I'd like to encourage jurors to read the surrounding post on alerts [View all]

[drmeow]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Sissyk (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I was on this jury and noticed the explanation by juror #1 which I posted below. Disregarding whether the post should have been hidden or not, had juror #1 looked at the full thread s/he would have noticed that the full thread is mostly a back and forth between the OP and the poster alerted on. The two comments immediately after the alerted post were a response by the OP and then this comment by the poster who was alerted on: "DNA has nothing to do with religious belief. What was your point except to climb in bed with Adolf?" IMO this post makes it clear that the "moustache" remark quite definitely is a reference to Hitler. Whether or not that warrants hiding the post is up to the juror but I personally feel that for the jury system to work it is important for jurors to know the full context of the alerted post.

In fact, I personally think it is so important for jurors to review the post in context that I wonder if the alert system should automatically include at least 2 prior and 2 follow-up posts on an alert if that alert is part of a sub-thread (not sure if I'm using that term correctly). Except in cases where it is pretty cut and dried, I find that the alerter's explanation often isn't sufficient for me to really determine if the post should be hidden or not and I almost always look at the other posts around it to help me make a decision.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Looks like you and the moustache agree."

Really? It's come to the point where posters call other members Hitler.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 20, 2015, 01:30 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He never called anyone Hitler, the only place it was used is by you, the alerter. Not even close to a hide.