You ever have DU jury duty and the person being reported on is saying something you just DO NOT agree with

[AZJonnie]

And then you read the Rule, hoping you can find some reason you can ding the poster for their terrible take?

But you can't, and then you end up going "darn it, it doesn't quite break the rule, so FINE, it stays" (also, humbug!)

I don't, I mean, that never happens to me, I just thought maybe sometimes other people might have that happen

[Laffy Kat]

1. Yes. And sometimes I'll read everything a few times and I still don't understand.

Thus, feeling like an uninformed idiot, I back out of the jury.

[AZJonnie]

2. Well THAT sort of humbleness is admirable my friend, good on you!

I mean that

[Laffy Kat]

4. Awww, thanks, AZ Jonnie

[eppur_se_muova]

3. I tend to err on the side of Pharaoh's (as played by Yul Brynner) logic: "Let him rave, that men may know him mad."

Didn't work out too well for Pharaoh, but the argument is a good one on such occasions.

[Eugene]

5. If the alerted post doesn't objectively break the rules, I will usually let it pass.

In general, the offending post also needs to break the rule specified in the alert, unless the it's obvious and egregious abuse of the platform.

[AZJonnie]

6. Yes, I always do that, the rules are the rules and I read them carefully again, every time

and studiously attempt an objective judgement against their framework. In practice a post has to very clearly and irrefutably break the rules to get a ding from yours truly.

But there's times, ya know, when doing the correct thing is not my first impulse upon reading the alerted post, shall we say