You know what would stop the alert abuse in its tracks?

[grasswire]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by GP6971 (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Naming the alerter.

This has been proposed before -- before the gaming of the jury system began.

What say you?

[femmocrat]

1. It would cut down on alerts.

People would be less willing to hit the alert button if they could not remain anonymous.

[grasswire]

2. yep

more problems would be solved in-thread.

[malaise]

3. +1,000

Rec

[randys1]

4. Would help, what would be even better is to have moderators and not juries.

Said moderators would be liberal Democrats, would LAUGH at the idea of silencing ANYBODY pointing out racism, white privilege, etc.

Said moderators would simply not silence people arguing in good faith about candidates, but might shut down endless attacks against candidates. But maybe not, in my experience on the main board I came from, little time was spent attacking either Hillary or Barack other than maybe one or two people.

Most liberals know that while they might have a preference of a candidate, that given the situation on the right, the Democrat in all races must be supported and voted for.

Like I said, a real liberal works 24/7 for liberal policies and then takes 5 minutes out every 2 years (8 hours if you are Black) and votes a straight Democratic ticket solely so there is a country still there to work 24/7 on.

[Squinch]

9. ^^^^^^^This.

[tammywammy]

11. Except when there was mods before

There was constant accusations of unfair moderating, cliques and favoritism.

[randys1]

15. Then he had the wrong mods. I dont know the answer, what I do know is i have had many

hides and all of them for saying LIBERAL things, which is INSANE

[greatauntoftriplets]

27. Harumph. I was a moderator on DU2.

This may sound strange, but we tried to keep politics out of our decision making in terms of letting our personal beliefs color our actions.

[randys1]

31. DU has a unique position of stating they dont want rightwingers. Where I came from we didnt do that

which makes the fact that a liberal like myself speaking out against racism could be silenced all the more ridiculous.

Moderating this place would require true liberals to be the mods.

[greatauntoftriplets]

39. And Skinner and EarlG made those determinations.

[emulatorloo]

38. Yes, DU2 mods were very impartial and took the job very seriously

[Egnever]

42. Hell it's going on now with mirt

There was a post revealed recently where a mirt member was going after a certain candidates supporters.

[tammywammy]

47. that should be taken up to the admins

MIRT is still different than mods, they're limited to only members with less than 100 posts. If it's being abused then someone with more info than I should bring it up to the admins

[Hekate]

14. Yes, this ^^^

[dreamnightwind]

85. Disagree, bad idea

Mods would serve at the pleasure of the admins. DU is run by the DLC wing of the party. They call themselves liberal and progressive but basically are part of the problem when it comes to taking the party back from the monied elites that have captured it. The impact of this is minimized by having peer juries. Let the people decide.

[emulatorloo]

5. Dumping the juries, going back to mods

Jury system was a noble experiment. But it is a failure.

[Matariki]

18. Especially during primary season

Big fail. Also, when posts about 'f'ing someone with a bayonet' are left standing there's something wrong with the jury system.

[backscatter712]

34. THIS. The jury system here is brain damaged. Bring back real moderators. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

6. That's one goode one...

I've suggested that jurors must provide an explanation or their vote doesn't count

A few other good suggestions have come up lately, but I doubt we'll see any happen soon.

[emulatorloo]

8. Good idea re mandatory explanation n/t

[truedelphi]

32. I have been on DU since back in 2005.

Over the past ten months, twice I tried to alert, and the alert did not take.

But those two are the only alerts in my entire history here that I have attempted.

Certainly I don't understand how some people can alert so often.

We should give each DU'er two alerts for every six months, and then that's it.

I have become very tired of being on a jury to defend someone who has been dumped on over and over again in some discussion. (Which you find out by going back into the posts where the alert has occurred.)

You realize that when they finally slung the crap back with a rather mild rebuke, they were then alerted on. For some mild rebuke or slightly sarcastic comment.

This is nuts.

[SCantiGOP]

62. I like truedelphi's idea

I read through the entire thread, and I think limiting the number of alerts each person has would help.
Or, maybe go to a super-majority - require at least a 5-2 vote to hide.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. a mandatory explanation would make no difference - unless it made it worse

'I agree' is an 'explanation'. Unless you want people to be able to alert for 'insufficient explanation', in which case there would be more alerts still. And some people wouldn't want to be on juries if they could be criticised for not writing enough about it. Which might make the juries less representative.

