African American
Related: About this forumIrony Alert: I got an alert & hide in the Hillary Clinton group for talking about the alert stalking
Last edited Sun Oct 18, 2015, 09:39 PM - Edit history (27)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110718441#post3LOLOLOL, Alerter and the folks who voted to hide just made my point for me.
I was wondering, how many folks have been alert stalked and silenced for being critical of Bernie?
Of the top of my head (updated list):
bravenak - Due Back Oct 23
KMOD - Due Back Oct 19
seabeyond - Due Back Nov 25
MaggieD - Due Back Nov 17
VanillaRhapsody - Due Back Nov 1
Cosmicone - Due Back Nov 7
Heaven05 - Due Back Oct 26
Giftedgirl77 - Due Back Oct 30
Sonderwoman - Due Back Nov 27
but I know there is a lot more than that... and that doesn't include folks that were on suspension and are back and of course it doesnt include a crap-ton of us, including me, that have had a smattering of unjustified hides but never enough to put us on a forced vacation.
Edited to add, folks who were on a forced timeout for being critical of Bernie but are back:
bettyellen
boston bean
William769
leftofcool
NanceGreggs
workinclasszero
upaloopa (suspension was over Sept 1 and then Sept 8)
Janeyvee (suspension was over Sept 18)
ronnykmarshal (suspension was over Sept 25)
1StrongBlackMan (suspension was over Sept 29)
hrmjustin (suspension was over Sept 30)
LiberalStalwart71 (Suspension was over Oct 11)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)it was all done with mods http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598660#post3
Unless you think skinner and EarlG are lying though I dont see any reason why they would.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)with performance indicators.
He and EarlG need to take the alerts for the last year and examine them in totality and then divide them into three parts of approximately 120 days each. Then see if there is anything different about the alerts from the first 120 days of that period versus the last 120 days which starts about when Bernie announced his candidacy.
I am willing to bet real money that the last 120 days shows alerts and hides and forced vacations disproportionately aimed at non-Bernie supporters, particularly women, African Americans and LGBT that do not support Bernie.
cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)what if the math does not support it?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)with your conclusions on the math?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If so, please respond with a partial list. If you can name 40-60 I will assume I may be in error.
cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)or in the Hillary group unless its been a post shows up on the front page.
I did ask skinner if there anything solid that would show alert stalking happening and he point blank said there no evidence at all in any of the logs that supports the theory of it happening and in a nutshell it looks like most of the people getting hidden are getting hidden and banned because they wont be civil to fellow DUers.
The only way we are going to see fewer people banned is if everyone stops pointing fingers saying "but so and so did this" and takes a lesson from Bill from from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure and starts being excellent to each other, that goes for everyone not just Bernie or Hillary supporters.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)I agree some were probably not, that does happen but to get that number needed in under 90 days with randomly picked jurys that leads to a vacation? Almost the only way get that many hides is if someone has developed a pattern of being uncivil or breaking the DU ToS which is why there is a time out for that rather than a permanent ban so that the person can hopefully learn from their experience and not repeat it.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)and check out their transparency page for yourself. Anyone who is on probation with five or more hides will have their transparency page, and thus hides, revealed. You can see for yourself if you feel the majority of hides are "worthy." There isn't really much need to consider other people's opinion on this. I checked them out, and formed my opinion, which is irrelevant to everyone but myself, and I suggest you do the same.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=24608
Or, this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=516997 ... well, the unedited post did use profanity; but, only after having told that specific poster ... 3 times ... I am not the poster that he accuses me of being ... and others having done so, as well.
These were my last 3 hides. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=273034&sub=trans&show=1
cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)But the one http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=24608 the jury probably thought you were being insulting to DU members as whole who support Bernie, I cannot be sure of that of course since I was not on that jury.
If you dont wany to get banned again then just try treating others here as you want to be treated, no dismissive posts or rude ones and none that if they posted towards you that you would consider it uncivil but you keep on posting the other way you will eventually be banned again, that would be sad but its your choice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'll just be 1DocileBlackMan
I'm sure it'll make some feel superior.
cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)Everyone here including myself disagrees, argues, complains, bitches, moans, whines but we dont have to be uncivil to other DU members when we do that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)unless that "not mutually exclusive" true statement is/can be considered uncivil.
cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)sure didnt look like it was very civil and that had a 6-1 vote to hide, the only way you could have done better was to get a 7-0 vote.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)so ... I have no words ...
You look at this situation and tell the victim(s), "Well ... If you would just behave, you wouldn't be treated like that."
That ignores that there is no acceptable way to behave/speak when facing a mob; but, to cow tow.
cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)If the members refuse to abide in a civil manner then they get a temporary vacation and its better option than a permanent one imo.
Number23
(24,544 posts)pointless exchange.
Skinner keeps mentioning the overall number of alerts and keeps saying there's no problem. There may be a reason he's not breaking down those alerts.
Because if there were something to show that say, out of 25 alerts that happened in a single day, 8 of them were in the AA forum, a forum dedicated to a minority group with only about 250 subscribers, then he'd know as well as everyone else that there really is a problem.
So he keeps touting the overall numbers but doesn't break them down. There may be a reason. When you consider the number of posters/posts in GD or even GD-P, if there are on average only about 25 alerts per day on all of DU with all the shit that's getting flung around, given the numbers here in the AA forum, we should only be averaging about 1-2 alerts per week. And we all know that ain't happening.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I've got to see my PO in the morning. I wonder if she'll make me drop?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
for the folks who are still not back with us.
JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)You are back! 
I'm posting two other places now. Send me a pm if you want the deets.
I'll only be posting in the O'Malley and AFAm Groups on a go forward basis.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but got sucked back into that Bernie's economic justice is REALLY everyone's fight for justice discussion.
