and a kick and a rec

I am all for this new system. Thank you for the change, it was much needed.

Skinner, EarlG, and Elad:

Exactly what DU needs.

It's really not so hard to just not personally insult one another.

5 hidden threads still seems low. I understand the stats, but that's just me.

And it won't change anything anyways.

I assume that you get some message when something is hidden. This would suggest that you are being warned - 4 times - before you post the 5th. I've seen that most juries are pretty liberal in what they will allow to remain.

If you are getting more than 5 posts hidden in 90 days, you are really doing something wrong and in most cases, it is simply that you are maliciously attacking people instead of addressing their ideas.

If someone gets singled out they may have a lot of alerts thrown at them in 90 days. Most of the juries might rule appropriately, but it only takes 5 to shut someone down.

Would you agree that occasionally a jury gets it wrong? My point is that someone that is disliked by an active group may get enough alerts that the bad jury results push the number to 5. I bet Manny gets alerted on at least once a day.

And it was on a thread full of wisecracks. I think some of the people who are quickest to attack you are also the thinnest skinned.
There should be some sort of appeal.

of some pretty petty decisions.

Of mentioning the attributes of some Green party candidates. It got removed, stating this is DEMOCRATIC underground. Whoo!

I've even alerted on a couple of verdicts (regardless of outcome) when I felt the alert was not only bogus, but malicious. If five randomly-selected juries have hidden someone's posts, it's unlikely that all 5 of those are bad hides. Yes, I've seen bad hides (and bad "leaves&quot , but 5 in 90 days sounds like someone skating the line between acceptable and unacceptable, at best.

I dont think this will be a problem, but someone as controversial as Manny may get a lot of malicious alerts. And in most cases the juries will do the right thing but it only takes 5 bogus decisions to shut him down. I hope I am not giving anyone ideas.

How about shutting a person down like ProSense? You don't think there have been a lot of malicious alerts toward this member?

So I assume you understand my point. No one should be assaulted with malicious alerts.

but I believe the fight should always be fair.

DU is a great place. Keep cool.

for removal from the site by said "special group". Mathematically the chance of a bad jury goes up damn near exponentially.

Example: If alerted on 4 times a day, and say 1 post a month is ACTUALLY questionable, one will almost surely get banned simply for being targeted. I mean "you better believe it" that some nasty buggers here like to claim people they do not like are "zombies" without a shred of IP proof or any proof other than not liking that person. Such people used to brag in meta about exactly this behavior and dance on the graves of those they harassed out of here.

I hope as part of these new improvements (and I believe they are improvements save for the bully "alert squad" loophole), they count the number of alerts, look for patterns of alerts by small groups of serial alerters that work together and if the number is high, look very closely into the validity of the alerts and ban the bullies trying to get people banned as part of a lynch mob mentality.

I could name at least five I am fairly certain do this very thing regularly, the ones that used to brag about their bullying and who spoke loosely of "zombies" while reveling in their inflated sense of power. For some reason, this mob used to always post "you better believe it" every time they successfully used their bullying power to get someone banned. It was common to see the bragging in meta, so they certainly do exist.

Those that target people and use the alert for bullying rather than what it was intended for really should face banning for such behavior, even if only to discourage such behavior.

in a manner to save themselves. Mostly by lashing back the got themselves sideways. Bullying is an interesting thing here in DU. Especially Righteous Bullying.

is large and coordinated enough to get a majority five times on a randomly selected jury?

the sheer number of alerts will ensure that at least five alerts are successful? That might be true, although you'd really have to see the data to make sure. The juries that I've been on have tended to be somewhat lenient, and most of Prosense's comments in my experience are not the kind of over-the-top replies that tend to get the axe.

Aren't there controls for posters who make a lot of failed alerts? That would seem to cut down on the frivolous posters. I guess it could be based on percentages, but that would equate low-alert with high-alert posters, which is not necessarily a step in the right direction.

Offhand, I can't think of a straightforward way to spare unpopular posters who follows the rules any better than the status quo. I guess we will find out if there needs to be one.

I can come back and try again.

On the other hand, it isn't hard to have a group of like-minded and malicious posters gang up on each and every post you post, trying to find out what will stick and get hidden. It's happened to me; taking my words out of context to accuse me of something I clearly never meant, and then alerting to get that post hidden.

I wonder if these new rules will prevent that from happening.

No one ever acts badly on a jury.

Avoid those and most juries will give you reasonable latitude.

Unfortunately I can't mention those things that will get your posts banned, because this post would get banned, so figure it out yourself.

And if a person really cannot stay clear of 5 violations, maybe they are spending too much time typing and not enough time thinking.

Therefore a perfectly benevolent system would identify posters that are getting into the danger zone and limit them to 10 posts a day -- use them wisely.

It's like getting a speeding ticket: you drive carefully for several days afterward.

Sort of immediate refection and recalibrating so I am within rules. I like your speeding ticket analogy, because I suspect that for most of us - just like with speeding - there is no real intent to break the law and genuine upset when stopped.

and I can be quite spiky. I've never had a post hidden or even adjudicated. I'd say the system is already pretty lenient.

I touched on something that I thought may raise an eyebrow (religion).
From here on out, I will listen to that little voice in my head.

