Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site neurad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!bullwinkle!rochester!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!nbs-amrf!neurad!donn
From: donn@neurad.UUCP (Donn S. Fishbein)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.jokes.d
Subject: Re: newgroup mod.jokes && rmgroup net.jokes
Message-ID: <246@neurad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Dec-85 13:45:04 EST
Article-I.D.: neurad.246
Posted: Fri Dec 27 13:45:04 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 23:24:11 EST
References: <397@cad.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: donn@neurad.UUCP (Donn S. Fishbein)
Organization: Natl Inst Health, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 16
Xref: linus net.news.group:4233 net.jokes.d:1061

Perhaps a reasonable compromise to the problem of low signal to noise ratio
versus censorship would be a "semi-moderator".

This person could look at incoming material to locate duplicates,
and perhaps messages posted in error, and inform the sender of this.
I think many people who post jokes the net has recently seen are
simply not aware of this.
However, if the sender submitted the material a second time,
it would be posted without further question.
(perhaps a note would be appended, identified as coming from the
 moderator, noting the problem with the article.)
Thus the only damage the moderator could do would be to delay an article being
posted; if the poster insisted, any article could be posted.
-- 
Donn S. Fishbein, MD  (N3DNT)   (301)496-6801
..!{harpo,allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!seismo!neurad!donn