I really do need to disengage because at this point it's like the "Taste Great/Less Filling" Miller Lite commercial ... but, where one side has never actually tasted the beer, let alone drank enough of it to know whether it is filling or not.
JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)Just let them go on thinking that this is an effective way to get legislation passed.
You know - we've all seen it. We'll see it again.
Booker/Boxer's June 2, 2015 Senate lead legislation gets name the Rice Bill (in honor of Tamir Rice).
Attached will be a lot of economic justice.
Then some pork.
By the time it gets through the legislative process - the Rice Bill / Act will be a law stating that you are only allowed to wear red,white, and blue on Tuesday.
And that's what's wrong with Washington D.C.
They might actually be able to get something done IF they could display some self control and let each bill stand on its' own.
So I'm not buying interweaving these two together. Talk is cheap. But when it comes to action - bills with a narrow focus i are necessary.
Number23
(24,544 posts)This place is not good for the mind, body or spirit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)"You Better Believe It"
And also this post which is not hideworthy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=429042
Great hide there. 
cstanleytech
(26,305 posts)mods have probably ended up with statistically far more posts hidden and users suspended and or banned for repeatedly breaking the rules, this way the members of the DU (you, me and everyone else here) are the ones who largely decide whats acceptable and whats not acceptable.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the bad hides are not evidence of the mob's reaction to what is said ... it just means that those hidden just must learn to speak/act in an acceptable manner.
Where have we seen this line of thought before?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They have to either align their opinions with the majority or speak with dulcet tones commensurate with their lowly status.
pshaw!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Yeah, that was a pretty mild comment given the string of posts that I was responding to in that thread. I would encourage folks to read the subthread for context. It was ugly...
I know I'm not the only one who has been picked off and targeted here. I'm glad to see some attention called to this "thing." Yes, it is a "thing," as you have clearly outlined here.
Glad to see some of our friends returning, but I would certainly understand if they chose not to come back at this point.
Number23
(24,544 posts)on another web site, I don't think she will be returning. At this point, she'd be out of her mind to come back here.
And it's so cute all of the screaming about that Hillary site when I'm sure most of those screaming had nary a thing to say about the Old Elm Tree and its tiny cadre of bitter former DUers. It is so terribly interesting the things that people get so worked up over her.
randys1
(16,286 posts)but I understand that.
I should say I am a Bernie supporter until the instant he loses, if he does, then I support whoever won.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You were missed....
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Like I said, I'm out of jail; but, only on parole ... one bad drop, and back to jail I go!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Isn't that the truth...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)getting the soon to be released (ex)felon, job ready.
Those with "tails" (getting out on parole) would tell you, "I'm going to say and do whatever is necessary to survive my tail." So, in taking a lesson from my (ex)felon brethren, I am now, passionately and enthusiastically, Pro-Bernie ... "Feel da economic primacy Bern, baybeee!"
JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)I need to go to a step competition today then go fetch some flowers on my way home. 
Both just to survive at DU.
randys1
(16,286 posts)White folks run EVERYTHING but the Oval Office.
And the Oval Office does nothing but argue with white people, daily.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #95)
jfern This message was self-deleted by its author.
riversedge
(70,261 posts)
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)Such crap.
randys1
(16,286 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Let us know, please!
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)if they would vote for him if got the nomination. I said yes .... and added "so suck it". Now I guess COULD have been nicer. But the whole thread was the typical Bernie supporters attacking HRC peeps.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)are i will get a hide.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)PM me more I will update the names.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)for suggesting that Sanders' success in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Oregon (all being states with homogenous white liberal Democratic electorates) was not an indicator of whether he would be successful on a broader level. I even emphasized that I'm a Bernie supporter and the dude running the forum accused me of "clearly" not supporting Bernie because of my previous posts, which was completely made up.
randys1
(16,286 posts)DemocratIC politician.
I got so tired of the attacks I suggested they ban me, which they did.
It is getting much harder to be a Bernie supporter seeing the way so many of his supporters act.
And the more I hear my AfAm friends talk, the more I wonder about things.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)Don't represent the nature of his supporters in general. But if I based my opinion off of my experience in thy forum, I would not be inclined to jump on the Bernie train.
Regardless, Bernie is awesome and it would be a wonderful thing if someone like him became President.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)We will face a Republican House until January 2023 at the earliest due to redistricting.
The Republicans in the house just forced Boehner to resign and it was because he wasn't obstructive enough against the current Democratic President.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)I don't see any particular reason why Clinton would be able to govern better than Sanders. Just because he is farther left of center than she is does not mean that Republicans will take this into account and be more willing to work with Clinton. Either one of them will have to compromise with the crazies that will inevitably control part or all of Congress. The difference is that we can know when Sanders compromises that he absolutely had to. Whereas with Clinton I'm not clear at all what she will do if elected because she doesn't even talk the same way about issues now as she did ten years ago. My vote for Bernie in the primary is a vote for the integrity of consistency.
Do you honestly believe Republicans will be more willing to work with a Clinton?
herding cats
(19,566 posts)I was on a jury yesterday evening for KMOD where all it would have taken was a few moments of the jurors time to see the post wasn't hide worthy in context, yet it was hidden 5-2 because of how the alert was framed and lazy jurors.
I only just found out KMOD has been suspended now. 
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bernie supporters are 85% of DU. That means on an average random jury of seven DUers, 5.95 are Sander's supporters (for all practical intents and purposes, 6 of 7 jurors are Sanders supporters).
Its really as simple as that. You have to view a 4-3 hide or any vote not to hide as an overwhelming success at this point considering the demographics.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)The minority always loses out to the majority.
