I was on the jury for 1StrongBlackMan's last post, proof the jury system is broken.

[Kurska]

I'm often on juries (I donate to DU, don't get hides and always volunteer to serve, cause I love this place) and I'm increasingly seeing things like "I know this posters game" or "Perfectly in line with what this person stands for" and then a vote to hide. I'm not going to go into specifics on this one is particular (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to), but I saw that on this jury too.

It is deeply disturbing to me that personal vendettas are being carried out through the jury system. I always try to judge posts without considering the poster or their history and maybe that post was slightly curt (not really hide-able if I had to look back on it), but many people seem to have abandoned that principle.

I genuinely think it is high time to present the posts in total isolation from any other context and with the name removed. After he was was suspended, I looked back on his transparency page and there were at least 3 alerts that I thought were highly highly questionable.

It really is a shame what the jury system is coming to. I have deep disagreements with many posters here on various issues, but I think trying to use the jury system as a weapon is the lowest of the low. I like free and open discourse, even if I hear stuff I don't like.

I figured this would be relevant to this group, since he was so active here.

As a side note, as much as I mixed it up with her sometimes, I genuinely miss Bravenak. This forum is far less interesting and informative in her absence.

[CountAllVotes]

1. Personal vendettas are being carried out through the jury system

This is exactly the reason I refuse to participate in this "jury system" or ever it is you care to call it.

& recommend.

[awoke_in_2003]

41. That can cut both ways

I think the jury system is crap. But if I abstain from serving then maybe someone with a vendetta takes my place.

[billhicks76]

118. Juries Are Dumb

Let it flow.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Fully agree.

Esepcially redacting the poster's name from the alert.

The part about context is challenging though. Without seeing the post in the context of the thread, I usually can't even grok what's being said.

I haven't posted all that much at DU lately, but for a long time I used to get PMs almost daily with failed alerts on benign posts; "lumberjack_jeff is the guy who bla bla bla..."

Alert stalking is definitely a thing - I guess I thought it only happened to me.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Redacting the poster's name would be easily gotten around with a few seconds of DU search. n/t

[Flying Squirrel]

79. While that's true,

It would send a clear message that juries should not be using the system to carry out personal vendettas, and perhaps encourage people to be more impartial (and avoid taking the extra step of finding out who the poster was before judging the post).

[Downwinder]

5. There should be a penalty for false alerts.

[PoliticAverse]

11. Just like a certain number of hidden posts gets you suspended from posting a certain number

of failed alerts should get you suspended from using the alert system.

[Downwinder]

15. Why not time out?

[sarge43]

93. Excellent idea n/t

[bbgrunt]

75. I like this idea. Either that or limit the number of alerts that

individuals can make. There is no cost to alerters for making frivolous alerts. This makes alert stalking very profitable to those with a nefarious agenda.

[SusanCalvin]

91. What an excellent idea.

Owners, are you listening?

[totodeinhere]

20. I think there is a penalty for too many failed alerts.

I don't recall the exact number but too many will suspend you from making any more alerts for a certain period of time.

[Bobbie Jo]

34. It's a jury result of 0-7

to leave the post.

This result nets the alerter a 24hr time out from alerting on another post.

Alert stalkers are working with the odds in their favor. Most will find at least 1 or 2 sympathetic jurors on any given alert. 1-6, 2-5, etc.... will allow these folks to alert to their heart's content.

These people seriously need to get a new hobby.

[totodeinhere]

60. Thanks for the clarification. I would like to see that policy revised. Perhaps

they could also impose a suspension if an alerter has a certain number of failed alerts in a 24 hour period even if the vote is not 0-7 on each one.

[artislife]

111. Yes.

And we should only have a set amount each month to use with no roll overs.

I don't alert, but I do realize that this site has too many threads going that it cannot really be moderated without help. When I stumble upon a hidden post, I open it and over half the time, I just don't get why it was hidden. I see all sides doing this, but probably because of the imbalance of supporters, more nonBernie supporters may be getting hidden. And I am deeply troubled that PoCs, especially AAs are being picked off. The incident with Bravenak is very creepy and I cannot help but think that the allowance of over alerting and targeting is behind it. Someone has become really embolden, hopefully only until the authorities knock on their door.

[davidpdx]

112. Three per month sounds sufficient to me

That would be about one every 10 days. It would send a bold message, if you are going to alert you better use the few you have wisely.

Then again, there would still be ways around that. Person A sees something and asks Person B to alert on it. There would be nothing to stop that from happening unfortunately.

[TheKentuckian]

130. I have called for rolling limits on alerts for years and have been poo poohed hard by many of the

people crying now and honestly believe that it was because at the time they were doing the goring of the oxen and their's were protected. Now that cavalier attitude and desire to play games has swung around and biting them in the ass in karma like fashion they are crying about what they once defended.

That's okay though, I still support limiting the alerts severely. If you need more than 3 a month or 6 in 6 months or 10 in a year you are here for baby games and to silence rather than to have discussions.

I doubt I have had 3 alerts in three years, why does any poster need an unlimited bucket? 3 a month is more than plenty and should average far less so 6 in 6 months and 10 a year should be a healthy amount.
Burn through your 6 in two months? So what? There is a whole community to help police disruption, you have done your duty so give it a rest for 3 months and then know that you only have four more in the rolling year.

