So what do you guys think about the jury system for hiding posts

[socialist_n_TN]

now after a few days of it? I must admit I had some trepidation about it, although I didn't say anything, but I think it's working GREAT. The "community standards" of DU3 are MUCH to the left of the "community standards" of the previous moderators.

[salvorhardin]

1. The only change I'd make is...

The only change I'd make is to include 7 jurors so there's never a tie.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. THAT would be a very good suggestion to put in the Meta forum.

If you posted it there, I bet a lot more people would "like" the idea and it would be more visible to Admins. for consideration.

[Starry Messenger]

2. So far I like it.

Even when they vote against my alerts, you can kind of gauge the community feeling for things. So far, DU seems to much prefer that comments stay revealed and that people discuss things. I have a very low threshold for what I consider personal attacks than juries--I can only hope that people are just as open-handed in a jury with me if I make a snarky remark!

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. I agree.

For whatever reason, I have been on 17 juries since a week ago Friday
and noticed they tended to vote in favor of the poster unless there was a VERY clear problem.

[socialist_n_TN]

6. Not on that many juries, but I've been on 5 or 6

and I've found the same thing. The community standards seem to be pretty open to discussion. And I'm happy about that.

[Vanje]

5. I didn't think I'd like it

But I DO!

[socialist_n_TN]

7. Yeah, I was unsure too...........

ALTHOUGH I had a suspicion that it MIGHT work out the way it has. There are a LOT of folks in my opinion that were thinking that this was a lock step (large "D&quot Democratic forum and I wasn't so sure. But the conservative (dare I say bureaucratic? moderator system hid that more flexible community. I thought that the possibility was there that we were more open than that and, so far, it appears that my suspicions were correct.

I'm happy.

[TBF]

8. I agree -

I've served on at least a dozen now and most have left the posts alone. Skinner obviously wants us to self-police and I hope it works. The election season got pretty nasty in 2008 and I'm determined not to get involved in that. Making groups more visible may help a lot if folks who are more community minded find their niches there. Only the folks who love to fight will be in the general forum and we can ignore that. I'm thinking this DU3 is a pretty good system.

[MNBrewer]

10. Hi Vanje!

[Vanje]

12. !!

Good to see you! MNBrewer

[MNBrewer]

9. I'm finding the same thing

Posts that would have been censored prior to the introduction of the jury system now remain. Only posts that truly violate the community standards rules are getting hidden.

[CarrieLynne]

11. I had the opportunity to serve on one and I liked it

much more objective I think

[Catherina]

13. I love it & think it's working out great.

Hi guys, I don't post a lot anymore but I do read here voraciously.



Solidarity

[TheKentuckian]

14. So far pretty good, though I think it should be twelve and take at least nine to hide

You want to strongly stack the deck toward free speech.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

15. I'm not really into hiding posts.

I served on a jury, and while I didn't agree with the post, I voted to keep it.

[joshcryer]

16. I defended it voraciously on DU2, got chided a lot for that.

A lot of people against it have come around, though, and I'm glad.

There are several types of ways to handle anti-social behavior.

Peer, meta, central.

Central moderation is by using a central type of hierarchy that deals with disruptive posts as they are noticed. It requires hard work. If you were to look at it from the point of view of file sharing, it would be like a central repository where data is uploaded.

Meta moderation is by random players in a system all who get a bit of say in what they can do, the more they post and the more they interact, the higher their score is, and the more they can affect the outcome of a given situation. If we were to look at it from the point of view of file sharing, it would be like a central repository with quotas and sharing.

Peer moderation is by random players in a system who are all equals and whose say does not go beyond the say of others, it is, in effect, meta moderation with a web of trust. From a file sharing point of view it would be like peer-to-peer file sharing, where one node is equal to the rest, but other nodes that try to corrupt the system could be ousted in quick order if enough nodes agreed it was corrupting.

DU2 was a mixture of central moderation and meta moderation. Unrec was constantly used by players in the system to gang up on ideas or posts that they didn't like, thus preventing them from ever making the greatest page. Likewise, central moderators required quarterly non-disclosure and privacy agreements to be signed by mods and was very likely a very tough thing to manage.

[northoftheborder]

17. I've been on about a dozen juries.

Nearly all the alerted comments I judged seemed OK to me, not flame throwing or anything, maybe a little too snarky. I think I voted against only one, but that one was 2-4 for leaving as is. From what you all say, the previous moderators must have been way too conservative on their censoring. I think it is a good plan, glad they came up with it. I don't post a lot, but read DU every day; it's the best Dem. blog; I don't agree with some things posted, but over-all, it seems fair.

I can see how it might again become too verbally violent, however, if there should be a contested Dem. primary some day. That would be a good test of the community voting system.