Against my better judgment ...

[NanceGreggs]

406. I'm not sure I understand your point ...

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)

... about "adding white guys" to juries.

The jury system is a joke. The last three alerts on my posts included at least one juror saying, "I can't stand NanceGreggs, so I'm voting to hide." There have also been posted jury results where a juror has said, "I really like the (person alerted on), so I will not vote to hide, no matter what they say."

And Skinner himself said, in response to an Ask the Admins query, that jurors are not expected to enforce the TOS.

So exactly WHAT are the juries meant to do, other than vote according to whether they like the poster being alerted on or not?

It is all beyond me. DU prospered during the years the TOS was strictly enforced by the Mods, the only criticism of Dems allowed was "constructive criticism", and RW trolls were banned. DU has been on the decline since those rules were changed.

It would seem obvious which system added to DU's numbers, and which system caused those numbers to plummet.

From a purely business standpoint (and I recognize that DU is a business), I am baffled as to why the successful model was abandoned and replaced by the model that has so obviously been proven to be unsuccessful.

Given its current reliance on revenues generated by ad placement, wouldn't DU generate more income from MORE viewers/participants rather than FEWER viewers/participants?

I suppose the only answer lies in the fact that because the site now consists of so many known disruptors, obvious RW trolls, and apparent anti-Dem posters, a change back to the "old rules" would result in the loss of far too many posters who have made themselves comfortable here and, if sent packing, would diminish DUs numbers even further.

There's that little-wiggle-room space between a rock and a hard place. What's sad is that the space never had to be entered into in the first place.