So they've found another weapon against us.

[BiggJawn]

"And wherever four or more of you are gathered on a Jury in My name, you can really fuck a lot of them Atheists up".

And it's easier than crying to a mod, because it lets the Tyranny of the Majority run roughshod over the minority.

[Ian David]

1. I agree with you. Bring this up with Skinner. n/t

[lazarus]

6. I did, a long time ago

I predicted this would happen when he first told the mods about it months and months ago.

Basically, he thinks we somehow have some power to change things. He was never very clear on what that power would be, though.

He never said anything to this effect, so it's just my speculation, but I think admin wants the board like this. They got burned badly with the LGBTQ stuff, so they've washed their hands of the board. They got tired of hearing people bitch about the mods, so they scrapped the mod system to let people see what it would be like without the "biased" moderators.

Thing is, I think the majority likes it just fine. Before long, they won't have to hear from the uppity gays and atheists anymore. Disgusting that a supposedly progressive board is so anti-minority, but that's the way it appears to be.

The only option I can come up with is if ALL of the atheists bring this up to admin REPEATEDLY, along with threats to take our money and go. I know I'm not renewing my star until I feel welcome here, and I've had a star since 2001.

[Ian David]

28. I haven't seen any Atheist issues come up in the MIR Team requests yet.

A couple questions of anti-Muslim sentiment, but so far nobody alerting on Atheist issues.

[lazarus]

37. interesting

I know it's been alerted on. I guess someone's not hitting the right check mark.

On DU2, when we saw a bigoted post in the mod forum, we'd start investigating the poster for being a bigot. Now we have to jump through hoops to bring this stuff to somebody's attention, and hope that someone sees it our way.

[Ian David]

40. Well, neither the Atheists nor the Theists seem to be hitting the boxes that get it to MIRT. n/t

[uriel1972]

51. After the other day when three threads on the front page

were the 'Hitchen's guilty of Iraq War', the 'Bradley Manning should be shot by firing squad' and the 'President's boast of killing OBL and others is alright by me' (the last one's op was against the boast, but a hell of a lot of commenters were in favour) I felt very uncomfortable.

Since when was DU a haven for ghoul's who feast gleefully off of the corpses of their perceived enemies. Or have I been leading a sheltered existence. I am placing DU3 on probation in regards to my donation.

[iris27]

10. Skinner thinks the jury system is working just fine.

"Most jury decisions I've seen brought to the Meta forum -- if they include a link to the post and the full text of the alerter's comments and juror's comments -- seem reasonable to me. Even of I disagree with the outcome."

The rest: http://www.democraticunderground.com/124011075#post44

[EvolveOrConvolve]

2. It's a gaping hole in the entire jury system

Majority rule is going to wipe out minority positions, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. I think the jury system works pretty well in other areas. Unfortunately, with sensitive or controversial subjects like religion, LGBT, etc., it's hard for the average person to remove their bias from the situation.

I'm truly at a loss as to what direction the admin has to take to get the situation under control. They can't exempt certain groups from the jury system, because then other groups that don't need it would clamor for an exemption.

[awoke_in_2003]

7. I was a mod, and have been on one jury...

with the mod system, their is a dialog between several people. The mods state their opinion, and a consensus is reached. With this jury system you just click a "yes" or a "no" and that is is. You can post a thought on why you voted the way you did, but that really isn't a discussion. It is just to easy to vote one way or the other and say "FTW".

[EvolveOrConvolve]

9. Along those lines, I've noticed

that with each day, juries are less and less likely to leave an actual explanation. At first, I almost always saw six responses with well thought out explanations. Now, I'm lucky to see four, and at least two of those are little more than rubbish.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. On the jury I participated on...

only two of the six posted an explanation- and I was one of them. Guess that comes from my mod days, when we always posted our thought on why something should stay or go.

[skepticscott]

13. This is simply a consequence

of the fact that an awful lot of people on DU just aren't that intelligent. A lot more passion than smarts and well considered thoughts has been my general experience

[awoke_in_2003]

26. especially in the last few years. nt

[Fair Witness]

27. Amen.

...

[Boston_Chemist]

45. I agree wholeheartedly with you. n.t.

[Kolesar]

47. no kidding...eom

[Curmudgeoness]

16. Without any discussion, there is no way to change your mind.

It is a gut reaction that you vote on, and if you see the other comments after it is over and think you voted wrong, there is nothing you can do about it. A shame. I know that I will have problems with my votes one of these days.

[iris27]

17. I agree. I always try to read a bit of the thread, at least the OP and the post that the

alerted post is replying to, but it's clear that a lot of jurors don't even do that much. I would appreciate an added deliberation step.

[Curmudgeoness]

23. Deliberation step would not just be appreciated. I think it is essential

if this is going to work.

[Ian David]

29. Maybe there should be a period where you get to see what the other jurors said...

... and decide if you want to change your mind.

[awoke_in_2003]

31. A discussion period...

between all the jurors would be an improvement. Real life jurors get a chance to hash out there differences, and bring their points of view.

[Goblinmonger]

32. Yeah, I agree

I was surprised at the amount of dialogue that went on in the mod forum when I did my term. Really opened my eyes to the process. Don't know that we got everything right every time, but seems like there was more thought going in than with the juries.

