Do you like the new jury system?

[trof]

37 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	1. Yes
	8 (22%)
	2. No
	29 (78%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[UTUSN]

1. Undecided. Only had 1 to date, it's sort of bare and spare. But after DU1 when I

thought don't-fix-what's-not-broken, I have embraced all the innovations. I don't use most of the site's features and groups, just GD and Lounge, and there was only one feature of the past that I really really disliked but that one has been long gone. So I'm sure I will get along with this.

[trof]

2. I don't think I'm allowed to reply.

[UTUSN]

17. I'm missing some info here: not "allowed to reply" - be*CAUSE*?!1

Not allowed to reply to *my* post? To the poll? To whom/what/why?!1

[trof]

33. Since the changeover it seems that I get into trouble...

every time I question anything or express an opinion.
I think I'll just lurk for a while.

[UTUSN]

35. meh, you have one of the all time familiar DU handle/names so must not be that much trouble!1 n/t

[femmocrat]

3. Not really. I need more context to make better assessments.

BTW. Did anyone get a text box at the end asking if the alerter's intentions were sincere---- or something like that? I thought it was kind of creepy as we are given so little information and then are asked to interpret someone's motives???

I have done 2-3 juries a day and have only seen that once. What is it for?

[trof]

4. Je ne sais pas.

[MH1]

7. I did not see anything like that. Maybe it depends on what rule is selected?

In the two juries I did there was just the box stating the rule and asking if I was willing to enforce it, then the one with the post and the 4 options.

I was able to expand the posts leading to the alerted post and felt that was context enough in the two cases I had. Maybe once I do a few more I'll see some where I share your issue. It does seem possible that the context could be insufficient. But I think in that case you just go with your gut based on what you can see.

Both of my cases so far were "close, but ..." One went one way, one the other. I took some time deciding, but oddly, afterward I decided I was definitely right in my choice.

[2theleft]

8. I didn't see where I could expand posts leading to the alert.

I will have to look more closely.

I kind of like the new system and kind of not. If I can see more of the back and forth before the alert, I will like it. Is easier and I especially like that poster's names are hidden.

[MH1]

9. Yes, it shows the op and the posts leading to it, collapsed.

You can click on something to expand each one.

I remember on my first one I didn't know this and I was just staring at it thinking, how the hell can I judge this post if this is all I see? Then I decided to try expanding the prior posts, and that worked, and after I expanded everything, I felt it was enough context.

[2theleft]

10. Thank you! That will help a lot. n/t

[kentauros]

23. However, if it's an OP, there's nothing to expand.

My very first jury summons was for an OP that was supposedly posted in the wrong group. It seemed pretty innocuous in content, and I had no idea what group it was in. Thus, I voted to leave it alone as it would have been welcomed in the Lounge without issue, and because I was perplexed as to how to decide on something with so little information up front.

[MH1]

38. I think Skinner addressed that in an ATA post.

If the alert is for "posted in the wrong group" it's supposed to go to group hosts, not a jury. So you shouldn't have gotten that one in the first place.

[kentauros]

43. I don't read the ATA, so it's not something I would have known.

Plus, I am a group host, but that particular OP wasn't for my group.

[riderinthestorm]

50. I specifically asked that question and Skinner insisted knowing the group wasn't important

And that enough context was provided to judge.

I firmly disagree.

The lack of context is impossible. I took the path of least resistance and voted to leave the two posts I've judged and then got the question @ the Alerter's intent. WTF? I couldnt even kidge if the post was bad, let alone mind read the alerter.

[hlthe2b]

16. I have twice had to withdraw because I could not interpret without sufficient context.

I've never seen the "alerter's intentions" box, though. My heavens.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. You get that box if the alert was not close to being a violation, in yor opinion.

In the case of not even close violation, you then get to give your opinion on the alert.

[femmocrat]

24. Thanks!

Last edited Fri Jun 24, 2016, 05:28 PM - Edit history (2)

I think I figured it out now......

On edit: I got it again so I copied it:

You have selected: It clearly doesn't break the rule

Which of the following comes closest to your opinion of the person who alerted this post for review?

They sent the alert in good faith, I just don't think the post broke the rule.
They seem to have had an honest misunderstanding of the post.
They sent the alert in bad faith, with an intent to disrupt.

[woodsprite]

52. I got it also, a couple of times.

Not sure what's up with that, but figured it might play in if someone thought someone was a troll and just play-acting.

[MH1]

5. I think it's great.

I think the changes will work well to reduce the drama and re-legislating of alerts.

I think in time the trolls will learn how to troll within the lines and there will still be some issues, but I think the overall civility will be better.

[liberal N proud]

6. I like the way it gives more choices

And then you don't know the exact result. It all takes the up or down out of it.

Can it still be hijacked? That will remain to be seen.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. Undecided. There are some good features. Not knowing who has been alerted on will help prevent

"grudge hides", and knowing which TOS applies to the post helps keep things fair. I miss being able to go back to the thread to get the general tone. I suppose I'll get used to it in time.