[TreasonousBastard]

84. Originally, in another thread, I suggested an explanation only...

for votes to hide. I'm thinking that would be the way to go since there's no real need for an explanation for not hiding.

The default would normally be to not hide, but it's too easy to just click and walk off the way it is. Make it actual work to hide.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

71. Explanation with a (for instance) 100 character minimum. No just "I agree" or "me too."

[tammywammy]

73. So

....................................................................................................

[Gidney N Cloyd]

77. Point taken but I'd hope they could filter for something like that if it came up often.

[skepticscott]

89. Agree with that one

It would make it more likely that jurors were actually giving some thought to their vote.

I'd also like to see posters get notified every time one of their posts gets alerted on, even if it doesn't get hidden. That would make any alert trolling a lot easier to see. And if someone has two failed alerts in a certain time period, they should be blocked from alerting for a week. And anyone who is on a vacation for 5 hides should absolutely be barred from alerting. That's an easy one.

Skinner has pretty much said that identifying the alerters is not going to happen, though.

[VMA131Marine]

7. There is value in alerters being anonymous because ...

it reduces the likelihood of revenge alerts. A similar deterrent effect may result from a person's profile including the number of alerts they have submitted and the date of the most recent alert.

[backscatter712]

36. This is why DU needs real moderators instead of juries.

Actual moderators can shut down frivolous alerts.

Right now, the system is "Alert on anything you disagree with, roll the dice, maybe you'll get lucky and get four morons on the jury who'll vote to hide."

[w0nderer]

10. it would cut down on alert abuse

but it'd also lead to hit lists

oh x alerted on y
all y's buddies now target x

just a different form of alert abuse where the more buddies you have the easier it becomes to game the system

More likely to have an effect would be

"more than X alerts per {TIME_FRAME_SET_BY_ADMIN}" == tossed to attention of admin and mirt with 'potential alert abuse'

[randys1]

53. Real liberals dont do hit lists. Not a problem if you vet the mods.

[w0nderer]

87. real liberals might not

but a lot of du members DO

in fact if you haven't seen hitlists...where have you been the last 6 months?
there are hitlists NOW

multiple ones from all directions

[tammywammy]

12. That would just create revenge alerting

Oh you alerted on me so I'm going to alert on you bullshit.

[TreasonousBastard]

86. Good point.

[alphafemale]

13. Limiting the number of alerts to a few per week.

Tops.

Unless there was some obvious stalking going on which I did see in one thread very recently.

And maybe that could be a different type of alert.

[Matariki]

16. Moderators?

Like the old days on DU?

[katsy]

17. Yes and maybe 10 day ban for serial

alerters if jury judgement goes against them multiple times

[Egnever]

48. This I think would be better

After say three alerts go against you you can't alert again for a set time period.

[BlueJazz]

19. 2 alerts from the same alerter per day /// 5 alerts from the same alerter per week.

[Omaha Steve]

52. There are many people with multiple IDs on the DU

They will just log in under another name and alert away.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. And silly me, to think that was a banable offense

yup, some piggies and all that

[BlueJazz]

58. Didn't know that. I thought the powers that be checked the IP address for duplicates.

[Omaha Steve]

63. Is there a way to get around that or is it not checked often?

[tammywammy]

65. If you think someone is doing that you should contact the admins

They can check and I've seen people banned before for using a sock to get around the alerting rules.

[Omaha Steve]

68. The trick is know who has which multiple IDs

Look at those that get killed by MIRT and come right back.

Can the system not allow a certain address to post?

[tammywammy]

69. They can put in an IP block

But those aren't hard to get around either.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

76. Something like that plus a max # of times an alerter can alert on the same poster per month.

[FarPoint]

20. Sounds quite fair and reasonable.

I say yes.

[demtenjeep]

21. I wish that when a post gets alerted on, the jury actually looked only at the offending post not who

posted it

[ohnoyoudidnt]

29. I look at the post in context.

Sometimes there is a back and forth between two people where one person instigates and antagonizes and the other person responds in kind and gets alerted I tend to be more lenient to that person.

The admins can see the person who sent the alert. It can't be that hard to notice when someone is being targeted by another person or group.

[LittleBlue]

22. Should have been done ages ago

Also a hide should be given to the loser, not just the alerted upon.

