The DU Lounge

MH1

(18,288 posts)

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

Fri Jun 24, 2016, 02:16 PM

Jun 2016

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you like the new jury system? [View all] trof Jun 2016 OP

Undecided. Only had 1 to date, it's sort of bare and spare. But after DU1 when I UTUSN Jun 2016 #1

I don't think I'm allowed to reply. trof Jun 2016 #2

I'm missing some info here: not "allowed to reply" - be*CAUSE*?!1 UTUSN Jun 2016 #17

Since the changeover it seems that I get into trouble... trof Jun 2016 #33

meh, you have one of the all time familiar DU handle/names so must not be that much trouble!1 n/t UTUSN Jun 2016 #35

Not really. I need more context to make better assessments. femmocrat Jun 2016 #3

Je ne sais pas. trof Jun 2016 #4

I did not see anything like that. Maybe it depends on what rule is selected? MH1 Jun 2016 #7

I didn't see where I could expand posts leading to the alert. 2theleft Jun 2016 #8

Yes, it shows the op and the posts leading to it, collapsed. MH1 Jun 2016 #9

Thank you! That will help a lot. n/t 2theleft Jun 2016 #10

However, if it's an OP, there's nothing to expand. kentauros Jun 2016 #23

I think Skinner addressed that in an ATA post. MH1 Jun 2016 #38

I don't read the ATA, so it's not something I would have known. kentauros Jun 2016 #43

I specifically asked that question and Skinner insisted knowing the group wasn't important riderinthestorm Jun 2016 #50

I have twice had to withdraw because I could not interpret without sufficient context. hlthe2b Jun 2016 #16

You get that box if the alert was not close to being a violation, in yor opinion. Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2016 #18

Thanks! femmocrat Jun 2016 #24

I got it also, a couple of times. woodsprite Jun 2016 #52

I think it's great. MH1 Jun 2016 #5

I like the way it gives more choices liberal N proud Jun 2016 #6

Undecided. There are some good features. Not knowing who has been alerted on will help prevent Arkansas Granny Jun 2016 #11

Its alot more streamlined than before Ruby the Liberal Jun 2016 #12

I agree NJCher Jun 2016 #54

Not since I discovered that the admins are disappearing post removed OPs... demmiblue Jun 2016 #13

I've only done a couple, but I think they made some good changes. ohnoyoudidnt Jun 2016 #14

I think there are some positive elements, but I do feel a bit used after serving with no feedback hlthe2b Jun 2016 #15

I served on one jury and my reaction avebury Jun 2016 #19

DU is probably a better place without my snarkier juror comments. hunter Jun 2016 #20

been chosen 3 times already... IcyPeas Jun 2016 #21

careful Kali Jun 2016 #22

No, not at all. No star, no jury service. I am one who enjoys jury service auntAgonist Jun 2016 #25

They changed that requirement based on feedback, a star is no longer required. n/t seaglass Jun 2016 #29

Thank you! That's very good to know. n/t auntAgonist Jun 2016 #30

I don't like it. So I have decided how I will vote from here on out for all juries. GOLGO 13 Jun 2016 #26

I don't miss "over the top or otherwise inappropriate at all." Miles Archer Jun 2016 #27

Well come on OriginalGeek Jun 2016 #37

I'll get right back to you on that after I check the TOS to see if I can alert on you Miles Archer Jun 2016 #41

I got a "summons" to serve on a jury, even though Hayduke Bomgarte Jun 2016 #28

You wouold have seen the post to be judged if you agreed with the rule. Ptah Jun 2016 #31

The admins decided to scrap the "star member" rule. MH1 Jun 2016 #40

I don't like not seeing results mentalsolstice Jun 2016 #32

So you know, the "must be a star member" requirement was dropped. MH1 Jun 2016 #39

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #44

Agreed. I would like to know the results of a jury that I served on. (eom) StevieM Jun 2016 #48

massive upgrade, with jurors actually prompted to follow rules rather than geek tragedy Jun 2016 #34

I like it DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #36

No !!!!!!!!!!!!!! i want to find out the results. trueblue2007 Jun 2016 #42

I don't think curiosity is important enough BainsBane Jun 2016 #46

Somewhat of a workaround to seeing the whole thread being alerted on. mentalsolstice Jun 2016 #45

I don't understand BainsBane Jun 2016 #47

I find it's easier and more precise than the old system ailsagirl Jun 2016 #49

I like it less than the old way, but I think it's better for DU... petronius Jun 2016 #51

I'd like to know how in the fuck pintobean Jun 2016 #53

You can't, of course caraher Jun 2016 #57

I don't care for it. Orrex Jun 2016 #55

Like others have said, I don't like not being notified. Behind the Aegis Jun 2016 #62

I think I'm leaning toward the old system. IrishEyes Jun 2016 #56

I would like to log on without being asked Bluzmann57 Jun 2016 #58

Robb is a dingbat IronLionZion Jun 2016 #59

It doesn't bother me either way, however I never get yuiyoshida Jun 2016 #60

Just did another jury & I voted exactly like I said I'm going to do. GOLGO 13 Jun 2016 #61

No Sherman A1 Jun 2016 #63