I think there was an ATA thread and Skinner said they'd changed it so everyone who hasn't opted out, can be called for jury duty on a post anywhere on the site.
I think the reasoning was that limiting the jury pool to people who hadn't blocked a group had the potential to create a jury that wasn't as random as one where the pool drew from the entire DU membership.
I'll see if I can find the ATA thread.
Edit: found it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12596246
A few months ago we realized that removing people from jury duty in groups they are trashing could actually allow a disruptive group to become MORE disruptive rather than LESS disruptive. This is the exact opposite of how the jury system is supposed to work. Allow me to explain.
The administrators don't think of the jury system as a new way to delete posts. We think of it as a way to change the incentives to discourage disruptive behavior. One of the features of the jury system is that as a person or group becomes more disruptive (posts more flamebait, insults more people, etc) then that person or group is simultaneously poisoning their own jury pool. This provides an incentive to avoid disruptive behavior, because your disruptive behavior should make jurors like you less, which might make some jurors less likely to cut you slack when they judge your posts.
However, this feature would be subverted if the people who like a group the least (ie: people trashing that group) are excluded from the jury pool. The practical outcome of excluding the people who are most disgusted by a group's disruptive behavior is that it would over time skew the jury pool toward people who are supportive of a disruptive group's disruptive behavior. Ironically, bad behavior could create a sympathetic jury pool, which would allow for even more disruptive behavior.
Sid
= new reply since forum marked as read
