Suggestions for comprehensive Jury reform?

[Kurska]

Given recent events, I think it would be a great idea to offer some suggestions for how the Jury system should be reformed, given that it is clearly not serving all DUers and that some of the most passionate voices have been silenced recently. I just wanted to collect some of the best ideas I've seen so far. Maybe not all of them at the same time, but I think at least a few are desperately needed.

1. Posters banned from protected groups cannot alert on posts in that group, I think that is just common sense.

2. Alerter's names should be public. If you're saying that someone should be silenced, then you should be willing to stand by that. This will also reduce rage alerting in a long arguments, as juries are less likely to hide someone if the alerter is arguing with them.

3. Go back to the 4 of 6 system, I think this 4 out of 7 has been a resounding failure. There have been far too many atrocious 4-3 decisions lately for my liking

4. Posts should be judged in total isolation with the named removed, yes this won't stop the most dedicated alert stalkers, but it help prevent at least some on name basis hides.

5. Everyone has a bad day, sometimes a great poster can have a really bad day, that doesn't mean they should be locked out for 3 months. 2 Hidden posts in a single day for a poster with over 1000 posts triggers a lockout period where they can't post for 24 hours. This would give people whose passions flare time to cool down.

6. Create a small volunteer moderation team to review cases where someone gets 5 hidden posts. They would have the options to revert bad hides.

7. Limit the number of times you can alert on the same person in a single day if the person has over 100 posts. This wouldn't interfere with the function of MIRT, but would prevent a lot of alert spam. One alert per person, per day. If something is truly awful someone else will alert on it.

What do you think? Any suggestions? Also I think this highly relevant to this group given you've lost a lot of cherished voices lately. Let me know if you think this isn't the right place for it though.

[randys1]

1. All great ideas if we are stuck with a jury system, and I badly do NOT want to be.

But these would be MINIMUM needed changes if we are to be stuck with a jury system.

I applaud you for putting this together.

[1939]

2. One alert a week would be a better system.

If you are alerting more often than once a week, your panties are in too much of a wad. If something iis really bad, other people will alert.

[bettyellen]

3. I like this: Limit the number of times you can alert on the same person in a single day

f the person has over 100 posts.


But from what I see there seems to be a group of trolls and their enablers alert stalking in a coordinated way.
What a sick little bunch that has nothing better to do with their lives.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. How about asking a poster to edit or delete a post

before anyone is allowed to alert on it? Maybe there could be a "warning" button where someone could click on it and at the same time ask the poster to remove the post or delete some offensive words or language. Then the poster would have some period of time (an hour or two?) to fix the problem. If the problem doesn't get fixed in the designated period of time, only then would the "alert" button be effective. That way someone would have a chance to edit a post that they may have made in anger, or they used a word they didn't realize would be offensive, and they'd understand what the problem was and still have an opportunity to post their opinion in a way that doesn't get people's backs up; but if they just posted a nasty drive-by the post could be removed after the grace period. If the post is really horrible and trollish the MIRT could still get it without it going to a jury.

This would also prevent most alert-stalking. I don't know if this is too complicated, though.

[Warpy]

5. I would like to see protected groups be protected

by allowing the group mods to review alerts and hides within that group and overturn the bad ones that were obvious troll alerts that got lucky with a jury.

I don't mind the 7 member juries, the majority is less ambiguous. I do like the 24 hour cool off for 2 hides in a day.

[Renew Deal]

6. This is a bad idea

It will turn the groups into launching grounds for attacks.

[Warpy]

7. How is overturning a troll hide going to do that?

I don't get your point at all.

[Renew Deal]

11. Because not everyone is a troll.

Often the hosts and members are on the same side. A dirty attack against a candidate or a person may be supported by the hosts. Hosts will also be pressured to overturn hides and possibly be forced out if they don't follow the demands of the group.

Not everyone has good intentions. Some people are not reasonable and some are worse than that.

[Warpy]

12. That side is why protected groups are supposed to be protected.

They're not right now. The trolling has been intense. It needs to be stopped.

[Jim Lane]

14. But they shouldn't be protected for personal attacks and other ToS violations.

Suppose there's a heated primary between Hatfield and McCoy. In the Hatfield Group, DUer X posts, "DUer Y, who backs candidate McCoy, is a real asshole, and is backing McCoy only because Y is such a bigot and won't support a woman like Hatfield." This sparks another thread in which DUer Z, posting in the McCoy Group, says, "It's really DUer X who's the asshole, and who's probably being paid by the Hatfield campaign to post here and stir shit."

