We are making some changes to the moderating/jury system. (THIS IS IMPORTANT.)

[Skinner]

This discussion thread was locked by Skinner (a host of the Announcements group).

We are making a number of changes to our software today. If you notice any bugs or problems, please post in this thread to let us know. Thanks.


The TOS checkbox is being removed from the "Alert abuse" function.
Until now, when you clicked the "Alert abuse" link to send an alert, there was a special checkbox that you could click to indicate that you believe a post violates the Terms of Service. Unfortunately, too often the TOS checkbox was used incorrectly -- either members would neglect to click it on posts that actually did violate the Terms of Service, or they would click it on posts that did not remotely violate the Terms of Service. Because of this, the DU administrators long ago stopped giving any credence to Terms of Service alerts, and instead have been reviewing every single alert regardless of whether TOS box was checked.

From now on, the DU administrators will be notified of every alert sent. In addition, the MIR Team will be notified whenever a post is removed under two conditions: 1) If the post is removed on a vote of 6-0, or 2) if the author of the post has fewer than 100 posts. We believe this will give the MIR Team all the information they need in order to keep DU clear of malicious intruders.


We have created a very limited system of software-initiated account reviews.
In our continuing effort to catch and remove malicious intruders, we are instituting a software system that automatically flags accounts for review under certain circumstances. If an account is flagged, then that account will be temporarily unable to post or perform some other site functions -- but the ACCOUNT IS NOT BANNED. If an account is flagged, its profile page will show "Status: Flagged For Review," and the account holder will receive an automated message indicating that they are under review. Please note that the account review function is narrowly aimed to try to catch malicious intruders. We aren't going to disclose exactly when accounts get reviewed, except to say that it is most likely to happen if a member gets too many posts hidden in a relatively brief length of time. (Note that this function replaces the auto-ban function, which has been retired.)


Members who are abusive while performing jury service will lose the privilege of serving on juries.
The administrators are getting increasingly concerned about the small number of members who repeatedly post rude juror comments while serving on juries. The vast majority of jurors are doing the job in good faith, but unfortunately a small number of people are not. Some people seem to be using the juror comments as a "free" opportunity to make extremely abusive comments to people -- that's not ok. If any juror has a history of inappropriate comments, or if any juror makes a single comment that is way over the line, then we are going to exclude that individual from jury service. If we do take away any person's jury privileges, we will do so transparently and make a note of it on that person's profile page. (Look for the words "Eligible to serve on Juries?&quot


STARTING 90 DAYS FROM TODAY, if you have five hidden posts on your account you will be unable to post.
After nearly 2 years on DU3, it is apparent that the vast majority of people are participating in good faith, and are making the effort to avoid posting inappropriate comments that might get hidden. However, there is a very small contingent of people who do not seem to be trying very hard, are not particularly embarrassed or ashamed that they are getting posts hidden, and continue to engage in disruptive behavior. For these people, we feel it is time to provide an incentive for good behavior. Starting 90 days from today, if you have five hidden posts showing on your Transparency page (a 90-day period), then you will be temporarily unable to post. In order to regain your ability to post, you will need to wait until the oldest post of the five is more than 90 days old and "falls off" of your record. At that point you will only have four posts showing on your Transparency page, and you will regain your ability to post.

If this seems harsh, I would like to share a few stats with you. Over the last 90 days, only one half of one percent of DU members who posted managed to rack up five or more hidden posts. 99.4% of actively posting DUers stayed under the 5-hidden-post threshold (and 86% had no posts hidden).

But no matter how bad your record is right now, please note that NONE OF THE HIDDEN POSTS CURRENTLY SHOWING ON YOUR ACCOUNT will count toward the five hidden posts. That's just math. Over the upcoming 90-day "grace period," all of the hidden posts you got up until now will fall off your record. So, if you change your behavior today and stop getting your posts hidden, you'll be fine. But if you persist in disrupting DU, and persist in getting posts hidden, every single post you get starting from THIS MOMENT will count toward your 5-hidden-post limit.

Please note that creating additional accounts in order to get around -- or preemptively avoid -- any restrictions on your account would be considered a Terms of Service violation. The best way to avoid restrictions on your account would be to avoid getting your posts hidden in the first place. It is not that hard.


And, on a completely unrelated note:

We have upgraded the ad code on our site to improve page load-time.
We use Google AdSense as our primary ad serving solution. Google recently unveiled a new kind of "asynchronous" ad code which (they claim) will not interrupt page loads. With our old ad code, if an advertisement failed to load or loaded slowly, then you would have to wait for the ad to appear before the rest of the web page would load. But with the new ad code, the ad code is loaded separately from the code that renders the web page. So you do not have to wait for the ads to load in order to download the webpage you want to see. Please note that at first you may see some extra white space near the top of the page -- if you do, click shift-reload/refresh on your web browser to fix the problem.

[Voice for Peace]

1. thanks for all your hard work

and a kick and a rec

[Scuba]

100. +1

[Plucketeer]

268. +1

[Duval]

390. +1

[Rex]

2. Looks like the best addition to DU3 since it's creation.

I am all for this new system. Thank you for the change, it was much needed.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Thanks for these changes. They look like they'll help a lot...

Skinner, EarlG, and Elad:

[Dawgs]

4. Great. More rules.

Exactly what DU needs.

[MADem]

191. What "rules?" This is community moderation--it's a good thing.

It's really not so hard to just not personally insult one another.

[Brigid]

5. Thanks for the info!

[cynatnite]

6. This looks great, but...

5 hidden threads still seems low. I understand the stats, but that's just me.

[Dawgs]

13. No shit.

And it won't change anything anyways.

[karynnj]

72. 5 in 90 days -- that seems generous to me!

I assume that you get some message when something is hidden. This would suggest that you are being warned - 4 times - before you post the 5th. I've seen that most juries are pretty liberal in what they will allow to remain.

[stevenleser]

91. Particularly in post-Meta DU, that seems REALLY generous.

If you are getting more than 5 posts hidden in 90 days, you are really doing something wrong and in most cases, it is simply that you are maliciously attacking people instead of addressing their ideas.

[rhett o rick]

154. Or you've been singled out for bullying. Just sayin. nm

[Posteritatis]

186. If you're "singled out" by five randomly-selected juries the problem's probably in the mirror. (nt)

[rhett o rick]

197. So it's the victim's fault? It isnt the juries that send the alerts.

If someone gets singled out they may have a lot of alerts thrown at them in 90 days. Most of the juries might rule appropriately, but it only takes 5 to shut someone down.

[Posteritatis]

203. If that many juries agree? Then of course it's the "victim's" fault. (nt)

[rhett o rick]

213. I disagree. It's never the fault of a victim of bullying.

Would you agree that occasionally a jury gets it wrong? My point is that someone that is disliked by an active group may get enough alerts that the bad jury results push the number to 5. I bet Manny gets alerted on at least once a day.

[7962]

249. I agree. I've only had one hidden and it was the most childish thing to do it.

And it was on a thread full of wisecracks. I think some of the people who are quickest to attack you are also the thinnest skinned.
There should be some sort of appeal.

[rhett o rick]

252. I believe most jury decisions are honest and fair. But I have been on the receiving end

of some pretty petty decisions.

[nightscanner59]

279. Agreed, somewhat. I made the mistake

Of mentioning the attributes of some Green party candidates. It got removed, stating this is DEMOCRATIC underground. Whoo!

[winter is coming]

205. I don't have any problem with "leaving" a post when I feel the alert is bogus.

I've even alerted on a couple of verdicts (regardless of outcome) when I felt the alert was not only bogus, but malicious. If five randomly-selected juries have hidden someone's posts, it's unlikely that all 5 of those are bad hides. Yes, I've seen bad hides (and bad "leaves&quot , but 5 in 90 days sounds like someone skating the line between acceptable and unacceptable, at best.

[rhett o rick]

218. Yes, but if enough alerts are made on a person, it only takes 5 bogus to shut them up.

I dont think this will be a problem, but someone as controversial as Manny may get a lot of malicious alerts. And in most cases the juries will do the right thing but it only takes 5 bogus decisions to shut him down. I hope I am not giving anyone ideas.

[Grateful for Hope]

226. Really?

How about shutting a person down like ProSense? You don't think there have been a lot of malicious alerts toward this member?

[rhett o rick]

240. Of course. I dont approve in ANY case. I just picked an example.

So I assume you understand my point. No one should be assaulted with malicious alerts.

[Grateful for Hope]

243. I do understand

[rhett o rick]

246. Good. I am not the best with getting my point across. I may fight with others

but I believe the fight should always be fair.

[Grateful for Hope]

257. I am honored to be a host along with you

[rhett o rick]

281. And I you.

DU is a great place. Keep cool.

[Dragonfli]

261. If singled out by say "a special group" and alerted on as a matter of being targeted

for removal from the site by said "special group". Mathematically the chance of a bad jury goes up damn near exponentially.

Example: If alerted on 4 times a day, and say 1 post a month is ACTUALLY questionable, one will almost surely get banned simply for being targeted. I mean "you better believe it" that some nasty buggers here like to claim people they do not like are "zombies" without a shred of IP proof or any proof other than not liking that person. Such people used to brag in meta about exactly this behavior and dance on the graves of those they harassed out of here.

I hope as part of these new improvements (and I believe they are improvements save for the bully "alert squad" loophole), they count the number of alerts, look for patterns of alerts by small groups of serial alerters that work together and if the number is high, look very closely into the validity of the alerts and ban the bullies trying to get people banned as part of a lynch mob mentality.

I could name at least five I am fairly certain do this very thing regularly, the ones that used to brag about their bullying and who spoke loosely of "zombies" while reveling in their inflated sense of power. For some reason, this mob used to always post "you better believe it" every time they successfully used their bullying power to get someone banned. It was common to see the bragging in meta, so they certainly do exist.

Those that target people and use the alert for bullying rather than what it was intended for really should face banning for such behavior, even if only to discourage such behavior.

[rhett o rick]

276. I have seen the "Group" single out posters and attack. Many have not reacted

in a manner to save themselves. Mostly by lashing back the got themselves sideways. Bullying is an interesting thing here in DU. Especially Righteous Bullying.

[On the Road]

396. What Clique of DU Bullies

is large and coordinated enough to get a majority five times on a randomly selected jury?

