Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
DU Community Help
In reply to the discussion: Is there a way to add another alert reason for posting untrue information? [View all]highplainsdem
(53,039 posts)36. No, I didn't contradict myself.
You wrote
But this is the exact opposite of what you said above. First you suggested that there are roving gangs of DUers openly going around mass alerting on people in order to get them suspended. Now you're suggesting that DUers are shy to alert on other DUers because they *don't* want them to get suspended.
And I made it clear those were different types of DUers. I wrote
I suspect one reason there are fewer alerts is that unless the motivation is animosity toward the DUer being alerted on, most DUers DON'T want to alert on a problem post or vote to remove it if that makes it at all likely that DUer will be suspended
Emphasis added for this reply.
You wrote
The Jury process is anonymous, so you don't know the identity of the person whose post you are adjudicating.
When I was on juries, if I didn't recognize the post from having seen it earlier, it was simple enough to find in a search to look at it in context, because I do think context is important. And again, this is something where an experienced moderator can make a better decision, probably, than a jury. Forum interactions often have a history, and it can make more sense to talk to the people involved than to see if randomly chosen DUers without context can help the situation if they're alerted to one post and that somehow happens to be key. Sometimes what gets removed isn't the worst that was said in an exchange. Sometimes simply deleting an entire subthread where a debate got too heated makes much more sense than anything else - deleting it, not penalizing people for it.
You also wrote
Neither you nor anyone else knows how many times you were alerted on, because we do not make that information public. Anybody can say whatever they like in an email! Especially during primary season, when folks just love to stir shit behind the scenes.
The people I got these messages from were among the most highly respected here, and anything but shit-stirrers. It is true that they couldn't know for sure who was doing the alerting. I had no reason to disbelieve them about the alert, though.
You like the jury system, and you've explained why. I'm sure there are some times it might be more helpful than having experienced moderators.
But I also feel that communication between mods/admins and members posting stuff causing a problem can go a long way to keep problems from developing. Moderators talking to Rubyshoo early on about why her posts were causing problems might have headed off so much that went wrong. The jury system by comparison seems rather scattershot.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is there a way to add another alert reason for posting untrue information? [View all]
beaglelover
Jul 2024
OP
Usually gets covered under the 'RW memes' or Conspiracy theories types alerts...
hlthe2b
Jul 2024
#1
Agreed, especially since one prolific newcomer seems intent on spreading disinformation
Maru Kitteh
Jul 2024
#3
The most important thing to do is post the facts in a response. That gets noticed quickly if enough people say,
Silent Type
Jul 2024
#8
We seem to have lots of folks willing to rec anything that makes them feel good.
CloudWatcher
Aug 2024
#20
It'd be difficult because who's providing the "truth"? The jury is not be able to do research.
live love laugh
Jul 2024
#11
I agree with others who say it's probably not logistically possible, but I get your sentiment.
orange jar
Jul 2024
#12
"If a post could be alerted for false info, an area is provided to state why or link to proof"
progree
Jul 2024
#17
Still needs to be addressed, for all the reasons stated. I am quite distressed at the number of times ...
Hekate
Sep 2024
#22
It's a difficult problem to deal with in a forum like this one where people are in basic agreement on so
highplainsdem
Sep 2024
#25
TY, hpd, for a long & thoughtful response. It's going to get more complicated with AI...
Hekate
Sep 2024
#27
I don't know. There have been bots posting on Twitter, even from verified accounts, exposed at times
highplainsdem
Sep 2024
#29
OK. I can see that the jury system can sometimes be faster than moderators quickly responding to
highplainsdem
Sep 2024
#33
Well, no offense, but ironically there's a lot of misinformation in your post that I need to correct
EarlG
Sep 2024
#35
I'm sorry. I hadn't realized it had become that nightmarish a situation for you, Skinner and the mods.
highplainsdem
Sep 2024
#39
I get a good explanation of the alert on every jury I get called to and there are a lot of alerts lately ...
marble falls
Sep 2024
#41
As long as it is demonstrably untrue. Opinions unfortunately are more difficult. And most of politics is opinion.
Silent Type
Sep 2024
#26