[davidpdx]

136. I disagree with the rolling limits

One should lose them at the end of each month to emphasize the limit on alerts. As they say it's all academic because I highly doubt Skinner would go for something like that. He seems pretty resistant to any changes in my opinion.

I suppose if someone put together a loosely held group of long-timers and threw around some ideas to propose, I'd certainly be willing to chip in my ideas.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

3. Me too.

I was just on a similar jury. This stuff is getting way out of hand.

[mopinko]

6. blind juries would be good, but pretty sure it would be unworkable.

all the ax grinders would need to do it search for the thread in question.

[barbtries]

7. there are many people on DU

who are immature. i don't spend as much time here as i used to because it's so bogged down in bullshit anymore.

[Javaman]

8. IBTL. nt

[BlueJazz]

9. There's a few of us who won't hide a post unless it's something like:

"Eat my shit..Moth**Fu*ker and die"

I don't know if that's a good thing or not??

[SmittynMo]

10. I got bumped for the word

"wench". My first thought was "Are you kidding me?" I've been here for years, made many posts, and never got a bump until recently. I saw this getting out of hand a while back, and decided to change my "willing to serve on jury" to NO. I've served previously for years and thought I made rational decisions.

I'm afraid it has changed, for the worse.

[BlueJazz]

16. Oh Yes...I've seen some hides that cause me to think "What a pack of pricks"

I'm sure we agree that if we were ever falsely charge with a crime, we'd hope not to have some DUer's on the jury. (A few)

[crim son]

44. Seriously? "Wench"?

The word means "girl or young woman" or sometimes, "servant girl." Being called on for using "wench" would surprise the hell out of me, too.

[dumbcat]

84. Are you kidding me?

That word is a hateful. pejorative, misogynist slur against women.

[trof]

86. That's your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to...

but I absolutely disagree.

[dumbcat]

87. True. And I will alert on that derogatory term

against women every time I see it. Then we will see what the community standard is.

[trof]

88. wench

Go for it.

[randys1]

90. Why is this misogynist here posting?

Unless this is a joke?

Sarcasm?

[trof]

92. I'm outraged.

This guy must be a troll.

[SmittynMo]

94. My bump was in response to a post about our favorite GOP Alaskan

Now you tell me, do you think it was sarcasm on my part too? It took me a few minutes to cool down, saw the other side of the reasoning, and said, Oh well. Having never been bumped before, I have to admit I was quite pissed. Of all the crap I've posted here in all these years, and I get popped for "wench? Over the line for me.

The issue here is that people are getting very sensitive about trivial bullshit. In the past, it seemed like it was more open. You had a chance to be yourself, whether you were in a good mood, or a bad mood. And now you have to flag sarcasm with a sarcasm smiley? Really? And because of this, I too, have restricted my access here. I'm here for Bernie and total support for the Democratic party.

Have a great day

[7962]

104. Its because people dont even know WHY they're offended anymore,

they just are. Its just like the time someone used the word "niggardly" and all hell broke loose. Because no one bothers to actually look up the damn word.

[sorechasm]

12. It's definitely a good thing to avoid all censorship unless

It's absolutely necessary. Immaturity is killing vibrant dialogue.
All forms of limitations inhibit necessary growth.

[LanternWaste]

125. Denying myself the usage of a particular word inhibits necessary growth?

Denying myself the usage of a particular word inhibits necessary growth? Is this merely an allegation on your part, or is there substantive and valid supporting evidence for your... 'premise?'

[christx30]

48. That's about what I would require

before I hide. Bernie supporter alerted on a Hillary supporter's post saying that Bernie isn't 100% perfect wouldn't get a hide from me (though I have seen alerts like that).
I may not 100% agree with everything some people say, but I won't hide anyone because of it.

[Bok_Tukalo]

56. A little harsh but nothing to get bent out of shape over

Votes to Leave it Alone

[sulphurdunn]

58. That's about right.

[azurnoir]

13. I would not have voted to hide any of the alerted posts or not alerted ones either

[Baitball Blogger]

14. This is deplorable.

I looked at the posts that were hidden on his transparency page and most, if not all, should have been "Leaves."

I agree that the evidence strongly suggests that people are using the jury system to attempt to silence people. When I'm a jurist on a jury that involves someone that I may not be politically aligned with, I go out of my way to give them the benefit of the doubt, just in case my prejudices may cloud my judgment. To see DUers go the other way in their reasoning is disappointing.

1SBM, we might not have agreed 100% on the most effective way to eliminate the inequality issues in this country but, at least you were one of the first voices on this site that recognized that they existed. Thank you for being a beacon of light in that regard. I will look forward to your return in 90 days because your POV is an important one.

[Dustlawyer]

30. Ditto! I may not always agreed with him, but I do agree with him a lot and respect his

opinions.

I have been on a lot of jury's lately, the last one being a two sentence, purely opinion post not directed at anyone. The person who alerted just didn't agree with the opinion expressed. It was a waste of time for all concerned and clearly demonstrated that these alerts are being used as weapons instead of a check on abuse.

There needs to be something to prevent/punish those using alerts as a weapon or harassment.