[rhett o rick]

397. How many alerts do you think Manny or Pro get in a 90 day period? nm

[On the Road]

398. So You are Saying That Even Though Any Individual Jury is Random,

the sheer number of alerts will ensure that at least five alerts are successful? That might be true, although you'd really have to see the data to make sure. The juries that I've been on have tended to be somewhat lenient, and most of Prosense's comments in my experience are not the kind of over-the-top replies that tend to get the axe.

Aren't there controls for posters who make a lot of failed alerts? That would seem to cut down on the frivolous posters. I guess it could be based on percentages, but that would equate low-alert with high-alert posters, which is not necessarily a step in the right direction.

Offhand, I can't think of a straightforward way to spare unpopular posters who follows the rules any better than the status quo. I guess we will find out if there needs to be one.

[pasto76]

266. or you are saying something wildly unpopular here, and only here

[BlueCaliDem]

395. This has been the case with me. That's why I had left. But these new rules convinced me

I can come back and try again.

On the other hand, it isn't hard to have a group of like-minded and malicious posters gang up on each and every post you post, trying to find out what will stick and get hidden. It's happened to me; taking my words out of context to accuse me of something I clearly never meant, and then alerting to get that post hidden.

I wonder if these new rules will prevent that from happening.

[rhett o rick]

399. He is saying that you only get hidden if you are guilty. Those that get hidden deserve it.

No one ever acts badly on a jury.

[BlueStreak]

256. Absolutely. There are a few things that are certain to get a post banned

Avoid those and most juries will give you reasonable latitude.

Unfortunately I can't mention those things that will get your posts banned, because this post would get banned, so figure it out yourself.

And if a person really cannot stay clear of 5 violations, maybe they are spending too much time typing and not enough time thinking.

Therefore a perfectly benevolent system would identify posters that are getting into the danger zone and limit them to 10 posts a day -- use them wisely.

[tofuandbeer]

278. I got one (my first ever) and it shocked me. I've been walking (posting) on coals since.

It's like getting a speeding ticket: you drive carefully for several days afterward.

[karynnj]

311. I am sure my reaction would be as you describe

Sort of immediate refection and recalibrating so I am within rules. I like your speeding ticket analogy, because I suspect that for most of us - just like with speeding - there is no real intent to break the law and genuine upset when stopped.

[tavalon]

326. I just went and looked at my transparency page, because, well, hit the right nerve

and I can be quite spiky. I've never had a post hidden or even adjudicated. I'd say the system is already pretty lenient.

[tofuandbeer]

347. I shouldn't have been too surprised...

I touched on something that I thought may raise an eyebrow (religion).
From here on out, I will listen to that little voice in my head.

[PowerToThePeople]

348. My issue here is..

If you think "maybe I shouldn't say this or that because it is a sticky situation and it may be taken wrong" then it likely needs to be said. If you do not say anything, the issue goes away without any further debate. Some things can not be sugar coated for easy digestion. Most of our issues of highest importance are also the same ones that get the most heated. It is natural to get heated over issues that matter. Personal attacks are overboard, but attacking a method or (il)logical argument should not be. I have had posts hidden for both of these. Ugly truth is sometimes ugly. People do not like to see it.

[AgingAmerican]

298. I've never had one

It ain't that hard.

[SheilaT]

7. Sounds good.

I got worried there for a moment about the five hidden posts, because I believe I've had at least that many happen to me over time. Only one in the last 90 days, though.

[reflection]

8. This sounds very reasonable.

As a juror, I have made occasional comments in the past about what I consider to be weak alerts, but I think they were benign enough where they would not be considered inflammatory and result in getting locked out of jury service.

Thanks as always for continuing to tweak, modify and change DU in an attempt to make it a more pleasant experience.

[anneboleyn]

117. Me too. I don't think this is what is meant (at least I hope not. I like serving on the juries!)

Believe it or not.

[tavalon]

327. I believe it

I do too. I'm actually surprised I don't get more opportunities.

[Laelth]

9. I have complete faith that you are doing what you think is best for the site.

Thanks for the information.

-Laelth

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. i like the 5 deleted posts rule.

[grantcart]

11. Looks good.

[SoCalDem]

12. Thank you ! n/t

[irisblue]

14. let me make sure I am clear....

UNDER 100 posts AND an alert on their posts MIRT gets a review of the account...?

[Curmudgeoness]

229. A review does not mean that anything is wrong.

I think that it is a good idea to watch for obvious trolls. It is a shame that new members who are sincere might also be caught up in this, but it should not be a problem for them. The sooner a troll gets booted, the better.

[MineralMan]

15. I just noticed the missing TOS box, just before your announcement.

The other changes all make sense to me, although some DUers may not agree.

Thanks for letting us know about the changes.

[Jefferson23]

16. Fair approach...thanks. n/t

[morningfog]

17. Fantastic changes! I think these will go a long way

to improving civility and preventing alert abuse.

[Aristus]

18. Well done, Skinner.

You and the admins rock!.

[stevenleser]

19. How is this possible? I agree with everything!

The 5 hidden post limit is going to pay big dividends heading into primary time. People who attack the poster and not their ideas will eventually lose their posting privileges and that is a good thing.

[SunSeeker]

26. +1

[msanthrope]

38. That, coupled with every alert going to admin should head off bad-faith alerters. nt

[Myrina]

41. Maybe, maybe not.

It will also serve as grounds for "gang banging" on users that certain other users do not like.

John Doe piss you off? Get 4 of your friends to search his name, alert on other posts of his and Poof! he's gone !

Don't think that's quite fair, unless there is a counter-measure in place that also puts 'excessive alerters' under review.

JMHO.

[stevenleser]

52. There is always appeal to the admins. I think if someone gets their posting privls suspended and

they email Skinner/EarlG and review of their hidden posts suggests such an effort against them, Skinner and EarlG I am sure will take appropriate action.

[tavalon]

328. While they didn't say that,

I think they would listen to appeals. They have in the past, even in the wild west past before DU3.

[Wounded Bear]

68. I don't think it's based on alerts, just hidden posts...

such a plan would need the collusion of the jurists, too.

Seems unlikely.

[Pab Sungenis]

121. Collusion of the jurists is easy

if you get 10 of your friends on the site between 2-5 AM EST. The odds of your people being called for a jury on one of your alerts is pretty significant.

Dedicated batches during "slow hours" can really abuse the current system.

[cyberswede]

157. That seems like a lot of effort

Would people really go to that much trouble to hide a post?

[Agschmid]

169. No.

If they did they should rethink their priorities.

[tavalon]

330. I was just going to write almost word for word what you said.

[MADem]

254. The admins would see a pattern, I think. They might be able to get away with it once. nt

[Grateful for Hope]

394. 10 friends compared to how many are surfing DU at a given time?

I really don't think the system can be gamed in this way.

[rhett o rick]

247. Occasionally you get bad jury decisions. If enough alerts are thrown against the DU wall

you may get enough bad jury decisions (to stick) to shut you down.

[pipi_k]

106. Well, that's also assuming

that those five alerters manage to get at least 4 jurors on each alerted post to vote for a hide.

Twenty people who are petty enough to hide based on what might be flimsy evidence (other than the fact that five people hate the alerted on person).

And since all alerts will be going to the Admins anyway, I have faith that they would be able to smell a rat...

[tblue37]

235. Alerts don't cause suspension of posting privileges.

The jury would also have to agree and HIDE 5 posts over 90 days.

And with the admins checking the alerts, abusive alerters alerting on innocuous posts would soon be spotted.

[MADem]

244. I don't think the admins are dull of comprehension....

If they see the same swarm of alerters going after a single person, they'll figure it out pretty quick.

After all, nothing is "private" on DU. There's no "private" mail--there's DU mail.

I should think collusion of the type you suggest would be grounds for a pizza party.

[tavalon]

333. I've only met two of them and the other is the actual programmer, so,

I'm quite positive the admins are not dull of comprehension. I just wrote this because I love that turn of phrase. Dull of comprehension. LOL. Fabulous use of the English language.

[MADem]

337. Heh heh....I cannot take credit.

I learned that phrase at the knee of my great grandmother, who was an enormous influence on me and my siblings. She used it often (as in "The cookies are missing and you are covered in crumbs...do you think I am dull of comprehension?&quot .

She was born around 1880, and the terms and phrases she passed on to us reflect her life and times!

[tavalon]

344. It's great and it's very old fashioned but I think that's why I like it.

[Gormy Cuss]

94. Only if juries consistently hide personal attacks

and quite frankly, they don't do that now. Too often I've seen comments on LEAVE posts where the reason for that vote is that the person being attacked started it.


eta: not a criticism of the changes, just a comment that most of the jury system's limitations are still intact.

[stevenleser]

101. True. I wish personal attacks were hidden more often. It's a real simple idea. Don't attack DUers...

attack ideas.

[tavalon]

334. Funny, there was a thread that turned into a Nance Greggs bashing committee

and that's basically what I was trying to say. Nance and I don't agree on everything politically and yet I consider her a valued friend, one I was blessed to find on DU but have remained in touch with since.

[Eleanors38]

171. Generally, personal attacks on "Gungeoneers" are a free pass.

The reverse, not so much.

I do appreciate the efforts by the Ads to at least address the blatant abuses of the jury system where "gun humpers" & a million references to "penis" are OK, but the terms "hoplophobia" and "Jim Crow laws" can get you hidden.

Some sort of Administrator review might be beneficial, esp. with regard juror comments.

[Pab Sungenis]

119. Or a dedicated cabal of alert-bombers

who stalk a poster can get them "out of the way" for a month and a half with a little effort.

I'd like to see something like you get to alert on a user once per day. If your alert fails, you don't get to alert on them for a week. Your alert fails 6-0, you don't get to alert on them ever again. That would end some of the abuse of the system.

[Mojorabbit]

141. Good idea. nt

[bluestate10]

176. I agree. Alerters should pay a price for malicious alerts or alerts for non-aler table issues.

I have concerns about cliques of DU members trying to silence a poster, there should be a price to pay for such activity if it is uncovered.

[dkf]

269. +This.

[IdaBriggs]

123. I had the same "problem" - I *love* it.

I think it will increase the level of civil discourse here.

[dipsydoodle]

20. Ta.

Advice appreciated.

