This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by cbayer (a host of the General Discussion forum).
This is a great board for all of us who are not on the right side of the political spectrum. It has truly been a lifeline for us when the bushies stole the 2000 election, but it is as relevant today - more so - because we have seen that the left can fight back and win against the cheating repugs may seem to be out to pervert democracy and freedom (see the rules restricting voting in some states and the flood of third party $ into the political system).
Being an open board, we are going to be bombarded by trolls, emotional outbursts, and strong views. Even among friends, there are going to be intense differences of opinion. The JURY system is a good theoretically impartial approach to moderating the boards and keeping dialogue fair and rational.
However, being selected for a jury is a huge responsibility. Despite urges to the contrary, being on the jury should not be an opportunity to enforce a viewpoint. We need to encourage open and honest dialogue on this board - that's the underlying principle of the progressive large tent. We should not hide posts that we don't agree with or that we are unsure about. Every time we hide a post, we ARE removing someone's opinion from view and from being read. This should only be done when there is a clear violation of rules - and only then - and not to enforce a personal viewpoint.
Unless something is really, really offensive, I always vote to let the post remain. It is important to hold the same standard, no matter if you like the person or not.
The rules don't say 'really, really offensive'. They say 'rude, insensitive' etc. You're deliberately not hiding posts that SHOULD be hidden when you impose your own stricter standard for hiding. Yes, you should hold the same standard for everyone, but that standard should be the one given to you by the site owners.
what isnt rude and insensitive to me might be to others so i go with would it bother me and in most cases the answer is no
but I think most people can look at the comments and replies and figure out if the person is TRYING to be rude, whether or not it would 'bother' you to be talked to in such a way. It might not bother you to be called an idiot by someone you don't respect, for instance, but I think most folks could figure out the person calling you that was being rude.
While i can buy into the ability to measure intent, i don't concur that it's cut and dried and purely objective.
Quite honestly, i think your reply to H2OMan could be construed as rude if i extend your defintion to its logical extreme.
Hence, like H2OMan, i need to see something over the top before i vote to hide.
Also, i'm sure you have seen alerts that smack of vendetta or animus. If we want the jury system to be cleaner and more objective, we need to start with eliminating frivolous alerts.
But it's an 'or', not an 'and'. When you say you 'need to see something over the top', you're saying you don't consider any of the other possible criteria important enough to hide. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the people who set up the jury system and wrote up the criteria for hiding comments.
And I reread my comment to H2OMan and I'd love to know exactly what in it you think could be considered 'rude' in a 'logical extreme', unless your 'logical extreme' is that any disagreement or suggestion that someone else could be wrong about something is 'rude'. And I'd call that an 'illogical extreme'.
The logical extreme is simple to derive. Does it really require and explanation?
Because by the time you get to 'extreme' you tend to abandon logic. What's the 'logical extreme' of noticing that slower traffic speeds result in fewer traffic deaths? A speed limit of 0, that generates 0 deaths? The real world works off of averages and realistic ranges, not 'logical extremes'.
with them is 'rude and insensitive'.
What is the purpose on hitting a radio button to select as your reason for hiding a post that it is 'rude, etc' if that's not actually a legitimate reason to hide a post and the only real reasons are ToS violations?
Shouldn't there be a single, already checked checkbox that says 'Post violates ToS' if that's the only reason to hide it?
But what is rude to some people, is as I said, not agreeing with them, or 'rude' may be acceptable behavior to them.
What is 'rude'? To me, it's name-calling, insulting other posters, using right wing talking points against DUers etc. I don't hide posts that include four letter words, eg. Other people consider THAT rude.
Maybe a lists of examples would be helpful. Because 'rude' doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.
But I think the whole point of 'community moderation' is to reflect the community. We already see what happens if someone alerts frivolously, or in the 'logical extreme' as one person has suggested - posts get let stand by 7 to 0. If you're too far from the norms, everyone can tell that you're making a BS alert. My point, though, was not that you should hide everything based on some specific definition of 'rude', but that you should hide them if, by your own standards, they're rude. Each of us gets to use our own standards of rude, with the understanding that 'rude posts' are one of the things that are supposed to be hidden according to the list of possible reasons for hiding something.
Otherwise, 'rude' should simply be removed from the list of reasons to hide entirely.
juries enforce subjective "community standards", which mean different things to different people.
Surprised you're not aware of that.
for posts by posters I don't like.
I only judge the post.
I dislike when jurors use the explanation to insult the alerter or the poster in question.
Chickenshit IMO, since they know they're anonymous.
because some alerts are so frivolous that they're essentially taking advantage of the jury system. Pointing that out, when you know the alerter will read the jury decision, is perfectly fine IMO. Of course, that's different than saying the alerter is an asshole, etc.
agree with the poster politically, or that the alerter should have 'responded in comments'.
If the alerted-upon post is 'disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate' it should be hidden, because those are the specific criteria for hiding something. You shouldn't be acknowledging that a post is 'rude' or 'insensitive' and then turning around and NOT voting to hide it. The reasons for hiding comments are clearly delineated. To not hide something that breaks those reasons is still 'enforcing a personal viewpoint'.
drawback of every jury system, including the jury system here at DU.
.... I am a "hidden post" junkie. I usually find them fascinating - especially the genuine meltdowns, and the obvious trolls. And the comments are usually funny as hell. That probably says a lot about me, I suppose!!
But because I can't resist the blue view post, I have seen more than a few absolutely ridiculous hides, and many that were obviously based on a personal vendetta with the accused. Also, quite a few "we should not have to see that on a democratic board".... WTF? Are our positions so delicate that we cannot defend them from criticism? Put on your big boy/girl underwear, folks, pick up a keyboard, and take up a post on the bandwidth.
But we do need a juror honor code -
Oh man, I HATE this poster - If you allow your personal feelings for the accused influence your adjudication of a post, you should be ashamed of yourself. Period. If you have previously had any back and forth with the accused that might have caused you to form an opinion of him/her, you should decline the jury assignment. You would never serve on a real jury if you knew and had fought with the accused, right? Or if you were their best friend? This should be no different.
Well, that doesn't sound very progressive - "I'm voting to hide because I don't agree with that post" is conclusive evidence that the juror desires to change the name of this place to the "Authoritarian Underground"!!
Do I really have to explain myself? - Yes. You do. The "comments/explanation" on your decision should not be "optional". If you can't explain your decision, you should not have made it. If you're too busy to write a one sentence comment explaining your decision, you should have been too busy to thoughtfully adjudicate a post in the first instance.
I wanna be a troll hunter, baby - People sometimes seem to abandoned "innocent until proven guilty" on this progressive discussion board, which stuns me. Here, that would be what you said - leave it unless it is a clear violation of rules. It is very clear from some hides that jurors were intentionally reading the worst into a post. I've seen jurors spend their rent money to extrapolate evil intent from something that was, at best, vague and ambiguous. Beyond a reasonable doubt really does mean something.
Hiding someone's words and opinions is always a big freakin' deal - even on an internet board. Please do it thoughtfully and with sound, democratic principles, or decline to do it. You owe that to your DU community.
If you prefer a lack of viewpoint discrimination, check out Discussionist and see if that's the environment you'd prefer
when I have a conflict of interest , th e ratio is 1 out of 4 .
If you want to view it anyone can just hit the 'view post' button.
Of course, in my case most of the alerts are stupid and/or frivolous in the first place.