On Hiding Threads and Comments

[Vox Moi]

I've been on lots of DU juries and I don't like hiding threads because that is censorship, pure and simple.
Let's be honest. It's more like 'Burning' than 'Hiding'.

First, let's give the author a chance to respond, in public.
Stand pat? Clarify? Better choice of words? Apology? I would like to give the 'offender' a chance to defend.

As a juror, I would like the option of voting for a chance to appeal.

Second, let's give the DU community a chance to comment on the appeal.

If this seems like paying too much attention to contention, I believe that's one thing we need.
There are some difficult topics on DU that need to be discussed and all too often somebody wants to yell 'Thoughtcrime".
At that point, the topic itself is secondary to the opportunity to learn something about communicating with each other.

IMHO

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I have to disagree

I've been on 219 juries and I very very rarely will vote to hide a post. When I do hide a post - it's the most simple TOS term being broken - personal attacks. The other reason I'll hide - it's an obvious troll.

Callling someone a derogatory name/word is not necessary and does not enhance the discussion.

And I will say this - DU has one of the LOOSEST TOS around. So yeah - are people being vindictive and petty and deliberately hiding people they disagree with? Or alerting on them? Yeppers.


But I think it happens less often than an actual indieteapublican bigot coming on here and causing a ruckus and getting the boot.

And I absolutely do not come here to read right wing wingnut igorant comments - if I want that I can visit CNN's comments section. If someone wants to post that stuff - post it there.

[TexasTowelie]

2. It defeats the purpose of having a discussion board

when someone offers a dissenting idea, then is locked out the thread by a jury immediately after the initial post. While there are some posts that clearly deserve to be hidden, I saw one comment hidden recently that was most likely meant to sarcastic rather than offensive or trollish.

Even if I don't agree with someone, I do find that I also learn from comments that others make and occasionally even readjust my own perspective on issues.

[DURHAM D]

3. This belongs in Ask the Administrators

[Vox Moi]

4. The Administrators can't speak for the membership ...

Ask the Administrators:
---------------------------
The only people who may post replies in a thread are the author of the original question and the DU Administrators. All other individuals are automatically blocked from posting by our software.

I wanted to know what members think.

[DURHAM D]

7. If you want to know what members think

you must start an OP in META. The only problem is that META no longer exists.

[TheMathieu]

5. Reddit probably has the best system of all.

And there's absolutely no censorship.

[The Straight Story]

6. In most cases they do

With the exception of the mods in Politics and that whole recent dust up

I spend a lot more time there as it seems the discourse is a lot more open.

[TBF]

8. Try ask the administrator -

as someone who has served in almost 300 juries I think it's a horrible idea. There is too much meta in GD already (such as this thread itself).

[Lizzie Poppet]

10. But AtA doesn't offer the opportunity for members to discuss the issue.

Eliminating Meta eliminated such discussion...terrible idea.

[Brother Buzz]

9. Skinner has spoken on this, time and time again:

The point of the jury system is to create an incentive for posters to avoid posting inappropriate stuff. The threat of a hidden post is the incentive which causes people to think about what they post.

If we provide jurors with a "Please edit" option, then jurors are very likely going to take that option all the time, and then posters will no longer have an incentive to be civil. Because they'll always get a chance to fix their post if they cross the line.

[Vox Moi]

11. What if the post was misunderstood and no offense intended?

What would be wrong with someone 'fixing' a post? Couldn't that include an apology?
Hiding a questionable post is possibly less of a deterrent to than having it under open discussion.
My interest is not only in giving the poster a chance to appeal or re-state the issue, it is also to give the membership an opportunity to study borderline situations where someone is offended and the jury thinks it that the 'offense' itself deserves discussion.

[notadmblnd]

14. You need to understand that there are certain people here that are hyper-sensitive to

what ever it is that they feel passionate about and look for comments to take offense with.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. So? Is fixing a shady post worse...

than hiding it?

(And don't we all rush to open the hidden posts first anyway?)

[LittleBlue]

12. Who cares?

It takes 5 hides in 90 days before you're banned for a period of time, and that's only until your first hide expires.

You could have one or two bad hides, but 5? Nah, you can't plead innocence at that point, there's no way 5 juries all voted in error.

If you get a bad hide, oh well. Happens to us all. The world goes on. I like the DU jury system, it's great. Someone above mentioned reddit, that sounds the best actually.