[hrmjustin]

21. Should make Mirt more interesting for us.

[uppityperson]

42. Tell Otto goodbye for me.

The MIRT changes look interesting, hope they work out. Wondering if this means posts hidden 4-2 or 5-1 are not sent to MIRT?
"In addition, the MIR Team will be notified whenever a post is removed under two conditions: 1) If the post is removed on a vote of 6-0, or 2) if the author of the post has fewer than 100 posts."

[hrmjustin]

45. I love OTTO! I hope this means he is not leaving us because he is needed for you know who.

The 6-0 juries Idea seem ok to me because if we got all hidden post it would be insane.

[uppityperson]

53. Ah, so only the 6-0? That is good.

Used to be TOS, not just any hidden. My brain, my brain! "How to" was kicked recently but I can't read it yet. Annoying to see someone replied but not read it beyond the title. Oh well.

Puts more power onto those who say they would never vote to hide, but there are few enough of them perhaps to make a difference. It will make MIRT a bit different. It is all a process.

[hrmjustin]

57. From what I am reading now in Mirt OTTo is not going anywhere.

I think he will just be taking on less duties. Should become apparent when our friend returns and we shall ses what happens.

[uppityperson]

71. That is good.

Rereading, I see low poster alerts too. Yay for MIRT and Otto and I do not miss my buddy, wish he'd get a new hobby.

[hrmjustin]

79. Yes a new hobby indeed.

[uppityperson]

90. +1, I agree

[Lasher]

180. I don't think there's anything in the OP that changes Otto's relationship with MIRT

Otto doesn't need a jury. He only sends nuke notifications, which I believe we'll continue to receive as before.

There's changes in jury result notification: All hide verdicts on members with <100 posts, unanimous hide verdicts only for those with >100 posts.

[hrmjustin]

181. The only thing that changes is we have to manually ban people who just sign up and get a hidden

post. No more auto-ban.

[Lasher]

187. OK I think I know what you mean.

"We aren't going to disclose exactly when accounts get reviewed." Let's discuss elsewhere if we need to, OK?

[hrmjustin]

189. There is a thread in Mirt about it.

[Lasher]

192. Thanks.

[Turborama]

80. We're going to continue getting noobs' hidden posts

Th 6-0 doesn't apply to them.

To satisfy your curiosity, here's what the kicks said:

kick for the last month - suggest we each bookmark it as well

and...

Great post - kick!

[uppityperson]

89. Thanks. My curiosity is a cats sometimes

and sorry about last week, bad week for me and I was going to self delete but went to bed instead. No excuse but sorry.

[Turborama]

362. No probs!

Last week? No need to apologize, TBH I haven't got a clue what you're talking about, lol.

[rrneck]

22. Looks good.

Half the fun of DU is watching how you guys manage DU. I don't mind arguing with people when I think they're wrong, but I have a hard time finding anything wrong with the way you do things here. Rock on.

[Old and In the Way]

23. Constructive tweaks...thanks Skinner!

I have one question...what about alert performance guidelines? Someone hitting the alert button constantly and gettings 1-5/0-6 support ought to be penalized as well. Nothing more aggravating and time wasting than to tie up 6 people to confirm that it was a malicious alert and abuse of the jury system.

[stevenleser]

29. For each 6-0 against you, you lose privileges for a day

If I recall correctly. Don't remember if it is alert or posting privileges

[winter is coming]

211. It's alerting privileges. It's happened to me.

I disagreed with the verdict, but losing alerting privileges for a day wasn't a big deal.

[Nye Bevan]

31. People are already penalized for alerting and being shot down 6-0.

They cannot alert again for 24 hours.

[Old and In the Way]

56. That sounds reasonable.

A real disruptor could only abuse the jury system 6-7 times a week.

I wonder how much time is spent on juries...figuring 6 people x 5 minutes per alert? If there are, say, 3600 alerts/year, that's 1800 hours of total time spent to adjudicate. If 10% are BS/petty alerts, that's still a lot of wasted time. I'd also like to see the total# of alerts and their win/loss/tie results in our user profiles....that certainly should be part of the poster's record that could help ID and freeze the worst abusers. I'm thinking someone who has 50 alerts with 45 losses and 5 ties might be a boot worthy.

[HooptieWagon]

108. I agree. A group of Alerters abuse the jury system...

and alert because they are trying to stifle the other side of an arguement, of simply for petty personal reasons. There should be some action taken there....if simply to put on poster's transparency page the # of alerts/alerts upheld numbers in the past 90 days.

[anneboleyn]

124. Yes. I have definitely noticed this while serving on juries. Some use it to "shame"

Like telling the teacher when that kind of intervention is not required.

[truedelphi]

164. But some of the alerts are spam -

No one here wants to have to read a "reply" to a topic that is an obvious attempt to ask people to learn how they can make $ 3,500 a week from the comfort of their own home.

If we the community were not doing this, either Skinner, EarleG et al would have to or would have to delegate it to paid help.

What bugs me about jury service is when it becomes obvious that two people are fighting and one wants help against an other here at DU, even though they have been as obnoxious as the person they are alerting on.

[winter is coming]

214. Spam alerts are the quickest ones to jury, IMO. I don't mind getting those.

Jurying or alerting on an escalating firefight is always when I have no idea what the verdict will be. Sometimes the jury will simply decide everyone's being an asshole and decline to hide anything, and other times they'll say, "Yeah, a lot of asshattery going on here but this one is really too much".

[truedelphi]

353. Thank you very much for the needed "code" -

Now we can all simply type out as our explanation: YALoAGOHBTOIRTM !!" instead of going to the bother of stating:
[font color=red]"Yeah, a lot of asshattery going on here but this one is really too much".[/font color=red]

I know get tired of repeatedly typing that all out!

[hootinholler]

24. Excellent! and a question...

Thank you for all you do. I think this will go a long way to solving the stratification around here.

There are a few posters who from out here looking in, seem to get hidden by being alert stalked. How will these changes affect that? Have you considered a quality of alert input for jurors?

[annabanana]

25. works for me . . . n/t

[LostOne4Ever]

27. Awesome!

All these changes make sense and sound well thought out

Thanks for all the hard work~!

[hlthe2b]

28. Much needed changes...especially addressing the small group that "hidden posts" does not influence..

Re: Jury comments, can one still point out what seems to be a "frivolous" alert or would that be considered "abusive"?

Thanks for making these changes prior to primary time...

If you will now get most of the gun posts off GD and back into their own group, I'd be eternally grateful.

[stevenleser]

34. I can think of two people in particular who are going to

Have to alter their behavior. And it is a really good thing

[morningfog]

44. Yeah, there are a few with hidden posts on the upper teens!

This will hurt them. And it will help make DU better.

[LadyHawkAZ]

30. Skinner, EarlG, Elad...

Thank you for everything you do.

[L0oniX]

32. Of course this will not stop anyone who votes to hide on the basis of them not liking someone.

My guess is that you can't fix that.

[PowerToThePeople]

286. I agree

I have 5 hidden posts currently. Out of them, one is truly worthy of being hidden, at least in my opinion.

[brer cat]

310. I think that comes down to the integrity of the juror.

There are a very few DUers that I personally dislike. When I get a jury notice and see one of them, I excuse myself from jury duty. I know that it isn't fair to let my personal feelings bias my judgment of a particular post.

I agree with you that the admins would have a very hard time fixing that.

[Paladin]

33. Thanks for the action on abusive jurors. Appreciate it. (nt)

[CJCRANE]

35. Nice post...

Skinner!

[Cleita]

36. ...

[LittleBlue]

37. Brilliant! The disruptors will finally fear having posts hidden

[peace13]

39. Thanks for the update. n/t

[Phillyindy]

40. Censorship reflects...

...a society's lack of confidence in itself.

Just sayin'

[bluesbassman]

50. Yes and boorish behavior reflects on the individuals lack of respect for others.

There is cause and effect in the universe.

[stevenleser]

62. No, it reflects a realization that some people are the posting equivalent of Ted Bundy

And just like you wouldnt want your daughter or mother to have met up with Ted Bundy alone on a deserted highway, you wouldnt want to subject people to their anonymous internet posting equivalent.

[Phillyindy]

81. To be clear...

I have no problem deleting posts or entire accounts of people here for no other purpose than to attack others without purpose or reason, or peddle in extreme vulgarity or profanity.

But the system here produces incredible inconsistently and outright censorship where by opinions are often censored more for their message than any TOS violation.

This is evident in the way posts sharing an unpopular view, or by an "unpopular" member, are given a FAR lower censorship threshold then posts expressing popular views by a "popular" member.

This is unavoidable consequence once you go down the road of censorship.

[pipi_k]

125. Just wanted to say...

that I've never voted to hide a post based on someone's opinion or message, no matter how hard an alerter tried to plead a case for hiding.

I've seen a lot of that sort of thing. Alerters trying to shut down a discussion (or shut up someone they don't agree with) by using the jury system.

And I've been on plenty of juries where the majority also saw through that tactic.

I think no matter what method is chosen in an attempt to keep things civil, there will always be some level of inconsistency, even if one person were given the job of judging each and every post...

[Phillyindy]

151. Agreed...

...it's inheritedly flawed. That's why besides basic rules on vulgarity, profanity, and baseless personal attacks, its best to not censor at all.

But make no mistake, I've been watching this site for years, and the owner has an agenda. There are things he wants discussed, and things he doesn't. And over time I've witnessed conformity increase, a group think being created and harbored on many issues.

[Hekate]

196. LOL. "The owner has an agenda." You make it sound like a bad thing!

Seriously, dude, "The owner" (there are 3 of him) is quite successful, on the whole, and if you want to have your own site, just go for it.

[Phillyindy]

313. Strange...

...I was just commenting on the inherent flaws of the system of censorship in place on this site, I never questioned how "well" the owners do. Glen Beck makes around 50 mil a year, so...you know...

[Hekate]

358. Saying they do well means they run the site well. Any comparisons to Beck are despicable.

There is no censorship here, unless you feel it is censorship to be told you are not allowed to lie or to viciously attack others.

[Phillyindy]

371. Lol, please...

There is absolutely censorship here. You take any 2 posts that violate the TOS equally, and the one that espouses the less popular opinion will get flagged 9 times out of 10. Maybe you don't notice it, but as someone who just visits the site here and there, its unquestionably obvious.