Hillary Clinton supporter in the minority, so they aint welcome and will be punished by this magnificent system we have here on this website.
riversedge
(70,261 posts)describe an event, person, nature, etc. Anyway, ...
herding cats
(19,566 posts)Do you know if you need to be a star member to be on a jury?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)there are several factors that enter into how likely your are to be asked.
Paying members have a higher percentage added to their "score".
Hidden posts lower your "score".
herding cats
(19,566 posts)I've seen that on my profile before, I'd just forgotten how was done.
Thank you!
randys1
(16,286 posts)BLACK thing.
It REALLY pisses SOME of them off that SOME or many Black folks are threatening NOT to vote for Bernie
So what do they do?
They antagonize them even more, silence them.
DU has completely gone off the rails because of the jury system.
Mods could EASILY resolve this with only ONE prerequisite, you have to be a registered Democrat who is also a fucking liberal to be a mod.
No REAL liberal risks the WH to the cons, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
You see the reason us REAL liberals care about DU is this is the best place for us to come and talk.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Had a nice time out.
I really do think the Sanders group had been deeply infiltrated by RW trolls. And that sadly they are actually having an infuence over there. Deeply sad to see this.
Lots of baiting and alert stalking, hope this is a wake up call for the Admins.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)but are back. You and bettyellen and William769 (I think he was on timeout) are there for now. Again, I know there have to be more.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They represent a lot of long term DU'ers who have contributed a lot here.
And again, as I noted, it does not include a ton of folks, like me, who have received hides but not enough to give them a timeout.
William769
(55,147 posts) 
jeff47
(26,549 posts)From a jury I served on:
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Bernie fans always get a hide from me.
(I was juror #4)
There's plenty of alert stalking going on in many directions. I've posted some suggestions in ATA on tweaks to the alert system that I think would help. But Skinner disagreed with them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Yeah, you got one person on that jury who is anti-Sanders and misusing the jury. They couldn't do much of anything by themselves.
An average of 6 out of 7 members of each jury are Sanders supporters.
That was not the case a few months ago, and juries were stacked the other way. Which resulted in similar abuses of the jury system.
So I made some suggestions to make the jury system more transparent - such as alerting you to any posts that went to a jury (perhaps with a filter so 0-7 or 1-6 doesn't tell you). So you'd actually have an idea of how often posts were actually being alerted on, instead of all of us just guessing. Also in non-stalking cases, if someone's getting more and more frustrated and approaching "the line", they'd get a bit of a head's up that they need to cool off.
Skinner felt it was better to not have everyone so focused on alerts, and so did not want to expose more information.
Personally, I'd also like to see punishment for "bad" alerts, so that there is a meaningful negative consequence. But I don't have a decent design for that. Perhaps clicking alert and getting a 0-7 (or 1-6) result counts as a "half hide".
Anyway, in the short run, you can use the jury blacklist if you feel you have a stalker (My Account -> Jury Blacklist). Unfortunately, it's not unlimited.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Sanders supporters are the majority but any one jury can have a majority of Clinton supporters.
If you think it's all in one direction then explain this hide to me. The post says "Bernie Sanders Indroduced bill to stop H-1b Visa abuse" and "Hillary pushed for more H-1b visas", with a video clip of each candidate discussing the H-1B visa issue. It doesn't call Clinton a corporatist or the like. It simply presents the facts. (IMO calling Clinton a corporatist wouldn't merit a hide but I'm making the point that this particular post didn't even raise a question like that.)
Now, maybe four jurors voted to hide because of the typo substituting "Indroduced" for "Introduced". Maybe four jurors voted to hide because their astrologers advised them to. For my part, though, I'm going with the most obvious explanation: Presenting each candidate's own words on this issue made Clinton look bad, so four Clinton supporters voted to hide.
The poster was subsequently banned as "Previously banned troll". Jurors, however, would have had no way of knowing that. Regardless of whether this poster was a sock for someone who'd been banned, this particular post was perfectly proper. The hide was an abuse and it was an abuse by Clinton supporters.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)With 85% of DU supporting Sanders, the odds of four Clinton supporters being picked for a jury is very low. I'll bet it never happens once this campaign season. That's how low it is.
There was a time I could figure out the formula for determining this but I can't now.
If four jurors were picked, the odds of picking four Clinton supporting jurors would be about 50,000 to 1. Since there are seven picks, I forget how to modify the formula to account for that.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 11, 2015, 03:42 AM - Edit history (2)
Assumptions:
* There are 15% Clinton supporters and 85% Other.
* There are enough DUers available when the jury is picked so that the odds don't change with successive picks. (For example, if there were only 100 eligible jurors, and the first three picks were Other, then the chance that the fourth pick is Other is no longer 85/100 or 85.0%; it's 82/97, or 84.5%. This assumption, by ignoring this effect, is probably false, but probably not by much, and getting a more exact chance would require knowing the number in the pool, which presumably varies by time of day.)
* Each Clinton supporter and each Other has the same chance of being on a jury. (Rates of Star membership, for example, might differ between the two groups. I ignore this factor because I have no way of guesstimating it.)
* We don't care about precisely four Clinton supporters on a jury; we care about four or more.
On those assumptions, I make the chance that any particular jury is Clinton-majority to be a bit above 1.2%.
DU presumably has numerous juries per day but I have no idea how many. If we have 57 juries in a given time period (a day? two days? a week?), it's about even money that one or more of them will have a Clinton majority.
Of course, the big complication is that significant numbers of Clinton supporters and of Other will vote according to their honest evaluation of the alerted post in light of the ToS, sometimes voting to hide a post they agree with or to leave a post they disagree with. "Clinton majority" and "Other majority" don't automatically determine the jury results. I'm guessing that there are a lot of spiteful alerts that get crushed by 6-1 or 7-0 and that we never hear about unless one of the jurors decides to post the results because the alert was so laughable.
