I want to talk about the Jury service format.

[1WorldHope]

I often find myself wishing for more than the 4 choices that are offered, which are basically: clearly breaks the rules, clearly doesn't break the rules, close but not breaking rules, or close but breaking the rules. Sometimes it seems like maybe a warning with an explanation of the rule being violated would be less final and punitive. I'm not fully informed of what has happened in the past, or familiar enough to know if it's a new person here to create chaos or 2 people who always clash. I will probably err more to the side of "Free Speech" if none of the 4 choices feel like a good fit. I do agree with the rules though. Any thoughts?

[TexasTowelie]

1. You can always cancel out of jury service if you are riding on the fence about any decision. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Best results stem from informative feedback

1. Feedback to posters who avoid removal: If a poster knows that a post came close to being removed, they will be more careful with future posts. This is a desirable effect.

2. Feedback to jurors: Scurrying over to find a post after it has been voted on is hit or miss. Sometimes the post is gone already, sometimes it is there and ends up removed, sometimes the post is not removed. Most people don't hang around refreshing the page. Feedback helps jurors calibrate their future votes closer to the standards and ratings of other DU members. Creates cohesion and more stability, more consistency. This is a desirable effect for DU.

To keep things simple and small, it can be a banner that appears where the you-have-mail banner appears, after all jurors have voted, perhaps with a link to thread (not post). Format could be simple like: "2 1 -- 3 1 : Post not removed", with the votes to remove ("2 1" ) are in red letters, "removed" also in red if removed, and "Post not removed" in black, perhaps, as with the "--" and the "3 1" (votes to retain).

[stopdiggin]

3. my opinion

if something is egregious enough that it is voted 'clearly breaks' (by myself or others serving jury) then it probably deserves to be slapped down. Full stop. There is a process for appeal, as well as several warnings before privileges are revoked. There might be occasional instances of injustice - but I think that can be countered by acknowledging that no system is perfect, nor is one likely to be designed. And, bottom line - if there isn't moderation and penalty meted out for infraction - the site would quickly descend into chaos - serving no one. In large part I think the system (as it sits now) serves about as well as we can hope for.

(there is also an option for 'with the intention to disrupt' - for dealing with people that are intent on abusing the alerts system. go ahead and use it if someone is just flat out being a jerk .. )

[EarlG]

4. To be honest you sound like the perfect Juror

Nobody is expected to be able to know with 100% clarity, 100% of the time, whether a post breaks the rules or not. It's impossible for rules to be written in such a way that they can be consistently interpreted objectively. Many rule violations may appear to be quite clear cut, but others are much more subjective, and then there are all the shades of grey in between.

If you have doubt in your mind while serving on a Jury, that's completely fine and normal. If you don't see a clear cut rule violation and feel like you want to err towards "free speech" that's also fine -- while serving on a Jury, it's entirely your decision. And if you feel you don't have enough information about the post, or enough contextual knowledge, or you really can't make a decision based on the rule you've been presented with, then you should absolutely feel free to cancel out of Jury service and let someone else take your place. There is no shame in doing this whatsoever -- it's part of the system.

[1WorldHope]

5. Thank you EarlG. I appreciate the discussion.

Especially the last part about stepping aside for the ones I can't see a clear answer. Thanks everyone!

[littlemissmartypants]

6. Kick. ❤️