Kudos to the DU Administrators

[rbrnmw]

For making positive changes to DU, which many consider their online home. I am loving the changes.

[snooper2]

2. no, it is like being charged with one offense and having a jury of your peers submit the verdict

During sentencing the judge, Skinner, decides if you are a habitual offender

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Nope, totally automated process

I got three notices that three different people had alerted on the same post for different reasons and the account was automatically suspended pending review.

No jury that I am aware of. But then, that is another change I have issues with. If there was a jury no one would know, since all results are now secret except for the final action. Again, it is his site, and he may do with it as he pleases, but it is not something we would allow in real life.

[cali]

4. I'm gobsmacked by the post of mine that was hidden this am

It was absolutely not infringing on the new rules.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Seems to me an easy way to suppress any unpopular opinion

But maybe that is just me.

[Matt_in_STL]

8. I'm finding the best way to avoid hides is to not post in the Bernie group.

The group is being watched closely and everything is being alerted.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Yeah, I get that feelin as well.

[demmiblue]

12. I haven't seen this much squelching since 7.

I think that there is going to be a terrible loss in traffic and discussion.

I really like DU.... I will be very sad if this is where it is headed.

[Warpy]

3. The best change is having the rule that was supposedly violated

right there for the juror to read before ruling.

[dumbcat]

7. Do you realize you just broke a rule?

You just violated a Term of Service, and this OP is alertable. An honest jury would have to find it in clear violation of the 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).

How 'bout that?

[Rex]

9. How does the OP interfere with forum moderation?

You should have embolden all of it, not just the part that says 'no meta'.

[dumbcat]

13. That is the title (name) of the rule, not the rule itself

The rule itself is bolded, and quite clear. " Do not post messages about ..." Which is exactly what the OP did. The rule describes what the Admins consider to be Interference with forum moderation.

I didn't write the rule. I'm not saying it makes sense. But it's the rule as stated. How would an honest juror have to rule?

[LanternWaste]

11. Jury duty is certainly much cleaner and contained

Jury duty is certainly much cleaner and contained... that's something I appreciate; and the lack of names of posters or even groups has made my own decisions more objective and oriented towards community standards. Despite my initial concern that knowledge of context is lost, it's turning out that there's simply not that much context to take in account anyway.

[Iggo]

14. Meta!

( )

[rbrnmw]

15. ...