Post removed

[rzemanfl]

1. +1. K&R. n/t

[TheBlackAdder]

71. You can sense people, those who would carry a vendetta or tag team--add them to your Jury Blacklist!

.


I am a staunch EFF supporter, and censoring someone is only meant for the extreme.


I have noticed certain people would camp on OPs at the time people were being juried and silenced.

I've placed those people in my Jury Blacklist and things have been pretty quiet lately.


Someone should really only be able to flag once or twice a month, and participate on a jury once a week. If something is egregiously written, others on the site will flag it and vote on it. This would eliminate the roving death squads and prevent people from becoming self-anointed cops.


Another wrote below, that this is one of the only sites they get OPs and posts taken down. I agree. This is the only site that I have had content taken down. When I had my first one, I had already been participating in various on-line boards since the mid-90s. I have never had a post taken down before that, and I took offence to it. Sometimes I write with nuance, with snark and with pointed replies, and while I acknowledge that it might not come across that way on the receiver's side, I still can not get past the point that this is the first site to ban my posts in 20 years of online activity. I was seriously debating about maintaining a paid star, or just shift to freeloading, but my personal belief that one should pay for things they use prevented that.


.

[womanofthehills]

79. the jury blacklist is not long enough

[TheBlackAdder]

87. True. During the primary, I counted one side with at least 20 and the other side with 45 flaggers.

.


I had to chose the most active of the lot, who seemed to conflict with my posts, and still I got pinched a few times.


.

[Egnever]

91. Agreed you should have an alert limit

other wise it is just fishing for hides.

[Demsrule86]

111. Why would anyone fish for hides?

And there are consequences for frivolous alerts.

[Egnever]

115. Because they had a disagreement and are mad about it.

People are petty.

[Cattledog]

2. I agree!

[Plucketeer]

64. Me too! nt

[hlthe2b]

3. I think the rules are being applied a bit too literally and would encourage admins to revisit

the rules in light of current state of events re: Democratic Party politics, past election review and reforms.

I really dislike doing jury duty, now that we can't see the entire thread, (though I try to do so)... Even with the snippets to provide (minimal) context, it feels like trying to drive the car blind-folded. As a result I feel like about 50% of my jury decisions might well be just plain "WRONG"...

[sarah FAILIN]

5. agreed

This jury mess is getting extreme. If the offense isn't blatant, I'm not going against it.

[samnsara]

26. me too.. i tend to be a bit liberal in my intrepertation when i am asked to jury...

..there are some instances I am not even sure what the big deal was. Some are very obvious however. But I am just waiting to be asked to jury one of mine

[tblue37]

88. You are only called to jury for a thread you have not posted on. nt

[Demit]

33. In those cases, you can cancel your jury service.

I've done that. If I feel there's not enough information, where I can't even choose on of the "almost but not quite" options, I just choose to not serve on that jury.

[hlthe2b]

74. Yes... I do occasionally cancel...

[athena]

68. You can expand the previous posts in the thread.

I find that once you do that, there is more than enough information to determine whether the post in question broke one of the rules.

[hlthe2b]

75. That helps in some cases, but not all...

I've had sub-threads for which the excerpt filled an entire page, but could still not figure out what was being discussed.

[womanofthehills]

83. Sometimes the posts leading up to the flagged post are worse

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

129. Yes I've noticed that too

In such cases I almost always vote that the alerted post does not violate the TOS

[JCanete]

106. wow, why did they do that? That seems awful. What is the upside to that approach? nt

[demmiblue]

4. +1

If there is absolutely nothing wrong with the post, I am now marking the alert as disruptive.

[frankieallen]

6. +1,000,000

[comradebillyboy]

7. I'd express an opinion but it would get hidden...nt

[90-percent]

8. I agree

I think that our Democratic Party is best served by honest introspection and self honesty. Constructive criticism and objectivity are what's desperately needed right now. The vibe I get on DU is that only nice things are allowed to be said towards the party?