It seems like I'm getting called a lot. I've served on juries more often since the change over.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. Its alot more streamlined than before

But I really don't like not knowing the forum. That context is pretty important. Was always the first thing I looked at before reading an alerted post.

Definitely do not like not getting the results. If you are going to ask me to vote in an online poll (Jury duty without sharing your reasoning with 'the accused'), at least give me the results when I'm done.

But from a programming perspective, its slick.

[NJCher]

54. I agree

I think it's great from that POV, but it takes all the fun out of being on the jury.

Also, I don't get enough context, so I've had to opt out of two juries.


Cher

[demmiblue]

13. Not since I discovered that the admins are disappearing post removed OPs...

and all their responses.

It is different to hide an OP message, but to disappear all the other responses that didn't violate any rules is rather harsh.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

14. I've only done a couple, but I think they made some good changes.

I think hiding the names was a good choice, but I would like to see the results of the jury.

[hlthe2b]

15. I think there are some positive elements, but I do feel a bit used after serving with no feedback

I understand the reasoning, but not all who misses receiving results feels that way because of malevolent reasons. I simply liked the ability to see how others were viewing an alert and whether or not I needed to adjust/re-callibrate my way of thinking. It seemed like it served a checks and balance type of function on a very individual scale. But more to the point, it seemed to show that whether I agreed or not with the outcome, that my efforts were registered, and in that small way made a difference.

I do think it is a very human instinct to want to receive feedback after an effort and that does seem to be gone now.

That said, I am pretty impressed with the complexity of programming that had to have gone into that. Elad is a highly skilled programmer, that is for sure.

[avebury]

19. I served on one jury and my reaction

to the new set up was "Are you serious?" I am not too impressed and will check my profile to decline serving on any future juries.

I would love to Trash a Comment added. I would find it far easier to trash a comment then deal with the new jury process.

[hunter]

20. DU is probably a better place without my snarkier juror comments.

Sadly, that was the only fun thing about jury duty.

[IcyPeas]

21. been chosen 3 times already...

the third one I cancelled out of because I am not sure I am understanding it. seems more complicated.

[Kali]

22. careful

they are cracking down on all meta, other than in ATA







hope I don't get a postremoved for saying that






hey, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to ge me

[auntAgonist]

25. No, not at all. No star, no jury service. I am one who enjoys jury service

and now I'm not eligible.

aA
kesha

[seaglass]

29. They changed that requirement based on feedback, a star is no longer required. n/t

[auntAgonist]

30. Thank you! That's very good to know. n/t

[GOLGO 13]

26. I don't like it. So I have decided how I will vote from here on out for all juries.

[Miles Archer]

27. I don't miss "over the top or otherwise inappropriate at all."

Because any DUer who has spent 5 minutes on the site knows that sometimes that meant someone hitting the alert button in an thread discussing ice cream when someone said "I like vanilla."

I like the fact that a TOS violation has to be cited and that the post in question has to be a clear violation.

So while the new system may not be "feature packed," it also no longer provides frivolous alterters with a platform to "vent."

[OriginalGeek]

37. Well come on

Vanilla? What kind of weirdo prefers vanilla?

[Miles Archer]

41. I'll get right back to you on that after I check the TOS to see if I can alert on you

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

28. I got a "summons" to serve on a jury, even though

I lack a Star. Just this morning.

I opted out because it required I agree to enforce the rule, which was explained, or not enforce. However it did not show the post that had been alerted on. I couldn't decide either way without the post.

Very odd.

[Ptah]

31. You wouold have seen the post to be judged if you agreed with the rule.

[MH1]

40. The admins decided to scrap the "star member" rule.

There were several posts about it in ATA.

[mentalsolstice]

32. I don't like not seeing results

I always felt that getting a notification of the results was a teaching/learning moment. Also I liked that the result notification contained a link back to the thread. Oftentimes I'd get picked to be on a jury, and while reading through to get context for my decision, I would think "hmm, this is an interesting discussion, I'll need to come back later."

I also hate that you have to pay something to be on a jury, but get nothing back in return. I feel that being a member for certain amount of time or having a requisite number of posts should be enough to qualify for jury duty.

However, I have a feeling the admins are going to stick their guns on this, and that's it. I'll try it a few more times, after that I'll probably change my setting to "not willing to serve." It's just too confusing, not gratifying, and not worth the interruption. If enough other members feel the same, it will mean the jury pool is going to get a lot smaller.

[MH1]

39. So you know, the "must be a star member" requirement was dropped.

So you don't have to pay anything to be on a jury.

My first clue was when I was called to jury duty; I'm not a star member and haven't been for awhile. At first I thought maybe that with all the changes, they just hadn't got around to changing the jury selection criteria yet. But then I saw where Skinner addressed it in ATA; he said due to member feedback they decided to scrap that rule.

