I'd like to encourage jurors to read the surrounding post on alerts

[drmeow]

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

I was on this jury and noticed the explanation by juror #1 which I posted below. Disregarding whether the post should have been hidden or not, had juror #1 looked at the full thread s/he would have noticed that the full thread is mostly a back and forth between the OP and the poster alerted on. The two comments immediately after the alerted post were a response by the OP and then this comment by the poster who was alerted on: "DNA has nothing to do with religious belief. What was your point except to climb in bed with Adolf?" IMO this post makes it clear that the "moustache" remark quite definitely is a reference to Hitler. Whether or not that warrants hiding the post is up to the juror but I personally feel that for the jury system to work it is important for jurors to know the full context of the alerted post.

In fact, I personally think it is so important for jurors to review the post in context that I wonder if the alert system should automatically include at least 2 prior and 2 follow-up posts on an alert if that alert is part of a sub-thread (not sure if I'm using that term correctly). Except in cases where it is pretty cut and dried, I find that the alerter's explanation often isn't sufficient for me to really determine if the post should be hidden or not and I almost always look at the other posts around it to help me make a decision.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Looks like you and the moustache agree."

Really? It's come to the point where posters call other members Hitler.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 20, 2015, 01:30 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He never called anyone Hitler, the only place it was used is by you, the alerter. Not even close to a hide.

[NV Whino]

1. I always try to read a few previous posts to get context

Sometimes it's difficult if it is a long involved thread. But most often a couple of posts will put the comment in context.

I do despair at the reading comprehension on Du at times, though.

[stage left]

15. This is what I do also.

If it's couple of people bickering, I tend to vote to leave it, since neither party is particularly innocent. I leave everything that isn't a personal insult ,ie: calling a Duer a piece of shit, a moron, or a freeper or the c word.. Imo lots of people here trying to get other people hid because they don't like them. Funny. Because I always read the posts that are hidden and I figure I'm not alone. Most of my jury duty has been on what I consider damned silly alerts.

[Duckhunter935]

2. Tha Adolph

Post was after the post that was alerted on

[drmeow]

7. I realize that

As a jury member, we do not know if the alert was made just on the post we are adjudicating or on multiple posts. It is possible that the Adolph post was also alerted on. It is also possible that the moustache post was only been alerted on after the Adolph post was made. I'm not saying whether either or both posts should have been hidden - I'm saying that in general I personally think it is a good idea to see the context. Alerts don't necessarily happen in post order nor do they happen in a vacuum.

[Duckhunter935]

11. I look at the alerted post

The other posts may or may not have been alerted on. The jury is looking at the post that had the alert.

[yeoman6987]

14. I agree. The jury is for alerted post not the thread.

If there is back and forth that should be handled by MIRT if out of hand or other alerts.

[mnhtnbb]

3. I hardly ever feel that I can make an adequate judgment about an alerted post

without looking at more posts in the thread. And more often than not, I'll vote
to LEAVE IT because the alerted post is not a sole offensive post, and it feels
as though someone is alerting as a way of playing 'gotcha' with someone else.

[drmeow]

18. yeah, I've had that reaction, too n/a

[question everything]

4. As a start, I'd like jurors to provide an explanation

It is quite rare that more than two would.

And, yes, I try to read the surrounding posts to understand the thread.

Still, i wish that when two DUers are engaged in a pissing contest, that one of them would just decide to give up and move to other issues.

This is only a discussion board, after all.

[drmeow]

9. AMEN!!!!!

"Still, i wish that when two DUers are engaged in a pissing contest, that one of them would justdecide to give up and move to other issues." It seems to come down to giving up having the last word - I resolve it by blocking the person, that way I don't actually know they've had the last word

SO many alerts seem to come down to this - and many times the pissing contest starts with a misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

Also, sometimes I don't quite how to explain my decision. But you are right, I should try harder and be more consistent about providing an explanation.

[question everything]

21. When I vote to leave it alone

my explanation often is: rebut, this is a discussion board. And I am really glad when I see other jurors use a similar logic.

One case was really funny: There were discussions here about a long standing DUer who was banned for unfortunate choice of words.

So someone, lets call him "stillcrazy" posted: next thing we will ban stillcrazy. And someone actually alerted! A "personal attack.."

You could feel the collective eye rolling among the jurors.

[drmeow]

23. I once made a stupid alert

like that cause I completely misinterpreted the post. I felt like a complete idiot so when I get an alert like that I try to stop the eye roll response and assume the alerter had an "oops" moment

[hollysmom]

5. I try and read most of the thread - and have seen times when the alerter is also a goader

I try and keep things in context, that is why I am taking a short break, too complicated with the primary partisans. I think they carry comments from other threads, it is just getting too hard to judge without knowing the history of all the people involved.

[drmeow]

13. Also very true

There have been many a post I'm adjudicated where what I really want to do is hide multiple posts leading up to it!

Despite having been a DU member for many years, I don't really "know" a lot of posters and I definitely don't know the history and/or relationships between posters. That can be a pro and a con when adjudicating.

[Iggo]

6. Meta!

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. I actually loved and miss Meta.

Maybe it's a Norwalk thing.

[Iggo]

19. Me, too.

I spent way more time here back then.

Was a star member, too...lol.

[Ptah]

8. If only you could link to the thread, we could see the context you imply.

[drmeow]

16. I don't want to do that

as I am not trying to make a point about this particular post. I'm trying to make a general statement about jury service using this particular jury decision as an example.

[PufPuf23]

10. As a juror, I always at least skim the thread.

Context matters especially among juveniles.

[Brother Buzz]

12. Looks like someone was itching to pull the trigger on Godwin's law....

When there was no there there. That alert was weak sauce.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=212891

[Iggo]

20. There must be some mistake. That thread only has one reply.

[Ex Lurker]

22. The only reason I vote to hide a post

is for an overt insult or threat. If the powers that be want to exclude me from the jury pool on that basis, they have every right to do so and I will accept it without complaint. But in my view, message boards are not the place for thin-skinned people.

[Sissyk]

24. Locking.

Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.

Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.