Anyway, I have a high tolerance for pov's different than mine, cuz my boomer public education taught me free speech means accepting speech you don't like and suppressing and forbidding speech is bad.

And holyhellinahandbasket do we have to do something QUICK AND SMART AND WISE AND EFFECTIVE and together in numbers never seen before that must be a hell of a lot of us if we are to weather the largest Constitutional Crisis since the inception of our semi-great nation.

NOTE: I learned recently that the USA was the first nation in history founded on ideals! Aforementioned "ideals" have been slowly rendered INOPERATIVE a mere 90 days after 9/11, due to speed of light passage of the Constitution Killing PATRIOT ACT. In my opinion, the basic foundation for a future TOTALITARIAN FASCIST POLICE STATE.

Which is why so many of us are clamoring for even more opiates.


-90% Jimmy

[RKP5637]

13. Agree!!! n/t

[90-percent]

15. forgot to make the point with respect to the OP

I only vote against if the OP is advocating for the violent overthrow of the US govt, along with any other violent damaging crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frank_Zappa_AAAFNRAAA_Birthday_Bundle_(2008)

(AAAFNRAA stands for "Anything Anytime Anywhere for No Reason At All", Zappa's motto of sorts.)

I also think the alert system attracts ruskie trolls and bots that sabotage our free and open discourse.

-90% Jimmy

[RKP5637]

25. Yep, I think so too, ... about your last sentence. n/t

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

42. Yep, the last sentence...

... so I take that into consideration ...

[JudyM]

37. Constructive criticism and honest introspection of our path generates intense ad hominem action.

That ad hominem intensity is not pursued constructively. Double standard, IMO. DU should be home for constructive, as opposed to destructive goals.

[RKP5637]

9. +1,000,000

I'm tired of it too. I've seen people alerted on just for linking to an article in Huffington Post, NYT, etc. someone did not agree with. I find some of the alerts often to be stupid and childish. I'm starting to wonder WTF is going on. We need varied discussion on DU.

[womanofthehills]

77. Agreed - that also happens with Ring of Fire

Guess they are a little too progressive over there.

And don't forget The Guardian is kooky news too.

[Snarkoleptic]

10. Alerted - This post is meta.

Kidding

[doc03]

11. I posted a criticism of one certain person for what he/she said a few days ago

and the thread was locked because it was claimed I was fighting the primary.

[sarah FAILIN]

19. and this is a huge part of my point

If said person is doing things in current time, I don't think discussing an agreement or disagreement with it should be called fighting the primaries. We learn from discussion.

To me, fighting the primary involves stating how so and so would have won, but...

[doc03]

22. Also when said person is not a registered Democrat to start with. nt

[sarah FAILIN]

43. dingding

We have a winner.

You can't say anything at all about certain people no matter how it is actually a current event.

Someone just did it again and I was on the jury. I think it is just disrupters.

[melman]

69. Of course in reality

the opposite is true. It's the other candidate you can't say anything about. Any criticism at all on that person or their campaign is pounced on instantly.

[sarah FAILIN]

95. What did the other candidate do recently?

What is happening is that anything in which one was involved in recent events- as in this week.. is discussed, it is alerted on as rehashing the primary or slamming democrat leaders. There has got to be discussion of current events without fear.

[Egnever]

99. The abortion issue

and a pretense that one is holier than any other.

[sarah FAILIN]

107. This is getting to confusing

The only person I'm seeing people alerted on is if they are critical of B. I get asked to jury fairly often and it is always someone gets upset over people talking about B's current statements. I think we should be able to talk about anything as long as it isn't primary related.

[Egnever]

108. I will send you a pm

and show you my hides. One sec.

[Egnever]

96. This has been my experience as well.

cna say just about anything as long as the post does not contain one name.

[JCanete]

116. so long as you aren't prone to alerting for criticisms of what dems say or do in real-time, I'm

entirely with you, even if I might disagree with you on the substance. Alerting is being used as a weapon on both sides, and I'm sure some people are justifying it by trying to keep the playing field even, that is ensuring both sides and not just their own side is walking on egg-shells, but people need to lay off it.

