http://www.democraticunderground.com/10134214Oh my.
There were some changes made to forum hosting (moderating) on Skins's island last week; it's explained in Lord Marblehead's original post below, but one doesn't have to read that if one doesn't want to, instead scrolling down to the BainsBane primitive.
EarlG (13,977 posts) Tue Jul 29, 2014, 06:13 PM
We made some changes to the Forum Hosting system today
The previous system had a number of problems which basically boiled down to too many people trying to do the job, not enough turnover, and too much ambiguity in what should and should not be locked (particularly in the General Discussion forum). Put it all together and we had a recipe for counter-productive infighting which caused way too many unnecessary problems (particularly for a job which should merely be the mundane task of occasionally locking off-topic threads).
Here are the changes we have made:
•The access-restricted Hosts Forum is now for Forum Hosts only. (Group Hosts can discuss group-related issues via DU Mail or other means.)
•The number of Forum Host slots has been reduced from 140 to 30. The 30 Forum Hosts are no longer responsible for individual forums, they are responsible for all main forums which require hosting (Welcome & Help, Latest Breaking News, Good Reads, Video & Multimedia, Politics 2014, General Discussion, and The DU Lounge).
•Since Forum Hosts are now responsible for all forums, there are no longer individual Wait Lists for each forum. There is now a single Wait List. Once Hosts have served their 90-day term, they must sign up again and join the bottom of the Wait List if they want to serve again.
•Members must now maintain a 100% chance of serving on a jury if they want to serve as a Forum Host.
•Due to the large amounts of confusion among members and Hosts alike over what kind of threads are permitted in the General Discussion forum, we have written an addendum to the General Discussion forum Statement Of Purpose which we hope makes things much clearer. You can view it here.
Thanks for your patience while we continue to work to improve DU. We expect there may be some bugs while we work on these changes -- if you encounter any weirdness, feel free to report it in this thread.
<
<
<
<
<
BainsBane (28,171 posts) Tue Jul 29, 2014, 08:11 PM
8. Since this change puts even more power in the hands of juries
I'd like to make some suggestions.
1) Make it obligatory for jurors to leave comments. When I see a hide with no jury comments, it is very difficult to see the hide as legitimate, particularly when an alerter gives a reason such as using the word "bullshit," or in some cases the alerter will give no reason at all, yet the post is still hidden and jurors give no explanation for the reason for their vote. It is hard to believe this is about anything other than targeting certain individuals.
2) Think seriously about whether jurors are acting in good faith or voting based on who they like or don't like. In a trial, people with personal connections to a defendant are not allowed to serve on juries. While that isn't practical here, I do think there needs to be effort to ensure hides are based on the content of posts rather than personal animus. Toward that end you might a) disqualify jurors who make clear they vote based on prejudice toward individuals. b) consider removing names of posters from the view of jurors c) provide updated jury instructions making clear jurors are to vote based on the post and not their views of a particular poster.
I hope you give this some thought.
muriel_volestrangler (73,029 posts) Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:38 PM
33. Of your suggestions, only 2(c) makes any sense
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?
BainsBane (28,171 posts) Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:59 PM
34. It is the role of the administrators
to look at alerts. They do so already. They look at alerts to see if someone needs to be PPR'd, and they have PPR'd jurors over comments. Also anyone who receives the jury results can alert on them, so those alerts would go to administrators as they do now. Compelling people to write something makes them at least think about an explanation. I know of cases were jurors have confided, after the fact, that they didn't have a good reason for voting to hide. That should never occur. One should always know why they voted to hide or leave. If you can't think that through, you aren't doing the job responsibly.
2a combined with c would discourage jurors from voting for reasons other than the content of the post. As it stands, people will say "I don't like so and so," Or "he deserves to be told to **** off." That is unacceptable and it should be made clear that it is unacceptable.
Names could be substituted with letters (poster a, b, c, d, etc...) or colors.
This change puts more control in the hands of jurors because anyone with a hide is exempt from hosting. If jury verdicts actually reflected fair determinations on civility that would be one thing. They do not. They serve as personality contests, and some members are quite open about using their votes that way. Some people can say virtually anything and not get a hide, whereas others get hides for saying "bullshit" or posting a laughing emoticon.
The current system is built around popularity, with no protection for the rights of minorities, not just in minority in terms of POV but also literally minorities in terms of people of color. I believe some changes could help encourage greater fairness and more just outcomes for jury decisions. With the requirement that hosts have 100, that means those same standards of popularity will control the content of the website. We have already seen where some hosts will act according to who the alerter or OP is rather than the extent to which the thread fits the SOP of the forum. I fear that will only increase.
<<<not sure what the BainsBane primitive is griping about; it seems to me she and her coterie of screeching she-women are pretty much in charge of Skins's island as it is, always getting their way.
BainsBane (28,171 posts) Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:50 AM
45. I was not talking about alert stalking
In fact no where did I mention it. If you would like to see some of the jury results that led to my conclusions, I can share them with you via PM. I don't appreciate having my concerns mocked. I am far from alone in holding them. Clearly the site owners have an interest in maintaining the jury system since it frees up their time. However, some modest reforms would not be particularly time-consuming. Nothing I have proposed is onerous, with the possible exception of making names invisible.
Someone did an alert experiment where he posted the same thing that resulted in a hide from another member, a feminist, and had a friend alert on him. The results came back 2-5, whereas the woman's post was hidden. I think it would be interesting to see more such experiments. I expect the results would be enlightening. I will also point out that most of the recent PPRs of long-term members were people with relatively few hides. That should tell you something.
I think fairness is a worthy goal and not one that deserves ridicule. Just a two weeks ago people were making similar jokes about perceptions of the hosting forum operating dysfunctionally. Clearly they were wrong.
muriel_volestrangler (73,029 posts) Thu Jul 31, 2014, 03:55 AM
48. If you're talking, *in a thread about hosts*, about juries being about 'popularity'
then you are getting into whining about alert stalking. You're also thread-jacking. I feel a bit guilty that I'm enabling you in that.
No, whatever you do, do not send me jury results. That really would be whining.
" I am far from alone in holding them." Yes, whining about alerts is done by several people. That doesn't mean it's justified, or worth ****ing around with DU by deliberately reposting things that were hidden. I think some people don't realise that juries consist of different people at different times.
BainsBane (28,171 posts) Thu Jul 31, 2014, 07:23 PM
52. I shared my suggestions
That doesn't mean it's justified, or worth ****ing around with DU by deliberately reposting things that were hidden.
I'm not even going to ask what that is about, only to say I have not done it. I would have thought it was obvious by offering to send jury results via PM that I would not be posting them. Politely offering suggestions for considertaton is not whining.
I shared my concerns and demonstrated their relationship to the OP. You and anyone else can make of them what they will. You first responded about why you thought they impractical, and then when I showed otherwise you decided to lecture me personally for even speaking. You might have simply said you think the system works fine as is or not responded at all. Although you did not intend it as such, your post about "whining like little girls" got right to the heart of the issue.
^^^in reference to an image a primitive posted that BainsBane thought offensive for some reason.
