The best defense is to claim offense.

[tama]

41. No doubt

there are many cases where we would disagree with the jury decision, and of course it's not fool proof - nothing is. But it's a new more communal system and so far much better than moderators, who are anything but immune to the Stanford Prison Experiment -effect.

I thought peer review was something that you were much in favor for, and this is a system of your posts getting judged by peers, fellow posters. In ancient Athens which also had a judicial system based on peer review and drawing lot, there was a system of that the accuser faced similar punishment that he was demanding, if the accused was found not guilty, in order to avoid abuse of the system. In some other forums I've suggested that if someone demands that some other poster be banned, there is a judgment by peers and if they don't ban the accused, the accuser gets banned. I don't know how something like that could be created to sanction unnecessary alerts and attempts to abuse the jury system, maybe there are good ideas but discussion about them should continue in the meta.

I don't know what is the mount of evidence you are referring to, a quick lurk in your safe haven or mutual support group hinted that cleanhippie, perhaps together with some others - haven't really looked into it - has continued the battle of words with militant hard-line feminism (or a feminist), and in my experience that is generally unwise.