This is a place where ideas can speak for themselves. Right wing trolls we should ban because they get in the way of constructive discussion, but constructive discussion IS the point, not nodding agreement.

[EffieBlack]

58. Same here

Apparently, it's fine for non-Democrats to say whatever they like about Dems, but not ok for Dems to criticize them for it ...

[rusty fender]

12. People are alerting

on posts that clearly do not break any rules! They're alerting just because they disagree with the post

[RKP5637]

14. Yep, I've seen a lot of that and it really po's me! n/t

[Demit]

40. If posts clearly don't break DU ToS, jurors should see that & not vote to hide.

So, what you see as clearly not-rule-breaking is maybe not so clear. Also, you can't see DUers reasons for alerting anymore, even when serving on a jury. Please don't claim to be a mind-reader as to why they are.

[radical noodle]

54. That's what I do

It's obvious what's going on and I vote against a hide unless it's not fact based. If a post says that a certain person kills kittens and eats them for snacks, I'll vote to hide. If what is posted is the words or actions of that certain person, it's a fair post IMHO.

[Egnever]

86. should

Not what is going on at all.

[NurseJackie]

63. But with *jurors* that are FAIR and HONEST, this shouldn't matter at all, right?

It's the HONEST JUROR who is the backstop against abusive alerting, right?

[Egnever]

89. Sadly with the way the alert system is currently

You can not make an informed decision as a juror.

So no I don't think you can currently be an honest Juror as there is no context to the post you are judging.

[cstanleytech]

114. Yes that does happen but eventually the person who does the alerting is filtered out by the system

if I recall Skinners explanation over what happens to such abusers.
Some of course will then try to counter saying "But that leaves people to being stalk alerted" and my reply would be, not really since if people are obeying the sites ToS and dont behave like douches the odds of them being hidden even once is almost nil by a jury.

[bekkilyn]

16. I almost never get alerted on anywhere else

and I've been active on various types of forums for years.

The eggshells are scattered so thickly here though that there's almost no way to safely tip-toe around them.

[Trial_By_Fire]

17. It makes one not even want to post here in fear of offending the thinned-skin and being alerted...

I thought DU was a place for intelligent discussions. Having to tip toe around the fragile
does not make for interesting thoughtful discussions.

[frankieallen]

23. Lots of delicate flowers I guess.

[Ms. Toad]

18. There's a lot of alerts that are just disagreement with differing opinions.

But there's also a lot of candidate bashing/refighting the primary going on. By and large, those threads are not being hidden - and that fans the flames.

When that barrage stops (such posts start being hidden, or people get fed up with every other thread in GD being candidate bashin/refighting the primary) I suspect the overwhelming quantity of alerts on everything under the sun will die down as well.

[JudyM]

30. Agreed.

[rgbecker]

20. I've been posting on this board for over 10 ten years....

Suddenly alerted on two posts in two months. WTF?

Nearly every thread of any interest (not about cats) has at least one post removed. I say loosen up folks and let people speak their minds, otherwise what's the point?

[athena]

29. I am glad DU is not allowing itself to become a playground for Russian trolls.

During primary season, it was impossible to say anything pro-Hillary on DU without being attacked and insulted. The only place we could discuss anything was in the Hillary sub-forum. We were shut out of every other forum. I don't want to go back to those days. I don't want DU to be yet another place on the internet where Democrats get attacked and where right-wing propaganda is disseminated.

In fact, I am going to donate right now as a way of thanking Skinner for trying to make DU a forum that is friendly to Democrats and to our views.

[Egnever]

76. ...

[Demsrule86]

78. Me too...and I have had a post hidden (deserved) and one where it was unfair..and you can appeal...

if it is not right it gets removed. I never want to go back to the old way. I just donated. I am sure this is way more work for Skinner ET AL, but this has been a much more civil place since the new rules were put in place.

