A positive change on D.U.

[Hoppy]

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

In the past few days, I have seen several posts that were "alerted." The difference is that juries are voting to keep the posts. Sometimes, 7 - 0. Today there was a 4-3 to leave it alone.

There are times when a post should be banned. But not because someone's feelings get hurt. If the post gets you riled up, challenge it. Debate it. Start another thread. Maybe the poster who offended you will learn something. Maybe you will learn something.

[elleng]

1. I often say 'discuss' instead of Hide.

[Warpy]

10. Same here

It pretty much has to be a direct insult or obvious right wing trolling to get a hide out of me, and not even all direct insults are making the grade these days.

I think upping the ante on hides with some very real consequences made juries a lot more tolerant.

[Sheldon Cooper]

2. But, of course!

Those POC and women should just get over their hurt feelings and just debate and challenge racist and sexist assholes, all the while remaining polite and submissive so as not to hurt any feelings!

Thank god you're here to set us straight, because by god we'd have never figured this out!

[Hoppy]

3. My pleasure. Glad I could be of help to you.

[bravenak]

4. I am tired of discussing why certain racist crap is okay, okay?

[geek tragedy]

5. Oy. nt

[Hoppy]

6. what about the alerts that have not been about racism?

[Glassunion]

8. Or misogyny, or homophobic, or __________ (fill in the blank)

Should we let those stand as well?

[Doctor_J]

20. there are some like that?

DU has become redundant and not very relevant since Nov. Quite different from the good old days of my memory.

[closeupready]

7. Offense is inherently a subjective thing, and in consideration of

the idea of being a community of progressives, liberals, and Democrats, I tend to side with the alerter who is also progressive and/or liberal (which presume on the good faith sanction of Skinner and Earl's rubber-stamp account registration) and who finds offense in something here, voting initially to hide.

Then, the second step: I read the alerter's notation to see whether or not their interpretation of the alerted post is consistent with my own interpretation of the alerted post. If there is a difference of opinion, then I do try - as a member of an impartial jury of 7 - to take a hard look at the post, the alerted-on member's history here, the alerter's logic in taking offense, and also Skinner/Earl's terms of service ... all of it, and then I render a final decision.

Finally, if the alerter was succinct in explaining why they found offense, then I have no problem voting to hide without explanation.

If the alerter did not articulate well, then I may vote to hide, adding my own interpretation, explicitly.

If I disagree with the alerter due to clear differences, I try to explain why I am voting to leave it.

If I disagree with the alerter - and they didn't bother to explain why they alerted, or they did a poor job of explaining about a post that clearly doesn't violate any rules (which, THREADSTARTER, is what I think you are referring to), then I will probably vote to leave without explanation.

[TexasProgresive]

9. I only vote to hide if the post is an obvious personal attack. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

11. I agree.

Some obvious personal attacks are way out of bounds, but alerting on a post just to shut down discussion sort of defeats the purpose of a discussion board.

[Starry Messenger]

12. If I think a post is worth discussing, I'll discuss it.

If it is ridiculously offensive to the point of absurdity, I will alert it.

I don't need condescending jury advice from jurors who think it is everyone's god-given right to be an offensive moron.

If *you* think an offensive post should be discussed when you vote to leave it, why don't *you* go discuss it, instead of leaving me to pick up the trash.

[Number23]

17. + a million. All you have to do is look at the folks here that love the jury system and think it's

great. Tells you immediately how messed up it must be.

[Hoppy]

13. By the way, I have never sent an alert about a post.

I would alert about a personal attack but that is about the limit of my desire to stifle speech.

[Nye Bevan]

14. The jury system works very, very well.

Witness the folks who say "I would tell you what I REALLY thought of you, except that I know a jury would hide my post". Some folks are naturally civil; for some, it takes the threat of a jury hide to keep them civil, but this shows that the system works.

[cwydro]

15. Agree.

[Number23]

16. So glad you posted this. Because I am beyond tired of seeing mindless jurors who have decided

to leave everything offensive alone due to the "just DEBATE him" line of foolishness.

This web site is supposed to be a haven from the endless line of ignorant trollery that afflicts every single web site out there, especially bad for web sites that have administrators/owners that have decided to "let the people police themselves."

Most progressive web sites have actually come to the realization that MORE moderation is needed and they have begun to do so, some even going so far as to only allow posts to show only after they've been reviewed. So I truly hope that the whole "discuss, don't hide" mantra adhered to by a (thankfully small) number of jurors even on some of the most ignorant, offensive, hopeless posts goes the way of the dodo and quick.

[JEFF9K]

18. The change I saw wasn't positive.

Someone gratuitously insulted me on my thread, calling me a racist troll.

I complained, but a jury let it stand.

Then, as an experiment, I semi-gratuitously called someone half of what I was called, saying he was a racist. I was hidden and banned from my own thread!

[Major Nikon]

19. Sometimes, 1-6

On Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:49 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

A positive change on D.U.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026023541

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

this is just flame bait and therefore inappropriate

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 30, 2014, 10:56 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Would the poster like some cheese with their whine?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why is it flamebait?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bob Dole, is that you? (He claimed that Clinton's offer to not go negative in the 96 election was merely a propagnda tactic.)

It seems the alerter here thinks any attempt at conciliation is some kind of devious plot (i.e., flamebait).

The OP could not have dreamed up a better example to make his case than this alerter.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Even if that were true, most of the shit in GD is flame bait. You'll wear your button out alerting on all of it.

[NaturalHigh]

21. Note to Juror #1:

The alerter is doing the whining here, not the OP.

[Chemisse]

22. Locking as meta-discussion

Against GD SOP. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002

Statement of Purpose
Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden. For more information, click here.