The worst an abusive alerter can face is a 1 day freeze on his alert privileges. His victims face up to 3 months out. It's a system guaranteed to cause abuse.

[Brother Buzz]

23. I'm all for it with one caveat:

The alerter should not be named until the jury is finished deliberating.

[tammywammy]

24. Skinner has discussed this before in AtA

1. I guess I'm not really seeing the problem that you are trying to solve here.

Could you point me to a particular alert that was sent by a sockpuppet?

As for your proposed solutions:

1) Making names public on alerts would insure that nobody ever sends an alert because nobody wants to be publicly shamed. Alerts are GOOD. They are the incentive that keeps this place (relatively) civil. If anything, we need more alerts, not fewer.

2) There is already a (modest) minimum number of posts that a person must have in order to have their alerts sent to a jury.

To be honest, when I see some of the complaints about allegedly benign or frivolous alerts I think the real problem here may be perception rather than reality. The amount of attention paid to alerts is greatly disproportionate to their actual impact on the site. Back when we had moderators, we would routinely delete 200 or more posts a day, compared to less than 20 per day now. The number of alerts (including frivolous ones) and the number of deleted posts have been slashed MASSIVELY under the jury system. The big difference is that before we moderated the site in secret and forbade people from discussing it, whereas now everyone is given a heads-up whenever *anything* happens -- even if a post ISN'T removed. I suspect many of the complaints would dry up if we simply got rid of the automatic notification of jury results whenever a jury votes to leave a post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598283

[LoveIsNow]

25. Would probably worsen alert stalking.

What if instead of making our public, the system were programmed to take away the altering privileges of anyone who has a certain number of always voted down, exempting 4-3 decisions?

[oberliner]

26. A solution looking for a problem

Where there isn't one.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

28. I agree. Lately, I've been signing my alerts.

I don't get involved in the Hillary - Bernie squabble. I alert on spammers.

[ileus]

30. I've never understood how anyone can get so upset at words...

[ileus]

33. Simple answer is always vote "Leave it" if the alert isn't signed. Own the alert of lose the jury...

[rpannier]

35. I would be okay with this

If the alerter gets more than x-number of alerts voted to leave it, they lose alerting privileges for a few days
And they cannot alert on that thread any more

[dembotoz]

37. as of late the juries i have been on seem to have been more valid

civility needs to return to du and i think the jury system helps that as we become involved more involved in the primaries

i know i have toned it down a bit and i think being on juries has been a reason

[ejbr]

40. To be honest

if a post is hidden within a thread, I am 100% likely to show it and read what it was out of curiosity. I ALWAYS read hidden posts, sort of defeating the purpose of hiding them.

[pintobean]

41. Gaming of the jury system?

I keep seeing this claim, but no one ever explains how it's done.

[Whiskeytide]

43. Limiting the number of alerts ...

... is necessary, and it's long past time to do it. If you're alerting more than a couple of times a week, you have a problem. If a post is truly over the top, someone will alert it even if you're out of alerts or if you're the type who would be stingy with your alerts.

We would still have some alert stalking, no doubt - but at least you'd have to band together with other alert junkies to pool enough alerts in your war chest to truly go after someone specifically - and if you're doing that, you have some very serious issues and need to seek help.

Maybe everyone could get 2 alerts per week (no rollovers), but then you could buy more alerts (and raise money for DU) - as long as the alert store published the alert purchase activity for each DUer. That way we wouldn't know who was alerting on specific posts, but we would know who was buying a shit ton of alerts.

Just my 2 cents.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. The jury should have a button to alert on the alerter for alerting on a post that's not alertible.

If enough agree than the alerter's name is made public.

[TexasProgresive]

45. I'm for it also

Profiles should show a count of alerts listing both hides and not. What's wrong with some accountability?

[Whiskeytide]

50. I like the idea of the profile stating the number of alerts...

... and the win/loss record. Again, that doesn't reveal who alerted on your post (so no revenge issues), but it would tell us who might have an "alerting" problem, and would indicate who might be making frivolous alerts.

Something has to be done. It really is getting out of hand. I know there are many who say alert abuse is overblown as a problem - but the evidence really is there.

[TexasProgresive]

55. I recently posted my ideas about improving the jury system

here's the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599144
Skinner doesn't think there is a problem.

