A request from one humble Du'er...don't "alert-swarm" posters because you disagree with them.

[Ken Burch]

We have many schools of thought contending here...many points of view...differing ideologies and life experiences.

It's fine to disagree with people-that's what makes a discussion a discussion.

It's fine to object to things another poster might say.

But please(and I say this simply as one fallible, flawed DU member to thousands of others) don't use the alert system as a means to silence dissenting opinions and voices. Don't alert simply because you disagree with what someone else has said.

Please alert ONLY if you are absolutely certain the post you are alerting on is actually in violation of forum or group rules. And when called to serve on a jury, please do your best to only vote to hide posts in which specific rules have been broken.

The alert system is supposed to be a way to ensure some degree of civility and fair play in the threads-NOT as a form of political, electoral or ideological combat.

(And this goes for me too...I'm putting myself on notice here as well).

OK?

[Ex Lurker]

1. Unless something is overtly insulting or threatening, I vote to leave it up

free speech, baby.

[hifiguy]

2. Having been on the receiving end thereof

I can only say "bravo" Ken!

[still_one]

3. I won't do jury duty because I feel that too much personal bias is reflected by some jurors,

as evidenced by their comments they make regarding their decisions.

I agree with your view of alerts

[99th_Monkey]

5. But it's you that we need on the freakin' juries

to bring a little more fairness to it. no?

[brer cat]

25. You are exactly what is needed,

still-one. If the people who put aside personal bias are not willing to serve as jurors, then we are left with too many people who are not objective. I hope you will reconsider.

[still_one]

60. I will reconsider

[tblue37]

55. But that is exactly WHY I always accept jury duty--to do my part to prevent unfair

hides that lead to unfair time-outs.

[Duckhunter935]

57. Me too, now I am back to 100% selectable

I am getting called a lot. I have had my own alert stalker. I was alerted on for an apology, lol

[tblue37]

59. Since I have never had a hide, I have always been called a lot. nt

[JonLP24]

4. I'd say the same thing for jury decisions

be tempted to hide or leave based on the feelings of the poster. I try to stay fair but always consider the context of the sub-thread as sometimes the accusation fits.

[intheflow]

81. Yes, I love when there's an alert on a post

that's the culmination of a thread where the person alerted on has been wheedled and bullied until they snap. Alerts definitely have to be taken in full context of the thread.

[pinboy3niner]

6. ALERTED!!!

[Skittles]

10. you want I should kick your alerting ass, pinboy3niner?

LEMME AT YOU!!!!

[shenmue]

64. Be a lert. The world needs more lerts.

[calimary]

69. Oh you!

[shenmue]

70. :)

[Skittles]

7. you are so diplomatic

here is how I would put it: you "alert bomber" cowards can FUCK YOURSELVES

[Ken Burch]

8. It would be sledge-hammer irony

if that post got you alert-bombed.

[Skittles]

9. some hides are worth it

seriously, they need to know exactly what they are and what they should do

[awoke_in_2003]

16. My last one felt good

Maybe it wasn't elegant, but it had to be said.

[LuvNewcastle]

11. My feelings exactly.

People are abusing the jury system in order to gain 'control' of the board. That's what's going on here. When we first got the jury system, I never thought about something like this happening. But now it is, and how can it be fixed?

[newfie11]

12. +++++++++++++

[peacebird]

28. [phone]

[woodsprite]

40. One way to fix it may be to kick people off DU who abuse it.

A "time-out" option or "all posts reviewed" would really suck up either DU or group administrator's time, so wouldn't be the best option. And let's face it, the people who abuse the system already know they're doing it, so the consequence shouldn't come as a surprise to them if the policy is prominently displayed or announced. Again, this would be for serial, repeat offenders.

[blm]

76. atta girl

.

[C Moon]

13. Good luck with that. In the last 3 juries I've been on in the past 2 wks, it's been just that.

I really wish DU would limit alerts. Or if an alerter is found wrong after a couple times, they can't alert for a month.
It's being used as a tool, and that's bad.
And that's not DU.

[peacebird]

29. Agree

[hifiguy]

79. Very much agree.

And it is very obvious who those who do this are.