[Egnever]

84. Same over ten years

multiple hidden posts here recently.

[frankieallen]

21. it's kinda boring when everyone is saying the same thing. I've had three

Posts removed lately for no other reason than someone didn't like what I said. No free speech here.
Oops, hope I don't get my post removed.

[Demit]

45. I'm curious, how did you know the person's motive for alerting?

Any time I've alerted, I've had to click on which Term of Service I thought was being violated. There wasn't an option for not liking what the post said.

I'm not being snarky. In the old days, we used to write in our own words why we were alerting on a post. We can't do that anymore. So—how is it that you know what your three alerters thought?

[sarah FAILIN]

24. It just happened again.

I swear it is bots doing it.

[Demsrule86]

104. How do you know you were alerted?

Just curious.

[sarah FAILIN]

123. Not this thread

I was asked to jury another one and it was totally ridiculous.

But I may have been alerted on too, idk unless someone comes on the thread and says it was.

[MFM008]

27. Me 2

Unless it's truly a violation, I let it go.
Someone alerted on me for saying maggot could be executed for treason.
During WARTIME you can be executed for treason. Period.
Lighten up . Be thoughtful.
Quit alerting like rumpelbuttskin fingering a nuke button

[womanofthehills]

92. Don't put down big pharma

or you will be hidden because you are kooky and you must believe in chemtrails.

[elmac]

28. Yes, its being used as a vendetta button

many of the jury stuff I have voted on is just someone spoke the truth and may have hurt someones feelings. Not a reason to alert.

[liberal N proud]

31. Things can be said without getting an alert.

It is all about tact and fact.

If you can't say it in a nice way, just don't!
If what you have can't be supported with a factual link, then it shouldn't be posted.

Express your opinions without attacking another.

Simple rule that will make DU a better place and reduce the alerts.


Of my last dozen jury selections, I have seen a majority of personal attacks or lack of facts.

[athena]

36. And if attacking Democrats is one's goal, one is in the wrong place.

I am glad DU does not allow attacks against DUers, against minority groups, or against Democrats. This is a great place, which is why the trolls are trying so hard to destroy it.

[Egnever]

81. Sorry all it takes is the right persons name in the post

and a disagreement on policy.

I would post my hidden posts but to show you but that would get another hide.

[tblue37]

94. Most of the juries I have served on are for posts that get nasty and attack another DUer.

And I serve on a LOT of juries.

[womanofthehills]

98. Not true - you can be very nice and still be alerted if they have an agenda

I make it a point to be nice - still get alerted -

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

32. I opted out of the jury system here

not long after they changed the way it worked. Not being able to see the entire thread, not being able to make a comment about why you did or did not agree with the post alerted on, and the complete disappearance of a post made me decide it just was no longer a good system. Plus, I had one or two posts alerted on and hidden a while back, and because they were totally gone, I couldn't register any sort of defense or complaint about the alert.

The old system was better.

[Freethinker65]

53. Agreed

I would like to be able to comment on my jury decision, and I would read what other jurors had to say. Having an easy option to review the entire thread was also helpful.

[m-lekktor]

67. I don't serve on juries therefore I NEVER alert on posts.

I think this system is horrible.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

70. I don't alert on posts either.

A few days ago I thought an OP was a bit out of line, but simply commented on that in the thread. Actually, I just took a look at that thread, and see that the OP was self-deleted not long after. Oh, well.

[LiberalLovinLug]

34. I agree

And one of the"hottest" trigger finger alert bait is any criticism of the party either about how they excecuted the last election or the general direction of the party. Especially if it involves using quotes or actions by individuals that are outside of the establishment core of the party.

And what is so odd about that is now it is more verboten in here than in the leadership of the party itself! That while the party itself is in the process of evaluation and unifying, in here you have to walk on eggshells careful not to criticise the wrong issue or people or conversely praise the wrong issue or people.