[Hortensis]

64. Agree about 1SBM. And alert attacks are a form of trolling, as well as possible forum "cleansing."

[progressoid]

99. ^^^this^^^

[LiberalArkie]

17. I don't think I have ever voted to hide. It would have been pretty bad.

[BlueMTexpat]

18. I haven't been on DU all that much recently

and am not sure about the context of the OP as to the status of 1StrongBlackMan. But when I serve on a jury, I look not only at the content but the context of the posts. It is certainly not a poster's name that features in my decision-making.

If there are posters/jurors who seem to have vendettas against certain DU members, surely there is a way of tracking their alerts/decisions to ensure that they are not abusing their status here.

All that said, I for one have always appreciated 1StrongBlackMan's posts, which for me have resonated more often than not, even though I am neither black nor male.

I sincerely hope that he has not been banned because I would consider that a great loss to the dialogues here. I know that such a decision would make me personally even less inclined to visit or comment - a chilling effect indeed, which I cannot believe is the intent of DU's founders.

[MADem]

19. Alert on the results and ask the admins to intervene.

They won't, probably, but at least you'll be on record as objecting to trolls on the jury.

And that's what they are--trolls. Anyone who bases their HIDE on who a poster supports, and not what they said to another DUer, is not doing their duty. It should be grounds for banning them from jury duty at a minimum.

As a donor, maybe they will listen to you more than those of us who don't like that paypal thing.

[underthematrix]

21. I wanted to let you know that the letter Bravenak recieved at her

home was put in twitter format and posted to the Obama Diary and is being retweeted.

[kelliekat44]

22. I agree with everything you say. It's time to have some form of consequence for bad alerters.

I have been stalked and received hostile e-mails as well. I have served on juries also where the outcome appeared alarming to me. We need to voice more support for posters who seem to be unfairly hounded and alerted on.

More importantly than just posting dissent we need to put our real beliefs into action by persuading those personally close to us to get out and vote and vote and vote...not just in 2016 but every election in between. We have been the "canary in the mine" for decades and have been proven correct more than not. Keep the faith and press the cause no matter who you support in this election. But above all follow your greater instincts about all of it and be at peace with yourself.

[gordianot]

23. I find myself coming less frequently to DU.

I draw the line at supporting Republicans or third party candidates. If you have strong opinions that fit within the Democratic Party tent fine I have had my opinions change based on arguments posted here. I too miss Bravenak and her observations.

[blackspade]

24. Well said.

Alert stalkers are the worst.
They are no better than disrupters and trolls. MIRT should look long and hard at the alerters when members like 1SBM get bullshit hides.

[Surya Gayatri]

25. Wish I could K & R this post 1,000 times!

Thanks for having the chutzpah to tell it like it is.

[jeff47]

26. Unfortunately, there are other situations where context matters.

For example, it's often easy to miss sarcasm without context.

You can ban people from serving on juries for your posts (My Account -> Jury Blacklist). If there's particular individuals who you think have a vendetta, you can add them to that list. Unfortunately, there's a limit to the number of people on that list.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Perhaps better still, no more hiding of alerters names.

And maybe even no hiding of jury members' names.

Since I can see it as being next to impossible to hide who did the comment alerted upon, maybe we should also know who did the alert, and possibly even who votes what on the jury. It won't stop feuds, but it will make it plain exactly who is doing the alert stalking and the hiding.

[kwassa]

57. No hiding of alerters, or jury names. No more anonymity.

Assholes hide behind anonymity.

[bettyellen]

67. some moderators here would openly discuss the alerters and ignore the content of posts alerted on-

in their minds the people who regularly alerted on bigotry or sexism was some sort of "group" to be ignored- instead of ordinary progressives who were trying to have some standards of decency here. And THAT is how I became friends with some of the best DUers here.

[Bobbie Jo]

72. So true, saw that in action. nt

[yardwork]

98. This sounds like a good idea.

I agree that 1SBM and others are being alert stalked. When I look at the hides that now have 1SBM in time-out for 90 days, they are ridiculous. They are well outside the normal community standard for typical hides on DU, and I think that is something that the Admins need to look at. I know that Skinner has said many times that there is no alert stalking, very few alerts, etc., but something new is going on.

Another poster was recently back in 90 day suspension - I can't remember the user name - but when I looked at their five hides I thought that each one was ridiculous. It is clear that certain members of DU are being alert stalked and it is clear that some jurors are voting to hide posts on the basis of their personal feelings about the poster, not the posts themselves.

The only solution I see is to reveal the names of all alerters and jurors. I would have no problem with my own alerts and votes being associated with my name. I generally only alert on what I perceive to be bigotry, and I only vote to hide if a post is bigoted or obviously a troll.

Will you suggest this to Skinner in ATA?

[-none]

119. Making the Jurors names available would open the jurors up to alert stalking themselves.

Thereby making the problem worse.
There are several groups here, where If you don't agree with them close to 100% of the time,will see you as the problem. They will twist, improvise and even out right make up and lie, in their alerts in an attempt to get a hide, or drive away and silence those they don't like. All the while acting as if they are the victims, are the ones being picked on, even when it is obvious it is they that are doing the picking on.
The Lee Atwater/Karl Rove manipulation of blaming their victims for what they themselves are doing.

