The Jury System Works--For The Most Part

[davidpdx]

35. I was thinking about the same thing recently

I agree partly with your suggestions. People should take more time to explain why they voted whether or not they hide the post in question. I'm not sure about the editing part. Someone very well could go off-line after the post is alerted. In that case it really wouldn't benefit anyone. The other problem is another person (other than the one that wrote the post that was hidden) very well could copy paste it and do an excerpt and re-post it, in which case it would continue to cause conflicts.

I'll incorporate a few of your ideas below.

My suggestions:

1) Make it an obligation of a jury to give a short explanation either way. If people don't want to do it, they can opt out.

2) Go to 7 jurors to eliminate 3-3 ties

3) Make the number of alerts done visible in people's profiles during the last 90 days (this would sync up with the number of hides in the last 90 days).

4) Deliver the results of an alert to the person being alerted on regardless of whether it is hidden or not. The reasoning behind this is so the person can know how often they are being alerted on and whether they are successful or not.

5) Create a five strikes in 90 days and you are locked out of alerting. If five hides fail (this would be by a 3-4 margin given I believe we should go to a jury of seven) within a 90 day period you are locked out of alerting until one of those drops off. It is the same premise as getting five hides except instead of having your posting privileges revoked you have your alerting privileges revoked.

I think the only one that would fundamentally change the system would be the last one.