Skins bans and publicly shames a primitive from the jury system

[BattleHymn]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027216322

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:03 PM
Star Member AtomicKitten (43,823 posts)

Does this seem reasonable and fair?

It has come to my attention recently that there is a discrepancy in what I see in my profile and what the rest of DU sees.

When I look at my profile, I see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=173816

Eligibility to Serve on Jury: Yes.

Turns out the rest of you are seeing this: http://imgur.com/oYbaqyG

Eligibility to Serve on Jury: No.

Problem #1: Why the duplicity? It has been this way for months apparently. I am told it's a glitch, still it remains uncorrected.

I inquired about being excluded from Jury Duty and was advised it was posted in 2013: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10132863

Members who are abusive while performing jury service will lose the privilege of serving on juries.
The administrators are getting increasingly concerned about the small number of members who repeatedly post rude juror comments while serving on juries. The vast majority of jurors are doing the job in good faith, but unfortunately a small number of people are not. Some people seem to be using the juror comments as a "free" opportunity to make extremely abusive comments to people -- that's not ok. If any juror has a history of inappropriate comments, or if any juror makes a single comment that is way over the line, then we are going to exclude that individual from jury service. If we do take away any person's jury privileges, we will do so transparently and make a note of it on that person's profile page. (Look for the words "Eligible to serve on Juries?")


Yet when I inquired about the exact nature of the penalty, this was the response I got which is quite different than the actual posted notice:

Also, whenever a person serves on a jury, this text appears just above the comment section, highlighted in red: "If you submit abusive or offensive comments when serving on a jury, your eligibility to serve on juries may be revoked, and the comment which caused the loss of eligibility may be displayed publicly on your Profile page."

Removal from jury service is permanent.


Problem #2: A person who has accumulated five hides is temporarily suspended. On their return, all rights and privileges are restored including their transparency page being hidden again. I don't understand why two off-color jury comments earns me a permanent suspension from jury duty and permanent public shaming.

I'm curious what the community thinks of this inequity in penalties. I'm asking about whether or not the community thinks this is fair; if you just don't like me it is a given you will be fine with this, but I'm wondering what everyone else thinks.       

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:08 PM
lumberjack_jeff (30,759 posts)
3. When I click on the link to your profile I see... exactly what you provide in your screenshot

Unsurprising actually... being one of "the rest of you".

Could you post a screenshot of what *you* see?

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:09 PM
Star Member AtomicKitten (43,823 posts)
6. Click on my first link. It is an image of what my Profile looks for only me.

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:16 PM
Star Member AtomicKitten (43,823 posts)
14. Thanks. I accept the timeout. The permanent nature of it is tough to digest.

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:51 PM
Star Member petronius (24,524 posts)
23. Interesting. I would guess that the different views is just a programming glitch--at least,

I hope the Admins wouldn't want to hide from people that they'd been excluded from juries. How did you find out, did you just notice that you hadn't been called for a long time?

As for your question, my opinion would be that the ban shouldn't be permanent, at least not the first time. A broad representation on juries seems beneficial, and rude comments--although deserving of some censure--don't really prove a juror unfit to help shape community standards (no more than a couple of hidden posts do, anyway). I'd call it fair if the sanctions for hidden posts and hide-worthy jury comments were somewhat equivalent...

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 05:20 PM
Star Member AtomicKitten (43,823 posts)
24. I received no notification.

I haven't served on a jury in months. I thought it was because I pop in & out a lot; I'm self-employed and work at home. I heard from someone who commented on my 2 jury comments featured on my profile page that I cannot see. They were kind enough to send me a screenshot yesterday. That's how I found out.

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:09 PM
Star Member Nye Bevan (21,236 posts)
4. While you shouldn't have made those juror comments

it does indeed seem a little harsh to leave them up on your profile page in perpetuity.

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:12 PM
Star Member AtomicKitten (43,823 posts)
10. The comments were made months ago.

And, yes, they were harsh. Some of the petty alerts just got on my last nerve.

I've been excluded from Jury Duty for months. I accept that I earned that timeout. But permanently? That I think is over the top.