[TheKentuckian]

131. I sign mine and have a jury blacklist of zero. I'm sure there is some there there but I believe the

concerns are greatly overstated.

[-none]

132. That's you. I had a different experience.

There are certain "groups" around here that don't like to be told that what they think is not so, backed up with real life experience and/or logic, including links. I like truth and facts over sugar coating and spin. That annoys some people around here. Alert stalking is real, regardless of what Skinner says.
So jurors name need to be private. The Admin can see who the jurors are anyway. Something does need to be done to expose and deal with the serial alerters though. They have driven away many good people over the years.

[left-of-center2012]

28. Can't comment on this case

I'm not familiar with the particulars here.
But I will say on the few times I've participated on a jury I judge the merits without resorting to personal attacks.
However, when I have been judged, sadly some pretty nasty (in my opinion) personal comments were made.

I also participate in several non-DU forums were trolling, personal attack, etc are not permitted at all.
From what I've seen around DU it would be nice, in my opinion, to clean it up a bit.

Allow people to speak freely, but without the personal attacks.
(Probably way off base, but that's my 1½¢)

[villager]

29. Juried posts w/o the poster's name is a good idea...

What about post counts, though? Sometimes, that can confirm when someone is trolling...

[Purrfessor]

31. Maybe we should be allowed to alert on a jury...I know. I know. It sounds crazy.

[jeff47]

46. You are. Alert on the email containing the results. (nt)

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

32. Its human nature for some people to overreact.

But some here seem to have a thin skin and are over critical.
After all an opinion is just an opinion and it is not necessary to insult them to make your point.

[LanternWaste]

126. It's also human nature to trivialize and minimize the concerns of others...

It's also human nature to trivialize and minimize the legitimate and valid concerns of others...

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[lark]

33. I think removing the names of the posters is a great idea.

I've often noticed the same thing lately. I too serve on a lot of juries and I see a lot of overblown alerts, where the jury is unanimous in leaving it. I've also seen way too many hides where the reasoning is "this person is often rude", regardless of what was said on the thread in question.

Hope Skinner or other Admin./IT types can find a way to get that done. It would be a really good impovement.

[tblue37]

80. Whenever I serve on a jury, I always read the thread posts leading up to the alerted on

post, to see whether the post was deliberately provoked by someone. Reading the thread for context means I would know who the poster is.

[lark]

124. I do the same as you.

I'm just hoping there's a way to redact the names on the threads when it goes to a jury.

[Renew Deal]

35. The jury system cannot work on a contentious political website

We skated along poorly before the primaries, but it is now exposed for what it is. A combination of mob rule and a game where everyone loses.

[stevenleser]

127. It fails precisely when needed the most. Primaries, with minorities in general and any other time

something really contentious comes up.

One of the problems is, the criteria for judging whether it is a success or failure is not agreed upon by various different groups. Consider the following:

- The most progressive straight white males who are Bernie supporters in general (of course there will be one-off differences) probably think the jury system is just fine, particularly now. They aren't alert stalked, of course and since this group is racially and otherwise in the majority here on DU and in the real world, there are no terms to refer to them that have historical strong negative connotations the way the slurs against ethnic, religious and gender and orientation minorities have.

- Women, people of color, Jews, and LGBT who are Hillary supporters in general probably think it is a bad system. Race/religion/orientation/gender baiting negative terms are rarely hidden, posts critical of Bernie result in the poster being alert stalked, etc.

- The admins think everything is fine and are happy they don't need to intervene much. They have statistics that will back them up, the problem is those stats do not reflect the experiences of a number of groups here, particularly the most vulnerable. This is a problem many entities and businesses have when they attempt to apply statistics to determine how something is performing. You might not be measuring the right thing. In fact, the members of many LGBT, women, African Americans and other groups have simply stopped coming. So, of course, folks who no longer come are not alerting.

That's all for now, I may have more observations later.

[OneGrassRoot]

135. I really appreciate your posts/comments...

Always spot on. I just wanted to tell you that.

[StoneCarver]

36. I couldn't agree more.

DU used to be a place where people made brilliant insights and points in a debate.

DU has become a place of "group think". It's sad when progressives become intolerant. Just look at some of the Hillary post and pages and you'll know what I mean. I fear the brilliant people have moved on. I'd sure like to know where they went. There's a few left (OmahaSteve, etc.) but very few.
Stonecarver

[McCamy Taylor]

37. I agree.

[dvduval]

38. Weaken frequent alerters

I've seen in some other forum software a feature where if you repetitively alert then you become weaker and it takes others to also alert. I think this might eliminate some of the abuse of the system if you can only alert a couple of times per week, and then after that full alert would only take place if someone else doing you in alerting the post. Because right now if you alert a lot you will win some of the time. But if they were a feature to reduce the number of alerts you had available, you would use them more wisely.

[yardwork]

129. That's a good idea.

[hfojvt]

39. that's part of the system though

The jury system is weight towards
1. people with stars
2. people who do not have hides
3. people with a long posting history
4. people with an active posting history

In general, that is the core group, the base, as it were, of DU.

Here's an assumption that may not be true though - presumably, as liberals, we believe in certain principles, like fairness, and objectivity.