As for the "doing well" comment, I assumed you meant it in the traditional business sense. My comparison to Beck was only meant to serve as an example that obtaining Internet success hardly equates to any kind of credibility.

[Hekate]

373. Meh. The door goes both ways.

[Phillyindy]

374. Ah, the old love it or leave it cop out.

[cyberswede]

376. I think Hekate meant that both "sides" get hidden posts...

not that you should leave. (<--friendly "hi" smiley to represent a friendly tone to my comment.)

[Phillyindy]

380. That would be false.

[cbayer]

208. Of course the owner has an agenda. It's written up succinctly in the Mission Statement. So what?

Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!
After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

[Phillyindy]

314. So maybe you should just reread my comment

[MADem]

248. You can read the Site Owners' TOP SECRET AGENDA right here!!!

I found the link!!!

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Phillyindy]

315. Congrats.

[AngryOldDem]

303. Just sayin'...

Trying to get a handle on outright assholery is not censorship. I've been here since 2004 and that has been the biggest, most obvious change here -- some people can't a point without being total dicks. It's often worse in jury comments.

While it may be the equivalent of herding cats, I don't think it's too much to try to exert some measure of civility on the boards and how they work -- i.e., the jury system.

Again...just sayin'...

[Phillyindy]

316. Agreed...

If you scroll up you can read my follow up comment which explains my point on censorship more clearly.

[Grateful for Hope]

43. Skinner

You and EarlG and Edad never cease to amaze me.

A big for all changes.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

46. Fuck that I'm alerting this!

.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

259. Damn,...beat me to it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I am expecting to have even more posts alerted

in an attempt to get them hidden. Yes, I can see how that will be abused. Mostly, it already has. It is to the point I expect THIS post to be alerted on.

Oh well, more folks will go to ignore.

As to the adds, thanks, some of us refuse to buy memberships any longer.

As to the changes in the jury system, that seems to be a change in the right direction, I will still refuse to alert or participate in it.

[Kolesar]

92. More posts alerted View profile in an attempt to get *their enemies* hidden !

I agree with you.

DU is like an overgrown tenth grade recess.

[tavalon]

335. Waiting on the world to change, huh?

I love jury service and I always sign my responses. I decline the anonymity.

I gave up ignore for DU3. I think I might have made it 2 weeks, no more. I still have few hidden and I check every once in a while to see if a spot opens up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

359. Nope, just being realistic

[CountAllVotes]

48. Abusive while performing jury service

Having been the victim of abuse from a jury service re: one of my posts, I for one am glad to see this change, especially when I know who did this as I recognized who it was by the writing.

Needless to say, I'm glad action will be taken against people that do this, people with big egos that figure they are hiding behind that curtain of being a "juror" and that no one will know who there are. I know ...

Nothing hurts more than to have "results" sent to you to find that someone is calling you hurtful names, even went so far as to threaten you, bully you, etc., especially when it is uncalled for and not an aspect of "jury service".

Needless to say, I commend this action. No one on the Democratic Underground should have to fall victim to this and I cannot tell you how horrible it can make one feel.

Shame on people that do this -- use a "jury service" to put someone down and make them feel useless as they hide behind their own ugly reality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. I wish they did something about the bullies

In the open.

That is what ignore is. Period.



I am sorry that happened to you by the way

[CountAllVotes]

82. This person is now on my ignore list

However at the time this happened said person was not on my "list" but said person is now.

I get very upset when I see a post by this person (often happens if I am not logged in) -- often posts that are "flame bait" so to speak.

The hurt never goes away and I thank you for your kind words. No one needs to be bullied and called names around here.

You make me feel like a viable "human" rather than like a piece of trash needing to be discarded which is how I felt for quite some time after this happened to me a few months ago and yes, I still have those ugly comments in my in-box and yes, I sure know how it feels.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Hugs

Here is one way to look at it, and trust me, having been on the receiving end for over a decade I get it. We have cliques, like Junior High. And the bullies are just one of the cliques. They do post flamebait. I know that. But they have, imo, protection, like the principal gave to those bullies in HS long ago.

I met after my dad died one of the chief bullies. She does not understand why I prefer not to say hi. She was not just with the cool kids, but a chief bully. And we have a similar experience here.

So here you cannot fight back, like school. Ignore rarely works, like school, so just keep going.

[CountAllVotes]

96. After your dad died!

My god that is low.

I'm sorry for you.

If someone ever said a word to me about either one of my late parents, I'd be really upset.

You are right however, these people are bullies and they are hiding or SO THEY THINK.

Very sorry to read about your late father. I hope the grief becomes less with time and that you can heal to a point. That is the very last thing you need is someone bullying you after you father passed away!

What kind of a world are we living in these days anyway?

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. She did not bully

What she did not understand was why I really had no intention of saying hi. She remembered HS as if we were the best of pals, which we were not.

[CountAllVotes]

148. Oh I see

Acting as if when there is no "if".

Luckily, I rarely run into any one that I went to HS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. Same here

I live in a different country. But Jewish communities are rather insular in places like Mexico City. Back then it was so painful that if I had staid I might have done something radical, like consider suicide.

[blue14u]

242. Hi nadinbrzinsski

I am so sorry that happened to you. I too had been vouchered in

school and beyond. Sometimes even now. I can see how thoughts

of suicide can come to mind. Take care and know I have been a visitor

here on DU for some time now, and recently signed on to join in. I have always

enjoyed reading your posts.

For the admin.. Thank you for your support in these matters. If we rid DU

of just one bully it is all worth it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

263. Hi, welcome to DU

[blue14u]

264. Thank you..

I enjoy being here.

Look forward to seeing you on DU often....

[nadinbrzezinski]

265. I intend to

[pipi_k]

389. This is why

I believe in being civil/kind to others. Sticking to issues and not getting into personal attacks.

Because we just never know what might be happening in their lives and we don't want to make the pain worse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

393. And trust me, I try

But some folks, ignore is your friend, there is no way around it

[hlthe2b]

93. ....

Sometimes one just needs to take a time out and immerse in "happy pet" talk. I certainly know the feeling...

I hope these changes will prevent incidents as you describe.

[cui bono]

199. How do you know who it was?

I've had abusive juror comments as well. If the comments had been in a regular post they would've been hidden 6-0 for sure. I have no idea who it was but I did alert on the jury results.

[CountAllVotes]

234. The style of the writing

Said person has a rather poor command of the English language. This person's lack of skills and poor writing style was familiar to me. I knew who it was ...

[dgibby]

159. I had the same experience with a juror.

Have no idea who it was, only that I was called a racist and worse. It was a very abusive attack and would have been hidden had it been posted as a response in the thread. Considering I've had only one post ever hidden and considering I'm a member of a biracial family, and would never consider posting something racist, I was very much taken aback by the vitriol. I'm very happy to see this being addressed.

[Posteritatis]

188. Considering a lot of jury comments would get nuked in the forums, I agree. (nt)

[warrant46]

346. I have seen a few of these posted ---they are disgusting

Using the F-Bombs behind anonymity, calling someone names, Bullying etc

These self righteous people are actually worse than the offending poster

[LaydeeBug]

386. This *exact* thing has happened to me and the bullying is bullshit.

it makes me think they are trying to help right wingers in some way.

I recognize some as hangers on from an entirely different forum.

Haters are gonna hate, I guess.

[WillyT]

49. Thank You !!! - K & R !!!

[LanternWaste]

51. I think being unable to post after 5 hides is a great idea.

All things being equal, I think being unable to post after 5 hides is the cat's pajamas! You should take whoever came up with that one out for a couple of drinks.

For what it's worth, DU is a pretty good place, and it's nice to see you guys constantly trying to improve it.

[Orrex]

54. These enhancements sound terrific, but what's the policy on twerking?

Thanks for all your hard work!

[stevenleser]

69. Good question! Let's see if this gets hidden...

[Dr. Strange]

405. Locking.

Please steer clear of Rule 34.

[libodem]

55. Great incentive

To mind my p's & q's. It's a horrible price to pay, to lose one's posting privledges. Worst week of my life.
I hope it works in practice as well as it sounds in theory. Kind of funny to have our behavior modified by a guy who goes by Skinner.

[tavalon]

336. Oh, my, I've been here 10 years and I never noticed that

Very amusing.

[Puzzledtraveller]

59. Excellent changes!

[Ellipsis]

60. SIG

simple is good.

[Jesus Malverde]

61. Nice updates to already innovative forum software. Thanks..nt

[hunter]

63. Thanks for all you do! I love this place.

Maybe I'll think twice about caustic jury comments before I post them, but maybe not.

[tavalon]

338. Perhaps you could consider doing what I do

I sign each one with my handle. I find I am more thoughtful and hopefully helpful that way.

[The Magistrate]

65. These Do Look Like Improvements, Sir

[Phlem]

66. Thanks Skinner

The ignore function is a godsend. I've only started using more often and being on DU has been a whole lot more pleasant.

-p

[CherokeeDem]

67. Thank you...

These are reasoned changes to the system and ones I hope will rid this board of some posters who choose to disrupt. Healthy dialog on this board has morphed too many times into childish name-calling, and disruptive comments.

Thank you for addressing these issues.

[Vanje]

70. Sounds good. nt

[Ian David]

73. Does the grace period effect rude juror comments?

Just in case some of us may have been somewhat less than diplomatic.

Or dropped F-bombs.

[dkf]

74. If you are keeping people from posting after 5 x's you should also monitor for excessive alerts.

You could be creating hit jobs or coordination of effort.

If people alert at the same rate then this is fair. If it incentivizes an effort to shut people up this could be bad.

I say this because you have now changed the "reward" for alerting.

[Kolesar]

83. Bans should be for 6/6 jury results. The haters are shotgunning their alerts and hoping for a jury

...pool with four Obama haters*. There are times when dozens of them are hanging around here.
*Pelosi haters too

[Squinch]

112. ^^^ This. Monitor for excessive and vendetta alerts by concerted groups.

[B Calm]

407. Some on here just try to see how many posts they can get deleted. It's like

they think, since someone got one of my posts deleted, I'll get who I might think alerted on me.

[Wait Wut]

75. My favorite part...

...dinging the nasty jurors.

[freshwest]

184. Yes, that may also make some people think when their hostility is exposed in comments.

I've seen some comments in juries indicating it was not the post, but the views of the posters that were being voted on. Meaning a favorite gets away with abusing other posters.

