Bernie Supporters, Please Note.

[merrily]

This is my first hide in years. I now have a grand total of 3 hides since I registered, and the first was because I omitted the sarcasm emote. (I thought the sarcasm of the post was so obvious that including the emote would insult the intelligence of DUers. I suggested elementary school kids should leave school and be job creators.)

I post as many jury results as I can because I believe in transparency. I usually don't care to discuss the results precisely because I do post so many and commenting on jury results is not how I want to spend a lot of my posting time. However, in this case, the long LBN thread on which the post was hidden got locked. For that reason, I am posting the results in this group because I think it especially important for Bernie supporters to be aware of this hide for their own benefit.

I have requested a ruling on the subject of merely linking to JPR. If and when I get one, I will post it in the Bernie Group. Until then, I think it's fair to say that you risk a hide simply for linking to any article in JPR. The JPR article to which I linked was, ironically, one about how we might bring people together (to get out of government gridlock)!

On Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'm sure you know that Modest Proposal signals an essay
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1476424

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is trying to drive traffic to a website that solicits donations and is a direct competition to DU. They also disparage Skinner and DU members by name. This should be hidden.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Jun 4, 2016, 09:22 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: After having read the post, I'm unclear on what the problem with it is.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[dflprincess]

1. What I now find interesting about the jury system

is that I used to get asked to serve on one nearly every time I was on DU.

It has been weeks since that's happened. I wonder if that's happened to anyone else? Or maybe there just aren't as many alerts these days?

[nc4bo]

3. No, that is not the case. nt

[merrily]

6. You may have been removed from the jury pool because your rulings were deemed to

be based on partisanship. Skinner posted about that not very long ago. I don't know if that is the case or not. I am saying only that is is a possibility

[Mbrow]

10. Maybe but I was always very even handed about it.

I even backed some HRC supporters I thought had been unfairly alerted on. oh well like i said if it quacks like a duck... See you at JPR.

[merrily]

12. I don't know. You would have to ask in ATA.

[dflprincess]

17. I checked my profile

it still says my chances of serving on a jury are 100%.

I rarely commented on why I voted the way I did and I did do my best to be fair. Maybe that was my problem, unless a post was way over the top with distortions (no matter who posted it) or something from an obvious troll I would generally say leave it alone. I'm inclined to think it's best to give idiots enough rope to hang themselves.

[merrily]

20. I don't know why you are not being called. If you are interested, you would have to ask in ATA.

[dflprincess]

21. I have to admit, I'm not that curious about it

I just find it a bit odd.

[merrily]

76. You can. I juried a post by a poster I had on ignore in a forum I had trashed.

[Scootaloo]

57. Do you have a lot of people on ignore?

'Cause you can't jury for people on your ignore list, or people who have you on their blacklist.

[merrily]

77. I don't know about the blacklist, but please see Reply 76.

[DLevine]

62. In ATA, Skinner clarified that.

In response to Electric Monk (May 16), he said "Going forward if we see anyone voting to leave the worst-of-the-worst posts, or voting in a nakedly partisan fashion to hide posts which are clearly legitimate, then we will remove that person's ability to serve on juries. (We are not going to provide any notification to members who lose their jury privileges, because under the messed-up values of primary season we think many of you would see it as some kind of badge of honor.)"

When asked why the chance of being on a jury might still show 100%, Skinner reiterated it was because he didn't want to notify the member he/she is being blocked from jury duty.

I would link to the ATA thread, but embarrassed to say I don't know how.

[Mbrow]

73. ok that explains that,

but it still doesn't explain why me. I've been very even handed about this, hell I even helped the HRC sub chair at our Caucus because he was so short handed, then the speech he gave, wow, so much for being generous.

[dflprincess]

74. Doesn't explain me either.

While I wasn't hypersensitive I didn't vote to leave "the worst of the worst" either, regardless of which side posted it.

[LiberalElite]

69. as for me - of course I can't remember them all but my last jury decision

was against a Bernie supporter so....

[Mbrow]

7. Like you I use to be called quite regularly,

I've made note of it in several posts and have not gotten a clear answer, but if it quacks like a duck.... I was at A 90% likely to be called rate (not anymore, I got a few hides) and I've not been spending less time here. So April 9th was my last call. I've been pissed on by these people enough so that I went from a Bernie supporter who would vote for HRC if she took the nod, to you can.... well you get the idea.

[bahrbearian]

26. I serve 2 or 3 times a day, and I'm not here but a couple hours a day.

[pa28]

29. It's seems that quite a few Sanders supporters have been relieved of jury duty.

Yes, that includes me. Loading the jury pool with Hillary supporters might explain some of the really strange hides I've seen lately.

Oh well, it's Skinner's site and he has that right. One of the reasons IMO people are leaving DU but that's entirely his choice.