However, it seems to me, that if a person has been posting here, and they have said things so that a whole bunch of core DUers really, really hate them - then they are doing something wrong.

I say this as somebody who is clearly doing something wrong myself. I feel like I have a whole bunch of DUers who really do not like me. That I have clearly done a piss poor job of 'making friends and influencing people'. Par for the course, I guess, for an aspie (or for an arrogant judgmental a$$hole (like myself) (seriously, did you see how I just presumed to judge myself?))

I mostly do not understand his last hide - but it was a 6-1 vote. My opinion is hugely in the minority.

The trouble seems to be coming from primary season. The hides I looked at have seemed to say "I have contempt for Sanders' supporters". As such, Sanders supporters, probably a substantial majority on DU - well, it is only human nature to return the favor. Show your contempt for somebody long enough, and they are very likely to reciprocate with hostility of their own.

Hatred brings out the worst, which then feeds on itself.

Makes no sense to me. My own quixotic goal is generally to - win people to my side in whatever side I take. That's how you win an argument, in my view. You convince your opponent, or if that is impossible, you convince any fair minded observer who reads your arguments and your opponents' arguments, that your arguments, (or your candidates) are correct.

As such, though, Sanders supporters would probably be better served by NOT hiding their detractors. That's bound to increase hostility rather than to win hearts and minds.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. The jury system has too many holes in it to function properly.

First and foremost, the fact that it's not a jury at all because juries deliberate. It's a straw poll.
Yes, deliberation would take a bit more of our time. Yes, it would be like mini-moderation.

Second, based on a number of alerts that I've seen when called to a jury, some DUers are clearly using the alert system to shut up people they don't like. Now if they're trying to shut down racist, sexist, or other RW posters that seems acceptable to me. When they're trying to shut down people who are merely voicing a different perspective, well within the framework of this site's ToS, that's just pitiful.

[randys1]

42. In a place called DEMOCRATIC underground, there should be so few hidden posts that it would

not be a topic of conversation.

Get rid of juries and liberals like myself who would almost NEVER hide a post, should be the moderators.

Hide only if a threatening post or over the top personal attack, everything else would be game since this is

DEMOCRATIC underground.

[Kurska]

47. You'd be surprised the amount of toxicity that would result in.

Imagine old Meta times a thousand.

I participate in forums and discussion boards, frankly I like myself better when I post on DU. It encourages me to be more civil.

[randys1]

51. I have participated as a member and mod and admin for over ten years, hundreds of thousands

of posts on dozens of boards, and I can assure you the less moderating you do the better, not to the point where it is a free for all, personal attacks not allowed, etc. but the less the better.

BTW, you wouldnt need to moderate personal attacks if you didnt allow asshole rightwingers on the board in the first place or weeded them out quickly, this would apply to some alleged Democrats too, but people rarely attack each other once you create a certain atmosphere and understanding.

[zazen]

43. maybe members should only have 1 alert to use per month, or 12 per year?

Alerts still might be used to target people as you're describing, but it could slow it down enough to disrupt the momentum.

[Not Sure]

45. For my part, the jury system acts as a tool of censorship

There are many things I simply don't post out of fear of an alert. I am often inartful with the written word (in fact, downright crude many times) so if I have the presence of mind to consider how a post of mine might be perceived as hurtful, I either edit or don't post. I've been coming here daily for ten years, and though I may not have been loquacious before, I am definitely much less so lately, in spite of the increasing frequency of topics that rouse my passion.

I find some people here I tend to disagree with. A small number have irritated me enough to ignore lest I take their bait and post something I may regret. But I would never alert someone based on their personality or because I disagree with what is being expressed. It just doesn't get much more childish than that. To those who don't understand that, please find another sandbox.

[Thinkingabout]

95. It curtails freedom of speech, it you post truthful comments some one does not want posted then

Results in an alert and a few hidden silences the member. The opportunity for open discussion is not possible when the ability to post is removed.

[Old Crow]

49. Please reconsider the decision to not serve on juries.

If you're a conscientious juror and have not been abusing the system, please don't remove yourself from the jury pool. I understand you're viewing it as a form of protest, but who's getting the message you're trying to send? The software running on the server? More importantly, it means that the rest of the DU community is being denied your good judgment.

In other words: By trying to protest the jury system, you're increasing the odds that it will be even more unfair and will render bad judgments that will hurt real individuals.

With an eye toward improving a system rather than boycotting it, I wholeheartedly agree with suggestions already made in this thread:

1. Redact the poster's username from the jury.
Yes, a minority of obsessed individuals will no doubt get around this by doing a search for the thread to identify the poster. But at least it's an emphatic reminder that the post is supposed to be judged on its own merits or failings, regardless of who posted it.

2. Implement more restrictions on alerting.
I don't think any individual should be allowed to make more than one alert every 24 hours or even one alert a week. After all, if a post is a problem, it should be a problem to a majority of the people reading it. The issuing of alerts should be spread broadly among the population, and not the demesne of a handful of individuals who are spending hours every day cruising threads just looking for posts to alert on.

Lastly, for what it's worth, I too thought 1StrongBlackMan's post should not have been hidden, and I'm a Bernie supporter. I wish I were on the jury. By continuing to participate in jury service, at least I have a chance to weigh in on such crucial decisions in the future.

