going on, so I canceled.

For one reason, I seldom block posts unless the alerted post threaten someone or is a vile message. Just about anything else can be handled by rebuffing or rebutting the original poster if one doesn't agree with it.

Similarly, I seldom block posts that someone alerts saying the post is "pushing right wing talking points." Just because one says they don't support say mandatory Medicare-for-All, it is not a "right wing talking point." That "right wing talking point" is overused here and is usually just someone who doesn't like someone's opinion. We should welcome most opinions even if we strongly disagree. As above, if you don't agree with them, say so in a rebuttal post.

Another thing, it used to be that one could go back to the original thread before voting so that a jury member can determine the entire context of the alerted post. Since we can no longer do that, I seldom vote to block a post. As above, if you don't agree with the post, say so. Also, under the old system, you could actually write a comment about why you decided to hide or allow. And the alerted poster got to see those (but not the juror's name). I really liked that.

I'm a little more strict on thread titles because a lot of people just read those and not the thread. Thread titles should be accurate and fair.

In any event, you don't get disciplined for canceling out of a jury.

Oh, I have only alerted on one post in 15 some years here. It was one of mine that I thought better of later.