bandy@lll-crg.ARpA (Andrew Scott Beals) (11/28/85)
Hi folks.
So far I've collected 20 yes "votes", 4 qualified affirmatives, 4 nos
and one undecided (well, I could tell he was saying yes/no just not which
one he was saying).
Matt Crawford, replying to a followup to my original article volunteered
to moderate mod.jokes (didn't I see something from him saying that they
were going to be selling off oddjob soon?). He is one of the <5 people
who want to keep net.jokes. He suggested that I filter thru net.jokes,
post those and he gets the mod.jokes mail. Nice offer guy..
Here's what I plan to do:
1. rmgroup net.jokes
2. newgroup mod.jokes
Mod.jokes will have the following policy:
a. If I have a copy of the joke in my archive, it won't be posted.
b. The archives will be available if you send me a tape and a SASE.
c. Rotate all jokes that could be deemed to be offensive (language,
ethnic groups, etc) and put a rot13 in the header.
d. Copyrighted material will not be posted. (Unless, of course, I see
a physical note from the copyright holder that it's okay)
e. If it isn't funny, then it isn't going to be posted. Jokes will
NOT be rejected because they are "offensive".
On point e (above), I have a problem with that - sometimes my brain is out
to lunch (ie I didn't get the "Shutup kid, the turkey's almost done." joke
until it was explained to me). It is necessary so we don't have people sending
in binhex'ed versions of core dumps and then whining when they don't get
posted. What I want to avoid are the Yet Another Small Pun On Someone's
Small Pun On Someone's... Type of things (ie "Modem joke"). However, I
certainly wouldn't want to reject a posting because it didn't strike
/me/ as funny (would anyone like to be a second-level joke evaluation
committee who could get the "this isn't funny" rejects and come back to
me with reasons why it should be posted?).
Several people expressed concern that mod.jokes would take a significant
amount of time. Really? I've noticed that net.jokes has a fairly low
bandwidth and I expect that if people have to actually think just a wee
little bit, then incoming mod.jokes traffic should be fairly low.
I'm perhaps willing to consider repostings (maybe even periodic) of
canonical material (with a suitably marked subject header). However, if
you can get the archives, why do you want reposts?
Someone also was concerned that I might get tired of reading cruft. Well,
rest assured that I've been filtering net.jokes for myself and a few friends
for a few years now...
--
There once was a fellow named Moorehead,
Who had an affair with a warhead.
His wife moved away
The very next day--
She /was/ always kind of a sorehead.
andy beals - bandy@lll-crg.arpa - {seismo,ihnp4!sun,dual}!lll-crg!bandyphil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/28/85)
Go for it, Bandy! I hope I never see another stupid modem "joke".
--
The INS arrested the Rajneesh for trying to leave the country and
then deported him.
Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comflaps@utcs.uucp (Alan J Rosenthal) (12/03/85)
I vote very against rmgrouping net.jokes. I think that mod.jokes is a good
idea, but it doesn't preclude net.jokes.
Alan J Rosenthal
{ihnp4|allegra|linus|decvax}!utzoo!utcs!flaps, cbosgd!utcs!flapsadams@calma.UUCP (Robert Adams) (12/06/85)
> I vote very against rmgrouping net.jokes. I think that mod.jokes is a good > idea, but it doesn't preclude net.jokes. > > Alan J Rosenthal > {ihnp4|allegra|linus|decvax}!utzoo!utcs!flaps, cbosgd!utcs!flaps I'm not so sure that mod.jokes is such a good idea (how could one person remember everything that came before?). How about postings like in net.newuser? You know, posting the canonical list of lightbulb, Father Goose, ... jokes every other month or so. There would be some "collector" some where who would coordinate the collection and posting of the jokes. This would solve a lot of the duplication and still leave the current forum of net.jokes. adams@calma.UUCP -- Robert Adams ...!ucbvax!calma!adams
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (12/07/85)
I AM COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THIS INANE IDEA HOW CAN ANYONE MODERATE SOMETHING AS SUBJECTIVE AS JOKES? IT WOULD AMOUNT TO NOTHING MORE THAN CENSORSHIP WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! MODERATE ANY GROUP YOU WANT, BUT LEAVE NET.JOKES TO THOSE OF US WHO LOVE TOTAL CHAOS Bing, the starter of the "modem joke" PS if you take away net.jokes, i'll post my jokes on random news groups to avoid being censored... oops i mean "moderated"... i am certain that the moderator will do a great job, but i just do not lie the idea of my postings having to go through another person before it makes it to the net.