[George II]

50. I find it very curious that many times those who vote to hide posts don't give an explanation...

....it should be REQUIRED that a vote to hide should be accompanied with an explanation as to how the juror arrived at that decision.

[n2doc]

65. You can't force people to do that

People would just put down some non descriptive blah. Many times I don't bother to put down a reason, if I think it is obvious, one way or another.

I wish people would not abuse the system. I've seen way too many posts alerted on that should have been left alone.

[George II]

71. I still think it should be required, or else the member should not participate in the system.

[davidpdx]

115. I disagree and in a very rare moment am going to back George II up

I think you can force them. In addition, to requiring a comment you require their user name as well. Build accountability into the system. Being on a jury is voluntary, you are not forced into it. Certainly anyone at anytime can go into their settings and opt-out of jury duty. They can also opt-out when they are called for jury duty if they believe they don't want to be involved in a particular alert.

If I had to guess what Skinner would say about this it would be "the jury system is what it is."

[davidpdx]

114. That is an idea I can support

I have often complained that on juries I have served on that out of seven, maybe 4 or 5 people will bother to leave a comment as to why they decided the way they did. If they are going to volunteer for jury service, they should justify their decision. If they are in doubt about the post, vote to leave it.

[George II]

121. I have always given a reason except in a few cases where the alert was an obvious hide or leave.

[SpankMe]

52. True: Vendettas and petty bullshit grievances play out in jury actions

One of my posts was flagged for using an in-artful expression describing the spoiled, entitled children of certain privileged parents. The context was part sarcasm and part attacking of rich, out-of-touch conservatives (which should be fair on this board).

Instead of judging the post on its stand-alone merits, context and tone, one juror chose to hide it because my username "...didn't reflect liberal values".

I was so mad I blew up. I wanted to track down that overly politically correct asshole and give them a piece of my mind.

I've discovered that in addition to abusing the jury system as the OP correctly points out, some users also use the jury system to hassle those whose language and tone they don't like, rather than to challenge some legitimate perceived violation of the DU TOS.

Many users here are very thin skinned. I know DU isn't supposed to be as unbridled and bare knuckled as Discussionist. But you really have to speak to the most finicky of prissy sensitivities here or risk getting juried.

[Old Crow]

68. Just for clarification...

... you're saying someone hid your post because they didn't like the username "SpankMe"?

Omigosh, yes, that's what you said. Wow. What a knucklehead!

[JustAnotherGen]

73. What a dumb hide! "username ...didn't reflect liberal values"

Oh dear lord!

I thought being liberal meant being 'open' - and we are all adults here? Aren't we!

See - they thought 'child abuse'

I see your use rname and think:

Okaaaaay - but could you do it behind closed doors!

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

53. I agree with your position .

and what concerns you I am sure concerns many others. The community is given the opportunity to self govern, civility is the key to keeping the peace. Do we need judges to insure the juries are fair and un bias ? I rather think that would defeat the point in that we are for the most part adults ,and what good could possibly come out of ruining such a good thing ? I mean for what ? A thing at the time like a passing fad ?

DU evolves,and remember, it stands to the test of time.
Yes change !
Because of change DU will never be the same as it were. We roll along in change and changes do occur. What needs fixing will get fixed !

Thats what I think !

Never fast enough to suit our worries and never too late !

[Hortensis]

62. Umhm. Anger is apparently the dominant mood for 2016, so of course it's playing out here, now.

[Warpy]

54. The owners really need to track alerters

Yes, people here are being targeted, usually the best people who call us on our bullshit and make us think differently about things than we might have done.

However, the DU jury system has been quite an education in why so many innocent people are sitting in prison and even on death row, convicted by the way they look, the way they live, or how poor they are.

[-none]

120. I think you are on to some thing here.

I've looked at posts in exposed Transparencies and wondered why some, too many somes, were voted to hide.
Quite often the posts in the thread by others leading up to the hide were as bad and often worse then the hidden post. Yet were not hidden.

[crim son]

55. Was that the "Idiots and Bernie supporters" post?

Because I'd have hidden it, and I'm a really nice person.

[kwassa]

59. I would not have hidden it.

I thought his point was valid. Where is free speech in all this? All candidates have a range of types in their supporters, and yes, folks, there can be some idiots who are supporting Bernie, as well as idiots supporting other candidates for really bad reasons.

[JustAnotherGen]

82. He wrote this -

164. Idiot and Bernie supporter are not necessarily exclusive descriptors. n/t

In response to this:

138. I don't doubt it was mailed from Florida.

I'd bet real money it's from a troll, or an idiot. Not an actual threat.

(I am not saying Bravenak isn't justified in being concerned by it, I've shared my identity with other du members but if I hadn't and I got a letter like that, I'd be discomfited despite how absolutely incredible it appears. Not minimizing that)
Taking a vacation from DU. I'll be back sometime late 2016 or so. Maybe as a nicer person.

I think his statement was fair. It's quite possible an idiot could be Sanders supporter . . . Not ALL Sanders supporters are at this site.

