Announcements
In reply to the discussion: DU General Election Season Begins Soon: What You Need To Know [View all]Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)First, I think it is great you and the others are looking into making changes to improve DU. Second, I am sure there were hundreds of hours put into the changes, which will surely have all kinds of bugs, a headache for the future. Finally, I once again relay the parable of the Man, the boy, and the donkey and understand not everybody can be, nor will be accommodated. That said, here are some concerns I have...
I do not like that DU3, which was supposed to be about 'transparency' has morphed back into DU2. Once again, we have people who can say whatever they want and the post will be hidden from sight. With the transparency list also disappearing, again, we see the lack of, well, transparency. There will always be drama, but I'd rather it be based in something which is verifiable. So, as for those changes, I think they are a move in the wrong direction, which is back to DU2. In the same vein, I will also say, end the self-delete function, or rather, limit it! Allow people to "self-delete", with no record, within a 24-hour period, anything past that, it will be a "self-delete" which can still be read if one clicks on a link. People still won't be able to respond to it and if it is a thread starter, it will 'lock' the thread, as it does now.
While I think serving on a jury should be a privilege, making people have a star membership, is a step too far. I LOVE, I will repeat, LOVE the changes of "one year, and more than 1000 posts"! This eliminates trolls getting on the juries, like I saw earlier this year with a repeat anti-Semitic troll who was bragging about serving after being here for 3 days, and 22 posts (of course, it was his 78th incarnation, so...). With the 18hr "rule", and the added new rules, it will really limit the jury pool, especially if people "opt out" and then "opt out" of certain rules. If people have been here more than a year and have more than 1000 posts, they are committed to DU (though some may still be trolls, they will eventually trip up) and should have a say in what stays and goes, as they have put in the time.
The Jury system still forbids "double jeopardy," but posts which were alerted for a particular rule and survived a Jury can now be re-alerted for a different rule.
That is one rule likely to be abused. But, I do actually like it. There have often been posts which slipped by a jury and when I saw the alert, the person totally missed something which would have led to a hide, IMO. I also like the "in thread" review, meaning, one doesn't see the entire thread, just the posts around it. While I try to adjudicate a post on its merits, there are times when the preceding posts do make a difference in how I will vote.
I do not like that alerters and jurors no longer get results. Again, transparency is slipping away. Sure, it will mean much less mail for some of us, but not knowing isn't any better. I also think your assumption "most people forget after 15 minutes" is off, especially given that alerters can't alert until a jury has been decided and the number of times you have been asked in ATA why a poster didn't receive a result email. Given that there will no longer be "alerter comments" or "juror comments", I really think the days of posting results will be heading for an end. There really aren't that many as it is. I see them every now and again, but not like a few years ago and with the new changes, why would anyone really have a need to post them? If anything, you could make it a rule that jury results are no longer allowed to be posted and if someone posts them, they lose the right to serve for a month, and then increase the penalty, including the idea they could lose posting privileges all together.
[hr]
I am marking this, so that if this is "tl;dr" your eyes will come to this section and this part will be read. I hate the new feature which will deprive alerters of making comments.. HATE IT! While it certainly has been abused, there were ways to report it and repercussions (at least we were told there were) for violations of the alert feature. I can guess as to what "violations" will be on the checklist. For the most part, it will be easy enough to pick one and agree/disagree if the post violates the rule. But here is the fly in your buttermilk: BIGOTRY.
Unlike other rules, bigotry, isn't always cut and dried, and it can be misapplied. One of the biggest complaints in my view is minority DU'ers not feeling heard and/or comfortable here because of bigoted posts getting by the system. I am going to make my argument a one of those minorities, a Jew. I am not going to speak for all of us, just my experiences and how I feel. Anti-Semitism is a real problem here. Is it the most prolific bigotry present at DU? Not by a long shot. But, IMO, it is one of the most excused and ignored bigotries (sexism ranks pretty high too)! I have had a number of juries let anti-Semitic posts slide because the juror didn't know what the hell anti-Semitism was. FFS, we still have posters trying to "define" anti-Semitism as 'prejudice against "Semites"'. The only people who do that are either ignorant or bigots, but if they are on a jury for an anti-Semitic posts, they will "leave" it because it doesn't violate their fabricated definition.
"KIKE!" seems to be an easy one to identify as an anti-Semitic slur, unless it is quoting someone or being used in some sort of self-deprecating sarcasm (or in an instructional/educational sense, as I am doing with this post). But how about, "Schumer (D-Tel-Aviv), once again demonstrated he is a traitor to the US by not voting for that bill! Menendez (D-NJ) also voted against the bill, but that was expected!" Anti-Semitic? Hell yes it is! The problem is people don't understand the eons old "Jews are not loyal citizens" canard and if the only thing an alerter can do is check "bigotry", that post will definitely stand! Chances are it might now unless someone really lays it out because most people here really do not understand anti-Semitism. Given bigotry often gets a pass because of "grey" areas, having our hands tied by a simple designation of "bigotry" will actually allow more bigoted posts to survive.
It is difficult enough for minority posters already having to over-explain why a post is bigoted and hoping people understand, with the changes, it really will be out of our hands all together. Of course, there will be those who abuse it; there always are. Those who claim something is bigoted when it isn't in order to silence others. Many claim anti-Semitism is one such charge, and sometimes it is, but so is "Islamophobia!", "Sexism!", "Racism!" and the list goes on, but in those cases, it isn't about the minority being the aggrieved party.
I hope you at least read this part, and I will leave you with this quote from our president, Barack Obama:"Racism we are not cured of it," he said at one point. "And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say 'n-----r' in public."
He added: "That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not," he said. "It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior." (source)
[hr]
Despite the "sour" note sound of my post, there are some good changes you are suggesting. I have already spoken about a few above, but I'd like to add the addition of an appeal process is long overdue. Though I think you may be creating more work for yourselves. At some point, perhaps it can just go to an appellate jury. I also like that you will look at and consider posts which "sneak by the jury" and look at action against the post. This may actually help address some of the concerns I have in the marked section above.
Should be interesting.