Announcements

muriel_volestrangler

(105,122 posts)

33. Of your suggestions, only 2(c) makes any sense

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:38 AM

Jul 2014

1) won't help, unless someone has the job of reviewing juror comments and sending them back if they're insufficient. "Looks OK to me", "breaks Community Standards", "this should go", "why was this alerted", etc. are all comments, but meaningless.

2(a) would discourage jurors from making meaningful comments anyway. 2(b) is impractical - you have to be able to see who said what in a thread to take an overall view of the post. 2(c) might be nice, but I'm not sure how much difference it would make.

Why do you think "this change puts even more power in the hands of juries", by the way, when it's about the number of and forums covered by hosts, who deal with a different form of alert?

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We made some changes to the Forum Hosting system today [View all] EarlG Jul 2014 OP

K/R and I hope that the changes are successful! NYC_SKP Jul 2014 #1

But everyone is still banned from the BOG, right? Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2014 #2

Now that only 30 people have access to the Hosts forum Gormy Cuss Jul 2014 #3

that just confused the hell out of me smiley Jul 2014 #4

New Rules! pscot Jul 2014 #5

No Fair - I can't spy on the Host Forum anymore groundloop Jul 2014 #6

Conspiracy!!! ColesCountyDem Jul 2014 #7

Since this change puts even more power in the hands of juries BainsBane Jul 2014 #8

Of your suggestions, only 2(c) makes any sense muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #33

It is the role of the administrators BainsBane Jul 2014 #34

Hmmm. I feel your worries about juries are tending towards the Discussionist thread muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #36

that is very good, thank you for sharing uppityperson Jul 2014 #37

that is awesome. tammywammy Jul 2014 #42

Cry like a little girl? Really? n/t Ms. Toad Jul 2014 #44

This message was self-deleted by its author JTFrog Jul 2014 #49

I was not talking about alert stalking BainsBane Jul 2014 #45

If you're talking, *in a thread about hosts*, about juries being about 'popularity' muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #48

I shared my suggestions BainsBane Jul 2014 #52

What it's about was: muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #54

Nothing you have proposed is new. pintobean Jul 2014 #50

0-7 to Leave. FYI. Agschmid Jul 2014 #51

Lol. Thanks. pintobean Jul 2014 #53

But how else to explain Capt. Obvious Jul 2014 #55

I like the changes! pacalo Jul 2014 #9

I don't like that at all--that's a negative to me. MADem Jul 2014 #11

I thought about that, too, after I hit the reply button. pacalo Jul 2014 #13

If hosts are hiding individual posts, we're back to the old moderator system--in this case that MADem Jul 2014 #16

As always, you make very good, strong points pacalo Jul 2014 #21

I think things will get better once we find ourselves in general election season. MADem Jul 2014 #23

I took threads in the new guidelines to mean OPs BainsBane Jul 2014 #35

Skinner cleared this up yesterday at post twenty--all is sorted. nt MADem Jul 2014 #39

Thanks for pointing that out to me BainsBane Jul 2014 #40

Hosts only consider the OP. Does it meet the SOP or not, replies to the OP are up to a jury. Autumn Jul 2014 #43

I agree, MADem. The rules are, in some cases, complicated. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #18

Was that intentional (i.e.. differentiating thread from OP)? I'm wondering if we are over-reading. hlthe2b Jul 2014 #14

On edit, see Skinner's reply at #20. pacalo Jul 2014 #15

Ahh, ok. Thanks, pacalo hlthe2b Jul 2014 #27

Threads means OPs. Skinner Jul 2014 #20

Thanks for clearing that up, Skinner. pacalo Jul 2014 #22

Back to the old "moderator" system then....? nt MADem Jul 2014 #10

Regarding... AsahinaKimi Jul 2014 #12

You're on your own without a co-host....that would make you the GODDESS!!!!! MADem Jul 2014 #17

it seems like any hosting decision or discussion can simply take place as an OP in the group CreekDog Jul 2014 #46

not sure thats the answer i was looking for.. AsahinaKimi Aug 2014 #56

Yes, I know it isn't the solution you need, just a suggestion CreekDog Aug 2014 #57

So no constructive criticism of Democratic Underground is allowed. JEFF9K Jul 2014 #19

No starting threads to damn/criticize, is what it says. MADem Jul 2014 #24

So you think that "damning with faint praise," as Alexander Pope ... JEFF9K Jul 2014 #28

No, I'm not saying it's "OK." MADem Jul 2014 #29

you can always go to Ask the Administrators forum nt steve2470 Jul 2014 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author CreekDog Jul 2014 #31

Thanks, I will look for it. JEFF9K Jul 2014 #32

Only thing left to do is get rid of the juries and DU will be in good shape. Renew Deal Jul 2014 #26

The moderation simply hid a lot of problems, and it also created a "brook no dissent" mentality. MADem Jul 2014 #30

I think the jury concept has worked and not worked and has more potential CreekDog Jul 2014 #47

Thank you for putting me on the host list but I am retiring, letting my position go to the next pers uppityperson Jul 2014 #38

you made sure that in revamping host membership that diversity was maintained? CreekDog Jul 2014 #41

Curious: what happens if people on the waitlist get a hide, and drop below 100% petronius Aug 2014 #58

I got a post hidden (Unfairly) and so I took myself off the list itsrobert Aug 2014 #59

There is no appeal BainsBane Aug 2014 #60

Either way, I still did not get a response itsrobert Aug 2014 #61

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #62

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #63

Post removed Post removed Sep 2014 #64