Thanks for your comment.

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:10 PM
seaotter (65 posts)
8. "...I don't understand why two off color jury comments earns me a ........"

Put me down as " I think it's fair."

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:19 PM
Star Member AtomicKitten (43,823 posts)
18. welcome to DU

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:17 PM
Oilwellian (11,749 posts)
15. No, I don't think it's fair

There should at least be a warning before making something like that become permanent. It's similar to wearing a scarlet letter.

I stopped being a star member when the jury system was introduced. I knew it would become a mess and create cliques...and that it has.

The jury system, in some ways, is one of the best things to happen to the DUmpster.

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:49 PM
Rex (56,052 posts)
22. That doesn't make any sense and there is no reason for it to look different.

The admins did this? I find that hard to believe. Why would they make it any different from what we see? Sounds fishy to me, not that I am saying fishy as in you did it yourself...just I am shocked the admins would go that extra step.

Does SKINS know about this???

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 05:30 PM
Star Member William769 (45,495 posts)
27. One thing is for sure, it will put the breaks on people thinking they can say whatever they want

anonymously.

I applaud the Admins for this action.

You are not the first to have this happen to you but hopefully will be one of the last now that the community knows the Admins are serious.

 

[Carl]

 

[Duke Nukum]

I'm amazed. If this is true, I would think by now that no DUmmie would allowed to serve on at jury.

[miskie]

I'm amazed. If this is true, I would think by now that no DUmmie would allowed to serve on at jury.

I'm not - "Scarlet Lettering" has been a mainstay of Socialists for generations. As for 'no DUmmie would be allowed' - You need to remember that 'some animals are more equal than others'. - Which is another typical socialist belief.

[franksolich]

Cover-up in progress:

etherealtruth (15,814 posts)   Wed Sep 30, 2015, 06:26 PM

33. I am sorry, LOCKING
 
Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.

I don't think it should be any big deal.

These are primitives after all, and should have to take whatever treatment's doled out to them, although in my opinion, the primitives haven't been treated a tenth as badly as they deserve to be.

So Skins is playing games with his web-site.  Whoop-de-doo.  They're only primitives, after all.

[USA4ME]

Cover-up in progress:

I don't think it should be any big deal.

These are primitives after all, and should have to take whatever treatment's doled out to them, although in my opinion, the primitives haven't been treated a tenth as badly as they deserve to be.

So Skins is playing games with his web-site.  Whoop-de-doo.  They're only primitives, after all.

Agreed.

And the Atomic Kitten primitive is a Bernie kook, so once the favorite candidate of Skins burys the old fart in the primaries, she may not be on the island long enough to care about serving on jury duty.

.

[obumazombie]

I want to do my best to channel a DUmmie/primitive, and make this all about me.
I have been banned from 2 related sites with invocation of a TOS that my posts were "disruptive".
How nice. As coach franksolich's cousin nadin might say, cute...adorable.
It's an adaptation of the golden rule.
Whoever has the gold...makes the rules.
If the rules are so nebulous and ethereal purposely to make any forum participant eligible for banning at any time on a whim, so much the better for the owner of the forum.
So the potential alternatives are simple and few...
Kowtow, or start your own forum/site.

[Duke Nukum]

As a good and decent man, I am shocked that a website would not only publicly shame a member in otherwise good standing but then hide this public shaming from the person being shamed.

Then I remember the primitives are not good or decent people and they have made their bed of roses and now they must sail through them like ships passing on the Rubicon at night, as there is no ship like friendship and there are no true friendships amongst leftists.

One reason I had trouble believing this was true was because the thread was allowed to continue on for so long but now that it has been locked, I am sure Atomic Kitten will put her faith in the proletariat to rise up and cease power while she rots in the DUmmie graveyard of her sole, awaiting the rescue that will never arrive as the worms seize to play pinochle on her snout because, as the nose knows the nose is the first to goes.

[BattleHymn]

Here is what really happened:

The primitive was logged into one of its sock puppets and checked out its primary account's profile.