In defense of my friend , ISBM, who is now on a forced hiatus

[Jim Lane]

46. I've generally been dubious about attacks on the jury system, but THAT change might be a good idea.

The overall issue (which occurs also with real-world juries) is that, if you use juries to get some kind of community input into the decision-making process, there will be opportunity for prejudices, misunderstandings, inconsistent verdicts, etc. Many of the proposed "reforms" amount to saying "Do something about the juries that disagree with me."

If an explanation were required, some jurors might just write "violates community standards" -- would that count as an explanation? Even if it would, the requirement of writing at least something, however minimal, might push people toward being a little more responsible.

In view of the consequences of a hide, maybe require the explanation only from Hide voters.

I was on the jury for one of 1SBM's recent hides, and it's notable that the only explanations were from two of us in the minority (I was Juror #5):

On Sun Feb 28, 2016, 10:59 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

And DU:white has a NEW hero ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1365713

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

One of quite a few ugly personal attacks made against johnlucas in this thread. DU deserves a lot better than this.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 28, 2016, 11:11 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He said what he said. So be it. It's up to the other poster to decide if he wants to follow up on it.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see any personal attacks on anyone in the alerted post, and I'm not going to wade through the whole thread to see if johnlucas has been attacked elsewhere and is therefore entitled to a sympathy hide. Alert the posts with the attacks.

The alerted post has a regrettable and unnecessary nastiness toward "DU:white". As a white DUer, I take the alerted post to mean that people are more likely to praise posts they agree with. That valid point could have been made without an insinuation of a racial element. Nevertheless, the transgression isn't great enough to warrant a hide.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
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.

I wonder if requiring the Hide voters to give an explanation might have caused them to stop and think a bit. Perhaps such a requirement would have flipped a vote and prevented a bad hide.

OTOH, I agree with the two oldest hides. "You are a very shallow person" and the reference to "assholery" are personal attacks.