Both of those posts should be hidden. On the evidence of the current state of things at DU, though, I wouldn't assume that the Hatfield Group hosts or the McCoy Group hosts would step up and do the right thing. Bear in mind that hosts aren't carefully screened by admins the way MIRT members are. They're largely self-selected. They shouldn't be given the de facto power to make their groups bases for attacks on people they and their group members dislike.

[Warpy]

16. It sounds like you're accusing all protected group moderators of being corrupt

I'd hazard a guess they're a lot less corrupt than the alert trolls who post stalk people in protected groups.

[Jim Lane]

17. Not at all.

My point is that, to support this kind of change, you'd have to believe that all group hosts are unbiased geniuses.

My personal opinion is that group hosts, collectively, are a mixed bag (what with them being human and all). In my example, it might be that the Hatfield Group host would hide the offending post, but the McCoy Group host would chuckle delightedly and let that one stand.

Furthermore, there could be a race to the bottom. If the Hatfield supporters are consistently being vilified in the McCoy Group, there's going to be more and more pressure on the Hatfield Group hosts to let the members return fire.

[Warpy]

18. No, just that they're doing the best at a difficult job they can.

I just don't think you're correct. Trolls are the problem here, not group mods.

[Jim Lane]

19. I'm not talking about what's done now, but about a hypothetical proposal.

You suggested that group hosts be given an additional power, to overrule juries. Group hosts aren't the problem on hides now but that's because they don't have that power.

Whatever problems can be caused when trolls or zealots form a majority of a seven-member jury, I have to figure the danger would be greater if one lone person could achieve the same result.

[tularetom]

8. Agreed with everything except items 3 and 6

We should never go back to the 6 person juries unless we reinstate the tie goes to the poster rule, but I have no problem leaving the system as it currently is.

Rather than a volunteer team to make the final decision on putting someone on time out, convene a special jury to do so, selected in the same manner as regular juries. I don't like the idea of the same people deciding in every case, who gets to take a break and who gets to hang around awhile.

Overall these are excellent suggestions. You need to cross post them in GD or somewhere where they will get a bit more exposure.

[Kurska]

9. I don't think it would be allowed in GD, because it might be considered Meta discussion.

I'm not sure where the proper place for them would be besides GD either.

[Renew Deal]

10. You want a solution? Get rid of the juries and bring back the mods.

The juries cannot work when the community is divided such as during primary season. There is too much bias.

Items 1 and 2 on your list are not good ideas and will lead to more trouble. 3 will make no difference because the problem is the jury system, not the number of jurors. 4 has potential, but people can easily work around it by using a different browser or computer/phone.

I agree that 90 days is too long. The number should be 0.

6 and 7 are OK.

But we are talking about revamping a system that cannot work. We can never get rid of bias, side taking, and people with bad intentions. The mods made mistakes, but they tried to be fair and were accountable to each other and DU. DU2 was the best moderated forum I have ever been on and that was because of the mods (and defined rules).

Get rid of the juries and bring back the mods. It won't bring peace, but it will bring back fairness and accountability.

[Downwinder]

13. An Alert is a post. The same penalty structure

should apply to alerters as to posters.

[jeff47]

15. I'm not a fan of #4

A lot of times sarcasm isn't apparent without context.

A suggestion I'd add: If you alert on a post and it is not hidden by a 0-7 vote (possibly 1-6) then it counts as half a hide against you. The "no alerts for 24 hours" penalty isn't strong enough.

[cstanleytech]

21. The no alerts for 24 hours is a great idea provided it

includes the option that if it happens more than 5 to 6 times within a 90 day period it cuts off your entire alert ability for 90 days with a posting suspension in the group where you were alerting in.

[Number23]

20. If absolutely NOTHING else, #1 should have been implemented two months ago

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. The whole notion that you can be a juror on a case where you know the defendant is absurd.

The whole notion that you can be a juror on a case where you know the defendant is absurd. I would use the r word but it is a pejorative. The first thing they ask prospective jurors in real life is if they know the defendant or any of the principals in the case.

[yardwork]

23. I agree with 1, 2, 5, and 7.

I think that the jury system is better than the old mod system. However, the jury system needs to be more transparent. There need to be some protections to prevent alert stalking. Certainly, people banned from protected groups should not be able to alert on posts in those groups. That should be an easy fix.

I think that three months is too long to suspend people for five hidden posts. If the posters are truly disruptive, then Admins need to take a look. But this automatic 90 day suspension is not good. For example, 1SBM was not remotely disruptive to DU. His posts were thoughtful. I'm angry that he was alert stalked and is now silenced for 90 days.