primitives discuss the good old days

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024546402

Oh my.

FourScore (8,265 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:04 PM

In the old days, we had mods here on DU.

They sent shit-stirring stuff to it's appropriate forum or locked it altogether. From what I'm seeing lately here on DU, the mod system worked better than what's in place now. Posts like the SI cover or the fact some guy got his SI magazine today would get sent straight to the men's forum or the lounge. If threads became too contentious, they got locked. It was at times frustrating to see some OPs get swooped to the dungeon, but overall, it was the right way to do it.

For some reason, the jury system doesn't seem to manage this sort of thing very well. Maybe it's because there are only 2 choices, leave it or hide it. Maybe there should be a way the jury could vote to send it to a different forum. I just don't know how that would work.
 
It's sad. I think the quality of DU has been diminished by this dumbing down.

On EDIT: Maybe there could be a "send it to the mods" option. Then the mods can decide if it should go in a different forum or get locked or whatever. That way they don't have to check EVERY thread, only those that are sent to them.

NightWatcher (23,290 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:09 PM

1. It did cut down a lot on the Wars DU Jour

Things got shut down before there were 20+ threads all gnashing of teeth or in uproar that teeth weren't being properly gnashed.

Scootaloo (9,928 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:12 PM

2. The two systems would work best if combined

Juries to enforce "day-to-day" standards, with active moderation to preserve overall quality and site / forum rules.
 
Of course the trick is getting mods worth the time of day. I can look on the MIRT list as-stands and see about a half-dozen people who should never have any say over such things.

LuvNewcastle (6,054 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:16 PM

4. I agree that DU needs some more active moderation, but I think

the mods were overzealous sometimes about striking individual posts. I saw a lot of posts get stricken that I didn't see anything particularly wrong with. I think the jury system is good for handling individual posts in threads, but we do need someone to handle OPs more. I would've moved or locked that SI thread before there were any replies. It was stupid to post that in GD. Virtually anyone should have recognized that it would be offensive to some of the women members. I guess everyone knows now. Anyway, I think you're right that we need a moderator for this forum.

Gormy Cuss (27,750 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:28 PM

9. The jury system lets stand a lot of posts that could legitimately be hidden.

(that's paraphrasing a Skinner response to a 3-3 tie question recently.)

I don't think that's a good jury system but I am in favor of juries assessing based on TOS, which is the broad framework for moderation. Currently though, jurors just go with their gut/personal biases and that leads to at least as many uneven outcomes as the old mod system.
 
IMHO the layer of oversight that is missing is that no one other than admins can shut down forum threads that go off the rails quickly and completely. Forum hosts should have this ability. As a group host I can shut down threads for that reason and have. It's an effective tool for keeping discussion civil and on point.

LuvNewcastle (6,054 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:42 PM

17. I definitely agree that hosts should be able to handle shutting down threads.

I don't really understand what the purpose is of having hosts if they don't have that power. As far as individual posts go, sure, the jury system does let too many posts slide, but I'm of the opinion that too much freedom is better than too little. That's just my personal preference, though. But yeah, I would really like to see hosts to be given the authority to shut down threads.

DefenseLawyer (8,735 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:19 PM

6. Back in my day everything was good and pure.

It was a simpler time. Everybody knew their neighbors. We left the back door unlocked.

DonCoquixote (7,133 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:29 PM

10. I hate to agree with you

As I thought the jury system would democratize the whole process, but sadly, a group of would be elite and thugs made sure the jury system was abused. It gets bad when people say "one more ban and that (insert feminist here) gets banned!"
 
At the very least, there are two reforms that need having:

One, get RID of that "no explanation given" crap. That is often the tool of people who act in collusion and do NOT want to get caught! If you can rule on someone, you can at least EXPLAIN WHY. The sort of people who are afraid to explain their decisions are the sort of people that should not be given the power to make decisions over a person's fate!
 
Second, if you cannot bring back the mod system make the mods the ones that JUDGE who gets banned. There should be someone NOT in the grip of a hackable system (which the juries are) to act as a failsafe.
 
