General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDU Jury Nullification
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Agschmid (a host of the General Discussion forum).
This is not whining about DU, but merely an observation. It seems that many posts which shouldn't be hidden are, and those that should be, aren't. There is now a thread in DU about a poster proclaiming to enter into the jury service predisposed to let the post stand, regardless of the content.
I wonder, is the rash of questionable jury decisions a symptom of backlash against the system itself? Is it a result of malfeasance from nefarious posters serving on juries and intentionally disrupting the system?
Now that hidden posts have a meaningful consequence, suspension from DU for up to 90 days while the hides drop off, it seems that the system is an invitation for trolls to, well, troll. There are some opinionated and extremely prolific posters here. Many of them are sitting at 4 hides right now, for posts that should never have been hidden.
I suspect that there are posters alert-stalking these opinionated and prolific members of DU, so that every single mildly controversial post is alerted on. Some of these posters are posting hundreds, if not thousands, of posts over the course of 90 days. Statistically, it's going to be pretty easy for an alert-stalking disruptor to gag someone using frivolous alerts.
Again, I'm not whining about DU or the jury system -- I'm making observations about the system's current design.
I'll be productive and offer a solution: I say why not limit alerting privileges to one alert per poster per day, with a failed (0-7 to leave it) alert causing one's alerting privileges to be revoked for a week. I think that would cut down on the frivolous alerts and alert stalking.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Now you're complaining about frivolous alerts and alleged alert stalking?
Sid
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)The poster refused, despite multiple requests from several posters, to add a NSFW tag. That was the basis of the alert.
Remember that poster continued to post NSFW content without warnings, and using unrelated bait titles, as a means of trolling DU. That poster climaxed with a mistitled thread without a warning, containing a close up image of a crowning baby emerging from a vagina.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Michigander_Life
(549 posts)They were pointed out by other posters. I'm stalkerish for reading my own thread? I noticed you didn't say anything to Mr. Dithers about being stalkerish when he jumped into this thread and made a comment about one of my past posts. No, quite the opposite.
Hmmm... That would make you a, what's the word I'm looking for...
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)… But, I'd have to say it in ob-lob language with a twist of pig latin to get by the thought police… 
Mugu
(2,888 posts)5 alerts in which a jury doesn’t agree results in a timeout (at least an alert timeout.)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...and let the chips fall where they may
Brother Buzz
(39,868 posts)The alerter should not be identified until the jury results are released.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)sure would cut down on the bullshit around here, which aids clicques and cronies.
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)You never know but it might be the one or two votes that keeps you from getting a post hidden.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)It's a strategy by the passive-aggressive set, which seems to be making up more and more of the DU these days.
I made a similar recommendation for the Discussionist, but it went nowhere, so I don't think Skinner likes the idea. And it's his site.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Check the profiles on the deleted post to see how many times the repliers and the OP served on juries. And then they gloat!!
Link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025159706
Our problem is that too few members serve on juries.
To many hides from too few. I have read members claiming they leave an open window on DU just so they can be selected for jury duty. It is being gamed.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)In an ideal world, the DU jury system would do precisely what it's meant to do-- help create and maintain community standards for participation.
The real problem begins with the alert. I now believe that some DUers utterly abuse DU alerts to harass others with whom they disagree, or whom they simply do not like. Once alerted on, a post automatically goes to a jury, and that's where it becomes apparent that DU has become so diverse in ways that no one expected-- we might all be (mostly) liberal, but that's probably the only unifying characteristic on DU these days, and it's suspect too-- that there are often no broad community standards that define us generally. Sure, we can all agree that "Jane, you ignorant slut!" is a personal attack, but there are factions now who will vote to hide even the comedic version of that statement (SNL, anyone?) as sexist regardless of the irony that of course Chevy Chase meant it to be (and I only cite that because it applies to that particular example). Others become outraged by sports scores. And so on. In fact, I saw this phenomenon described recently as "outrage driven media."
Given that volatile mix of outrage driven perspectives making up juries, alerts become reasonably dependable weapons for harassment because it's too often true that enough jury members will be outraged by SOMETHING the DUer said.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And he has access to all of the alerts.
mike_c
(37,045 posts)It certainly LOOKS like alert stalking happens. I've been sitting here trying to figure out what statistic would allow the admins to rule it out and I'm damned if I can think of one that isn't confounded by actual bad behavior on poster's parts or by post frequency. I don't think it would be easy to rule alert stalking out, frankly. I also don't think the analysis could be done simply by watching the overall pattern of alerts.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)How do you do that? How many times voted HIDE?
bigtree
(94,178 posts). . . trusting what you call a biased jury to influence that outcome.
That's no better than what you're decrying.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)It's a lot less likely for 7 people to vote to leave a controversial post, than it is for 4 to vote hide it.
Logical
(22,457 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)hold mock trials with prosecutors and defense attorneys. 
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I'll have a ham & cheese on rye.
wandy
(3,539 posts)It would not be hard to imagine a troll 'targeting' a particular person or view point and using alerts as a way to "shut down that kind of thinking".
Not sure about only one alert per day, however keeping tract of failed alerts, by any ratio, over a defined time period resulting in temporary removal of alert privileges may work.
For example (just picking numbers at random) three failed alerts in a seven day period results in a ten day revocation of alert privileges.
During the jury process, the person being alerted on, the alerter the dates and results are known so coming up with a 'trending' formula to set the actual numbers should not be difficult.
C Moon
(13,625 posts)There should be consequences if you continually ALERT and the posts are fine.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)paulkienitz
(1,507 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)but there are some people (who have been suspended multiple times) who simply refuse to show respect or even common decency. When a poster actually posts "f_you", I can't find a lot of sympathy that people tend to view that poster suspiciously.
Baitball Blogger
(52,287 posts)
ananda
(35,070 posts)Trolls can take it over.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)okay, I jest.
love the pair of ideas