ETA: Even if only four jurors were picked, your figure of 50,000 to 1 would be way off. The probability that Juror #1 is a Clinton supporter is .15. The probability that Juror #2 is a Clinton supporter is .15. To find the probability of both of these independent events occurring, you multiply, so the chance of both of the first two jurors being Clinton supporters is .0225. Similarly, the probability that, in picking only four jurors, all four will come from that 15% minority is .15^4, which equals .00050625. The probability that this will not happen is .99949375. If you want to state it in terms of odds, the odds against picking an all-Clinton jury would be .99949375 to .00050625, which is less than 2,000 to 1 (actually, about 1,974 to 1), not 50,000 to 1.
Of course, picking seven jurors greatly increases the chance of getting precisely four Clinton jurors, because they don't have to be the first four jurors picked. Then you also add in the chances of getting five, six, or seven Clinton jurors, which collectively add about a tenth of a percent to the chance of a Clinton-majority jury.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)some DUer is going to come up with the right formula and it is going to be pretty close to my estimate. I've at least explained why and given a real example.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)a probability of a Clinton-supporter-dominated-jury (assuming a 85% Sanders/15%Clinton supporter distribution)
of 1.2056%.
This is a problem of probability using combinatorics and was fairly well explained in that post.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)You have a container with 85 blue marbles and 15 red marbles.
What is the probably of getting 4 red marbles in a random draw of 7 marbles (with replacement)?
What is the probably of getting 5 red marbles in a random draw of 7 marbles (with replacement)?
What is the probably of getting 6 red marbles in a random draw of 7 marbles (with replacement)?
What is the probably of getting 7 red marbles in a random draw of 7 marbles (with replacement)?
These 4 probabilities can then be added together to get the probability of drawing
4, 5, 6 or 7 red marbles.
Once the probability of getting a majority red marble draw is calculated the probability of not getting
such a draw in N-tries can then be calculated.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Think about it this way. Take twenty pennies and toss them in the air. Unless you get 3 or fewer heads you have a Bernie Supporter for that juror spot. Now do it six more times. What are the odds that at least four of the seven times you get three or fewer heads tossing 20 pennies.
That's what we are looking at here.
It's likely never going to happen this primary season.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)there is over a 95% chance there will be at least one Clinton-supporter-dominated jury per primary season
making it "extremely likely to happen" contrary to your "likely never going to happen" this primary season.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I can tell you right now you are off. As I mentioned above if the requirement was to get four out of four with 85/15 split, the odds would be 50,000 to 1 (.15^4)/1. I don't remember my stats enough to account for the additional 3 picks but it's going to be still in the neighborhood of 5000-1 or so.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)which explains the basic calculations and comes up with a probability of about 1.2% for a randomly
selected Clinton-supporter-dominated-jury to happen. I came up with about the same number using
computer simulation.
Now if we take 1.2% to be the probability of an event to occur what is the probability it won't occur in
365 tries (assuming 1 jury per day for a primary season of 365 days). If the probability of an event
occurring is 1.2% the probability of it not occurring is 100%-1.2% = 98.8% (0.988). To get the
probability of it not occurring at in 356 tries you must multiply the probability of it not occurring once
by itself 365 times (this is called 'conditional probability') or 0.988^365 =~ 0.012198 (~1.22%).
Thus the probability of it occurring at least once is 100% - 1.22% =~ 98.78% (or as I put it
"over a 95% chance"
.stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You're correct that, if there were only four people on a jury, the chance of picking four Clinton supporters would be .15^4. On my calculator that's .00050625, which, as I said, is about 1 in 1,975 (odds against of 1,974 to 1, not 50,000 to 1).
Are you getting 50,000 by just moving the decimal enough places to accommodate the nonzero digits? That's not how it works. To see that your approach is wrong, suppose that there were only 10% Clinton supporters. Then the probability would be .1^4, or .0001. If you're using the move-the-decimal method, then the odds against the four-out-of-four Clinton jury would be 1,000 to 1. That would mean that, if we up the proportion of Clinton supporters from 10% to 15%, the chance of the all-Clinton jury drops by a factor of 50. That can't be right.
Remember that .00050625 isn't odds or a percentage; it's the probability, on the normal zero-through-one scale. If you want percentages, then .00050625 is .050625%. The fraction .05 equals one twentieth, so .050625% is a bit more than one-twentieth of one percent, i.e. a bit more than one-twentieth of one-one hundredth, i.e. a bit more than one in two thousand.
Of course, all this is for the nonexistent four-person jury. Having seven slots instead of four greatly increases the chance. I claim no Ph.D. but I'll set forth my method, and I'd be very interested in having it vetted by your expert friend.
Using H to represent a Hillary Clinton supporter and N to represent a non-Clinton supporter, we could get a Clinton-majority jury if the seven jury slots were filled this way: HNHNHNH. For each pick the software does, the chance of H is .15 and the chance of N is .85, so the chance of this particular alignment is .15 x .85 x .15 x .85 x .15 x .85 x .15, or .15^4 x .85^3, or .00031090078125. The key point about a seven-member jury, though, is that there are so many different ways to get a 4-3 split. Listing the jurors as #1 through #7, we might find HNHNHNH, as above, but we might also find HHHHNNN or NHNHNHH etc. Each of these has the same probability of occurring, namely .00031090078125, so we have to add all those probabilities.
How many are there? Out of slots 1 through 7, how many different ways are there of making four of the slots be H? This is the number of possible combinations of 7 objects taken 4 at a time. This is sometimes written as 7C4 and sometimes as a 7 over a 4 with this vertical pair encased in big parentheses that we probably can't do on DU. It's sometimes voiced as "seven choose four". The formula for nCr is n!/r!(n-r)!, where the exclam means factorial (multiply that number by every integer below it down through 1). For 7C4 this means 7!/4!3! which equals 35. If you take the trouble to list all the different strings of H's and N's that have precisely four H's and 3 N's, you'll find 35 of them. Each has the probability of .00031090078125. The probability that any particular jury will follow one of these 4-3 patters is 35 x .00031090078125, which is just under .011 (I weary of writing out these long numbers).