[intheflow]

82. I've absolutely see the the same thing over the past few weeks.

Like little kids tattle-tellling on a mild disagreement like kids on a playground. I suspect that often the person alerting is the person who can't keep up their end of the political argument - that they started.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. Some would find the number of times I serve on juries,....disturbing....

[LuvNewcastle]

15. Everyone who is willing to serve on a jury

should check their account to see if they are willing or unwilling to serve on juries. If you're willing, make sure it says that you're willing. I just checked mine and it said I was unwilling and I fixed it. I had some difficulty with the software one time while serving, and I accidentally pushed the button that said I was unwilling to serve on any more juries. I had forgotten about it until just now. I hope more people are willing and able to serve. We need a large, diverse number of people to choose from when juries are chosen.

[Paka]

17. Great suggestion.

I'm in an odd time zone (Thailand) and so get often called to a jury. I take the responsibility very seriously and recently have noticed way too many frivolous alerts. A mere difference of opinion is not a reason to alert.

I have never alerted on a post and if I disagree I can always leave that thread and go to another.

[JDPriestly]

18. K&R. I'm seeing some suspicious alerts.

Also, alerting is not a revenge.

I don't believe in removing a post unless it is really, really clearly necessary.

[Cosmocat]

23. I have only voted to hide maybe two or three

out of a couple dozen juries ...

One I don't think people connected a picture that was posted in the OP that the the post in question made a word play on that was pretty bad ...

We DEFINITELY have had a run of this since the primary heated up ...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. I think people vote 'leave' too often on many alerts.

There's a very specific set of reasons listed from which you choose when you alert, and I think if the comment actually does specifically violate one of those particular rules, it should get the 'hide', even if you agree with the person who was alerted on. I find the jurists irritating when they say in their comment 'While I agree that this violates rule 'x', it should be rebutted in comments, not hidden'. And that's flat out wrong. When you're given a very specific list of things that are the reasons to alert, anything that violates that list should be hidden, not 'rebutted'. Otherwise, those wouldn't be on the choice list for why you alert in the first place.

[Cosmocat]

35. I disagree

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

I don't care if I agree or not, and most times I disagree with the opinions at hand.

But, very little that I have been chosen for jury service rises to the threshold to hide.

Its the internet, not a tea social.

[JDPriestly]

86. In my view, that limits the discussion too much.

[alphafemale]

85. I don't think I have ever alerted on a post.

I don't get my feelings hurt and enjoy the give and take of good verbal scuffle.

Unless a post was actively calling for bodily harm of some kind or is being especially egregious in hate speak I think it should generally stand.

And those type of posts are going to alerted by others anyway.

[JDPriestly]

92. Good for you.

But we do have real trolls who just come here to post utterly irrelevant nonsense. I'm all in favor of getting rid of them because they are just wasting bandwidth. We also get hopelessly stupid (and I use that word cautiously and carefully) Republicans who think it's a lark to post on DU. Those should go, but they are not common.

[democrank]

19. These "alert bombs" seem foolish to me.

We`re adults here and should be able to tolerate opposing points of view. The silencing of dissenters is a bit frightening and goes against the free flow of ideas. Exceptions should be rare.

[pintobean]

20. Specific rules?

There are no rules for community standards.

[Ken Burch]

22. When you alert, the alert box asks you to specify a reason you are alerting.

those reasons are one set of rules. So are the Terms of Service. Individual groups and forums also have additional rules in many cases.

[ileus]

21. Good luck...seems lots of folks have really tender feelings on the internet.

Proud member of the never alert, never block group here. I realize I'm not the center of the universe anymore like I was in 1972, and my hurt feelings don't matter.

[Cosmocat]

24. I have never

here or any other board, in going on two decades of posting in forums, went to an administrator.

Its the internet, people are people.

I don't let a lot get to me, I tend to punch back and deal with it myself when it it does.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. I talk to the folks I disagree with.

And then ignore those who waste my time with insults or deliberate and continued willful ignorance. As a result, I find the site a lot more civil, upbeat and thoughtful than before I started using ignore.

[Capt. Obvious]

30. No such thing as alert bombs

Alert swarms are the real problem.