I just served on a jury where a member of the HRC Group (LisaD) was alerted on. She too did not attack the group at DU. And the funny part is - they referenced another group at du they referred to as a Cave Dweller.

[Number23]

103. There was absolutely nothing hide worthy about that post. NOTHING

And I've warned 1SBM in the past about some of his posts, that maybe he should edit. I read that and didn't think nothing of it.

It was totally innocuous as well as the absolute truth, which was probably why the thin-skinned and desperate felt that it needed to be hidden.

[yodermon]

61. technical question, for anyone who knows: can someone who's been banned from a Group alert on posts

in that group?
Seems like this shouldn't be possible, if so.

[Old Crow]

63. Great question.

And a great idea if such a feature is not already part of the code.

[malthaussen]

66. Yeah, I see that too.

I always try to judge posts on the merits, and in emulation of H2O man, I sign my jury decisions so that they are accountable. But I do find myself refusing duty quite often these days, as it seems half the alerts have no basis in anything but the personal antagonism of the alerter for the poster.

-- Mal

[jomin41]

69. I've been on a few juries and I think

some alerters are real crybabies. Maybe the criteria for a hide should be clarified. As it stands, I think it is pretty broad and maybe vague. The "offense" should be pretty serious to merit a hide,imho.

[SpankMe]

70. I'd like to propose the "Uber model" for flagging posts.

In the Uber transportation service, not only does the customer get to rate the driver, but the driver gets to rate the customer. This leads to a check and balance system that results not only in friendlier, more professional drivers, but it also weeds out particularly bad, misbehaved customers.

Similarly, if the DU jurors were not anonymous, I think that would go a long way toward eliminating overly subjective reporting of posts and abuses of the system. It would provide some accountability to aggressive or overly sensitive posters and would discourage frivolous flagging of posts.

In ruling on a case where donors to a certain type of political process (it was ballot propositions in Washington state, I think) Justice Scalia of all people ruled that donors who support ballot propositions didn't have the right to anonymity because a certain amount of "civic courage", in his words, was necessary if you want to make or change law that affects everybody. (Pity he didn't extend this to the Citizen's United ruling, but I digress.)

Anonymous flagging of posts allows cowards and trolls to use the jury system to manipulate the whole board to their exacting standards - and in some cases to get revenge or carry on vendettas. By revealing your name as a flagger, you're exercising a degree of "civic courage" and accountability in your actions.

[-none]

122. I agree with naming the alerter in the alert.

Make them defend their alert and not just make up something because they can.

Anonymous flagging of posts allows cowards and trolls to use the jury system to manipulate the whole board to their exacting standards - and in some cases to get revenge or carry on vendettas. By revealing your name as a flagger, you're exercising a degree of "civic courage" and accountability in your actions.

[Old Codger]

74. Absolutely

All references to the posters name or identity should be removed ion order to judge the post itself rather than the poster..

[HassleCat]

76. I agree with you

If I'm on a jury, I will only vote to hide if the comment is blatantly offensive, obvious trolling, etc. I have seen a couple alerts lately that make me wonder what's happening. These "alert wars" appear to be happening between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters. Perhaps the administrators will warn people who alert too much, since unfounded alerts are an abuse of the system.

[Android3.14]

77. Here's the solution

Just as a person has a limit of five hides in a particular time period for an account before being put in the time out chair, there should be a limit on the number of alerts a person can make within the same time period.

It won't end all alert stalking, but it would bring it down to manageable levels.

Maybe not THE solution, but it seems like it ought to work.

[steve2470]

78. The hides on 1SBM were BS, and the jury system has been and is broken

The giant flaw in the system is, any idiot right-winger can sign up and boom, be a juror on day one. Thus, we have some pretty severe right-wing infiltration on the juries. Also, I really think, if the system is to be retained, that only members who have been here at least a year should be able to serve. Add to that, they have to be donors. No skin in the game, you don't serve on juries.

With all due respect, Skinner and EarlG, there is and has been alert-stalking. I know you don't want to go back to moderation, but to save this board, it will probably have to be done. Even my recommendations don't go far enough. There are so many bad hides and so many bad "leaves".

Some people genuinely hate others here with a different candidate and different point of view. This is what makes DU suck. There is also real hatred towards the PoC community here. I see it everyday and it darn sure was in action against 1SBM and Bravenak.

Be safe and be well, Bravenak. I miss you and your posts. You're one of the best here. Hurry back, 1SBM. I value your perspective. Hurry back, KMOD my SL sister. I miss you, of course.

If you can't be an impartial juror on someone's post because you HATE them and/or their candidate, you need to get off juries, period.

[Eleanors38]

81. Not many complaints when it goes on in the...

...Gungeon.

[Leontius]

83. Make your post say what you want how you want then take your chances

don't cry about it if you lose out just move on or leave or whatever you feel you have to do. Do people use the system to "get even", sure they do that's just the way it is. Do juries make mistakes, sure but the alternatives are worse.

[GoneOffShore]

85. A good tool is the jury blacklist.

I don't agree with a lot that 1SBM posts, but that was not a good hide.

Watching one's back with the jury exclusion list is something that many people don't take advantage of.

[WillyT]

89. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[leftyladyfrommo]

96. I don't post anything anymore that is not absolutely milk toast.

if you have an opinion that happens to be unpopular you just get crucified.