[LiberalElite]

71. Including me - sometime in April nt

I asked why and got no response - Admin reserves the right to not bother to answer.

[arikara]

41. I was asked nearly every day, sometimes twice

then not at all for nearly 2 weeks so I thought I got crossed off the list too because I support Bernie. I always tried to be fair and if I really couldn't I declined the jury. Now out of the blue I've been asked back again the last couple of days.

I have no idea. Maybe they're playing games, maybe its just a wonky algorithm.

[Loudestlib]

46. That's happened to me as well.

They are rigging the juries.

[JEB]

47. Happened to me.

Lots of jury requests. Now nothing. I always tried to be impartial and let most discussions run their course.

[hollysmom]

50. I get called almost every day, not as often since my star membership expired last week

but I always add an explanation because I want the person either the poster or the accuser what the problem is as I see it. I used to get called 2 or 3 times a day but it is also that I am not on as often or for as long. Gardening time is here and it has to be done.

[nc4bo]

2. I'm trying to recall if another opposition site was also

made unmentionable here.

Can't remember the name but there were screens shots of some really nasty stuff from the opposition. It got so bad that the site was made members only.

One cannot compare the site you referred to that other horrible opposition website.

Well....I'm sure someone will remember it and more than likely recall if even mentioning that site would result in a hidden post.

Thanks for the heads up merrily and sorry that happened to you.

[raging moderate]

4. It's too late. We already know about JPL.

As I have said before, elitism is contagious. Maybe somebody has been drinking out of the Republicons' drinking glasses again. If your ideas are really so great, they will stand the competition. That is true free enterprise.

[dflprincess]

5. I believe I know what site you are referring to

and any mention of it was verboten here. I've been surprised that so many posts mentioning JPR have been allowed to stand.

[nc4bo]

8. I think you know too.

But I didn't pay attention to what became of the entire thing.

[merrily]

9. Why have you been surprised? AFAIK, nothing forbids it. I'm surprised that linking to

an article on another board about bringing people together around issues like clean water would earn a hide.

[dflprincess]

19. I've been surprised because, as I said,

no mention of the "site that could not be named" was allowed here.

[merrily]

25. That's different. AFAIK, JPR has never been identified here as site

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:21 AM - Edit history (1)

that cannot be named. My understanding is that a leftist site that no longer exists and a conservative site were identified as sites that could not be named. At that, I did not discuss any site. I simply linked to a positive article at another site.

[2banon]

56. are you referring to progressive independent?

if memory serves it was verboten to mention this site over there.. I don't think it exists anymore, I haven't been there in years. a former du'r started it up and it wasn't bad for a while, but I just got to the point it was too depressing and bad for my head. This was back during the Bush/Cheney regime.

[dflprincess]

75. No

Old Elm Tree. Which, I think, is also gone. Mention of that site was not appreciated here, though occasionally a reference would slip by.

[merrily]

78. Referring to it coyly, but unmistakeably, to insult it always seemed to slip by somehow.

[dflprincess]

79. That's very true.

Though once in a while, but not often, a positive response would slip by. (Otherwise I may not have found it.)

[merrily]

80. maybe someone tried to insult it by mentioning that it welcomed all left points of view

[dflprincess]

82. That could be. nt

[2banon]

86. Interesting, didn't know about about that site

how long ago?

[Live and Learn]

13. Well there is hillaryclintonsupporters.com and jackassradicals.com both of which talked terribly

about DU and no, posts referencing them were not hidden.

But, maybe they are worried about JPR because it is an excellent site and will likely draw traffic from DU, especially after the redesign.

[nc4bo]

22. That 1st one you listed, that's the one.

The 2nd one I didn't know about.

Jesus! Seriously?

So it's not taboo for them to mention those sites by DU admin. So that the only explanation left is a partisan jury pool.

What angers me is that whenever their peeps get busted via alert, they'll go ahead and shoot a pm to whomever and give them time to delete so jury decision is nulled since the post no longer exists.

DU'S admin let's them get away with that mess...seems hard to believe but how else can incidences like I mentioned above, occur?

Just JHC!

I'm watching a train wreck in progress.

[Live and Learn]

24. They alert on anything these days. All they need is a jury pool made up of likewise minded people

and they can easily get undeserved hides. They have bragged about it on those other sites. They specifically target certain posters too.

[merrily]

30. AFAIK, this was the jury, with no involvement by DU ownership.

[Autumn]

11. Damn that sucks. Linking to your own post at another site gets a hide.

They link to NJMav's and spandans sites all the time. Don't have to look hard to see where that alert came from. Manny will be impressed when I tell him our little JP is "a direct competition to DU".

[merrily]

15. As you know, I am not an owner or an admin or even a mod of JPR, just a poster, as I am here.

I don't know why I would be responsible for the contents of either board beyond my own posts.

