24-hour poll: Does DU need judges as well as juries?

[Occulus]

Mods, this is being posted as a poll here in GD because you can't post polls in Meta. Thank you for your understanding.

13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Yes
	3 (23%)
	No
	10 (77%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DURHAM D]

1. Yes -

so crap like this will be removed when the jury fails.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002810596

[boppers]

2. If you don't trust juries, why trust judges?

Why give one person to the power to over-ride 6? Why even have juries?

[Warpy]

3. It would be nice to have a tiebreaker

Even numbered juries are a bad idea.

[XemaSab]

4. i thought the author of the op

was the tiebreaker?

[EFerrari]

13. I think it encourages people to vote more carefully

because of the possibility of a tie.

[Occulus]

14. Three trolls sat on a jury.

What happens next?

[EFerrari]

17. How often does that happen?

Seriously, how big a problem is it?

[Occulus]

18. I'm not certain that is an answerable question

That said, I've been seeing numbers greater than one instead of zeroes lately under the names of low-count trolls who have been PPR'd in the "Number of times served on a Jury" spot, and that bothers me.

[Little Star]

33. +1

[RC]

23. There is no such thing as a tied or hung jury on DU

The DU jury system was weighted towards leaving posts on purpose. It is not a fluke, not a flaw of the DU jury system, but by design to have an even number of jurors. I think it was a very good idea.
I really don't understand why people seem to have so much trouble with this concept. It works. But I have noticed that people that like to hide other peoples post, do have a problem with the even numbered jury.
Anyway, don't like it, take it up with Admin.

[limpyhobbler]

5. what would the judges do

[johnnie]

9. Add an extra 1,000 whiny threads a day to Meta. n/t

[Little Star]

34. YEP

[WorseBeforeBetter]

48. Ha, ha...good one.

I ventured in there the other day and was ASTOUNDED at the activity. Meanwhile, Good Reads is ignored like the red-headed stepchild.

[Occulus]

11. verdict notwithstanding

failure to comply with TOS

IOW, things a judge does.

[pintobean]

52. That would be MIRT and admin.

The alerter is the prosecutor. It's up to him/her to notify the court of these violations - check the TOS box.

[Electric Monk]

6. There are no mods on DU3, only forum hosts and juries (and admins)

[Occulus]

7. smartass

[MADem]

8. The admins are the judges; this is their private courthouse.

And when it comes to jury results? Tie goes to the runner!

[agent46]

10. Why not go for the trifecta?

Judges, Juries and Executioners

[Occulus]

12. We already have those.

And MIRT really does do a fantastic job.

[Son of Gob]

15. Yes

[Common Sense Party]

21. And a Hung Jury!

[Son of Gob]

22. Hit It!

[gkhouston]

16. We already have them. They're called admins.

And they probably wish this place were a little less like "Night Court".

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

19. Too many moderators on DU2 moderated with their pet cause front and center

the jury system forces consideration by a more diverse group. Volunteer moderators were a self-selecting group with a predisposition to certain beliefs that were not representative of the community as a whole, much like HOA board members.

[Rhiannon12866]

45. The moderators' job was to determine whether an alerted post broke the rules as they were written.

Juries don't have a set of rules to go by, so it's much more subjective. I think that's where the disagreement's coming from...

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

46. And some did it poorly,

I much prefer "I know it when I see it" consensus, there was one moderator who was more or less guardian angel to a particular individual who seems to have left our company and would delete anything where he was getting called out on his bullshit. Practically shutting down debate on that issue since he would thread crap every discussion.

[Rhiannon12866]

49. Well, I was a mod and I never saw that.

Sure, we'd debate things, and would sometimes disagree, but it was over our interpretation of the rules. Myself, unless it was a serial disruption, I often didn't notice who the poster was because I was too busy evaluating so many alerted posts. We all just tried to be fair and keep up... I know some members believe that we "played favorites" or let certain issues slide, but I never saw it on my side of the fence.

[Kalidurga]

20. I would have voted for a tie-breaker option. A 3-3 ruling goes to a tie-breaker.

IDC if it is a judge, admin, or another jury(but an uneven number jury) some system where ties don't get to remain unhidden.

[Javaman]

24. What's the point of having a judge? we might as well have mods back. Stay with the juries.nt

[ProfessorGAC]

26. +1

This desire to have a tiebreaker seems like a solution in search of a problem.
GAC

[Little Star]

37. no

[Javaman]

40. brilliant retort.

[Little Star]

41. Well my skin is pretty thick...

No need for your put down.

[Javaman]

43. Put down?

you answered with a single word with no explanation.

I was kind.

[davidpdx]

25. No, the system isn't perfect

But neither was it when there were mods. People are up in arms pissing and moaning about the one particular OP which was misogynist. While I agree it was bad, some of the responses were just as bad if not worse. If I slap you and then you slap me back we are both at fault. The same thing can be said for what happened over on that thread with a few people (note: I didn't post on that thread at all).

[Occulus]

29. "the one particular OP"

Oh, it's a moight more than just the one.

That OP did not prompt this poll, but rather the spate of "bad" jury decisions lately.

I happen to believe the default 3-3 "leave it" position is a very large part of the 'problem', if there is one. Hence my question.

[davidpdx]

31. I don't know about the spat of bad decisions

Because I'm not on every single day. I may log on one day and not log on again for a week.

There was one particular thread today that people were upset about. I understand people are trying to alert on an OP, but if a jury doesn't go their way it's no reason to throw a fit.

I've served on two juries, one quite a long time ago and one tonight. The jury I was on tonight wasn't about an OP but a response and it was 6-0. People can piss and moan about it, but 6 people chose to hide a post that was as bad as the OP itself.

[Occulus]

32. And then there's my own experience first thing this morning,

where I sat on a jury over an alert sent for "screwing up the format" (a direct quote).

A Judge could have simply thrown that out and not bothered anyone with it. Now we'll have a Meta thread over the "silly alert".

BTW, I don't think the system that's been set up is broken so much as that it's incomplete. We have juries, a supreme court, and executioners as things are. It looks, to me, as though there's just one piece missing.

[greytdemocrat]

27. And next...

When someone doesn't like a "Judge" will come the call for a DU Supreme Court after which we can argue over how many SCJ's there shoud be.

[Occulus]

28. We call those Admins n/t

[Little Star]

38. +1

[FSogol]

30. Only when the jury doesn't agree with me.

[Kingofalldems]

35. They need me to hunt down and banish disruptors

[slackmaster]

36. DU juries sometimes make bad decisions. So would judges.

[Little Star]

39. YES SIR RE BOB!

[davsand]

42. Is it really ok to use a jury to censor opinions that fly in the face of the community?

I was not involved in any way with the thread cited in the OP. I have looked at the thread and its premise is not anything I agree with. Having said that, I have to admit that I don't think I'd have voted to delete the post had I been on that jury.

While I think the thread's premise is full of crap and one of the dumbest things I've seen in a while, it seems more appropriate to me to let the community have at it in the thread rather than censor it. Stupid is not forbidden here last time I checked.



Laura

[Rhiannon12866]

44. Aren't the admins the judges, the final arbiters here?

[KatChatter]

50. No Juries, No Judges at all

and moderation limited to spam removal and threats of physical violence only.

Keep allowing people to block whom they want.

You asked.

[Shrek]

51. +1

I emphatically agree.