[Downwinder]

97. The Alerts are getting more disruptive than the posts.

[Dont call me Shirley]

100. I don't vote to hide unless it's really offensive, I always read the context and if I don't

know the subject of the OP well I will excuse myself.

1SBM should not have been alert-stalked. The jury system needs a better protection system against alert-stalking.

[Gloria]

101. I am now the owner of a Trandparency Page but haven't been able to find it!

I'd like to see it..

[Bobbie Jo]

105. Your "transparency page" isn't visible

until you get a 5th hide.

The page just shows links to all 5 (or more) hidden posts that you've accumulated.

[Spazito]

106. Click on your name in your post and a page will pop up with tabs listing; journal, profile, etc.

Click on the 'profile' tab, it shows whatever personal info you put in your profile, favorite group, last post link and some other info. The transparency tab only shows your hides if you reach 5 and are 'suspended' for a period of time. When you have 5 hides the transparency tab will turn yellow and your hides become available to DUers to read, until you reach 5 no one can see any of the hides except the admins.

[brooklynite]

102. I eill NEVER vote to hide a post...

...based on something else the poster has allegedly done. The post stands or falls on its own.

[raven mad]

107. I do juries a lot, too. I never consider what forum they're from.

It's not in me to judge a forum. Just anything that is not right. Bravenak is RIGHT and that, as a fellow Alaskan, I can attest to. I am not a Hillary fan. Brave is. So what? Brave replied to a nasty post with more nasty. Who hasn't?

[Cha]

108. So true, Kurska..

"It is deeply disturbing to me that personal vendettas are being carried out through the jury system. I always try to judge posts without considering the poster or their history and maybe that post was slightly curt (not really hide-able if I had to look back on it), but many people seem to have abandoned that principle."

I've seen it.. I'm on juries, too. I don't usually get hides but I did get one 80 days ago.. that if it were a moderator they would have seen I was quoting the poster's username and not calling anyone names. The jury was knee-jerk reaction and how fair is that?

It's not.. the jury system on DU sucks FUBAR.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=417076

I don't think Removing Names is a valid solution.. that's part of the fun of posting online is knowing who we're talking to.. we have built our online reps and I enjoy making friends.

We need Moderators back.

Thank you for this..

"As a side note, as much as I mixed it up with her sometimes, I genuinely miss Bravenak. This forum is far less interesting and informative in her absence."

And, for sticking up for 1StrongBlackMan's Voice.. he was Censored by those who couldn't handle what he had to say.. for no other reason.

[stonecutter357]

109. I stand with 1StrongBlackMan.

[JustAnotherGen]

110. Group Host - this thread is not disruptive meta n/t

I encourage the poster who I informed on July 1st on another thread in the AA group to speak to the topic at hand as opposed to sending SOP Alerts on this thread.

[grahamhgreen]

113. So, what did "he" say?

[davidpdx]

116. There have been some fairly interesting suggestions on this thread for reforming the jury

I personally would support many of them. The problem is convincing Skinner. While I don't know him, he seems very hesitant to change the jury system.

Ps-I posted two other responses to this thread and did not realize this was the AA group until this one.

[JustAnotherGen]

117. You are fine david

I don't see how you were remotely dismissive or disruptive.

[valerief]

123. I get ridiculous hides. Example: I called a famous TV personality a 1%er whoremaster.

I was rebuked for insulting all women. I can't even fathom how my comment translates into an insult of all women. Another hide was for saying that cops are responsible for their ill will.

Just a few minutes ago, I read where an OP called John Roberts a whore (to which I wholeheartedly agree), but will that get a hide? Is that insulting all women, too?

The requests to join a jury, which I used to nearly always click yes to, now always get my no. What difference does it make? I'm now a disaffected ex-voter.

[d_legendary1]

128. I used to serve in juries until my first and only hide

kept me out of the jury pool. I agree with Kurska that most of the alerts are from people that have an axe to grind. In one case there was an alert where HRC was being compared to Bush, despite the fact that the poster was talking about Obama and Bush and nothing to do with HRC. On the flip side there was also a case where someone alerted on a Bernie supporter claiming "racism" when the poster was talking about track records. If I could serve on the juries I would just to keep the trolls from getting that space and disrupting the flow of DU posters. Its reminding me of gocomics.com all over again where a bunch of right wingers alerted on Democratic posters to the point where a few friends of mine were banned.

The jury system works but only if people are willing to take the time to help DUers out since the trolls could come after their post next. At least the way I see it.

[steve2470]

133. this post of mine probably put a bullseye on my back and will probably be hidden

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7164433

steve2470 (27,933 posts)

420. People of Color are being alert-stalked

Those of you who are alert-stalking PoC, stop it. Now.

I'm sure this post will earn me my very first hide on DU. C'est la vie.

[ohheckyeah]

134. I'm on a lot of juries

and seldom vote to hide. I'll vote to hide what is obviously spam but not a lot else, especially if it's just disagreement with the poster. I did notice I was getting a lot of jury requests from this group and didn't know alert stalking was going on. I joined this group so I would know what was happening and it's been enlightening. I'm sorry good posters have been alert stalked and got time outs. The hides don't appear to be warranted.