[Orrex]

31. I wait to see all the other jurors' votes before I cast mine

Works every time.

[Capt. Obvious]

41. I enjoy seeing jurors argue with each other in the results.

[stage left]

32. I get called for juries

more than you might think I would be, since I'm a relative newbie. I really try to be fair and impartial. That's easier since I don't belong to any defined group. I've only alerted on a post once and someone else had already alerted on the post. The poster has since been banned as a troll.

[Vinca]

33. Thank you. It seems to happen often if someone disagrees or doesn't understand a point.

[Gormy Cuss]

34. Your OP could be interpreted as disruptive meta

because you are, without presenting evidence, claiming that some DUers are alerting in a way that you don't like.

The alert button is there on every post and there are no restrictions on using it. That's a feature of the DU jury system.

[ProfessorGAC]

36. What Ken Said?

I can't even remember how many juries i was on that seemed to be based upon frivolous alerts. It's approaching a few dozen.

[Iggo]

37. Meta!

[City Lights]

38. I couldn't agree more with this post!

Thanks for saying it. I have been called for jury duty on too many silly alerts recently. I usually only hide a post if it advocates violence against another human or animal, or if it is a clear attack on another DUer. It stinks when DUers try and use the jury system to silence those with whom they disagree.

[boston bean]

39. This is meta. I'm surprised it's still open.

Unless Ken Burch is Skinner and it's not Sid as we have been led to believe.

[Zorra]

42. Fact of life: Conservatives will always cheat if they won't get punished for it.

We're just going to have to deal with their dishonesty, unless the admins put a stop to it by monitoring alerts and monitoring juries.

[seaglass]

43. Some people don't get that they can disagree without being an asshole. I don't really trust your

judgment any more so I will make my own decision as to whether someone is alerting because they disagree with a poster or because the poster they are alerting is also personally attacking or in other ways violating community standards.

[Javaman]

44. Nice post, hitler.

[msanthrope]

45. Nice post Hitler. Alerted! nt

[Whiskeytide]

46. I agree. There should be ...

... a cap on alerts - perhaps 5 or 8 per month? Posters would use more discretion if they had to manage their resources. Any genuinely inappropriate post would almost certainly still be alerted by someone even if YOU were out of alerts - and I assume moderators could still intervene if it came to that when something was genuinely out of hand.

Also - I think there should be some transparency on this. Complete transparency might chill the process, but showing how many alerts a poster has made in the last 90 days, and maybe just a tally of the vote counts for each - would be revealing. You could then identify the "serial alerters" and have at least some indication on the general quality of the alerts. Knowing that others can see that information might make you think twice before your knee jerks out and hits your monitor.

[Capt. Obvious]

47. "serial alerters"

If DU were to list these metrics on profiles I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that some of the members who complain most vociferously about alert swarms/abuse would be shown to be serial alerters.

[Orrex]

48. "Alerting" should post the address, social security number & birthdate of the alerter

Problem solved.

[Capt. Obvious]

49. An addendum

Any alerts that fail: alerter must receive a tattoo.

[Orrex]

50. Selected by the author of the alerted-on post.

[Capt. Obvious]

51. Failed alerter can appeal

to exchange two brandings in lieu of tattoo.

[Orrex]

58. Yes! And yet people say that the jury system is broken. Nonsense!

[hrmjustin]

52. A good reminder.

[Binkie The Clown]

53. When your position is shaky you can only seek to silence the opposition.

Many people here seem to believe in "free speech for me, STFU for you."

[tblue37]

54. I no longer refuse requests to serve on juries, because I feel an obligation fo vote

to leave posts that have been improperly alerted on. I have only ever alerted on ONE post myself, and it was from a low post count troll who used a blatant homophobic slur.

I have seen too many people timed out for a series of innocuous posts that were alerted and then hidden by 1-vote margins, and often with personal insults by one or more jurors against the poster who was alerted on. At least the new rule will prevent jurors from saying nasty things about the alerted on poster.

[tularetom]

56. I have only alerted once or twice in my entire DU lifetime

And I generally respond negatively to drive by alerts if I'm selected for a jury.