With comments like 'Yeah, it's abuse, but I won't hide what X says against Y since X is always right and Y is a jerk or wrong, whatever.'

In other words, not rating the post, not willing to argue the post on the thread, but keeping it up by alerting or making such comments as a juror. Such people are really wanting to shut down the opposing view in a poor manner.

K&R, and I'll buy my star this winter feeling better about DU.

Thanks ot Skinner and the Admins who are taking time to listen to so many posters. Awesome, guys.

[cui bono]

202. Agree wholeheartedly. n/t

[Rowdyboy]

76. Best thing you'v done since nuking META! Thanks for making this a better place

for the people who really love DU.

[madaboutharry]

77. Everything here seems like a good idea.

[FourScore]

78. Excellent changes!

Thank you for all you do!

[Ian David]

84. What percentage of hidden posts actually get a 6-0 or even a 0-6 vote?

There always seems to be at least one incredibly stupid juror, who votes against hiding because:

1) "Let's not hide this, and just let MIRT figure it out."-- No, genius. If the post isn't hidden, MIRT won't see it.

and my favorite...

2) "How can this be spam, when they only have one post?"-- Derp! It's spam because their one post is an ad for penis enlargement.

[tavalon]

340. And so the jurists on DU are just like people picked off the street for live jury duty

Some have razor sharp minds and lawyer mentality. Some like grapes.

[Ian David]

86. I'm wondering if not enough material is going to be sent to MIRT, but over-all, I like these changes

I suspect that over the next few months, you'll be tweaking some thresholds and whatnot.

Excellent work, Skinner!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

87. Oh well. What the heck? I applaud this move even though it means I'll have to tone it down.

I will just make sure and completely use up my jury blacklist and save my blistering comments up for a couple of mega posts every 90 days!

I do have one question about just how many of the over 80% with 0 hidden posted are active (greater than 1 post per week).

[tblue37]

245. I bet a lot of us 0 hidden posters are quite active. (Check my post count.)

I just don't see how it is hard to discuss various topics--or even to argue--without getting abusive.

Of course I teach college writing, and part of what students have to learn is how to conduct *reasoned* argument, without attacks and in a civil tone.

[JustAnotherGen]

88. Bumping this up

As it holds the greatest weight and from Admin.

Also - I liked how you had the 'yellow alert' when I logged on to advise us of this post -the simple click to bring us here.


This should cut down on 50 or so or even more DU'ers posting a heads up - seeing as Admin made sure to have this in our faces when we logged on.

[RC]

102. Correct. With that yellow alert, there can be no excuse for not knowing.

And while I am at it, I worry about some clique or other, ganging up on someone that isn't intimated by them, just to get 5 hidden posts.

[Aerows]

107. But if you don't violate the rules

then the jury is going to support you. That's my take on it.

[RC]

115. Most of the time.

I have been on Juries that the explanation did not really fit the post wording alerted on, in an effort to get it hidden.
Anyway, I do think this is a step or three in the correct direction.

That whatever they did about the ads, really made a difference in page loading, as in WOW! That right there makes my new Google Fiber worthwhile.

[Pab Sungenis]

129. "But if you don't violate the rules View profile then the jury is going to support you?"

LOL. Ever try to make a pro-gay post in GD?

This is up there with "if you aren't a criminal, then you shouldn't worry about the cops rooting through your underwear drawer."

[Aerows]

134. Well, you do have a point about the pro-gay posts

Unfortunately.

[Eleanors38]

179. "Gungeoneers" have to watch their steps, it's a mind field at times.

[hlthe2b]

321. with more than 600 jury turns under my belt, I'd agree, "MOST" of the time

But there are some serious exceptions where certain members or groups have been targeted by others opposed to their POV or principles. Usually half of the jurors see through it if it is blatant, but not always.

Recognizing such abusive "gang" pile-on activity is not always easy, especially for infrequent posters who serve on the juries..

[tavalon]

341. This is something I don't understand

I have a 100% chance of being on a jury. You probably do to. I've gotten to do 34 to your six hundred.

[hlthe2b]

342. Not a clue, but I do use "latest" page as a starting point...

Seems to me I recall Skinner indicating that was usually where they programmed to pull the random selection of jurors...

[JustAnotherGen]

114. I wonder how much that goes on though

I mean I had one person literally following me around on posts 'screaming online' saying: This is disruptive! This is disruptive!

All I could imagine was a shrill vicious 13 year old girl. So I put them on ignore. But before that I kept them off of serving on any juries.

There seems to be this: I'm better than you/everyone attitude if you DON'T put people on ignore. Or if you 'trash' keywords - then you are bad bad baaaaaaaaaad.

But I do those things. It's not because I'm narrow or 'terrified' of other thoughts - it is because In Real Life:

I am known for having VERY little tolerance for nonsense.

I'm not going to change that about myself at 40 years of age - so if I think someone is filled with nonsense, stupidity, has a shrill.whiney and loud 'online' voice, posts about things I'm not interested in - there ya go!

There's nothing wrong with saying: I'm not into kitten posters, never had a single one on my wall as a little girl, and never had one on my wall in my college dorm . . . guess what? Kitteh and Kittens are keywords I have trashed. Some folks love those threads and I say 'good for them'. Me - It's a waste of my time.


Ignore and blocking people from serving on juries that you KNOW have a history of online bullying, following people around, instigating nonsense - is a pretty good way to Take What You Need And Leave The Rest.


And that's something I've brought with me from my Admin/Moderating at a twelve year old site/community . . .

I've literally put that in response to the bully faction here who I don't know -are just angry to be angry and want a fight -at a get this:

A freaking web site. It's a freaking web site! :rotfl:

Take What You Need And Leave the Rest - no one will EVER hide a post because you responded to someone with that.

If you hug and tell them we have to agree to disagree - same thing.

First hand experience tells me this is so.

[Ms. Toad]

167. Well - since I am at least temporarily without a star -

I can tell you I debated whether I should click on it because it looked pretty much indistinguishable from the ads which populate that space, since I know I don't want to go wherever those ads are taking me. (Not to mention I'm pretty good at spacing out anything in places which ads normally appear.)

[SleeplessinSoCal]

95. I don't even know what a "hidden post" is.

I'd better go look for that . . .

[denbot]

97. Awwww, all my ruder sockpuppets haz a sad..

I kid, I kid..

[H2O Man]

98. Very good.

Thank you.

[steve2470]

99. Good changes and great website ! nt

[hedgehog]

103. Two years? How time flies!

Good changes!

[Aerows]

104. Sounds totally reasonable to me n/t

[malaise]

105. Excellent

Rec

[zipplewrath]

109. All very good/reasonable

You seem to be working the edges instead of trying to dive into the middle. I suspect I won't even notice much. 0.6% isn't going to be even detectible to me. I appreciate your incremental approach to most changes/improvements. Although I echo the calls for trying to detect over zealous alerts, I would probably say do it "next". I think these changes reasonably should be enacted first and then see where things go with alert activity. It's always possible that your work with abusive jurors may reduce the alert activity of many members.

[City Lights]

110. Sounds good to me.

You Admin fellas are doing a great job!

[LiberalLoner]

111. Thank you so much for making this an awesome place

[rhett o rick]

120. I second that comment. nm

[GeorgeGist]

116. Good work and Thank You.

[Warren Stupidity]

118. given the severity of 5 hides

will there be admin reviews of dubious jury results?

For example, a well known and beloved poster here writes wonderful tongue in cheek essays as "Third Way Manny", and as we all know, a jury of the apparently clueless recently hid one of these essays. The jury did the wrong thing, and now there are real penalties for wrong juries.

[quinnox]

136. Good idea, either that or there should be some new penalty for frivolous alerts

I don't think the 6-0 penalty of losing alerts is good enough any longer under this new system. They should lose their alerting privileges for a period of time, if they lose on their alerts say, 4 or 5 times in a row. That way, it would discourage frivolous alerting or alert stalking.

Or your idea is good too, where bad jury results could be appealed. I think I like that better. You would get a certain amount of limited appeals, say, one a week, for example, if you thought your jury hide was off base. Then, admins could reverse the hide, if they thought it merited it. Of course, this would result in a lot more work for admins. So, another way could be the appeal would get you 6 new jurors and your hidden post would be re-judged in the jury pool. That way, your hidden post would have to be hidden twice when you used an appeal.

Edited many times to fix errors, because I just woke up, and can barely put words together.

[cherokeeprogressive]

122. You should double the number of entries on the jury blacklist as well.

That would cut down on the number of clique-based hides.

[Hydra]

126. Thank you for these updates Skinner and Co!

I especially like the 5 posts in 90 days rule. Even though I worry about how this could be used as a pile on tactic(alert on a person until it sticks 5 times), in current practice this should affect the people it needs to to cut down the noise. Also, I figure if someone alert stalks someone else here on the site enough, you'll notice it.

[BumRushDaShow]

127. Huzzah!

[quinnox]

128. I like it. Sounds like the small percentage of duers who would brag about their hidden posts

won't be so happy to get them anymore. Now that there is some teeth in the system.

But, I think alerts should be monitored, and I'm glad admins will be able to see all alerts. Because I can see some potential for abuse as others have mentioned, where factions or small groups who don't like a particuler duer could alert stalk them, in an attempt to put them over the 5 hidden post limit.

I know how to post without getting posts hidden, but I still have seen some questionable hides. But I have not got many posts hidden, maybe around 5 or so ever since DU 3 went online. But duers who are not so careful as me, I can see how factions could try and alert stalk them and try to get them to lose their posting privileges temporarily.

[IdaBriggs]

130. Q: Is there anyway to prevent the "group gang-ups" that happen sometimes?

We have (what I would like to believe is) a small number of posters who seem to have long running "personal vendettas" against other folks here.

I would like to believe that it becomes apparent pretty quickly with alert stats, but in some cases I know there are "ignores" going on at least on one side, with the "baiters" still playing the games.

At one point I suggested "ignore" become an automatic "mutual" thing to decrease the visible acrimony.

Are the "always alerts on a specific poster" stats ever looked at if someone complains about being "stalked"?

Also, how do Admins learn about "abusive juries" - should victims forward to the Admins?

Thanks in advance - and for the record, LOVE these changes!