IMO the devastating loss in November invited two responses: retreat back into a protective defensive shell or open the door to people's ideas and criticisms, even those that might raise your hackles, in order to grow and move forwards. I always thought we were smart enough and tolerant enough for that in here.

[hrmjustin]

35. I haven't sent a jury alert since last year.

[JudyM]

38. If we all agreed to be constructive this problem would evaporate.

[Egnever]

93. Haha

if only I had a pony...

[JudyM]

100. Seems like a pipe dream for that to happen at this point.

[Egnever]

102. Yup

would be great but..

[MadDAsHell]

39. There's unfortunately a heck of a lot of paranoia and always has been.

It's odd to think about but I think for some DUers, the purpose of this place is more "catching the enemy" than it is a place to discuss with like-minded people.

It's almost as if, in the minds of some, DU wasn't created as a Democratic-leaning message board, but as bait to lure neocons for the sole purpose of then banning them.

Not the most productive thing in the world but hey, I guess whatever melts your butter.

Not sure I've ever even used the alert button, ignore is just as easy. Don't let it get you down; there's a lot of awesome people and awesome discussion on here!

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

41. I think there are

People here who live to file alerts, judging by the vast number of trivial issues I see alerted on. I guess it's easier than focusing on the big picture and striving for some cohesion. It's just easier to be petty and small minded, I think.

[HAB911]

44. K&R

I would give my opinion, but I'm skeeered to

[mahina]

46. I was just on a jury about a pro-Obama post.

I've been seeing it too.

[Mr. Ected]

47. I also don't like it that we are asked to ascribe a motive as to why a post was flagged

The hell if I know why someone did it. Misunderstood the post? Thin skin? Personal prejudice on the subject? In any case, I tend to err on the side of leniency; I think we should be able to post our thoughts without the fear of the mind police coming in and limiting the scope of our discussion.

Besides, I seldom see an egregious post.

It's like the Supreme Court ruling on porn: I know it when I see it.

[JoeOtterbein]

48. +1000!!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

49. It's certainly succeeded in reducing my posting level.

Last edited Sat Apr 29, 2017, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)

So congratulations to whoever's doing it, I guess.

[sellitman]

50. Haven't ever sat on a jury.

I opted out from the beginning. Don't regret that choice at all. Less agita.

[cstanleytech]

51. From my experience on juries few alerts are on posts that actually contribute anything to

an honest and open discussion and most seem to be because they break the DU ToS in some manner.

[Egnever]

90. Really?

Multiple long term posters in this thread complaining about it and it is all in their heads?

[cstanleytech]

103. Well yes, people who have been alerted and have been hidden are going to complain

I assume but I dont recall Skinner making any announcement that the jury system was broken or not working and I would assume he monitors the sites logs to keep an eye on in case there are an abnormally high number of alerts happening or something.

[Egnever]

105. And again multiple decade long posters

but it is all in their head.

[cstanleytech]

120. No its just that I'm waiting for an official announcement from skinner that there is actually a

problem with constructive posts being alerted (which is the complaint) rather than people breaking the ToS and getting alerted and hidden.

[Egnever]

121. Fair enough

However I will send you one of my hides and you be the judge.

[Demsrule86]

109. I would agree with that assessment..and Bull Shit alerts are knocked down.

Simple....either they broke whatever rule or they didn't and if I can't decide I either vote to keep (benefit of the doubt) it or opt out of the jury.

[cstanleytech]

128. Or its alerted because sometimes people start petty bickering and then one of the parties

gets butt hurt and alerts but I wouldnt call petty bickering posts as being constructive posts.

[JCanete]

126. We have different values about rises or doesn't, to the level of substance. In my opinion

provocative, intelligent posters, on both sides of our current "divide" have been targeted who should not have, with the alert feature, killing ops that have generated intense conversations. In my experience conversations in said threads, which may have started out bombastic, sometimes evolve into far more respectful, constructive, discussions from opposing view-points.

