Post removed

[elleng]

1. Doesn't entirely defeat the purpose, but

I get your concern. I've served on a couple.

[TheBlackAdder]

58. There should be full transparency. Notification to the poster and the thread itself. Expose abuse.

.


While there is reservations to posting jury results on the thread, causing it to go "off the rails"

everyone should know how often things get flagged around here, which users are getting constantly picked on.



The whole jury should be public, just like a real jury system. Perhaps, people will stop abusing the process.

I'm an EFF supporter and it disturbs be as to how many flags are issued here. Suppression of voice.


I assume most of us are over 18 and we should be able to use street language from time to time,
especially if it performs a literary function within the post.



.

[arcane1]

2. I thought only donors could serve on juries.

Has that changed already?

[In_The_Wind]

7. That was changed. DUers don't need a star to serve.

[lpbk2713]

8. For info ...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910827

[Cassiopeia]

3. I would argue that the purpose of the jury

is keeping the TOS violations in check, not letting jurors know whether other members agreed/disagreed with their votes.

[chillfactor]

4. well for me....

not knowing the results of the vote...defeats the purpose.

[Cassiopeia]

9. The purpose of the jury is to keep DU in check.

[trof]

12. Yep. I want to know.

[malaise]

24. I agree

I like the results.

Served on two since the new format

[unapatriciated]

57. Served on two today don't need to know

The results. I thought the reason for not notifying was to keep the drama at a minimum. I'm fine with that.

[rhett o rick]

14. Juries evaluate possible violations of Community Standards. TOS violations are handled by the

Admins.

[Cassiopeia]

16. Ok, my terminology was incorrect.

Serving on a jury is about helping to keep DU in check.

There may be an entertainment value to participating in that system, but that entertainment (or whatever) is not the purpose of serving.

This post kinda makes me think about all the claims of alert stalking during the primaries. There may have been more to that then just trying to silence people.

[rhett o rick]

19. I wasn't picking at your terminology. I find that a number of people here believe

juries deal with Terms of Service which is way more serious than Community Standards. I agree with Skinner on this. The purpose of a jury is to determine if a post violates Community Standards. Once you vote you are done. You can return to the thread and see if the post got hidden but in the past results of jury decisions were used to stir up trouble.

[eomer]

34. Under the new system juries do deal with Terms of Service.

I've served on a couple of juries so far and each one quoted this section of the TOS as the alleged violation that I was to judge:

No divisive group attacks
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.

Why we have this rule: Substantive disagreement on important issues is always welcome on this website, but our members should not be made to feel unwelcome simply because they hold a different point of view. Democratic Underground welcomes all people who are members of the Democratic coalition, including the full range of center-to-left viewpoints and supporters of all Democratic public figures.

The new DU TOS:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[rhett o rick]

46. I stand corrected.

[pintobean]

40. That's no longer the case.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

62. So what's wrong with us knowing the results? Doesn't hurt you. nt

[KT2000]

5. seems OK to me

I served on one and was surprised there were no results. The only reason I wanted to see results was to compare my reasoning with others but that really doesn't matter as I thought of it. Like Skinner said - we can now just forget about the alert and carry on.

[metroins]

6. Served on my 3rd or 4th today...very very boring

I want results and more interaction like we had.

I might opt out of the new system, it's very boring.

[trof]

13. Same here.

[ornotna]

38. I opted out when my jury serving privileges were removed/reduced

Several weeks back. Seems I was deemed undesirable for the duty. Oh well, not interested anymore.

[TwilightZone]

10. Skinner's reasoning, which I think makes a lot of sense:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910796

[trof]

15. Not to me. I strongly disagree with Skinner.

If you take the time out of your day to provide that service to DU, you should be able to see the results, just as a real courtroom jury would.

Make the results 'uncopyable' if they think that's a problem.

[awoke_in_2003]

26. I can see both sides

But how do you make the results uncopyable? Whatever tricks there may be, screenshot will work.

[LiberalFighter]

39. Screenshots take more work and require a place to store the file.

[pintobean]

41. Posting results would be a hidable offense.

Problem solved.

[Texasgal]

61. I feel very disconnected with it.

If I am going to make a reasonable choice on a hide or a keep I think I should be able to see the whole thread and I think I should get the results.

It's kind almost a robotic kind of thing now. It dosen't give me a sense of community at all.

Ofcourse, I'll get used to it. Too bad a handful of people made it shitty for those of us who were following the rules and respected the jury system.

[IronLionZion]

47. I used to think posting jury results was an expected custom here

to promote transparency

But I get Skinner's reasons that it adds to drama when it should be forgotten. Discussion will flow more smoothly and be more productive without being derailed by it

[scscholar]

56. Hiding what someone did wrong...

means we don't know what is wrong. If they refuse to tell us why they're angry with us, then they're not giving us a fair chance. Why not give us a fair chance?

[treestar]

53. It would stop all those postings of jury results

That did tend to create drama.

[Rex]

11. You are not on a jury anymore, you are acting as a moderator for the site now.

Kinda gone back to DU2, without the mod cliques that would form or were accused of forming...very refreshing new system imo.

[MerryBlooms]

22. I totally agree. I really like the new system.

The specific guidelines are great, it's way more fair and it's removed a great deal of the meta/drama/trolling. I think the admins did a super job.