That's the probability of precisely a 4-3 split. We could go through the same exercise for juries of 5, 6, or 7 Clinton supporters, which collectively add a bit more than a tenth of a percent to the chance. That's how we get from just under 1.1% for the 4-3 split to just over 1.2% that any particular jury will be a Clinton-majority jury.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Skinner has said that there are usually somewhere between 20 and 50 alerts per day. If a particular day hits on the midpoint with 35 alerts, then there's better than a one in three chance of at least one Clinton-majority jury just on that day. The chance becomes even once there are 57 juries. It takes only about a week of such typical days for the chance to reach 95%.
It's a looooooooong primary season (as presumably at least 95% of DUers would agree), longer even than the 365 days you used, but even for 365 days, the chance that Clinton supporters are never in the majority is about 1 in 10^67. For comparison, the number of stars in the observable universe is less than 10^24.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)supporter. At least according to someone who PM'd me, Skinner said that this was the case.
As you probably know, that person unceremoniously had pizza shoved down his throat and was shown the door.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Only requires a few lines to show the abuse, instead of having to link to a thread and discuss the overall context.
As I said in my other reply, I'd do things differently if I had a magic wand and could make stuff happen. But I don't.
Cha
(297,425 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Hey look! Now you gotta read context, and we can bicker over other posts in that thread! That'll totally take less time and not derail this discussion! We can even spend hours arguing whether or not the alerter is a Clinton supporter!
The entire point was the jury system is being abused, and not only by "one side". Trolls do not change that, because any "side" has trolls.
Cha
(297,425 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
procon
(15,805 posts)Everyone who belongs to a group is there in solidarity with their shared interest, and everyone else is just a guest. If someone breaks the rules for the group, can't the mods intervene and deal with the offender without bringing in the full jury system?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and I get it, is that lets say someone makes a personal attack on you in one of those groups. You or someone else should be able to alert and hide even if you aren't a member.
It's a very odd system. Because on the one hand, the hosts of the group have absolute power to lock posts and ban folks from the group, and it is a public banning because the list of folks banned is posted in the about this group page, but on the other, the rest of DU can alert on and sit in judgement of posts in that group.
That seems like a contradiction. Either the group should be a separate entity and treated as such or not, but you have these conflicting messages in terms of the ability to do things about what happens in a group.
procon
(15,805 posts)Couldn't the site admins just add a group specific alert button that only went to the mods or the members of the group?
That would seem to eliminate the problem of any "outside" actors exploiting the protected groups and manipulating the current alert system to their benefit.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The "ban" design means everyone is "in" by default. So if someone's a smart enough bigot and doesn't post in a protected group, they won't get banned from the group, yet could vote to "hide" any posts that come from that group.
For example, I haven't been thrown out of here, yet I am not really a "member" of the group - I'm not in the community of people who regularly post. Heck, I'm only posting this as part of discussing "DU as a whole". How do you exclude me from juries on posts in this group? (Btw, I don't actually abuse the alert system.)
How do you do that while also giving timely juries for legitimately "hide-worthy" posts? While also giving timely access to a group (for example, requiring hosts to approve any new group members is not very timely)
As far as I can tell, you either need 24/7 moderator/host coverage, or you need a large pool of potential jurors. And we just don't have a good way to make the latter without having some trolls in the pool.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That is the only way to identify someone as a member.
IIRC if you are banned from the group you are no longer subscribed.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)so a truly "hide-worthy" post can't be hidden for a long time.
Also, there's people who don't subscribe who still post frequently in a group. I'm not a subscriber to the Sanders group, for example. ("My Subscriptions" lights up more than I want if I do subscribe)
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)It might not work out well
eomer
(3,845 posts)You can also subscribe to a group that you are strongly opposed to. Subscribing is just a convenient tool for following the posts in a group.
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)Hosts do not have the ability to delete posts and cannot be trusted to behave impartially inside the group (though juries seem to be pretty partial).
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)And I do mean any Democratic candidate. Any and all.
Feelings get hurt, vendettas are real, alert stalking is real and I don't give a crap how critical one is of ANY Democratic candidate's position there will always, always, ALWAYS be some person(s) who mistakes the criticism as "hating on" that candidate. Which candidate? Pick one, any one. It's all over the place. HRC. Sanders. O'Malley or whomever else is in this primary. Perhaps in some cases it can be true but certainly not as often as the accusations fly around this joint. Who has time for that mess? Not I.
The icing on the cake is DUers coming in the AA forum and just being a-holes for the sake of being a-holes. They get away with it more often then not on GD and GD-P. Why bring your sloppy mess here or stalk black folks in THEIR safe haven 
.
Anywho, I don't have much to say on DU anymore. It's gotten sickening. It sucks. Nothing seems to be done to correct the (very real) problems and I just prefer to skim through and KIM.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I don't think I have much to say here anymore either.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I've pretty much stopped posting, and reading I only do in my two subscribed groups, this group and HoF. However, these two groups are the hardest hit by the cleansing being done by the alert-stalking, and since the victims are overwhelmingly those who do not support Sanders, I draw my own conclusions. The saying goes that you will know them by the company they keep, and if these are the supporters of Sanders, I want nothing to do with them or him. It just makes me glad that I stopped my star a year ago, because DU has become a cesspool, and the Admins are wringing their hands and telling us to trust in the very weapon that is being used to remove us one by one, the jury system.
JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)Over my dead body will I lock this thread as off topic.
Knock it off and put the entire group in trash - or RESPOND to the thread!
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Guess someone is a little sensitive.
Not happening dude/dudette.
JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)Technically it's meta - but I'll be damned if the FIRST person we lock for a mea thread in this group is someone who contributes and supports.
No way. Not happening.
Never seen a lock in this group for meta and don't intend to start doing it with Steve as n example.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It just isn't allowed in like GD or something. That is not a reason to lock the thread here though.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Thanks for the heads up about the SOP alerts.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)First WE ALLOW META THREADS in this Group!
Second this thread is relevant to current discussions happening in this group.
Three - having served on the jury in HRC -
Yes HRC supporters! You are being followed around and alerted on.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)Someone sent me a pm with the jury results to an HRC supporter that got a hide on this thread.
randys1
(16,286 posts)ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)She posted in the Hillary group basically threatening another HRC supporter that came to my defense threatening to alert him too. Little power hungry hall monitor.
JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)And shared that.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I was banned for 2 months or so and just got back on. Already have 3 hides.
Maybe it's the H?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Thanks for letting me know.
JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)Your hide on a thread back here was utter bullshit.
You wrote NOTHING wrong that broke TOS. Nothing!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)The jury system is utterly broken as well.
We all know what counts now on DU.
I'd spell it out but it would just get me another hide so...yeah.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)I received them both within the same 24 hour period the weekend the protesters stopped Bernie's speech in Seattle. I got a 24 hour time out.
The first hide was for pointing out individual posters and collective Bernie posters mean spirited behavior in a thread.
The second was in a thread where a Bernie supporter was using the Seattle incident to brow beat HRC's candidacy...which I thought was demonstrative of racial insensitivity. I suggested a poster may have had their "white blinders on".
In neither post did I use bad language or get personal, still hidden. In retrospect, I think everything even remotely close got alerted on that weekend. I also think, as your BS supporter ratio suggests, the jurors were in no mood to here it, no matter how constructive.
I'm VERY careful with my words, especially since then.
I don't know that mine count for your list, but I did feel that what I wrote could be said to someone sitting right next to me...that's usually my standard before I hit the "post" button.
R B Garr
(16,964 posts)Didn't deserve it.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)members picked?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)An average of 6 out of every 7 jury members is a Sanders supporter.
Sanders supporters control the jury system. The odds of a majority Hillary-supporting jury are so low, it will probably not happen once during the primary season.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Updates.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)"Disruptive meta" is a fluid interpretation, apparently.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Consists of Women, African Americans and LGBT.
Percentage-wise the amount of straight white males is very low.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)First one here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251588259#post26
He didn't attack any DUer. He dared say something bad about Bernie.
Second one is here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1102&pid=30968
where he tried to talk about the hidden thread and again did not say anything against any DUer.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)... in a thread in this group: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=26060 that Number23 had to hide because folks were being alert stalked. Folks getting hides were:
Starry Messenger - a host of this forum
Chitown Kev
Tarheel_Dem
randys1
(16,286 posts)and participating in this place is.
For each poster there are what, 5 who dont post but read it constantly?
How influential is the thinking here?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that they say tell them that. They share them on occasion.
I don't think the reports reflect the reality of what is happening.
randys1
(16,286 posts)look at the Black people here who are outspoken, multiple hides or BANNED visavi 5 hides or more, etc.
All of my hides since I have posted here and i have had many, are race related, well all but one.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Random alert stats are meaningless.
I would like to see the breakdown,
which posts/posters were targeted, etc...
Of course we'll never see anything like that.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)of post content.
I fully expect to be locked out of this OP at some point and I hope someone else will repost the lists from the OP in a comment and continue to update when that happens.
We need to keep documenting what is happening. To include the hides that don't result in a timeout for someone.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Apparently I have annoyed a few myself.
Thanks for doing the research, steven.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Not just "there were 40 alerts today" which is all the info they're willing to put out.
I want to see "there were 40 alerts today, GD had x, GDP had y and these various groups had z."
But I don't think we'll see anything like that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I want to see "there were 40 alerts today, GD had x, GDP had y and these various groups had z ... and the Alerter's "favorite" Group is Z1."
That would be illuminating.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I served on a jury for bettyellen as well.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That list is growing.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=26571
The bettyellen jury I was on was on a now host-locked thread in GD. Guess which juror I was.
On Sun Sep 13, 2015, 08:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
there is a huge push to disrupt the AA forum. Some are so disappointed that Cornell West isn't held
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7168203
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Accusing fellow members of "disruption" is over the top. Knock off the insults and accusations. Alert, don't hurl insults and accusations.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 13, 2015, 08:10 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bettyellen is 100% correct and you're trying to shut her up. I'm glad to vote to LEAVE THIS and urge you, the alerter to knock it off.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)someone I have on ignore. And happily so.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)LiberalStalwart71 is on suspension too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=219322&sub=trans
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that was barely upheld 4-3. I don't see anything hideworthy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=592607
I'll give you one guess who juror #4 was:
On Mon Sep 14, 2015, 02:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Is that something like playing "race cards"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=592607
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Newbie poster spreading anti-Bernie crap, and now this "race card" comment. Obvious troll is obvious.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Sep 14, 2015, 02:50 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert is an example of alert-stalking. Alerter is angry at Chitown Kev because he isn't a Bernie supporter and that is enough to alert and try to get the post hidden. I'm going to be alerting on the results as soon as they come in so that the admins can take a closer look at whoever alerted.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No worse than anything else in the subthread.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)But if you read it, you can picture me thinking it again now!
