If groups like this are going to work, juries need to be constituted solely from within the active members of that group, and alerters need to be active members as well.
In this case, a poster alerted on one of my messages in the thread discussing the selection of the new host, locking me out of that discussion. Thus my voice has effectively been shut down in the selection process. I have no proof that it was one of the two people who led the crusade against me in DU2's LGBT group, because even though you say "DU3 is all about transparency" we're still not allowed to know who alerted on our posts.
The perfect example of this was my post last night, linking to a post from the old "Mending Fences" discussion, explaining why I think William is unfit to be host of this group. It was alerted upon and hidden as a personal attack when its entire text (other than the link) was:
Grave dancing in "Mending Fences" just before the switchover and throwing up in Vanje's face about her DU stalker being allowed back into the group.
No personal attack, just pointing out the record. Others are allowed to bring up my record from DU2, but I'm not allowed to bring up theirs?
Skinner, the main problem with the old moderation process, as I kept telling you and you kept ignoring, was not the process itself but the people who were put in charge of it, a fair number of whom were biased and (in this group's case) homophobic. This new system is worse because there is NO real screening of "jury" members; there is nothing keeping a homophobe or a rabid Obama supporter from arbitrarily, and without justification, voting to kill threads or posts they disagree with from this group.
I know that you intended to make things better, but you may have made them worse.
= new reply since forum marked as read