But I will say this. One time I was tempted to hide a post, not because of the content but because of the identity of the poster. So I excused myself from the jury and I've never even given a thought to doing that again.

[onehandle]

61. Hear Hear!

Fat lot of good it will do with this badly designed jury system, but nevertheless...

Hear Hear!

[clarice]

62. + 10000. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Better yet

remove yourself from the pool, and do not alert, no matter how egregious. We both agree the system is broken. IMHO, it's beyond fixing.

[closeupready]

77. Yes, this makes sense to me. I removed myself from the pool,

and I have resolved not to alert, but rather to "Ignore".

[BrotherIvan]

65. I think people should sign their alert

I put my name on alerts (3 by my last count) and on my jury service. It's the only way to keep it honest.

[Capt. Obvious]

67. I do that too

I sign your name to all of my alerts and jury services.

[BrotherIvan]

68. It's a good start

[Logical]

66. Why do you care? If a dumb alert then jury will not hide it. If not.....

A dumb alert it gets locked. Problem solved!

[Ex Lurker]

87. Because some vote according to whether they agree or disagree with the alerter

instead of whether the post violates the terms of service.

[Blue_Tires]

71. +1000

I'm definitely getting "the treatment" a lot more often than I used to...

Too many passive-aggressive cowards on this site, I guess

[Capt. Obvious]

72. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Tue Jun 9, 2015, 02:08 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

+1000
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6969419

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Okay, fine, don't hide this post. It's okay, really.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 13, 2015, 02:20 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This won't be hidden, I'm borderline passive aggressive myself and I'm sick of the attacks on me.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I may not agree with the stance they are taking, but we shouldn't be afraid to back up our assertions with facts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Someone alerted on this????
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Why are you getting so upset?
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Oh great Blue_Tires, you just want everything to be perfect.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Blue_Tires]

74. Holy shit I won a jury decision for the first time in forever!

Today *must* be my birthday

And to whoever alerted on me -- THANK YOU so very much for beautifully illustrating my point

[Skittles]

93. the ones who voted to Hide

W.T.F.

[Man from Pickens]

73. the way to avoid it is

instead of being straightforward in your disagreement, turn it around and take the point you disagree with, and amplify it sarcastically. Gets the same point across with a lot lower chance of being alerted successfully, as many of the agenda-driven types perverting the jury system won't pick up on even the most extreme sarcasm. And you put the alerter in the position of alerting on a post that they agree with, which causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Makes it much more difficult to play the silence-dissenting-voices agenda game.

[LittleBlue]

75. I've see posts that would normally be hidden

Bigoted posts that survive alerts. People on DU are so sick of the frivolous, abusive alerts that the backlash is manifesting as an "anything goes " philosophy for jurors.

9 out of every 10 juries I serve on are acquittals. People are fed up.

[arcane1]

78. After the jury I just served on, I can't rec this enough

[harun]

80. Mo alerting, mo better.

[bvar22]

83. There is an easy fix for this:

Make Alerts transparent.
That was supposed to be a feature of the new DU.



I've alerted perhaps 3 times to obvious trolls,
but would proudly sign my name to every Alert I have made,
and to every Jury Comment I have ever made.

[AwakeAtLast]

88. Absolutely!

I feel the same way.

[Blue_In_AK]

84. Good point.

I've been a jury member for lots of stupid alerts lately.

[raouldukelives]

89. I've never alerted a post.

But then, I don't hang around the most contentious boards either like guns. I'm sure that would change it.

[AwakeAtLast]

90. OMG, thank you so much for this post

I have experienced the jury side of this and it was becoming apparent to me that this was taking place. I've been here more than 10 years and I just now understand what others hinted at.

[kcr]

91. It depends on the reason for disagreement

If they're a right wing troll, I just might alert on it and I don't care who doesn't like it.

[seaglass]

94. Frankly I think jurors are more of a problem than alerters. This thread illustrates some of the

brilliance of those who participate on our juries. Ugh.

Too many jurors on this site have zero integrity; fucking back out of the jury if you can't make a judgment free of bias. You jurors who hide or leave posts based on whether you like the poster or whether you agree with the poster are the ones who make the jury system suck.