General Discussion

dballance

(5,756 posts)

50. I agree with you. However, you just made a case for context.

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:34 PM

Jun 2014

"I'm not going to forgive someone's OTT reply just because they got their feelings hurt."

If you are not going to forgive someone's OTT reply just because they got their feelings hurt. Then you must have had to read the post to which it was a reply and made a judgement they just got their feelings hurt in context of the post. That it was not really a violation of TOS or community standards. More like "I'm going to take my toys and go home" instead.

What you just said is exactly what I meant. I read the alerted post in context to what it might be a reply to and I totally agree. I won't hide a reply because someone got their feelings hurt in a back and forth pissing match and finally decided to alert rather than stand up to an argument any longer.

Sorry, you draw blood, that's your own fault.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A note on Jury Service. (edited) [View all] dballance Jun 2014 OP

Thank you for that. djean111 Jun 2014 #1

dballance standards pintobean Jun 2014 #2

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. dballance Jun 2014 #4

Yep Aerows Jun 2014 #25

That's been my new policy since the word jumpers and language nannies Warpy Jun 2014 #3

I had a post hidden by jury decision yesterday (my first under this jury system)... Tace Jun 2014 #5

I'll Add That It Was The Source, Not The Post That Was Deemed Objectionable Tace Jun 2014 #19

And just what's wrong with campfires ohheckyeah Jun 2014 #6

I don't need to read the entire thread. Wait Wut Jun 2014 #7

So context doesn't really matter to you? dballance Jun 2014 #10

Absolutely. Wait Wut Jun 2014 #15

Agreed. tammywammy Jun 2014 #21

I agree with you. However, you just made a case for context. dballance Jun 2014 #50

Here is a PRIME example of my thesis. dballance Jun 2014 #8

Someone alerted on another Rude Pundit column?? Really!!!! riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #27

In the scheme of things it was pretty darned mild for the Rude Pundit. /nt dballance Jun 2014 #45

It has to be MIRT material or border line MIRT and obvious TOS violation before I vote to hide. L0oniX Jun 2014 #9

I served on MIRT for a couple of sessions. It does broaden one's opinions. dballance Jun 2014 #14

Someone just alerted on "penis". KamaAina Jun 2014 #11

So two people here found the word "penis" objectionable? dballance Jun 2014 #13

I voted to hide it. tammywammy Jun 2014 #23

Not really a good reason to hide KamaAina Jun 2014 #52

That's fine that you disagree. tammywammy Jun 2014 #54

I don't recall ever voting to hide a thread ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #12

What happened to erring on the side of "not feeding the trolls"? alp227 Jun 2014 #16

I don't know. There are posts out there saying they won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #17

I doubt I would but then again LittleGirl Jun 2014 #43

I hear you, but most likely she will be the nominee lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #47

I've become way more reluctant to hide pscot Jun 2014 #18

No thanks. JTFrog Jun 2014 #20

This is true.... Bobbie Jo Jun 2014 #34

I have around a 5% hide rate, but that's mostly due to stupid alerts. arcane1 Jun 2014 #22

I find this an enlightening discussion. Myself, I vote to hide it if it is a personal attack/snark. Dustlawyer Jun 2014 #24

I hide for personal insults, bigotry and trolldom ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #26

Except that we can still opt to read the hidden post. So we get to judge the judgers. Demit Jun 2014 #28

There's been a trend to " swarm" a poster and make multiple alerts. riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #49

There will always be people who want to game the system, whatever the system is. Demit Jun 2014 #56

This claim has often been made. Please provide evidence of this practice. Orrex Jun 2014 #57

AGREED! doxydad Jun 2014 #29

I follow the DU guidelines and rules. enlightenment Jun 2014 #30

I hide rw trolling and personal insults. hrmjustin Jun 2014 #31

The people who alert on everything are the same ones who used to tell the teacher tularetom Jun 2014 #32

You do NOT have to read the whole thread BainsBane Jun 2014 #33

You are correct. In very long threads often only the sub-thread is important. Not the WHOLE thread. dballance Jun 2014 #37

I read the subthread BainsBane Jun 2014 #39

I updated my OP to reflect your very appropriate comment. dballance Jun 2014 #40

Depending on the thread, catrose Jun 2014 #51

The thing is hidden posts probably get more attention than non hidden ones. totodeinhere Jun 2014 #35

checked out of jury service not long after it appeared. it's getting as fucked up as I foresaw... KG Jun 2014 #36

How about I do what I think is right and you do the same? n-t Logical Jun 2014 #38

I let them all ride. obxhead Jun 2014 #41

My standard was to hide for bigotry of any sort, and unprovoked personal attacks petronius Jun 2014 #42

I like the ARS Technia system. ROFF Jun 2014 #44

It is a little hard to compare ARS Technia with DU. dballance Jun 2014 #46

I agree with you about the value of responses. Jim Lane Jun 2014 #48

When I first started posting littlemissmartypants Jun 2014 #53

I think the Post Only should be judged and, without the poster's name available to be seen. Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #55

At this point I am unlikely PDittie Jun 2014 #58

What makes you think. abakan Jun 2014 #59