[StevieM]

48. Agreed. I would like to know the results of a jury that I served on. (eom)

[geek tragedy]

34. massive upgrade, with jurors actually prompted to follow rules rather than

just flying by the seat of their pants.

[DemonGoddess]

36. I like it

We're being asked to enforce the site rules, as they're written. When being asked to a jury, our opinions are of whether or not the alerted content violated the stated rule.

[trueblue2007]

42. No !!!!!!!!!!!!!! i want to find out the results.

when i serve on a regular jury, we always find out what happened.


and





If I didn't find out who won in our national elections, i would not vote.

[BainsBane]

46. I don't think curiosity is important enough

To outweigh the drama associated with posting failed alerts. I think the new system is much fairer, and the rules are clearer.

It doesn't work perfectly, but it works a hell of a lot better than the old system.

[mentalsolstice]

45. Somewhat of a workaround to seeing the whole thread being alerted on.

See my post above, #44. This morning, I was called to jury this thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027949965, post 29. As you can see, one of the responses above it that was included as relevant contained a link to the thread, so all a juror had to was click on the link and see it all, with names and everything. So it ended up not being an anonymous experience as intended. It would also have been easy for jurors to have gone in and discuss having served and how they voted. I actually saw this done in another thread where someone commented about serving on a jury for a removed post, but didn't think to save the link.

I guess eventually users will start figuring out ways to subvert the admins attempts to make the process as anonymous as possible and jurors will at least be able to see whether or not the post was removed.

May as well go back to the old way, perhaps with a rule that posting jury results will be a punishable offense to avoid further drama.

[BainsBane]

47. I don't understand

Last edited Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

How that was possible?

Your link is dead, so the admins must have removed the thread.

Why should people want to circumvent the fact they can't say names? It's like admitting they want to be unfair, that they think all members should not be held to the same expectations. I hope you are wrong that most people lack so little concern for their integrity.

[ailsagirl]

49. I find it's easier and more precise than the old system

But that's just me. I can tell they put a lot of work into it.

The only thing is, I miss getting a notification re how the final vote went.

[petronius]

51. I like it less than the old way, but I think it's better for DU...

[pintobean]

53. I'd like to know how in the fuck

I'm supposed to know the intentions of the alerter. It's not like they left a comment.

[caraher]

57. You can't, of course

I think they just want a read on your gut feeling. I imagine that if someone has a lot of failed alerts they might look and see whether lots of jurors imagined the alerter had been acting in bad faith, and take some kind of action based in part on those opinions.

I'm not saying it's a great idea or a bad idea, just why I think they might ask a juror to speculate regarding motives...

[Orrex]

55. I don't care for it.

I had two dubious hides in a single thread for calling out bigotry and homophobia, and the post I called out was hidden, too. That might have happened under the previous system, but it seems conspicuous in the new environment.


I like that the alerter must invoke a specific rules violation, but I see no value in eliminating jurors' comments which might otherwise help the "alertee" understand the jurors' thinking.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. Like others have said, I don't like not being notified.

When one votes, we know the results. When one sits on a jury, we know the results. While some of the comments got out of hand, and sometimes were worse than the post getting the alert, many provided insight into the thoughts of the juror. It is funny, because I remember a time when there was thought about making comments mandatory. Sometimes, those thoughts were bigoted, which, if anything, provided more information to the admins about certain posters. The "anonymity" of the jury worked much like wine for some people, they said things there they wouldn't dare say in the forums. In jury situs veritas.

Frankly, I think the new system also marginalizes minorities in number of ways. Transparency is important because it allows for things to be in the open and exposed for what it is, but the downside to not being able to comment is when one alerts on something bigoted, there is an expectation the jurors will know what the bigotry is; that was never my expectation except when the jury system was first introduced. After a few failed attempts, I realized I had to actually explain why something was bigoted that I just couldn't say "bigotry" and expect people to 'know,' which is exactly what this new system does. It is easy to identify some forms of bigotry, but others, often even more insidious than the more outspoken ones, can be tricky and need an explanation. Furthermore, feelings of alienation by minorities and expressions of such can now be considered violations in ways they really couldn't in the past.

While civility is always a nice goal, at what expense? To me, it is much like freedom, how much are we willing to give up in order to be considered "safe"?

[IrishEyes]

56. I think I'm leaning toward the old system.

I have been on three juries so far since the new system. I do miss seeing the outcome afterwards. I'm just curious if the other jurors agreed or disagreed with me.

[Bluzmann57]

58. I would like to log on without being asked

At least once. It seems like every time I log on, they want me for jury duty.

[IronLionZion]

59. Robb is a dingbat

or something similar

[yuiyoshida]

60. It doesn't bother me either way, however I never get

to see the results. That sucks..

[GOLGO 13]

61. Just did another jury & I voted exactly like I said I'm going to do.

New system sucks & this is how I show my displeasure.

[Sherman A1]

63. No