[Rex]

36. Me too, hats off to them.

[Logical]

17. I agree, not sure why they decided to do that. nt

[Brickbat]

18. I like knowing the results of the jury, because it provides a good barometer as to whether my

reading of infractions and rules fits in with the larger group. I do miss that part. It was always helpful to be surprised as the lonely 1 vote on a 6-1 jury, or even to be a part of the 4 or 3; and of course it was delicious to see the 7/0 and 0/7. I find that I miss seeing the results.

[trof]

20. Exactly.

[jberryhill]

35. Yep

If you are the 1 on a 6-1 vote, it is an occasion to think about it. Maybe you were right, but it did provide a sense of whether you were unusual in that regard.

[etherealtruth]

21. I have served on three

not sure how i feel about it

Change (even good change) is often difficult.

I'd like to see what people think in a month or so

[Crunchy Frog]

23. You can find out. It just takes some extra effort.

I think it was a bad idea to get rid of the notification system. I think the feedback was a good thing.

[LisaM]

25. I was a little surprised at first

I don't particularly mind not knowing the results; however, before, when I served on juries, there were a couple of times I realized I'd misunderstood the alert and it was the comments others made that clued me in. So in that sense it was helpful to know what others thought, but I can live with the new system.

[madinmaryland]

27. The whole idea of half a dozen choices is a bit disconcerting. You either want it hidden or

you don't. Are they making it a formula as to how many points it is based on the degree that people want something hidden or not?

I do like the fact that all names are kept out of the alert. Makes it a bit easier to not worry about who is after who.

[Gothmog]

28. I served on a jury earlier today

[Lisa0825]

29. I think seeing results is entertaining, but it caused a lot of meta drama

so I get why they did away with it. I don't think it's a big deal. I didn't serve to be entertained. I served to help give back to DU.

[jack_krass]

49. +1000, couldnt agree more

[kevinmc]

30. I agree, I thought maybe it was just me. n/t

[ghostsinthemachine]

31. I am with you.

Served on two and I really want to see the results.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

32. I agree

I served today for the first time also and a) wish they'd let us know the outcome (to validate the fact my opinion is usually correct )
and b) allow us to comment, I didn't like the canned reasons they give us for explaining our votes...

[sheshe2]

33. I have been on 4 now,

I am getting the hang of it. I like not knowing who the posters are. Yes, I would prefer to know the results.

[JHB]

37. If you don't see it, you can't post it...

...so no more "I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS WAS ALLOWED TO STAND! DU SUCKS! IT'S COMPLETELY IN THE BAG FOR THOSE (fill in pie fight target) MONSTERS" threads which were generated on both sides of the divide.

[edhopper]

42. How about

if we get the results in a message, but it is against the rules to then post them in the thread?

[LWolf]

43. I got results.

Are we not supposed to get results?

I've served 3 times, and now I'm going to go back and check whether I got results each time.

Edited: I got results yesterday. No results today.

[GoCubsGo]

44. I served twice and haven't gotten them either time.

They said there would be glitches, and I guess this is one of them...

[Straw Man]

45. I like that they don't show results.

I think it helps avoid "groupthink," wherein you may want to be on whatever you think is the "winning" side rather than making an objective, impartial judgement.

More importantly, it avoids the "gotcha" posting of jury results that some engage in when they fail that their viewpoint as a juror has been validated.

[kimbutgar]

48. I also served and was curious as to what the results were

I urge the moderators to let us know. It helps knowing how others voted to see if we are all on the same page.

[Buns_of_Fire]

50. ...and what is good, and what is not good, need we define these, Phaedrus?

(Geez. One day in and I'm back to channeling Robert Pirsig. I need beer.)

[tblue37]

51. I have a trick I use that allows me to check the results of my jury service anyway.

I have served on 4 juries already, and I know the results for each one.

ON EDIT: No. I won't share my little trick. If the admins don't want us to know the results, I am not going to spread around a trick that subverts their intentions, even if I do use it myself.

[pintobean]

59. Anyone can go to the thread and see if

the post was hidden, or not. You're not getting the vote count, though.

[tblue37]

60. True. nt

[byronius]

52. I believe this thread is technically illegal.

'No discussing DU itself', I think, right? But I do not think it should be. I welcome your thoughts on this. And sometimes the most informed reflections I have are based on people discussing the mechanics of this gorgeous entity.

Nonetheless, I support Skinner's new push. He's looking for more civilized behavior in general, and maybe these new rules will help.

[James48]

54. I was just asked to serve on a new rules jury

and I did not like the rule that the poster as alleged to have violated-
that is the one about being critical of administrators/ moderators.

i found myself unwilling to enforce that rule altogether as a real democrat.
i respect other opinions, and the nature of the flag was, in my opinion, nit worthy of removing

but if I agreed to that rule, i would have had to vote to remove something that was factual and that I agreed with.

This is not the DU I have been proud to participate in and donate to for years. Ugh!

[thesquanderer]

55. I prefer to know the results too... but actually, your OP here should be alerted on.

I won't do it, because I happen to think this conversation is interesting, but technically, it does break the rules (at least for this forum), so I would not be surprised to see this thread shut down shortly. It breaks this rule:

Don't interfere with forum moderation
Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum).