regarding the jury system:

[NM_Birder]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by MineralMan (a host of the General Discussion forum).

i just served on a jury. I think it makes a lot more sense to NOT show the name of the person with the post to be "juried".

I found the idea of hiding the post in question to be ridiculous, and seemed like it had to have been personal not really a reason to be "juried"

but- showing the name of the person who wrote the post being judged, gives people with personal axes to grind an opportunity to put that personal vendetta in play. Doesn't it make more sense to have the potentially offensive post anonymously judged for it's content and not for WHO wrote it ?

i think anonymously is fair, it would keep people from a "revenge hide", and it also would remove the ability to protect offensive speech just because of on online friendship.

[upaloopa]

1. We need to stop taking a jury decision personally

The system has been compromised.
If someone alerts on you because of personal reasons put them on ignore and get them out of your life.

[RKP5637]

2. +1, n/t

[NM_Birder]

3. Honestly i couldn't even understand why the post was alerted,

it HAD to have been personal for personal sake.

[NM_Birder]

4. How do you know who alerts on you ?

[misterhighwasted]

5. Most certainly has. Thanks for addressing this fact.

*

[melman]

6. I don't think that would work

because you need to be able to see the post in the context of the thread.

[NM_Birder]

8. not saying to disguise what is said

but "who" said it.

Who said it has nothing to do with context, it only allows it to become personal.

[melman]

11. But how would that work?

Somehow erase the usernames from the thread?

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. I like to review the context of the post when I'm on a jury

The link back to the thread is an important part for me, and that also means knowing the author of the post.

I agree with the post above: if you're that worried about people you don't really know o interact with holding a personal vendetta against you and exercising it on an online jury, you either 1) need to get out a bit more and gain some perspective or 2) are not really built for this sort of thing.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. I think the accused should be able to face their accusers.

I posted the suggestion once in ATA--I don't think it was well-received. But here's how it would work:
1. Someone alerts on user John Doe.
2. DU software sends an email to the accused, along with the comments of the alerter.
3. The accused has 15 minutes to reply in his or her own defense.
4. After 15 minutes, the alert flows to the jury that has been impaneled. If the accused has replied in his or her own defense, the jurors see that and can consider it. If they haven't replied, you just see a note stating that the accused didn't reply in a timely manner.

I think that could work. I also think that alerters' names should be shown.

I don't think any of this will happen, but I'd be in favor of those changes.

[MohRokTah]

10. In before the lock.

As this thread surely will for not following SOP for GD.

The jury system is what it is.

[MineralMan]

12. Locking.

Questions and comments about the jury system should be asked in the Ask the Administrators area.