[MannyGoldstein]

131. Some juries feel that calling a poster a "ratfucker" is OK.

I was called a "ratfucker" a few months back, which a jury allowed 4-2. I'll be happy to post or send the link if you'd like, but won't do it now as it might cause trouble.

While I believe that these changes are generally quite good, the ratfucker post underscores two problem, I think:

First, I think we're in agreement that calling one-another ratfuckers, along with the other personal attacks that show up from time to time, is simply wrong and shouldn't happen. We should attack ideas, not people, of course.

Second, it points to the "scatter" present in the DU jury system - I'm confident that most juries would have hidden the ratfucker post above, but occasionally there's a jury that deviates substantially from "typical". Many folks seem to feel that this scatter caused one big hullabaloo on Sunday night, as you're likely aware.

Because of this scatter, under the new rules it's reasonably easy to game the system - let's just alert on anything we don't like, and occasionally we'll get it hidden. Unless there's a significant penalty for this type of behavior, I fear that this will become an issue. For example, a user's profile could show the percentage of their alerts that have been successful, and/or the percentage of jury votes that agreed with their alerts.

As always, thanks for providing this forum for ideas and discourse. I realize that it's really difficult to do a good job at what you do, but you guys manage to do a darned good job.

[rhett o rick]

163. Also, I have seen individuals targeted for attack. Some have survived

and others have not. There should be a way to figure out if someone is being targeted. Maybe an appeal system if you get the 5 in 90.

[Kolesar]

172. If 100 Tories or 100 Larouchies showed up to *disrupt* the Democratic forum with half-truths

Then we should object and label them as such, too.

I never saw that thread, btw.

[Grateful for Hope]

178. No matter how 'popular' you might be or how 'popular' you see yourself

I am very confident the admins know what they are doing.

For the most part, members alert because they find a post offensive even if it is couched in 'humor'.

[MyNameGoesHere]

132. If it seems harsh...

Then you go on to state how it really isn't the end of the world and most folks, really almost all color within the lines. Isn't that like the voter fraud stats the other side uses to violate voter rights?

[redstatebluegirl]

133. Looks good to me

Maybe it will make some of the nasty personal posts I have seen in juries stop. That would be a huge plus!

[liberal N proud]

135. Looks like positive steps.

[HappyMe]

137. These changes sound good to me.

[hibbing]

138. Thanks Skinner and DU Team!

Hi,
These changes seem like a very good idea. I only add a bit if snark when the alerts are really weak to begin with.

Peace

[yuiyoshida]

139. outstanding!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

140. I am the 86%!

[RevStPatrick]

142. "The administrators are getting increasingly concerned about the small number of members...

...who repeatedly post rude juror comments while serving on juries."

OK, I'm sorry.
I'll stop!

Usually aimed at lame alerters.
I won't do that anymore, because most of the time I like serving on juries.
But I have been rude on a number of occasions...

Otherwise, I probably won't really even notice the changes.
Keep up the good work!!!

[finecraft]

143. Thanks all. It's a good improvement. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

144. I don't have a problem with the 5 post rule, as long as....

....alerters start getting held to a higher standard as well. There are people out there who are just alerting for the hell of it, because they dislike a poster and because they dislike a group. It has really ramped up recently. I understand there is a rule that if you lose an alert 0-6 you get banned from alerting for 24 (or is it 48?) hours, but that's a slap on the wrist. Especially when you can wait two days to hold your grudge as a few here do.

Just a thought, thanks for all you do.

[rppper]

145. I'm a "low post" DU veteran....

2600 or 2700 since 2001 when it all started...I'm a reader....I watch what others say, getting news from here and occasionally posting when I feel the need....I just don't want to be mistaken as some sleeper cell freeper or troll....I've been a dem since Reagan made ketchup a vegetable!

[pacalo]

216. It's the low-count posters who post unnecessary rude comments that draw attention.

Those who resort to name-calling to make a point are the ones who will be alerted on.

Concentrate on making good-faith comments/arguments when you post & you'll be fine.

[Taverner]

146. "STARTING 90 DAYS FROM TODAY, if you have five hidden posts on your account you will be unable..."

I have concerns with this, as there seems to be certain DUers who goad others int getting their posts alerted on. It's trolling, and DU has had its share of trolls doing this.

[dipsydoodle]

149. The answer is to not bite

and just keep your lip buttoned - for the time being anyway.

[Taverner]

150. Sometimes that is not so easy

Especially when you get trolls posting outright bullshit

[dipsydoodle]

153. They feed on responses.

So starve the fuckers.

[laserhaas]

228. On this I concur dipsydoodle. To handle ignorance - IGNORE it

But, I must say, it is "Extremely" hard some times.

Trolling (ad hominem attacks) - invariably nixes discussion. We are here to get people involved more and stay involved more. I'm a victim of organized crimes of Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital benefiting from federal venality.

They count on time and trolling to keep the truth hidden in darkness.

Please put yourself in my shoes. You need not even pay attention to hard facts (such as my daughter was kidnapped - or my life savings/their inheritance stolen) - JUST say you are a victim of a bank robbery. Your here discussing the case and how the cops laughed at you when you first reported such.

A troll pretending to be one of the realm, asking what "appears" to be relevant questions, while hinting that you are CT or nutjob - is GUT Wrenching to a victim such as I.

Keeping silent, biting your lip - is asking MUCH more than you realize.

Especially when everyone's silence can be misconstrued as believing the troll party.

Of this kind of stuff, I'm an expert vitness of the abusiveness of bad faith parties

[nadinbrzezinski]

231. No they don't

I have a few of the swarm on ignore. Go look at the site in all it's incognito glory.

Mutual ignore should be automatic.

[defacto7]

293. Nadine, I just took the plunge just now....

I deleted my entire ignore list to see how the new system affects me personally. It just may give a reasonable sample of the changes this overhaul brings us.

Wish me luck. There will either be improvement or the ignore feature will just go back into effect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

300. Good luck

Mine will remain where they are for as long as I am still a member.

[Nye Bevan]

173. Try clever, biting sarcasm, as opposed to a lot of profanity and troll accusations.

More effective, and never gets hidden.

[cui bono]

204. Just keep asking them questions about their position and stay on topic.

If they have no desire to engage in real discourse they will stop replying.

[Eleanors38]

183. Buttoned lips is a survival art in the Gungeon.

[laserhaas]

225. I concur. And as much as I adore dipsy, I take some issue with "not bite"

Last few months our eToys case has received more press than in the last we have in the last decade plus. (Fraud began by Goldman Sachs in 1999 and compounded by Bain Capital 2001).

At other realms, the trolls follow me and kill the conversation with "ad hominem" attacks massive.

In a few weeks, I'm suing Mitt personally. As Pittens owns Clear Channel 800 stations, 100 million in listeners, with shows like Limbaugh, Hannity & Beck - the trolls will be out in legions (especially when they make up crap like someone had sex with Bambi in Transylvania).

With this extra effort to purge the realm of bad faith intent, we must be due diligent of the matter and make sure we don't get Rove'd or Boehnered with subterfuge nefarious.

An elite committee of the most trusted, who has the time - and will take the time - to be prudent; would be extremely good form. (Sort of like a Circuit Court approval or overrule).

Keep up the good works..

and great insights guys & gals.

[kestrel91316]

147. Excellent policy changes all around.

[nolabear]

152. Most excellent. This should improve things considerably. THanks!

[myrna minx]

155. Thanks. K&R n/t

[DontTreadOnMe]

156. The alert system has been broken for awhile, good to see this change

I was starting to take pride in my "hidden posts"... take a look at this example:

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: 6 posts hidden by DontTreadOnMe within the past 90 days, so I didn't even bother examining the context of this one.

[whopis01]

194. Well Juror #4's response is now going to be the automatic response of the system. n/t

[zeemike]

158. Thanks for trying to improve this place...I have a question.

Is it possible for one person to have multiple accounts and have multiple browsers open at one time?...and is there any way to detect this?

I am not savvy with the IT stuff but I have wondered sometimes whether there are one person posting by multiple persona's at the same time...and if so they can cause a lot of trouble and possible control the jury system to some extent.

[Rhiannon12866]

160. K&R! And apparently three other members recced this at the exact same time I did.

Thanks, Skinner! (Except for retiring Otto... )

[juajen]

161. Thank you guys. You take great care of this wonderful forum.

[Stinky The Clown]

165. Good stuff!

[MissDeeds]

166. Good ideas

K&R

[Ohio Joe]

168. Excellent

I really like how you guys continue to work on how DU3 works. Well done

[hopemountain]

170. awesome....and, thank you.

[DireStrike]

174. Sounds good to me, as long as the 5 posts rule is subject to appeal.

Maybe even democratic appeal where a super-jury of say, 100 people would get to review the whole situation. Or the whole thing made public and a variety of options available to vote on.

It might be unnecessary as I don't have the stats to look at, though. 5 sounds like a small number, but I've never even had a single post submitted for jury review.

[orpupilofnature57]

175. Thank you .

[AAO]

177. Great ideas all the way around.

[Phentex]

182. There may be only a small number of over 5 hiders but

when they go on a rampage, this should help. I often think they are trying to flame out!

[Solly Mack]

185. ...

[pscot]

190. Evolve

[OmahaBlueDog]

193. Name Change Amnesty

(note that this has nothing to do with the changes you've rolled out; I'd just like you to hold one)

I will endeavor to stop cussing during jury service, and post less hide-worthy stuff. These changes seem remarkably sensible, all things considered.....

[penultimate]

195. The jury/moderation system here is one of the best ones I've seen...

I copied more than a few of your ideas for some of my things...

[eppur_se_muova]

198. Oh, sure, demonize the 1/2 of 1 per cent !

[WilliamPitt]

200. I have, at times, been a dick while on Jury Duty.

Message received.

I agree and endorse all of this. Very excited to see it implemented.

[mgcgulfcoast]

201. i enjoy serving on the jury

its an honor

[Amerigo Vespucci]

206. No TOS check box? The Neidermeyer / Marmalard faction of DU won't like that at all.

In many ways, "The Jury System" is synonymous with "The Weasel System."

I'm not questioning the need to keep order. I'm questioning the weasels who get to be jury members and do things like click the "TOS" box without having any idea what's actually in the TOS. It violates THEIR little sense of order so they just raise their hand and go "OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! OOOH!" until teacher calls in them. I didn't like those kids in the third grade, I like them even less as "adults."

