Holy shit. Jurors prove the point while they hide it.

[Kali]

At Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Some things never change.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling other DUers bigots, as well as attacking former moderators and by implication the admins.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:52 PM, and the Jury voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: there ARE bigoted members here, poster didn't call ALL DUers, or ALL mods or the admins bigots


Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
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: Whine and complain until you get what you want was what I got out of that absurd comment.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

not sure if you want meta posts here, but didn't want to draw too much attention if not - if anybody wants me to post this in there I am happy to.

signed, Juror #1

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. where is the link to the post?

[Kali]

2. oops

the OP got locked too. wow

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=8208

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. that thread is very interesting and shows how random jurors are not necessarily our peers.

I think the jury system needs some tweaking....

One thing, I think some groups should only pull from that group to jury any post alerted on within that group.

just a suggestion.

[Renew Deal]

4. I don't think jurors like being called bigots

[Kali]

5. I don't think anybody does.

but that post didn't call all jurors bigots - in fact, it acknowledged a fighting chance to get a better unbigoted set.

[Renew Deal]

6. That doesn't sound like much of a compliment to me

[pinto]

7. I think the key to the lock-by-hide on the OP is this -

Nothing has changed here. This place is still full of anti-LBGT homophobic crap.
DU still defends homophobia.

Over the top statements, imo. Lots has changed here, the place isn't "full of anti-LGBT homophobic crap" and DU doesn't defend homophobia. Many outliers making bigoted comments have been given the boot. I see much more support for LGBT issues in general, throughout the website.

Maybe the take away here is to build on a growing positive consensus and not assume the exception or the jury vote on this OP as over the top negates that.



(ed for clarity)

[Warren Stupidity]

10. so opinions that are wrong should be hidden?

I concede your assertion that the stated opinion is wrong. That is no reason at all to hide it.

[pinto]

11. Not wrong / right. "Over the top, insensitive, rude" etc. are the Community Standards mentioned

as options both for the alerter and the jury.

A "wrong" opinion can be stated within community standards and debated, discussed, challenged. A "right" opinion can be stated outside of community standards and hidden on that account. And vica versa.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Please instruct me on the right way to state that some former moderators

were homophobic and that some jurors are bigots. The way that is not over the top insensitive and rude.

Or instead is this sort of opinion not allowed?

[pinto]

16. Adding "in my opinion I think" always helps. Blanket statements / assertions rarely are effective.

Have some specific points to make if needed. Maybe be clear to not cite a trend on an individual instance. Sometimes it's just that, an individual instance.

(Personal side comment - I don't know, or determine, what is allowed or not allowed. It seems to be fluid. So I can't instruct you on anything. That query would best be sent upstairs to Admin. Or a Meta thread, I guess.)

[intaglio]

19. Can you read? The post states that DU as a whole homophobic and bigoted

This place is still full of anti-LBGT homophobic crap.
DU still defends homophobia

How do you parse that as only referring to "some former moderators" and "some jurors"? DU does not under any circumstances defend homophobia despite the normal human ignorance, insensitivity and, yes, bias of a very few members.

If the post had intended to refer only to "some former moderators" and "some current members" then the words I have excerpted should never have been written. The post was an attack on the integrity and honesty of DU members and Admin.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Actually I was referring to the other post in this series that got hidden.

But the post you are referring to does no claim everyone on DU is a homophobe. "DU still defends homopohobia" is actually a fact that could be true even if the vast majority of members are not homophobic.

[joeybee12]

21. Not getting it are you...nowhere does it say

EVERYONE is there...and EVERYONE is defending it.

[intaglio]

24. the quote says "DU defends homophobia"

Explain how this applies only to "some" or "a few" - because it says DU as a whole. Gay or straight, male or female, bi or trans, DU members are told that their preferred message board defends homophobia.

[joeybee12]

13. It's not over the top in my opinion....

To say that it is proves the OP's point.

[pinto]

17. My opinion is only my opinion. I represent nothing beyond that. Same for us all.

[joeybee12]

22. Very true...

[mitchtv]

8. there are so few who are willing to post here as it is

The last thing I want to hear is some Hets telling me what is phobic and what's not. Ciao

[closeupready]

12. That occurred to me this weekend, in light of the stuff that

went on in Meta. If a DU member is prohibited from posting in the GLBT forum (prohibited for cause), why do they get to alert on my post and open it up for objection/veto to a jury drawn NOT from a pool of our GLBT peers (who almost invariably understood my point, if you look at the thread), but from a pool of larger DU, in which dwell, as we know, a fair number of homophobic members?

[stevenleser]

23. I think that there should be a list of people locked out of here so we can choose to add them to our

not-on-my-jury exception list.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. you should bring this to meta. The system is whacked.

[Kali]

15. Pab Sungenis did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124067338

I'm having a d'oh moment here - I wanted to post the jury results in case anybody here wanted to know - forgot the poster who's post gets hidden gets the results too.

[countryjake]

18. Results are in...

At Mon Mar 26, 2012, 05:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Holy shit. Jurors prove the point while they hide it.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Reopening a jury-hidden thread, to accuse DUers of being bigots for a jury hiding a post wherein DUers were called bigots and homophobes.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 26, 2012, 05:44 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Here is the problem with that first post--if the accusation was that SOME jurors are homophobes, and SOME moderators were bigots, the poster would have been ok. The problem is the BROAD BRUSH. You don't have to say "all" for the point to be implied. Example: On DU2 it was RACIST moderators. Now it's bigoted jurors. But at least with random selection of juries we have a fighting chance now, or On DU2 it was SEXIST moderators. Now it's bigoted jurors. But at least with random selection of juries we have a fighting chance now. Words matter. Also, saying that people (like Obama) who don't advocate fast enough for equality are "homophobes" is a hurtful and hateful thing to say as well as untrue.


Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I believe that these sort of alerts are making DU SUCK! Please. Stop. I also believe that we do have quite a large number of bigots scurrying around the site, attacking sincere members with the alert button, trying their best to hurt, disrupt, and offend by having worthy topics hidden. I see nothing in this OP that renders it offensive; the poster even asks if it would be better placed in Meta. Wacked out, malicious alerters and devious juries need to start participating in productive ways!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.