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)You can't post much of anything in the various groups, particularly those that support candidates. Almost anything you say will be viewed with suspicion, and probably misinterpreted by someone. Even criticizing the fact they're too sensitive may get you kicked out. That's the way the DU administrators want it, so that's the way it is. We have GD, although the Alert Wars are making a mark there, as well.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)But the amount of alerts and hides and forced vacations of Hillary supporters and non-Bernie supporters in general keeps piling up.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts) stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Again, given the demographics here and the results of 4-3 to hide, at least one or two of the votes to not hide were Bernie supporters so essentially this was a vote not to hide. i.e. 4 Bernie supporters voted to hide and 2 voted to leave and the lone non-Bernie supporting juror voted to leave. Obviously that is only conjecture based on the statistics.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I guess we arent ready, if so many alleged liberals or Democrats can still be so OPENLY and OBVIOUSLY fucking racist, then America isnt ready to grow up.
BumRushDaShow
(129,228 posts)But there is no racism on this board, and surely not from a certain group (sigh)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=27867
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Really now, your friends are on time-out through their own behavior not racism from a "certain group" - That certain group makes up a a good portion of this board and are your fellow democrats. You continuously poison the well here and this post is no different.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Sep 24, 2015, 12:48 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is an example of an alert stalk. Sigh.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hillarites screaming racism again? What else is new?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why do we have to deal with these stupid alerts?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Blanket attack. No problem hiding this.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
DU has hit the sewer on alerts.
lib87
(535 posts)And the person who alerted that comment doesn't see how alerting the comment in a safe place for AAs no less makes them look like a hit (racist) dog?
BumRushDaShow
(129,228 posts)has changed the tenor of the types of things that are alerted and get hidden versus alerted and allowed to stand. If you have a lot of passionate posters online (and such often tend to be online more often then casual posters or lurkers), then the chances of their being called for jury duty increases (outside of any like myself who have subscriptions and opt to do jury duty). And as others get driven off the site, what is left are a narrower and narrower group of passionate posters left in the pool.
I have posted before that for protected groups - ANY alert in that group should be run through the group host(s) for a final decision. For forums, the system could be left the same. There was supposed to be a reason behind "groups" versus "forums" - essentially to allow free discourse on specific subjects.... But the jury system has blurred that distinction since although a host can block (ban) a poster from posting in the group, that host can't block alerts that may be initiated by a blocked poster.
lib87
(535 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)To a lot of people, suggesting someone said or did something racist is the worst possible insult there is. They find nothing at all more offensive than that. I think there's a great deal more disagreement among white people about what specifically constitutes racism, than there is that being called racist, or even just having a suggestion that something you did or said might be racist, is horribly offensive.
With the freedom the jury system gives, it's going to show up in the functioning of this institution. You have a jury looking at something racist, but the members of the jury disagree about whether it actually is racist, or how bad it is. Even though they are just trying to do a good job on the jury, something racist has a reasonable (not great) chance of surviving. But the same group of people might see a suggestion that someone said something racist, and since they're more likely to agree that it's offensive, it's more likely to get hidden.
I don't think people are doing this intentionally, or at least most people. It's just the nature of things. This is why we have to fight against institutionalized racism. Unless you open your eyes and look for it and work to eliminate it, it's going to affect how institutions function. It happens everywhere. It creeps in ways similar to this, and in ways different from this. No system or structure is free of it, and that includes DU.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Uh guys, African American group is no longer safe to post in but we knew that.
wish we could form our own board where liberals and Black people were safe to say things in the open
because this sure as FUCK isnt the place for that
R B Garr
(16,964 posts)Didn't deserve it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I received a PM alerting me to the following exchange
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598759
A generalized question about "alert stalking"
I know the admins have looked at various samples on given days and given statistics. In this short subthread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=621369
Stevenleser and I discussed the long term trends and whether or not you guys had checked them. So, without making you dig through a mountain of data, have you been keeping tabs on the alert situation over time, say a period of months, in order to determine whether or not there was a problem or imbalance? Steven's point was that the problem may not show on any given individual day or two, but that the alleged problem would be revealed in the longer term trends.
Skinner (60,695 posts)
1. Yes, we have looked at the numbers in many different ways, including long-term trends.
And we do not believe there is a problem. (Except for the obvious perception problem, but that's kind of a different thing.)
---------------------------------------------
Here is what I have to say about that:
There is a lot of wiggle room in "We do not believe there is a problem".
Here's my problem. I have a room full of Hillary supporters who have received timeouts, most of them people of color or women. Many more than that, including me, who have received hides for non-hideworthy posts.
If there is no problem, show us the stats. How many Bernie supporters have received timeouts. And I mean beyond those who have been receiving timeouts long before the primaries were in question. How many Bernie supporters have received hidden posts?
For every Hillary supporter who has received a hide or timeout, four Bernie supporters should have received the same, as there is around a 4-1 ratio. Assuming the members of the site have been fair. Do the stats support that? I doubt it. That would mean 40-60 Bernie supporters would have received timeouts. (ON EDIT: I apologize, around 20 Hillary supporters have received timeouts, that means around 80 Bernie supporters should have received timeouts. I think we can say FOR SURE that has not happened.) Have the same ratio of Bernie supporters received questionable hides? Again, I doubt it. That would mean well over a hundred Bernie supporters will have received questionable hides.
The site would be in an uproar.
When you look at it that way, it's pretty clear there is a huge problem.
randys1
(16,286 posts)
Jesus christ, that is just funny as hell
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That is why how to measure what is going on in an organization is as big of an issue as the measurements themselves.
Of the most active users here, there are probably around 500 folks of whom 425 are Bernie supporters and 75 are Hillary Supporters (given that around 85% of DU are Bernie supporters and around 15% are Hillary Supporters from most polls conducted to measure this)
Admins (and anyone else) may not realize that if 20 Bernie supporters and 20 Hillary supporters get timeouts over the past 4 months, that does not mean the alert/jury situation is "OK". That reflects an obvious situation of alert stalking and jury bias as that means 27% of Hillary Supporters were given timeouts while only 5% of Bernie supporters were given time outs.