[Pale Blue Dot]

223. Somehow I suspect

that this type of post is exactly what the admins are trying to keep to a minimum.

[hlthe2b]

345. Ya think?!

One only has to pause a few seconds to see a "case-in-point" it seems.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

207. I'm certainly down with these rules

[walkerbait41]

209. That all sounds fine with us

Thank you

[progressoid]

210. Nice post Hitler.

[laserhaas]

212. Appreciate the wonderful good faith attention to detail.

Changing the auto notice is a great thing.

Keeping jury comments in check a GREAT thing.
(suggest a limit on number of words. Maybe not the 160 of Twitter; but 3 or 500)
{NOTE: I'm guilty of being verbose myself}.

Yours truly is all over the realms in a campaign to stop RWNJ tyranny;
and I can tell you - without a doubt - DU is the BEST system out here for Progressiveness.

Please Keep UP the great works;
and I'm glad to see such due diligence to a troubling matter.

[emulatorloo]

215. Thanks for striving to make this forum a better place.

These are very good changes. Thanks to you and all the admins.

[Pale Blue Dot]

217. I think these are all good changes.

Thank you!

[David__77]

219. Good changes - thank you.

...

[Trekologer]

220. I've served on several juries where the post was reported due to disagreeing with it

Not because the post was rude, or disruptive, or any of the enumerated reasons in the community standards but instead because the individual reporting the post simply didn't agree with the content, either explicitly or by inferring a double meaning that doesn't seem to exist. I'm concerned that the jury system is being used (abused) by a subset of users not to uphold community standards but instead as a form of censorship.

Are the reporters bring tracked somehow? Perhaps to identify who might be crying wolf?

[TexasProgresive]

221. Sounds like an improvement

New accounts should have to see this before their account is active.

[pacalo]

222. K&R.

For any opposing groups who may read this, please use "trash this thread" much more often, rather than responding in an angry way.

[westerebus]

224. Fine.

NOW GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!!!!!!!!!!!

[Duckhunter935]

227. Thank you

I agree with the changes and hope they work

[Robb]

230. I like it. To keep it positive

...you should give us perhaps the option of displaying how many days we've gone without a hidden post -- sort of like that "-- days since an accident" stuff we used to have in the shop.

[DrewFlorida]

232. Seems reasonable and sensible, keep up the good work!

[RKP5637]

233. Glad to see this happening !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Patriot 76]

236. K & R

Sounds good.

[PatrynXX]

237. Miss DU2 with a passion

still no appeal service here. so I'll continue to ignore the other side. Primarily rarely posting.. Gave up on DU2 once it became a ghost house. zzzz

[Common Sense Party]

238. HIDE MY POST RIGHT NOW!!!

Just kidding. I only PRETEND to live on the edge.

[tavalon]

343. Duzy

I hope you have been here long enough to know what you just referenced, I think you do.

[Common Sense Party]

351. Yep. I ca't remember the name...Walt something?

"Ban me right f***ing now!"

"Okay."

[hlthe2b]

357. Walt Starr....

a legendary departure...

[Common Sense Party]

383. Yes.

I remembered the last name about 20 minutes after I posted and walked away from the 'puter. That was rather epic.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

239. it would be great if all websites were as well done as DU.

you guys really are exceptional. In my completely unhumble opinion!

[Baclava]

241. 5 hidden posts? so if everybody loves me, I'm safe?

good to know, thanks

[rhett o rick]

250. I suggest that if 5 hides causes you to lose posting privileges, you still should be

able to post to ATA. I greatly appreciate all the Admin's efforts to make this place work fairly.

[Cryptoad]

251. Well it proves one thing!

Assholes have no party affiliations!

[Zorra]

253. Alerting.

[Marrah_G]

255. THANK YOU!!!!

Especially love the part about suspensions.

[Daemonaquila]

258. I'm really impressed.

This is the most reasonable, adult set of rule changes I've seen to date. There has been a lot of bullying on DU, specifically with people screaming at others about TOS violations. Good job.

[D23MIURG23]

260. Kudos. Looks like sensible stuff to me. n/t

[blue14u]

262. Thank you Skinner

Improvement is always appreciated!!!

[RoccoR5955]

267. Thanks Skinner, and the rest of the admins

You have been doing a phenomenal job!
Thanks for this place.
I, for one, need it.

[NBachers]

270. All this sounds reasonable, and I can live with it.

I know changes like this do not come lightly, or without lengthy consideration. Thanks for all the hard work that's done keeping my online home alive and kickin'.

[Botany]

271. I promise no more Skinner Box jokes .... no pizzas for me

[Bjorn Against]

272. I generally think these rules are very reasonable, I do caution on one thing however

I do worry that if people know they can automatically get someone banned from the site for a period of time they may abuse the alert system and alert excessively in the hopes that a few of those alerts will be successful. Most of the hides on this site are justifiable, but I have certainly seen some bad hides as well and I worry the number of bad hides will increase if people think they have an opportunity to get rid of a person they don't like.

Overall I think this is a good idea, but I think safeguards also need to be put in place to prevent abuse.

[MrMickeysMom]

273. This sounds like a move in the right direction...

You know, when commenting on jury, you DO get the sense that you can either yell at the lousy so-and-so for alerting something they shouldn't have, or the commenter that got alerted. If you just think a little bit longer about it, you keep yourself from being lured into your own rudeness.

[Bobbie Jo]

274. Thank you!

Much needed.

[dkf]

275. How's about letting a jury member alert on an alert?

Frankly I am very concerned this is going to be abused.

If we can add checks on abuse of alerts I could be more wholeheartedly supportive.

[hrmjustin]

277. You can alert on jury results. Look at the bottom of the reslts and you will see the alert button.

[dkf]

282. Thanks but I'm more concerned about abusive alerters.

If you try often enough there is a chance you could get lucky. That shouldn't be the way this works.

[hrmjustin]

283. Well I am on Mirt and a host of several rooms and I can tell you things have gone downhill very

fast here. I am sure you have seen it. I understand the actions of the admins, and I hope it works.

As for jury alerts I think the admins are making clear that they are going to go after people who abuse the system. And they know who that is. People need to alert where there is abuse of the system.

[dkf]

284. Thanks. I bet they've already discussed this.

We are just not privy to it all.

Although I do wish there were more warnings on the downside of nuisance alerts in this announcement. That may nip it in the bud.

So are you saying admin WANTS more alerts?

[hrmjustin]

285. Mirt was alerted the same time the rest of DU was about this What I am saying is if you see

people abusing the jury system then the admins want you to alert on that. They are going to deal with this. You will notice on your profile there is a new addition that says eligible to serve. If a person gets caught abusing the system the admins will not allow them to sit on juries.

They read all the juries that come through but that is a lot to read so if you can send an alert that says this is clearly abuse that will more likely catch the abuse. I do not know if they want more alerts but they do want to end jury abuse.

[pam4water]

280. Sounds like censorship to me.

[stevenleser]

332. You can start an anything goes discussion forum really easily. And I will bet it will be a hit

nothing of substance will end up being discussed, but there will be a lot of posts I'm sure.

[hrmjustin]

287. Just realized 90 days from now is Christmas.

[PowerToThePeople]

288. Instead of 5 in 90 days, why not a % threshold?

If you have 5 of 10 or 50 posts hidden, that is bad. If 5 of 1000s how bad is it really?

You are putting the more active posters at a disadvantage with this system.

edit- but then a % threshold puts non-frivolous posters at a disadvantage to people who post "nothing posts" or who may hang in the lounge all day (not that there is anything wrong with that). It is tough...

[Marrah_G]

289. It's really not that difficult to not get a post hidden

You just have to think before you hit post.

[PowerToThePeople]

292. several of my hidden posts

are just flames. They are in response to flame bait OPs. Why should I get hidden for giving the OP exactly what they were looking for?

see these examples:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3599242 (flame response to flame bait OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3502100 (slight jab at vote 3rd way or support repukes post- after, other posters stated that I would be getting some pizza. Very nice of them...)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3479259 (Stating my opinion. Did not call any specific poster out)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1102&pid=13785 (honest response to OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3463021 (childish?-yes, reason to hide?- nah)

None of these 5 posts were worthy of being hidden. But, there you go, they were hidden.

[Marrah_G]

295. Perhaps in time you will figure out not to take the bait

Before there was really no reason to try not to get posts hidden. Maybe now people will think about it more before they reply to someone who makes them angry.

[PowerToThePeople]

296. The burden is placed on the wrong people then.

Last edited Thu Sep 26, 2013, 07:16 AM - Edit history (1)

I know that is "the way we do things." Protesters get the burden of remaining passive in the face of extremely aggressive policing. Voters stand in extreme long lines in face of targeted voter suppression in certain districts. I am sure there are other examples.

I am just claiming that this whole idea is backwards. The burden needs to be placed on the aggressors, not those responding to the aggression.

edit - psychologically, this may have to do with "the power of the martyr" or the turn the other cheek philosophy of some religious groups. It is backwards.

[nadinbrzezinski]

301. That ain't gonna change here

People think it's just dandy.

My ignore list will just continue to grow. And I assume every post, yes, even this one, will be alerted.

I am not paranoid, the swarm will abuse this too, like everything else. I suggest you take the same high road and just do that.

[PowerToThePeople]

306. I hate to have to have an ignore list.

It limits my view of DU. I want to see it all. If I can not, it could be rotting out from under me without my knowledge. I need to see all of the garbage. I need to be able to call a spade a spade if needed. I need to be able to show people the errors in certain other poster's postings. All is not good on DU. There ARE people out to misdirect and sometimes just outright troll. There are people looking to shape DUs message into one that I do not approve of. There are times when trolls and rw plants do survive long enough to appear to be legitimate posters.

In dropping out of the full discussion, the "interactive" part of the inter(active)net goes away. It becomes an echo chamber of what I already believe. It becomes a harm to me instead of a benefit. If I have to resort to using an ignore list to keep my posting privileges here, I may just need to move on to new things.

Thank you for the response. You are one of the people who understands.

[nadinbrzezinski]

307. Yeah, buy a few will goad you

Until you are banned. That's their objective, now made way too easy.

So an echo chamber it is. This is the mirror of FR in some ways, and becoming more so every day. As to message control, it is what it is.

