brooklynite]

60. seriously, what this does is make it easier to get a post blocked...

You still need four votes but you have a larger pool of jurors to find four votes from. And quiet frankly, a lot of the alerts I've been asked to jury lately gave been pretty weak complaints.

[Skinner]

61. Yes, it makes it easier to get a post blocked. That's the point.

And here's another point: It doesn't matter if the alerts you served on were weak. What matters is whether juries voted to hide them. It is the job of juries to determine which alerts have merit and which do not. If all alerts had merit, then there would be no need for juries.

[brooklynite]

62. My point is not that I THINK they were week...

...it's that the votes were almost universally "no"; adding an additional voter to the pool would make no difference.

[Skinner]

63. I guess I don't understand.

In an earlier post, you say that this will make it easier to get a post hidden. Which is true. Yet here you say it will make no difference. I'm not sure I follow what point you are trying to make here.

[brooklynite]

66. In an abstract calculation...

...you have statistically increased the chance of blocking a post by increase the pool of voters from six to seven, out of which you need to convince four. In a real world analysis, I find that a high frequency of the posts I get asked to jury are upheld by a high vote, so the additional juror isn't likely to change things except in the margins. So what this is accomplishing is making it (marginally) easier to delete posts for which the alert appears to be spurious. If people think that's valuable, more power to them, but I don't think they're going to find the tenor of discussion changing by any noticeable amount.