Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:11 PM
trueblue2007 (13,390 posts)
the results of a jury?
Why don't we find out the results now?
If I can't find out what happened.... I don't want to be involved.
This is the DU member formerly known as trueblue2007.
|
22 replies, 6926 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
trueblue2007 | Jun 2016 | OP |
jaysunb | Jun 2016 | #1 | |
MADem | Jun 2016 | #2 | |
TreasonousBastard | Jun 2016 | #4 | |
trueblue2007 | Jun 2016 | #6 | |
MADem | Jun 2016 | #7 | |
PoliticAverse | Jun 2016 | #3 | |
orleans | Jun 2016 | #5 | |
progree | Jun 2016 | #8 | |
orleans | Jun 2016 | #9 | |
Mz Pip | Jun 2016 | #10 | |
hollysmom | Jun 2016 | #12 | |
7962 | Jun 2016 | #17 | |
hollysmom | Jun 2016 | #11 | |
ManiacJoe | Jun 2016 | #13 | |
hollysmom | Jun 2016 | #15 | |
7962 | Jun 2016 | #18 | |
ManiacJoe | Jun 2016 | #20 | |
taught_me_patience | Jun 2016 | #14 | |
hollysmom | Jun 2016 | #16 | |
7962 | Jun 2016 | #19 | |
cstanleytech | Jul 2016 | #21 | |
Sarah B | Sep 2016 | #22 |
Response to trueblue2007 (Original post)
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:15 PM
jaysunb (11,542 posts)
1. Thanks for asking this
because I've been wondering the same thing.
|
Response to trueblue2007 (Original post)
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:15 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
2. You can opt out. You can click a box so you'll never be asked again. nt
Response to MADem (Reply #2)
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:22 PM
TreasonousBastard (37,167 posts)
4. True-- and I am opting out. I understand what they are doing, but I don't haveto like it.
Response to MADem (Reply #2)
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:36 PM
trueblue2007 (13,390 posts)
6. after being a member and jury person FOR YEARS, i just opted out.
for my own understanding the system and how people think, I WANT TO KNOW THE OUTCOME.
I just opted out. They can use people who don't give a darn. This is the DU member formerly known as trueblue2007.
|
Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #6)
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:38 PM
MADem (135,425 posts)
7. I suppose you can object directly in ATA, but I get the feeling the admins want
to let this model roll for awhile.
|
Response to trueblue2007 (Original post)
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:16 PM
PoliticAverse (22,580 posts)
3. See...
Response to trueblue2007 (Original post)
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:32 PM
orleans (28,105 posts)
5. just did a jury
wanted to see the entire thread and couldn't (to help understand more of context)
voted anyway and just now googled to find the thread turns out i'm okay with the way i voted but still..... when did this jury stuff change? today? |
Response to orleans (Reply #5)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:37 AM
progree (7,719 posts)
8. It changed Monday Afternoon
[font color = blue]>>when did this jury stuff change? today?<<[/font]
Per some Skinner posting I probably can't find. I got my first "new jury" Monday around 4pm CT. Towards the bottom is the new jury stuff http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=6548 |
Response to trueblue2007 (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 05:26 PM
Mz Pip (26,157 posts)
10. I've served on three
I'm concerned about not being able to see the who,e thread also. I don't like the idea that I might be taking a post out of context.
I'll stick with it awhile longer. |
Response to Mz Pip (Reply #10)
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:14 AM
hollysmom (5,946 posts)
12. I open another window and search for the thread - annoying but it can be done.
Response to Mz Pip (Reply #10)
Sat Jun 25, 2016, 11:13 AM
7962 (11,841 posts)
17. Exactly my problem with it too. And not knowing the results.
Response to trueblue2007 (Original post)
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:13 AM
hollysmom (5,946 posts)
11. I want to comment why can't we comment anymore?
very few things in life are black and white, which is why we have sorta maybe ish answers and that is fine, but I want to explain why I think it is so, even if no one cares what I think.
So many people don't understand the difference between real news and bashing. Between valid sources and republican meme. someone is just going to think - this person is partisan - and dismiss the vote. And not being able to see the vote who knows what others think. |
Response to hollysmom (Reply #11)
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 04:13 PM
ManiacJoe (9,924 posts)
13. The admins say the comment system was being abused.
Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #13)
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:51 PM
hollysmom (5,946 posts)
15. yeah well some people can't resist the cigarette burns to the comments.
In the latest jury I was on, someone objected to something written in the NYTimes as being partisan. Well, yes the times can be partisan, but in this case they were complementary toward the democrat, not insulting. I could not figure out why the person was objecting, they said it was insulting and I think they must have read it wrong. Since every single time I sign on here, I get called on jury, I think there is learning process on what to report, why would you report a complement?
|
Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #13)
Sat Jun 25, 2016, 11:15 AM
7962 (11,841 posts)
18. There was a rule that you could be punished for abusing the comments.
Why didnt they just enforce it? So because SOME people got rude in their comments, NONE of us get to make them? SIlly
|
Response to 7962 (Reply #18)
Sat Jun 25, 2016, 03:45 PM
ManiacJoe (9,924 posts)
20. I hear you. I liked leaving comments.
Response to trueblue2007 (Original post)
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 05:57 PM
taught_me_patience (5,477 posts)
14. This new system is shit
You can't see the thread or the person alerting, so it hard to get context. Plus, you don't even get to see the results of the decision. I'll probably opt out soon.
|
Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #14)
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:53 PM
hollysmom (5,946 posts)
16. I open another window and search for the comment heading,
but conte4xt is useful in evaluating, out of context, you have no real idea why the person replied like they did.
|
Response to hollysmom (Reply #16)
Sat Jun 25, 2016, 11:16 AM
7962 (11,841 posts)
19. Thats a good idea. Thank you.
Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #14)
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 12:21 PM
cstanleytech (22,172 posts)
21. While its not perfect I think its an improvement,
To many jurys were to willing to put up with to much shit because they saw other people in the thread doing it this way you pretty much are focused on one thing and one thing only and that is did the post break the ToS?
Heck one jury I was on I voted to hide a host, didnt know they were a host which is good because if I had i might have voted not to hide but the fact is I didnt know thus it didnt sway my opinion that they broke the ToS. |
Response to trueblue2007 (Original post)
Sun Sep 25, 2016, 08:05 AM
Sarah B (5 posts)
22. better
they should find a better way
|