[Live and Learn]

14. Gulp, i referenced it today too. Oh well, I've had a few undeserving posts hdden.

I take it to mean you got them good and they can't think of a response so they alert when they know they have the numbers to vote for it.

And before this primary, I don't think I ever had a hide in all the years I have been here (even under old account names). Pathetic.

[merrily]

16. Oh, no. I was replying to a poster I admire greatly. There was no "getting."

[Live and Learn]

18. Maybe they were holding a grudge over another post that they couldn't alert on. Who knows.

One thing is certain, there is nothing in the TOS about posting links from other sites , especially progressive ones like JPR.

[merrily]

31. I would eat my own pinkie off my hand if the poster I replied to was the poster who alerted on me.

[Live and Learn]

35. I am not suggesting it was. Likely someone else that was targeting you and waiting to find some

post they thought they could alert on and get a favorable jury.

[merrily]

37. Sure. It's odd, though 9pm-ish is not usually the time window in which they are likeliest to succeed

[Live and Learn]

38. I think we have been outnumbered for a while now. Think Bernie folks are busy working, campaigning

and posting on progressive sites.

[merrily]

48. And the Brockolis and Brockettes are busy posting everywhere.

[Live and Learn]

28. I don't suspect there will be much reason to come here soon anyway. So happy JPR is doing

what they are. Really good people there.

[Live and Learn]

36. What a bore that will be. nt

[merrily]

34. I never know who alerts on me. Sometimes, I have suspicions, but I never really know.

BTW, you may want to remove the poster's name from your post.

[Fuddnik]

45. I've had some stalking me too.

Really lame posts get hidden. I used to be on 2 or 3 juries a day. Now nothing.

One juror said "we'll be rid of him soon, so it doesn't matter".

[merrily]

83. could mean they think we'll all be gone as soon as we can't criticize Hillary except to help her

(whatever that means--as if a DU post or thread is, in real life going to get her elected or keep her out of office?) or they have targeted you as we all saw they did on another board with Cali

[Live and Learn]

32. Wow such an ugly post. I don't see how I have anything in common with someone like that.

And he is the owner of that site and a prolific DUer too. Ugh.

[nc4bo]

43. Believe it or not, there were screen caps showing even nastier comments than that.

Those "DUers".are.STILL here, perhaps they have lots of yellow warning flags on their profile pages...sometimes they don't but they are still very much here.

Go figure.

[Live and Learn]

44. I know. I'd witnessed some of their 'views' before on DU but the truth really hit home when they

opened up on that site.

[Cassiopeia]

39. Hey Skinner!

You have a new system to roll out in a couple of weeks.

Is it really ready? Really?

[merrily]

40. I am not trying to antagonize Skinner here, just trying to let Bernie supporters

know they may run into problems if they link.

[Cassiopeia]

42. I know.

And I shouldn't. I've lurked for a decade plus, I know how it goes here......

I'm just frustrated. How could the most disliked and second most disliked people be picked to run the show? How could any political board decide fuck it, we'll rally behind the disdain?


$ $

[Live and Learn]

53. There is nothing wrong with posting about JPR. They can alert and do on virtually any post.

All they need is a jury that captures 4 like minded individuals. Many Bernie people have already been eliminated as jurors even those with low hide counts so the juries now favor them. Hopefully Skinner will fix this in the near future but I am not counting on the fixes being of any benefit to us.

[cui bono]

59. Skinner has ZERO desire to 'fix' anything that would make things fair for Bernie supporters.

The skewing of everything on here is not by accident. This is evidenced by his getting rid of the time out rule and allowing the rudest people, most of which are Hillary supporters, to run rampant with their rudeness all over. And there are obvious socks and sharing of accounts going on which he chooses to ignore and pretend don't exist. And now he's declared himself the "decider" and is disallowing democracy on a board called "Democratic Underground". Oh, and he also resorted to name calling and insulting Bernie supporters outright.



.

[Live and Learn]

60. True. I saw the name calling one and was shocked even even though I was aware of his bias.

So glad JPR is there and will be even better.

[senz]

52. The alerter tells two lies in the alert.

JPR doesn't knock the administrator or any DUers by name. It's not allowed. They're progressives, for god's sake; they have a basic level of decorum and class, unlike Hill fan websites that get down and dirty and stay there.

People who lie in alerts probably lie in all aspects of their lives.

Merrily, certain parties can't stand those of us who have advocated for the only honorable candidate running for president this year. They want to hassle us, pick us off, make us look bad when the changeover occurs -- except Mr. Skinner said something about wiping off all hides and starting with a clean slate.

Don't worry about it. There's a whole bunch of not nice out there. At least this primary has shown us who they are.