[awoke_in_2003]

39. of course we didn't get everything right...

but we did the best we could, without knee jerk reactions.

[darkstar3]

3. And here's the unfortunate part:

Since the majority of people think the juries are either great, fine, or "just need to work the kinks out", we're screwed. Minorities, including women, GLBTers, atheists, and more, have always had problems on DU, in case you don't remember. There have been massive flamewars over the word "bitch", a massive purge of GLBT posters, and a continued march to marginalize the atheists to one board where they can still be lurked and sometimes tweaked by the believers.

I don't think the jury system is going to change. I think it's exactly in keeping with the direction DU2 was taking.

[Odin2005]

33. And don't forget the posters that think it's OK to rape a passed out drunk woman!

[darkstar3]

36. Were you in on that thread with me, or were there more than a couple dozen?

[Odin2005]

38. I can't remember, but there was sure a bunch of them.

[iris27]

4. It's really rather disgusting how intolerant the members of

a Democratic website have turned out to be.

As a multiple minority (atheist, female, bi), I am starting to feel like there is NOwhere I can go on DU without getting crapped on. Even if a group's hosts aren't ok with the hate being posted, they can't do anything until a jury votes to hide at least one of the offending posts. And we've seen how well that works.

[laconicsax]

5. I'm frankly unsurprised.

DU has always been an anti-women, anti-atheist, moderately-homophobic board despite the admin's best intentions. The jury system is just allowing that aspect of the board to come to the forefront for more people.

[cleanhippie]

41. Unfortunately, that is a fairly accurate representaion of our society.

Its sad, but true.

[awoke_in_2003]

8. and from what I have seen...

of hidden posts (only two so far), you can click on it and still read it. It doesn't appear that the offending post is removed, just hidden by one simple mouse click.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

11. I think you can only read it if you're a starred member

Otherwise, it's not available.

[awoke_in_2003]

14. To my thinking...

if the post was offending enough to be alerted on, judged, and hidden, then it should be gone for good. Of course, on the flip side, it does allow one to identify the assholes out there.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

18. It should be saved for posterity

At least so the MIR and admin team can follow the trail of destruction (so to speak).

That being said, just because it's in the database doesn't mean that it needs to be displayed for everyone to see, especially if it's really bad.

[awoke_in_2003]

24. when you are a moderator...

you can the history of the offender- the offending posts were just unavailable for general consumption. Again, when it came to nuking someone, it required consensus, and historical offenses could help build the case. Not sure how this is going to go with the MIR squads (as a man who was a teenager in the 80's, that name gives me pause)

[Curmudgeoness]

20. LOL, it really doesn't make sense, does it?

And I am with you, I love to see what is hidden, and determine whether I agree that it should be. I always wanted to know who those people were who had posts deleted, just so I would know. But really, they should be gone, for our own good.

[iris27]

22. See, that would be a middle ground I could get behind.

Leave the username up, but change the subject to "deleted post". Then you know who's routinely being a jackass, but their words don't stay up and readable by anyone curious enough to click the link.

[awoke_in_2003]

25. it is hard to turn away...

from a train wreck.

[iris27]

15. Nope. Anyone can read a hidden post with a single click.

And I always do, for whatever reason.

Another message board that I'm on has an ignore system that shows you a link - "You are ignoring this poster. Click here to see the post anyway." That basically makes the ignore feature useless for me, because I'm too damn curious for my own good.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

19. Hmmm, I remember reading something about it

But the admin team may have changed the policy since I read that. (Or, I'm completely off-base and talking out of my ass

[iris27]

21. Well, they are still playing around with the code, so who knows how

it will end up. But at least for now, I can read hidden posts.

[i_sometimes]

46. I can read them

I won't donate this time around ( I came back for DU3 ) but there are very few features I don't have.

[cleanhippie]

42. Yes, but the poster who has a post hidden can no longer post in that thread.

[iris27]

44. Yes, but at least at that point, a group's hosts can

block the user from posting in that group if they choose.

[Ian David]

30. If someone has a pattern of trolling LGBT, Israel v Hezbollah, or the Atheists...

... then they can be considered a Malicious Intruder, no matter how long they have been here.

If their primary reason to be on DU seems to be to tweak a minority or stir the shit.

[Odin2005]

34. It's more evidence that "Liberal Christian" is a goddamn oxymoron.

These folks are just as bigoted against people who disagree with them as the fundies.



PS: "Personal Jesus" by Marilyn Manson came on my internet radio while reading this thread, LMAO!

[rexcat]

35. Just served on a jury...

the response was 6 / 0 to leave post up. All six of us gave a brief explanation for our reasons. There appears to be some really thin skinned individuals on DU.

[opiate69]

43. Just served on a jury too....

then I went and looked at my account, and if you're a donor, you can choose up to 15 people to blacklist from ever participating on a jury regarding your posts... not a perfect solution, but might still be a useful tool until this whole thing gets sorted out.

[Kolesar]

48. where does "my account" say *that*?

thanks

[opiate69]

49. when you click on "my account" , the page that opens should have 5 tabs...

From left to right - Account - Ignore list - Jury Blacklist - Thread trash can - Star Membership

[Kolesar]

52. Thanks...eom

[Deep13]

50. I questioned whether it really is a jury system in that meta forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124015870