The sad fact is, DU is no less manipulated than other forums, more so because we have caught conservatives red-handed. Worse yet, there is a faction that may be liberal to the extent that the GOP elephant's tusk gores their behind, but are willing to see others they do not like get stomped. These are often (though not always) the folk that hiss like vampires at the mention of "privilege"
 
rarely will I vote to bring back old evils, but frankly we do need the lunge as a separator between silly and serious threads. Granted, the line between the two can be thin; a thread about sports can easily be relevant to politics, but let a mod decide that. The Jury system has turned Duers against each other,which is exactly what the shit stirrers want.*

*now, who would be so mean-spirited so as to want that?

pipi_k (18,589 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:37 PM

12. It's not the system that sucks...

it's people's attitudes.

There are two main sides...

On one side: the "I'm-so-persecuted" types

On the other side: the "I'm entitled to post any damned thing I want to" types.

With a few in the middle willing to take responsibility for their actions.

Why was the mod system changed to the jury system? As I recall, it was because the admins and mods got sick and tired of accusations of favoritism from the mods.
 
Fine. Now the mods are gone.

No matter what system we have here, people are going to wretch and whine.

Someone wants to see an option for juries to have mods check questionable posts. How would that work? If four people out of six check that option, it will go to the mods, who make a decision that a jury felt it couldn't make on its own? Here's a tip...a juror who can't decide how to rule has the option to get the hell off the jury. Imagine that!
 
So, say a jury sends a post to a mod to "check" and the mod decides contrary to what the alerter wanted. OMG!!!!! FAVORITISM!!!!
 
So not only are jurors being called out and insulted, now the mods are back to being insulted as well.
 
No. It's not the system. It's people's shitty, childish attitudes.

WilliamPitt (56,335 posts)   Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:40 PM

15. You know, you can always choose to not read/trash those threads.

It is an option.

I don't read them, and have been using the shit out of Ignore. Improved my experience dramatically.

MineralMan (61,567 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:41 PM

16. Back in the day, things were way better, you know.

They were, for sure. How? Well, give me a minute, and I'll come up with some cliche to explain.

[USA4ME]

pipi_k

No matter what system we have here, people are going to wretch and whine.

The understatement of the year.

Of course you'll wretch and whine. You're liberals. It's the foundation of what makes you who you are.

.

[98ZJUSMC]

DefenseLawyer (8,735 posts)    Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:19 PM

6. Back in my day everything was good and pure.

It was a simpler time. Everybody knew their neighbors. We left the back door unlocked.

Snark aside, there's a reason for that, drooling idiot lawyer.  We had far less government and it was far more moral.

Know what else we had far fewer of?

Lawyers.

WilliamPitt (56,335 posts)   Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:40 PM

15. You know, you can always choose to not read/trash those threads.

It is an option.

I don't read them, and have been using the shit out of Ignore. Improved my experience dramatically.

The (D)Ummie Creed:  Ignorance is bliss.

Right Blob?

[Carl]

CC has active moderation.

It is not always perfect but is seldom really needed either.
Seems to work.

[Splashdown]

Man. They just HAVE to squelch any form of dissent, don't they?

[obumazombie]

They would choke at the real good old days...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/22/maria-von-trapp-last-surviving-member-of-siblings-portrayed-in-the-sound-of-music-dies-at-99/

[tanstaafl]

CC has active moderation.

It is not always perfect but is seldom really needed either.
Seems to work.

Yeah, but CC members are of a more moral and decent attitude than your typical DUmmy, so require less moderation. DUmmies seem to have a high opinion of their typed swill and get really pissed when confronted by someone else with an even loftier opinion of themselves.

[txradioguy]

CC has active moderation.

It is not always perfect but is seldom really needed either.
Seems to work.

That's because Conservatives...despite how we've been depicted at the DUmp are the adults in the room so to speak.

Listening to the DUmmies pine for the good old days reminds me of the pictures you see in Russia of those old men at a parade still wearing their Order of Lenin medals and clutching the old Communist flag.