Two jury coding issues.

[Ms. Toad]

The first is new - when I expanded all posts, anything longer than one line ran outside of the box and off the right of the page.



The second has been happening since a couple of jury iterations ago. When I need more context and go to the post to see the conversation, the previous questions about your first impression still appears

[EarlG]

1. The top one is new to me

I'll see if I can reproduce it, hopefully I'll be able to resolve that one.

The second one is broken code from the original version of the Jury system. The first Jury System which ran from 2011-2016 operated without rules. After the 2016 primary we reintroduced rules and modified the Jury System to accommodate them, which is how the system has worked ever since.

However, some old code from the previous Jury System still exists on certain pages. That old code should eventually be patched out at some point, but the reason it hasn't yet is because it only appears on pages that you're not supposed to be visiting in the first place.

If you're serving on a Jury and you feel you don't have enough context or information to make a decision, you should simply cancel out and let another member take a look, not search for the post on the forum to find out who posted it, or who they were talking to. While you're serving on a Jury, we deliberately strip out that information for a reason.

The bottom line is that if you're searching for posts while serving on a Jury, and you're ignoring the warnings telling you to go back to the post you're adjudicating, you're using the Jury System in a way that is not intended and you may see incorrect code or broken pages.

[Ms. Toad]

2. I missed this when you responded

I have absolutely no interest in who posted the post I'm jurying, or who they are talking to.

But sometimes the posts are nonsensical without more context from the thread - for example sometimes people hit reply to the wrong post so the response I'm adjudicating isn't actually a response to any of the posts you have included for context. In deed tracing that is called a wild deed, since it isn't related to any existing deed (or in this case, any post quoted in the jury system). In other cases the forum might matter, since there are different rules in different forums - not to mention somewhat different cultures. I've also had times when there were things missing from the post I was jurying - IIRC something about pulling the post into the jury system broke the links, or other times the post was edited while it was in the process of being juried (and, if I recall, the innocent edited version of the post appeared in the jury presentation - with the vile original post still accessible in the post history - but only if you visited it in the thread

My recollection from when the current version of the jury system was introduced is that it was perfectly fine to go to the thread for missing context, because simply using an algorithm to select which posts ought to be relevant was not a perfect way of including the relevant posts. We just couldn't post or otherwise interact with DU until we completed jury service. So the warnings weren't "you don't belong here" as much as they were a reminder that while I was serving on jury duty my ability to interact with DU was limited. So I don't really think it is fair to suggest I'm on a page I have no business being on. If that is the case, it is probably pretty easy to actually revise the software to prohibit it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. I treat jury duty as if it's a real jury -- if it's not presented in 'court', it's not evidence.

The rule (and its rationale) is presented, the alerted post is presented, and some context posts that may be expanded. That's all I'm presented with and that's all I consider before voting.

Lawyers and the judge might be displeased if I tried to do detective work on my own during the trial.

[Ms. Toad]

4. Real juries have real people who curate the evidence.

It isn't non-human algorithm which chooses which evidence the jury sees.

In a real trial, when the defendant takes the stand and lies about what they said (i.e. they changed the post after a buddy warned them their post had been alerted on), the attorney for the plaintiff would present evidence of what was actually said (i.e. the screen capture of the post before editing). That can't happen here because what the jury sees is simply the mechanical selection of up-thread posts. The offensive comment is not visible to anyone who is on the jury - even though it is still visible on DU to anyone reviews the edit history of the post
Further - a post can only be adjudicated once. It would be very easy to edit an incredibly offensive post once a buddy alerts the poster that their post is being juried, wait until the jury leaves the post, then re-edit the post back to the original. Since a post can't be adjudicated more than once, the offensive post will stand.

A second problem is people who accidentally reply to the wrong post. This makes the mechanical selection of posts visible to the jury non-sensical because the conversation makes no sense because a significant portion of the conversation is missing - even though it makes perfect sense when you can view the entire thread.

You do you. But if the post I'm asked to adjudicate looks completely innocuous, or the conversation I'm shown is complete nonsense, I'm going to the thread to see if it was edited from something which should be hidden, or if there was an accidental reply to the wrong thread (or anything else which is only apparent in the context of the entire conversation).

[Hermit-The-Prog]

5. There can be as many alerts on a post as there are members reading it.

[Ms. Toad]

6. There can be lots of alerts, but each post is only adjudicated once.

Just like real courts, there aren't multiple trials for a single offense.

So if someone posts "so and so is a f****t," someone else alerts on it and a buddy sends them a DU mail, they edit the post to remove f****t, the jury sees the edited post and votes to leave it, the post is safe after that. It doesn't get adjudicated again even if there are 100 new alerts.

I can't easily find the jury rules, but here's how you can verify it: If you ever find a really offensive post try alerting on it, then immediately alert a second time. You'll get one of two responses - one telling you to wait until your prior alert has been resolved OR one asking you what the issue with the post is. Because the response is immediate (i.e. there hasn't been time for a jury to adjudicate a post), it means the post has already survived an alert and is immune from future alerts.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. I know one member can't sequentially alert on one post

An alert for some offense may be sent by one member and after a jury declares it does not violate the rule, an alert for the same or different offense may be sent by another member. I've seen this happen while serving on MIRT.

As far as an edited post between alert and a jury, I see nothing wrong with that. When I'm on a jury, I deal only with what I'm presented -- the claim, the rule, the rationale, the possibly offending post, and whatever contextual posts are presented. If I feel the post, as presented, does not violate the rule, that's how I'll vote. If it is later edited to break the rule, I would hope some watchful member will alert on it.

[Ms. Toad]

8. An alert after modification does not result on a second adjudication.

The edited offensive post is immune to a second adjudication, regardless of who alerts on it. I've given you the steps to confirm it for yourself.

As for leaving an offensive post simply because someone edited the offensive post - you can't be serious. You think it is perfectly fine to leave a racist screed, similar because someone slapped a nice looking cover on it and the jury never saw the offensive post? You do know that an edit doesn't remove the content, right. It is still there for anyone who views the edits to see.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

9. I follow the instructions given. I don't recall ever being called to judge edit history.