The ban feature prevents that and makes people far more coy about what they are saying, using innuendo, etc. That is infuriating and not at all in the spirit of improving discourse.

[cstanleytech]

130. Again though all I can do is offer up my opinion of my experience with serving on the juries

and by and large the vast majority of alerted posts I have sat in on to judge wouldnt qualify as being constructive.

[Warpy]

52. Maybe one in ten alerts is a real rule breaker

and the rest are just annoying. Still, it's how people learn what the rules are here, by having to read them when called to be on a jury and by being alerted on.

I do think it's nice to have a mechanism to weed out habitual offenders.

[JudyM]

113. Some long time posters object to the rules, one rule in particular.

Reasonable to assume that when they're on the jury they dispense with it, as well.

[Skittles]

55. I agree

I had a post hidden simply for describing as "opportunist" the act of switching your party solely to run for president

RIDICULOUS

[Retrograde]

56. What I liked about the old system

was that the alerter had to add an explanation, rather than just check a box (I assume that's what they do - I've only alerted once and that was on obvious spam). The new system may make it too easy to turn personal feuds into alerts.

[LostOne4Ever]

61. Problem with that, is that their alert comment could be deceptive

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]For example, this alterer falsely claimed that the term SJW meant Single Jewish Woman in an effort to get another poster a hide:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=47932

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]One of the BEST changes they made to this new system is that they now allow us to appeal bad hides though. [/font]

[melman]

66. The current rules are too specific

Many people post things specifically in way to get around the very narrow definitions.

[lunamagica]

57. Yes. I'm tired of holding back and having to write like I'm walking on a minefield

enough already.

[athena]

72. It's kind of bad when a newcomer is so critical of the group he just joined.

If this place is so embarrassing for you, you don't need to stay. No one is forcing you.

Most people, when they join a group, stick around and watch in order to learn the rules and customs of the group and understand its philosophy. When someone joins and then four days later starts criticizing the group, it doesn't look very good.

[sarah FAILIN]

101. Since I said I think it is being done by reps..

Why would I be embarrassed?

[left-of-center2012]

60. Agreed

[SCVDem]

62. I have noticed an uptick in jury summons.

Most of them are a fine line between discussion and trolling.

We are tired of rehashing and bashing.

Move forward!

[get the red out]

65. I got a post hidden the other day

And it wasn't even the one I ought it would be when I first read the email. IMO, somebody got a bit touchy, LOL. I really do try to not say anything hide-worthy. I used to be more of a bitch than I am now.

[Egnever]

73. Agreed

We seem to have a fairly large block of folks that can't hear any disagreement at all no matter how factual whithout it hurting their feelings and alerting.

This place is becoming more ridiculous by the day.

[ProudLib72]

80. Finally, someone had the guts to speak up

[JCanete]

110. probably someone without 5 hides on their current account. nt

[ProudLib72]

117. What are you referring to? Me?

[JCanete]

118. heh, no, me.

[ProudLib72]

119. I thought four was the limit. nt

[JCanete]

122. It may be 4, and I think they cycle off. nt

[ProudLib72]

124. Ooohhh, I thought there might be double secret probation. nt

[Chevy]

82. I got alerted

3 times in one day for calling out an actual new troll. First time alerted on 14 years.

[tiredtoo]

85. A month or so back

I shared something i had jokingly used in reference to one of the Democratic candidates during the primary. Got alerted and booted.

[m-lekktor]

97. I have never alerted once in my DU life!

I opt out of serving on juries so i figure i shouldn't alert unless I an willing to serve on a jury.

[TheFrenchRazor]

112. agreed; it's pretty weak. nt

[hexola]

125. No shit - I must have like 500 juries...

Half the time I check in here - Im up for duty before I can even dig into anything.

And most of the time - the alerts are lame...and I vote "Close call, but it doesn't break the rule"

[Egnever]

127. I turned off jury service simply because they were constantly coming in and were mostly nonsense

Time after time the alerts were ridiculous.