And I would be surprised if it was even that close. I dont think 20 or even 15 Bernie supporters have received timeouts in the last 4 months while on the other side, we know for sure (see OP) 20 very active DUers who are Hillary supporters were given timeouts in the last 4 months and there may be more.
I have no doubt there is a massive problem and that Hillary supporters are being alert-stalked off the site.
randys1
(16,286 posts)ALL of mine, and there have been many, have been where I have called out racism in general and on DU.
The Bernie vs Hillary supporters problem here at DU is very much about race.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Of the 20 Hillary supporters who have received timeouts, how many are white straight males? Two?
I'm reminded of a quote from someone who came to a firm I was working at to talk about diversity that was along the lines of "If you don't actively take steps to be inclusive, you wind up being exclusive".
We've already lost most of our LGBT members. The LGBT forum is pretty dead. The various feminist forums are a shadow of what they once were. The Jewish group has very little traffic. I blame a number of things including the jury system.
The jury system is a tool for the majority to step on the minorities of all kinds. It's the very opposite of an effort to be inclusive. Whether the minority is African Americans, feminists, Jews, Hillary Supporters, whatever, the jury system will over time tend to silence them.
I think the admins are well intentioned but they don't see what is going on here. They are going to be left with a white straight male version of the Old Elm Tree, a site that you couldn't even mention here at one point by decree of the admins.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You boiled it down to a single sentence.
The jury system is a tool for the majority to step on the minorities of all kinds.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts) Me 
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I should have read your post first and just added a +1.
JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)Stay out of those threads - seriously. That way you get called to the jury.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I don't think there are one or two people who are here to disrupt by stalking. And I think that's what he's saying. No one is here just alerting like crazy, and when he looks at alerts, they aren't all by one or two people - they're by a bunch of people.
The problem I see is that we have a huge majority of Sanders supporters, and a reasonable number of them are really intense, and are quick to swarm on anything that might be even just slightly critical. It isn't exactly stalking I don't think. It's more just a numbers game. There are so many people who will alert on anything even slightly criticial of Sanders, and who probably know who are BLM supporters - or can at least guess if they know the posters to be black - and that large number of people has a great deal of power, simply due to their numbers. There's a good chance there will be enough of them on an alert to score a hide. And there are enough of them hiding in the first place.
Now, on the other hand, I have seen some similar stuff from some Clinton supporters. There just aren't enough to have this big of an effect. I think it's largely about numbers.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)The fact is, there is CLEARLY something going on here, and without a detailed look at the stats I will never believe that there isn't a problem.
I would need to see names of the accused, their alerters, the jurors, and their corresponding verdicts before I could be satisfied that things are on the up and up. Seeing as how the admins will never release the data I'd need to see, I guess all I'm left with is the perception of benign nonchalance on their part. And that is the kindest possible spin I can put on it.
Response to stevenleser (Original post)
Android3.14 This message was self-deleted by its author.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Sometimes, (most of the time probably) it means the time-out was deserved. Getting 5 alerts and a time out sometimes (often) means the person is acting and sounding like an ass.
Of course everyone knows this. Crying "alert-stalked" is usually an attempt to avoid responsibility for rude behavior.
randys1
(16,286 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You have seen the DU polls that show this board is about 80/20 for Bernie. That means the juries also favor Bernie.
There has been alert stalking whether you believe it or not.
But like many things people have to live with what was done to them because there is no justice to be had currently.
But mark my word, come Super Tuesday all of us who have been alert stalked will be grinning ear to ear and it won't matter then.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts) stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's not.
When you have 20 folks all from one candidate given timeouts, many of whom have never had hides before let alone timeouts, it begins to get suspicious. When you do the numbers and see that this candidates supporters are only 15% of DU and you see large amounts of timeouts, you begin to suspect alert stalking.
And when few if any of the 85% of DU that support the other candidate are given timeouts, instead of the 80 that would be proportional, you know that there is something wrong here.
And then it gets REALLY ugly when it becomes known that the vast majority of the 20 folks who have received timeouts are women or people of color or LGBT. I think two of the 20 are straight white males.
There is a marked difference in what a Bernie supporter here has to do to get a hidden post vs a Hillary supporter. I can provide examples. Heck if you are that unconvinced, I can post the exact post a Bernie supporter just got away with with a 6-1 vote by jury to keep and I will show you I will get a 6-1 vote to hide for that same post. It's that lopsided here right now.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)There are a number of posters out there "acting and sounding like an ass"
who don't even have that first hide.
Just read through some of the mega theads out there and get back to me about "rude behavior."
valerief
(53,235 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I don't venture into GDP usually, looks like nothing has changed.
JI7
(89,259 posts)but i really do recommend people try to ignore certain ones. especially the same ones who mostly want attention and the ones who have control issues .
this is a certain type i have noticed over the years. DU is their world in a way . getting recs and others to agree makes them feel like they are right and everyone really agrees and anyone who disagrees is part of the conspiracy .
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)"this is a certain type i have noticed over the years. DU is their world in a way . getting recs and others to agree makes them feel like they are right and everyone really agrees and anyone who disagrees is part of the conspiracy ."
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) stevenleser
(32,886 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)A hide for mistakenly posting a pic from the march 20 years ago instead of today?
I have to believe this was because she was identified as a Clinton supporter by her icon.
pnwmom
(108,987 posts)
Stellar
(5,644 posts)I got a hide here once a few months ago and still I haven't figured out why. 
This place appears to be dangerous and filled with a lot of boobie-traps, and as per usual, if you are in the minority, you lose.
