so you could say it doesn't violate one rule and alert it for another.

If a post needs to be removed, it needs to be removed.

I guess I was being too lawyerly.

Of course as John Roberts has declared the Constitution unconstitutional, the rule of law no longer applies in our culture.

Was it a deliberate rule violation, etc.

Generally, what I do is look first at the post in question as to whether it disobeys whatever guideline has been indicated in the alert.

If the post doesn't seem to fulfill the terms of the guideline in question, then I vote accordingly. However, if the post clearly goes against some other rule then I will vote according to that.

For example this particular post that was flagged was a reply to an OP that asked where the Democrats are and spoke of how Newsom is the only one doing anything - not entirely true, but I do very much share the poster's frustration.

The reply to this OP was very nasty and full of sarcasm about how like clockwork people on the site 'shit on Democrats.'

I won't say how I voted, but that is a pretty common thing on these juries. In this case flaming or personal attacks was called out so there was a 'fit.' Sometimes though, there is clearly something 'off' about a post that does not 'fit' with the specific DU guidelines.

The thing I have always wished for, though it would prove impractical, I'm sure, is if I could comment on my vote and why I voted that way. But that really isn't how juries work - in our legal system the vote is guilt or not-guilt. So that is how these DU juries work and that has to be fine.

Sometimes, posts can potentially violate multiple rules, so the system allows for posts to be alerted on multiple times -- but only once per rule. Once a post has survived a Jury for, say "No personal attacks," it can't be alerted on again for that rule. But if the same post also contains something bigoted, it can be alerted again under the "No bigotry" rule.

If the initial Jury is still in progress when the second alert is sent, the system queues the second alert but does not call a Jury. Then, if the post is removed for the first alert, the queued alert is discarded and no second Jury is called. But if the post is left alone, a second Jury will be called immediately to resolve the queued alert.

As always, the Jury system is subjective, so you should do what you think is right when serving.

(For what it's worth, when I review appeals I review them against ALL the rules, but that's because I have to -- a post can only be removed for a single rule, but it might break multiple rules. So if someone has a post removed for making a personal attack, and they appeal it, and I determine that the appeal is valid, then I'll put the post back. But if the post ALSO contains something bigoted, then I'm not going to put the post back just because the personal attack appeal was approved.)

...my subjective decision in the future.