But it will be interesting to see if linking to a pro-Bernie site is not allowed. From what I've read of Mr. Skinner's recent remarks, I think he would disagree with the alerter. He said it will be okay to make pro-Bernie comments. A notorious Hill Fan protested it, and he told her something about "Sore winners." (Check out "Ask the Administrator&quot So, I suspect you should win the ruling.

[Live and Learn]

61. It doesn't really matter if it is disallowed when they are allowed to alert and hide for any reason.

Skinner has acknowledged the problem but I really suspect he is only upset that some of the hides on the Hillary side were bad too. It really doesn't matter to me any more since I think JPR will be the new go to site for all true progressives. I can't wait to get the word out.

[merrily]

63. Thank you, senz. For me, it's an issue of basic fairness. If something is forbidden, we should know

that. If it is not forbidden, we should be able to do it without adverse consequences. Seems fundamental to me.

I recognize that it is Skinner's site and there he can make whatever rules he wishes. But, I think we have a right to know what those rules are before we get hides or bans for "breaking" rules we don't know exist.

[2banon]

54. That is a bizarre hide. Are links to articles at Daily Kos against TOS?

Are links to articles at Daily Kos against TOS?

[merrily]

64. They are allowed. Moreover, people had Hillarysupporters.com right in their sig lines and those

posters not only named DUers, but plotted concerted action to get them banned from DU. Those posts were linked here and so were screen caps. AFAIK, no announcement was made not to do that.

[SheilaT]

55. I took myself off the jury system several years ago.

I just now put myself back on.

It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

[cui bono]

58. What does that alert even mean? What about Daily Kos? That's allowed here.

That is simply a partisan alert. There is no other way to look at it. Terrible hide. Alerter and jurors should be ashamed. They just can't come to terms with accepting that someone dared challenge Hillary and her neo-liberal ways.

.

[merrily]

65. I am hoping Skinner will rule, one way or the other.

[riderinthestorm]

66. I've linked to JPR many many times. I don't know if it's been alerted but it's never been locked

Sabrina has done a great job updating the Bernie candidates down ticket so we can avoid donating thru the DNC and give to them directly.

I link to her list all the time, fyi.

What a bad hide. Skinner's been upfront that this community should police itself but now is also aware that isn't working. If the jury pool is now so skewed in favor of Hillary supporters because so many of us have been removed, combined with a new zealotry towards hiding JPR posts, then Skinner should be alerted.

DKos posts are linked here by Hillary supporters all the time, especially now that site is all Hillary all the time. Does anyone vote to hide simply because they're from that different site?

Sounds like clarity is necessary, from admins.

[merrily]

67. I have asked the admins for clarity. I will post a link to the reply, if any, in this group.

[riderinthestorm]

68. When the jackass radicals site went up, there were many links to it posted here

If Skinner didn't ban that site from being linked here, but will allow JPR to be shut out?

Well then, wtf?

I've never gotten an answer to any question in ATA. Good luck!

[merrily]

84. I guess the alert stalkers were not concerned about the posters who self-identify as Jackasses.

No clue. I don't read that board and somehow, I missed all the posts here linking to them. Lucky me.

[LiberalElite]

70. That's ironic -

how could a website for Sanders supporters be in "direct competition" with DU - aren't we a tiny minority composed of unrealistic unicorn chasers? Here, I'll add the damn sarcasm thing:

[merrily]

72. Even before Sanders ran as a Democrat, Skinner said DU would treat Sanders as a Democrat.

So, how could a site to support Sanders be in direct competition with DU? Besides, Skinner has said that he is not troubled by sites like hillarysupporters.com and jackpineradicals.org

However, those issues are different from the issue whether a board should announce a rule or not before posters suffer adverse consequences from alleged violation of a theretofore non-existent rule. Fundamental fairness is my issue.

Put another way, if this were a Constitutional matter--and it isn't-- my point in the OP of this thread would be due process, not equal protection.

[Phlem]

81. What with the flood of talking heads From April to May it's no wonder

the jury is rigged. Just by the sheer number participating in the jury system.

This place is a joke anymore.



Thanks for the heads up merrily and I'm sorry you have to go through this..... you know.

[merrily]

85. Thank you. Please be assured that I am not personally distraught.

I am more likely to be personally distraught when others get banned. It's just how I'm constructed. Quite a few Bernie supporter have received pms from me suggesting they may be risking a hide. (I am fine if they risk one--they're adults-- as long as they are conscious of so doing.)

I do have a fairness issue relating to notice that I am trying to alleviate by informing other people. There is also a fairness issue relating to unequal treatment of outside boards. However, IMO, there are all kinds of unequal treatment issues on DU. It is what it is. People either have to accept them or live with high blood pressure and high cortisol levels. I think acceptance is a better alternative.