[tavalon]

325. Sometimes stepping away from the computer and denying those people what they want

is the better part of valor. It's hard, when someone on the internet is wrong, but someone always is. Let it be the other guy. (hey, save this post and throw it back to me when I get bristly - I'm great at giving advice that I don't take).

[Nye Bevan]

331. "Obamabots' love of GWB's warmongering" is "not worthy of being hidden"?

For starters, the term "Obamabot" is insulting. And to go beyond that and suggest that those who like President Obama also "love GWB's warmongering" is beyond insulting. I would have certainly voted to hide.

Under the new system you will need to be a little more measured in your responses if you want to be able to keep posting.

[PowerToThePeople]

349. Not worthy of being hidden.

Last edited Thu Sep 26, 2013, 11:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Did I call anyone by that name? No. Was any DU member personally attacked? No. That post is just as valid as the (literally) 100s of "Paulbot" posts from the other camp that have been allowed to stand. It is censorship and targeted message suppression.

[Bobbie Jo]

364. Agreed

Passive aggressive insults are still insults, the intent is the same.

A weasely form of attack, IMO.....

[pintobean]

370. You seem to have left one out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3379677

Hmmmm.

[PowerToThePeople]

372. Because, that one did deserve to be hidden

I knew it when I posted it. But, violent gun nuts deserve no better treatment. The anger against them is warranted imo.

[pintobean]

378. Keep up the good work. /nt

[Kaleva]

368. I've had 1 post hidden so far and I went out of my way to get that.

And that was early summer of last year.

[Hekate]

290. Good on you -- this should help. Can we look forward to a few more as Primary season approaches?

[Marrah_G]

297. I am not looking forward to the primaries

2008 primaries were awful here.

[Vanje]

377. There was a special, GD forum for primaries.

That was good. It kept a lot of animosity contained.
I NEVER looked at the primary forum. It was too horrible!

[cyberswede]

382. I agree 100%

[defacto7]

291. Great ideas and I hope there are improvements

in the ranks forthwith.

In celebration of the new system overhaul, I hereby grant a complete pardon with amnesty to everyone I have put on ignore. Well, almost everyone. It may be a way for me to see what differences the new rules and jury management actually makes on my particular experience. It may be a good test... so here goes.

--- POOF --- All but 5 are off ignore.

Now I shall patiently wait for all hell to break loose. O, what have I done?

[spooky3]

294. Thanks for addressing juror rudeness.

It usually goes hand-in-hand with cluelessness and/or trolling.

Several jurors have tossed in gratuitous insults along with their "leave it" votes, on my alerts that have gone 5-1 to hide, or have resulted in banning of the poster on whose posts I have alerted. It's annoying.

[Deuce]

299. Thanks for the update...

[Ghost Dog]

302. Yeah, hi!

Thank you very much.

Seriously.

[AngryOldDem]

304. Just this:

[oxymoron]

305. Love this! Thank you, Skinner!

[Sheldon Cooper]

308. While I applaud any efforts to improve this website, there are other issues that should be addressed

as well. I would appreciate if you would take a look at the vicious and personal insults contained in many alerts, the most egregious being the following:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

What is misandrist crap such as this doing on the Home page where any visitor can click on it. Redqueen is well known for her anti-male screeds and belittling of the male gender. OP's like this on the Home page makes DU look bad to any visitor that may click on her posts, should they make it to the Home page. I can imagine the uproar if someone posted an equivalent anti-woman OP equivalent to this. Redqueen would be front and center screaming misogyny.
The Redqueen was gone for over a month and DU settled down to something resembling civilized. Well, she is back to her old tricks of shit stirring for stirrings sake.
Yeah, I know I can Trash this thread, but what about visitors that are not members? What are they to think?

The person who wrote this has some clear 'issues' that they need to deal with, but I don't believe that the rest of us should have to tolerate them. What are your plans for addressing this sort of thing?

[hlthe2b]

319. ^^This is a clear example of "targeting a poster and a group^^

I note that other groups/group "regular" posters have likewise been targeted by abusive alerters--presumably seeking some since of misplaced "vengeance" for past squabbles or deep seated "issues".... But, the example above is not isolated.

I hope that admins will take a look at this.

[distantearlywarning]

309. Sounds Like A Good Plan

I particularly like the 5-hidden-posts rule.

[carolinayellowdog]

312. Bullying by jurors ideologically aligned with bullies who attack without consequences

has been a huge disincentive to alerting on anything, knowing that a certain crowd will not only justify all its members' abusiveness toward the rest of in this pseudonymous world; they will also make scathing anonymous remarks to anyone who alerts on their abuse

[Phillyindy]

317. ^ THIS

[Autumn]

318. Good. I think this is going to work.

[ColesCountyDem]

320. Excellent tweaks!

I've served on a few juries and have voted to both 'leave it alone' and 'hide it. When I do comment, it is normally one dealing with 'incivility'; in other words, I may have voted to hide the post NOT because I didn't personally agree with the argument or position, but simply because the poster seemed to be going out of their way to rude and/or uncivil.

Civility still matters.

[Bobbie Jo]

322. On another note....

Your message certainly wasn't lost on me. Although I don't have any hidden posts, and have never had an exposed transparency page, I will readily admit to my abrasive tendencies.

However, looking at the responses in this thread, there are still a few posters who still seem completely oblivious to how their behavior contributes to the problem, and even go as far as to cast themselves in the role of the "innocent victim."

While I look forward to the changes, in all honesty I am somewhat pessimistic after having read some of these posts.

That said, message received here.

[Turborama]

363. !

[Bobbie Jo]

366. !

Right?

[Turborama]

369. Yes indeedy!

Oh, and also...

[Yuugal]

323. Thank You!

I think these changes will help make DU a more civil place. I just gave amnesty to about 250 people on my ignore list and re-upped my star. A fresh start for all.

[tavalon]

324. Now, I get why DU was running so slow yesterday

You people are just awesome. You are managing a herd of unruly cats who are determined to be heard and you just keep doing it with style. And when something starts not working, you try something else. I would think that you would be exhausted by now and yet, you just keep going.

And on a not completely unrelated note:

Quite a while ago, I made a personal decision to sign my jury notes with my handle. It helped me to be thoughtful and give reasonable explanations because after all, I chose not to be anonymous. I don't think that should be implemented as a rule by any means, but I offer it up to my fellow DUers. I have had a number of people choose to follow my lead.

[lunatica]

329. thanks Skinner

[Hutzpa]

339. Can I alert on this thread

just to to see if the functions are working real good?

[CreekDog]

350. But I like Trumad!

[winter is coming]

352. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

[Capt. Obvious]

367. i like cjeekdgg

[samsingh]

354. this seems like a reasonable thing to do.

[Kingofalldems]

355. What is considered abusive language in jury comments?

[Politicub]

356. Thanks for the transparency

Sounds like some good changes!

[name not needed]

360. And the failed experiment continues.

Congratulations, Skinner. You've given the alert trolls exactly what they wanted. Now I remember why I stopped donating.

[Nye Bevan]

379. The best way to handle the "alert trolls"

is to not give them an excuse to alert on you.

[IrishAyes]

361. Thank you

Not only are abusive posters personally hurtful, a large contingent of them can cause important site stats to fall - and that's bad for everyone.

I personally consider your new terms abundantly generous. Should you feel the need to tighten them in the future, you'll get no guff from me.

[bobGandolf]

365. Excellent Administrators

Your ability to run a site like this is astounding! It amazes me how well you manage such a diverse group of people with minimal intrusion.
I can see an active member getting one, maybe two, hidden posts in a six month time frame, and would have absolutely no sympathy for a member who managed to get five in 90 days. If anything, I believe the policy is too lenient, but that's one of the characteristics I like about your management style. You bend over backwards to give the 'benefit of the doubt' to those who have broken a rule.
Thank you for the outstanding job you do running this place!

[NMDemDist2]

375. ***** possible bug *********

i accidentally hit 'alert' on my own post trying to get back to the top and wasn't able to cancel out of the alert

i'll test it again on this post

[Chemisse]

381. All very good ideas!

I really like the 5 hidden posts in 90 days clause. I think it could really help.

[Divine Discontent]

384. hi guy...

gj!

[47of74]

385. How about building a court of appeals into the process?

I've found that there are many times where the juries do get it right, but there are also times where jurors get it wrong. Either unintentionally or intentionally they allow posts to stand or be hidden due to their own biases. Maybe build a court of appeals process in so that if the alerter or the person who had their post hidden can appeal the process, and build mechanisms into to prevent abuse of that process.

[redgreenandblue]

387. Great changes.

If you ask me, the grace period is quite generous. My observation is that less than 5% of the people here generate more than 95% of the incivility, and shutting them up can't come soon enough, but I do understand that a grace period may be a smarter thing to do.

[nolabels]

388. I am amazed that DU is still online with all the attacks it's had over the years

Thanks you Mr. Skinner for being that measured tough guy that everyone likes

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

391. Thank you,

well said........................

[santamargarita]

392. It's hard to believe DU3 is 2 years old. Thanks for the had work.

[fascisthunter]

400. Well done, Skinner!

[lovuian]

401. I like it

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

402. So it's going back to moderating?

We are making some changes to the moderating/jury system. (THIS IS IMPORTANT.)

[David Zephyr]

403. Excellent. Excellent. Excellent.

K&R. This all makes sense and enhances the quality of the community. Totally support this.

[Capt. Obvious]

404. I just had a 6-0 hide lead to a troll ban

Though it was almost 5-1, and the now deceased had more than 100 posts.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
Mail Message
At Tue Oct 8, 2013, 03:27 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Can, will, and don't care
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3808043

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

YOUR COMMENTS:

Disrespectful. Piss off was a really nice touch.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Oct 8, 2013, 03:49 PM, and voted 6-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Sounds like a troll to me, mocking and derailing. Not to mention how contemptuous he seems of DU-ers. It speaks volumes about his intentions here.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: This kind of post makes DU suck. Time to hide. And maybe time for MIRT as well.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I think the response was appropriate given the elitist jab before it. But I am a man of principle and I've always said that personal insults should not be tolerated on DU. Sorry, telclaven.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: This is a DISCUSSION board! If you are having a disagreement with someone, then try to persuade them to see your point. Don't just make a statement and then when it's challenged tell the other person to "piss off."

Thank you.