I was a moderator on DU way back when.

[NanceGreggs]

122. I have never understood ...

... the "logic" behind moving from the Mod system to the Jury system. In fact, it seems totally counter-productive.

I keep seeing the term "community standards" being bandied about - but I am wondering how there can be a "standard" to be applied, when that "standard" literally changes from one jury to the next.

A post that is "hidden" by one jury can be posted verbatim in a different thread and voted to be "left alone" by a different jury. So again, what is the "standard" here?

I've been sent three jury decisions on my own posts that started with, "I can't stand NanceGreggs, so I'm voting to hide." I have also seen other decisions stating, "I always agree with (poster alerted on), and refuse to hide whatever it is they have to say."

That's not demonstrative of a "community standard" being upheld - it is demonstrative of the jury system being a popularity contest.

"You take your chances" has come to mean: Just hope there are more people on the jury who like you than dislike you, because that's what this all comes down to in the end.

From a lot of jury decisions I have read, it seems obvious that being liked or disliked, or having one's stated position being agreed with or disagreed with, is often the only criteria being considered. A post being "disruptive, hurtful, etc." doesn't even enter into the equation.

The Mods HAD a "standard" by which to judge posts, and they considered that standard before deleting a post or allowing it to stand.

Again, I am totally confused as to why that system - which worked incredibly well 99% of the time - was replaced by a system that really doesn't work at all.