If you think "maybe I shouldn't say this or that because it is a sticky situation and it may be taken wrong" then it likely needs to be said. If you do not say anything, the issue goes away without any further debate. Some things can not be sugar coated for easy digestion. Most of our issues of highest importance are also the same ones that get the most heated. It is natural to get heated over issues that matter. Personal attacks are overboard, but attacking a method or (il)logical argument should not be. I have had posts hidden for both of these. Ugly truth is sometimes ugly. People do not like to see it.

It ain't that hard.

I got worried there for a moment about the five hidden posts, because I believe I've had at least that many happen to me over time. Only one in the last 90 days, though.

As a juror, I have made occasional comments in the past about what I consider to be weak alerts, but I think they were benign enough where they would not be considered inflammatory and result in getting locked out of jury service.

Thanks as always for continuing to tweak, modify and change DU in an attempt to make it a more pleasant experience.

Believe it or not.

I do too. I'm actually surprised I don't get more opportunities.

Thanks for the information.

-Laelth

UNDER 100 posts AND an alert on their posts MIRT gets a review of the account...?

I think that it is a good idea to watch for obvious trolls. It is a shame that new members who are sincere might also be caught up in this, but it should not be a problem for them. The sooner a troll gets booted, the better.

The other changes all make sense to me, although some DUers may not agree.

Thanks for letting us know about the changes.

to improving civility and preventing alert abuse.

You and the admins rock!.

The 5 hidden post limit is going to pay big dividends heading into primary time. People who attack the poster and not their ideas will eventually lose their posting privileges and that is a good thing.

It will also serve as grounds for "gang banging" on users that certain other users do not like.

John Doe piss you off? Get 4 of your friends to search his name, alert on other posts of his and Poof! he's gone !

Don't think that's quite fair, unless there is a counter-measure in place that also puts 'excessive alerters' under review.

JMHO.

they email Skinner/EarlG and review of their hidden posts suggests such an effort against them, Skinner and EarlG I am sure will take appropriate action.

I think they would listen to appeals. They have in the past, even in the wild west past before DU3.

such a plan would need the collusion of the jurists, too.

Seems unlikely.

if you get 10 of your friends on the site between 2-5 AM EST. The odds of your people being called for a jury on one of your alerts is pretty significant.

Dedicated batches during "slow hours" can really abuse the current system.

Would people really go to that much trouble to hide a post?

If they did they should rethink their priorities.

I really don't think the system can be gamed in this way.

you may get enough bad jury decisions (to stick) to shut you down.

that those five alerters manage to get at least 4 jurors on each alerted post to vote for a hide.

Twenty people who are petty enough to hide based on what might be flimsy evidence (other than the fact that five people hate the alerted on person).

And since all alerts will be going to the Admins anyway, I have faith that they would be able to smell a rat...

The jury would also have to agree and HIDE 5 posts over 90 days.

And with the admins checking the alerts, abusive alerters alerting on innocuous posts would soon be spotted.

If they see the same swarm of alerters going after a single person, they'll figure it out pretty quick.

After all, nothing is "private" on DU. There's no "private" mail--there's DU mail.

I should think collusion of the type you suggest would be grounds for a pizza party.

I'm quite positive the admins are not dull of comprehension. I just wrote this because I love that turn of phrase. Dull of comprehension. LOL. Fabulous use of the English language.

I learned that phrase at the knee of my great grandmother, who was an enormous influence on me and my siblings. She used it often (as in "The cookies are missing and you are covered in crumbs...do you think I am dull of comprehension?&quot .

She was born around 1880, and the terms and phrases she passed on to us reflect her life and times!

and quite frankly, they don't do that now. Too often I've seen comments on LEAVE posts where the reason for that vote is that the person being attacked started it.


eta: not a criticism of the changes, just a comment that most of the jury system's limitations are still intact.

attack ideas.

and that's basically what I was trying to say. Nance and I don't agree on everything politically and yet I consider her a valued friend, one I was blessed to find on DU but have remained in touch with since.

The reverse, not so much.

I do appreciate the efforts by the Ads to at least address the blatant abuses of the jury system where "gun humpers" & a million references to "penis" are OK, but the terms "hoplophobia" and "Jim Crow laws" can get you hidden.

Some sort of Administrator review might be beneficial, esp. with regard juror comments.

who stalk a poster can get them "out of the way" for a month and a half with a little effort.

I'd like to see something like you get to alert on a user once per day. If your alert fails, you don't get to alert on them for a week. Your alert fails 6-0, you don't get to alert on them ever again. That would end some of the abuse of the system.

I have concerns about cliques of DU members trying to silence a poster, there should be a price to pay for such activity if it is uncovered.

I think it will increase the level of civil discourse here.

Advice appreciated.

The MIRT changes look interesting, hope they work out. Wondering if this means posts hidden 4-2 or 5-1 are not sent to MIRT?
"In addition, the MIR Team will be notified whenever a post is removed under two conditions: 1) If the post is removed on a vote of 6-0, or 2) if the author of the post has fewer than 100 posts."

The 6-0 juries Idea seem ok to me because if we got all hidden post it would be insane.

Used to be TOS, not just any hidden. My brain, my brain! "How to" was kicked recently but I can't read it yet. Annoying to see someone replied but not read it beyond the title. Oh well.

Puts more power onto those who say they would never vote to hide, but there are few enough of them perhaps to make a difference. It will make MIRT a bit different. It is all a process.