Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Announcements
In reply to the discussion: We are making some changes to the moderating/jury system. (THIS IS IMPORTANT.) [View all]Response to Phillyindy (Reply #40)
LanternWaste This message was self-deleted by its author.
Edit history
Cannot view edit history for self-deleted messages.
407 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
We are making some changes to the moderating/jury system. (THIS IS IMPORTANT.) [View all]
Skinner
Sep 2013
OP
If you're "singled out" by five randomly-selected juries the problem's probably in the mirror. (nt)
Posteritatis
Sep 2013
#186
If that many juries agree? Then of course it's the "victim's" fault. (nt)
Posteritatis
Sep 2013
#203
I believe most jury decisions are honest and fair. But I have been on the receiving end
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#252
I don't have any problem with "leaving" a post when I feel the alert is bogus.
winter is coming
Sep 2013
#205
Yes, but if enough alerts are made on a person, it only takes 5 bogus to shut them up.
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#218
Good. I am not the best with getting my point across. I may fight with others
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#246
If singled out by say "a special group" and alerted on as a matter of being targeted
Dragonfli
Sep 2013
#261
I have seen the "Group" single out posters and attack. Many have not reacted
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#276
This has been the case with me. That's why I had left. But these new rules convinced me
BlueCaliDem
Oct 2013
#395
He is saying that you only get hidden if you are guilty. Those that get hidden deserve it.
rhett o rick
Oct 2013
#399
I got one (my first ever) and it shocked me. I've been walking (posting) on coals since.
tofuandbeer
Sep 2013
#278
I just went and looked at my transparency page, because, well, hit the right nerve
tavalon
Sep 2013
#326
Me too. I don't think this is what is meant (at least I hope not. I like serving on the juries!)
anneboleyn
Sep 2013
#117
That, coupled with every alert going to admin should head off bad-faith alerters. nt
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#38
There is always appeal to the admins. I think if someone gets their posting privls suspended and
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#52
The admins would see a pattern, I think. They might be able to get away with it once. nt
MADem
Sep 2013
#254
Occasionally you get bad jury decisions. If enough alerts are thrown against the DU wall
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#247
True. I wish personal attacks were hidden more often. It's a real simple idea. Don't attack DUers...
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#101
I agree. Alerters should pay a price for malicious alerts or alerts for non-aler table issues.
bluestate10
Sep 2013
#176
I love OTTO! I hope this means he is not leaving us because he is needed for you know who.
hrmjustin
Sep 2013
#45
I don't think there's anything in the OP that changes Otto's relationship with MIRT
Lasher
Sep 2013
#180
The only thing that changes is we have to manually ban people who just sign up and get a hidden
hrmjustin
Sep 2013
#181
Yes. I have definitely noticed this while serving on juries. Some use it to "shame"
anneboleyn
Sep 2013
#124
Spam alerts are the quickest ones to jury, IMO. I don't mind getting those.
winter is coming
Sep 2013
#214
Much needed changes...especially addressing the small group that "hidden posts" does not influence..
hlthe2b
Sep 2013
#28
Of course this will not stop anyone who votes to hide on the basis of them not liking someone.
L0oniX
Sep 2013
#32
Yes and boorish behavior reflects on the individuals lack of respect for others.
bluesbassman
Sep 2013
#50
No, it reflects a realization that some people are the posting equivalent of Ted Bundy
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#62
Saying they do well means they run the site well. Any comparisons to Beck are despicable.
Hekate
Sep 2013
#358
Of course the owner has an agenda. It's written up succinctly in the Mission Statement. So what?
cbayer
Sep 2013
#208
Considering a lot of jury comments would get nuked in the forums, I agree. (nt)
Posteritatis
Sep 2013
#188
If you are keeping people from posting after 5 x's you should also monitor for excessive alerts.
dkf
Sep 2013
#74
Bans should be for 6/6 jury results. The haters are shotgunning their alerts and hoping for a jury
Kolesar
Sep 2013
#83
Yes, that may also make some people think when their hostility is exposed in comments.
freshwest
Sep 2013
#184
Best thing you'v done since nuking META! Thanks for making this a better place
Rowdyboy
Sep 2013
#76
And so the jurists on DU are just like people picked off the street for live jury duty
tavalon
Sep 2013
#340
I'm wondering if not enough material is going to be sent to MIRT, but over-all, I like these changes
Ian David
Sep 2013
#86
Oh well. What the heck? I applaud this move even though it means I'll have to tone it down.
Pretzel_Warrior
Sep 2013
#87
"But if you don't violate the rules View profile then the jury is going to support you?"
Pab Sungenis
Sep 2013
#129
Good idea, either that or there should be some new penalty for frivolous alerts
quinnox
Sep 2013
#136
You should double the number of entries on the jury blacklist as well.
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2013
#122
I like it. Sounds like the small percentage of duers who would brag about their hidden posts
quinnox
Sep 2013
#128
If 100 Tories or 100 Larouchies showed up to *disrupt* the Democratic forum with half-truths
Kolesar
Sep 2013
#172
No matter how 'popular' you might be or how 'popular' you see yourself
Grateful for Hope
Sep 2013
#178
"The administrators are getting increasingly concerned about the small number of members...
RevStPatrick
Sep 2013
#142
It's the low-count posters who post unnecessary rude comments that draw attention.
pacalo
Sep 2013
#216
"STARTING 90 DAYS FROM TODAY, if you have five hidden posts on your account you will be unable..."
Taverner
Sep 2013
#146
Try clever, biting sarcasm, as opposed to a lot of profanity and troll accusations.
Nye Bevan
Sep 2013
#173
Well Juror #4's response is now going to be the automatic response of the system. n/t
whopis01
Sep 2013
#194
K&R! And apparently three other members recced this at the exact same time I did.
Rhiannon12866
Sep 2013
#160
No TOS check box? The Neidermeyer / Marmalard faction of DU won't like that at all.
Amerigo Vespucci
Sep 2013
#206
I've served on several juries where the post was reported due to disagreeing with it
Trekologer
Sep 2013
#220
I suggest that if 5 hides causes you to lose posting privileges, you still should be
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#250
I generally think these rules are very reasonable, I do caution on one thing however
Bjorn Against
Sep 2013
#272
You can alert on jury results. Look at the bottom of the reslts and you will see the alert button.
hrmjustin
Sep 2013
#277
Well I am on Mirt and a host of several rooms and I can tell you things have gone downhill very
hrmjustin
Sep 2013
#283
Mirt was alerted the same time the rest of DU was about this What I am saying is if you see
hrmjustin
Sep 2013
#285
You can start an anything goes discussion forum really easily. And I will bet it will be a hit
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#332
Sometimes stepping away from the computer and denying those people what they want
tavalon
Sep 2013
#325
Good on you -- this should help. Can we look forward to a few more as Primary season approaches?
Hekate
Sep 2013
#290
While I applaud any efforts to improve this website, there are other issues that should be addressed
Sheldon Cooper
Sep 2013
#308
Bullying by jurors ideologically aligned with bullies who attack without consequences
carolinayellowdog
Sep 2013
#312
I am amazed that DU is still online with all the attacks it's had over the years
nolabels
Sep 2013
#388