[Whiskeytide]

60. I like them all...

... except perhaps the issue of anonymity. I could see how revenge stalking could become an issue. There are several cliques, it would seem, and if you alerted one (even one clearly deserving) you could pretty easily make 20 enemies without even realizing it.

I've been here since 2011, lurking for three years before that. I've served on dozens of juries - at least 30 to 50 I'd guess. I've voted to hide exactly twice. And I have never alerted a post. Ever. You can actually enjoy DU without treating it like a Machiavellian exercise in scheming and gamesmanship.

[CTyankee]

46. I just try and stay out of the whole thing. I have no patience for it, so I am no help at all...

sorry. I hope it all works out for folks here that care so much and so passionately. I love your fervor. Keep on trying........

[Kaleva]

49. There is no actual evidence that the jury system is being succesfully gamed...

or that alert abuse is going on.

[blackspade]

70. Then you haven't been paying attention....

[mopinko]

51. no, i agree w skinner.

if y'all could had looked backstage at the old hot tub, you would know that the only thing that has changed is the opening up and sorta randomizing the process. instead of a member who volunteers to be a mod for a 3 month period, now lots of people are asked to mod for a minute.
that is all.
maybe a max number of alerts a day would solve the problem. and by problem i mean the perception of members that this is going on, whether it is or not. the mods heard all the same complaints. all.the.time.

or maybe more transparency in the process, like a forum where alerts are all auto-published.

war parties would not solve the problem, which is what you would get.

[eggplant]

54. Autoposting of the jury results on all alerts.

This would make it very obvious who is being alert stalked.

Also, naming the alerter on 0-7 results.

[DeadLetterOffice]

74. ^^^This^^^ n/t

[blackspade]

59. All for it.

Although to be fair, some alerts will be ignored based on who made them.
It would still be an improvement.

[bl968]

61. Admin intervention is required.

More than that punish the people making abusive alerts and abusive jury decisions. You do that by having an admin review every alert and reason given for a jury decision, you also require comment by each jury member specifying their reason for their vote.

[nyabingi]

64. This whole alert system kinda

took me off guard at first because it's fundamentally against the idea of having a solid debate about whatever the topic is. If someone doesn't like what you've said (that it's "mean", which is one that has been tossed in my direction), they can just lobby to have you censored and you have no way of defending yourself against the alerter or the jury members.

I have never even though of alerting on someone's comment (nor would I) because I'm seeking a good debate, not trying to shut it down. My initial postings are meant to be provocative and to tap the emotional reservoir of the reader, if anything to get the train moving into my substantive conversation. If you've provoked me enough to get me angry, I'm gonna debate it with you and trade ideas with you, not run home crying like a baby. We're all adults here and everyone can fend for themselves.

There's value to keeping any comment boards moderated and well-kept, but it can be abused to silence dissent, and that defeats the whole purpose of being able to comment and engage others in heated conversation.

[neverforget]

66. No. It would spawn revenge alerts, turn into meta with threads about the alerter

the reason for the alert, why it failed or succeeded and more "my side vs your side" bs.

[LuvNewcastle]

67. Sounds good to me.

If I go to the trouble to make an alert, Ill stand behind it. Anonymous alerts are for craven shit-stirrers.

[SoapBox]

72. Ditto!

And a tracking system...a user keeps alerting and those alerts are voted down by the jury, the system tracks that and at some point your alerting "priveledges" are revoked for a period of time.

[tammywammy]

75. The admins can see who alerts what already. n/t

[Hotler]

78. People having thicker skin????????

[MerryBlooms]

79. The admins see who alerts...

they know if there's a pattern or not, and can/will take action.

The only reason for alerters to be named is for more harassing and bullying. That's the last doggone thing we need around here!

[FailureToCommunicate]

82. Fair point.

(not Far Point)

/revision/latest?cb=20121121015928

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. They will never ever do that

[Utopian Leftist]

81. Alert abuse is rampant here.

And I have been on four recent juries, none of which were worthy of my time.

There are some posters on this board, however, who seem immune to peer pressure. I'm not sure that naming them as alerters will cause them to alert any more conscientiously than they already do. For them, I would suggest we might consider initiating "alert limits." Maybe if they're not allowed to alert on every other post they disagree with, the nonsense will stop?

[xloadiex]

83. Absolutely!

I did this on my forum (non political) and it cut the abuse down to almost nothing.

[GP6971]

88. Locking

Please repost to ATA.

Thank you.

the Hosts