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (12/08/85)
I do not feel that a rmgroup on net.jokes is warranted. Net.jokes is
not taking up significant bandwidth, nor are there a significant number
of offensive postings. Those that are are handled well by net.jokes.d.
So, net.jokes in itself is a self-policing group -- things don't get out
of hand.
Mod.jokes is a good idea to keep out the cruft, repeated jokes and jokes
in poor taste. It should exist only as a parallel to the regular group
and not as a replacement for it. Like the saying goes, if it ain't
broke, don't fix it.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edurick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (12/10/85)
In article <244@galbp.UUCP>, bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) writes: > if you take away net.jokes, i'll post my jokes on random news groups > to avoid being censored... oops i mean "moderated"... If you try anything this childish, I'll post a 10 line "fix" to inews that will cause it to reject any article posted by you or if necessary from your site. If a few sites install this, then you might learn the true meaning of censorship. ---rick
taylor@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Jem Taylor) (12/10/85)
Net.jokes is exactly what usenet is all about - spontaneous and anarchic.
Mod.jokes is exactly the opposite - humourless and censorial.
-o
(==). Jemima Puddleduck
--
Jem Taylor, Computer Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, SCOTLAND.
---------------------------------------+----------------------------------------
UUCP: ...uk...!cstvax!glasgow!taylor | -o
JANET: taylor%glasgow@uk.ac.ed.cstvax | (==). Jemima Puddleduckibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) (12/10/85)
> In article <244@galbp.UUCP>, bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) writes: > > if you take away net.jokes, i'll post my jokes on random news groups > > to avoid being censored... oops i mean "moderated"... > > If you try anything this childish, I'll post a 10 line "fix" to inews that > will cause it to reject any article posted by you or if necessary > from your site. If a few sites install this, then you might learn > the true meaning of censorship. > > ---rick If you do that, I'll get my big brother! (just who's being childish rick?) Addison ihlpa!ibyf My brother? I always thought of him as mom and dad's science project.
cds@duke.UUCP (Craig D. Singer) (12/10/85)
In article <993@seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >In article <244@galbp.UUCP>, bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) writes: >> if you take away net.jokes, i'll post my jokes on random news groups >> to avoid being censored... oops i mean "moderated"... > >If you try anything this childish, I'll post a 10 line "fix" to inews that >will cause it to reject any article posted by you or if necessary >from your site. If a few sites install this, then you might learn >the true meaning of censorship. > Gee, and then somebody will post the same kind of "fix" to hurt the guy who posted the original "fix"...and then somebody else, and somebody else, and before you know it, nobody will be able to post anything anywhere. Now that's what I call funny! -- Craig D. Singer, Dept. of Computer Science, Duke University Durham, NC 27706-2591. Phone (919) 684-5110 (ext.20) CSNET: cds@duke UUCP: ...!decvax!duke!cds ARPA: cds%duke@csnet-relay
meehan@ihlpg.UUCP (Meehan) (12/12/85)
> I AM COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THIS INANE IDEA > > HOW CAN ANYONE MODERATE SOMETHING AS SUBJECTIVE AS JOKES? > > IT WOULD AMOUNT TO NOTHING MORE THAN CENSORSHIP > > WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! MODERATE ANY GROUP YOU WANT, BUT > LEAVE NET.JOKES TO THOSE OF US WHO LOVE TOTAL CHAOS > > > Bing, the starter of the "modem joke" > PS > if you take away net.jokes, i'll post my jokes on random news groups > to avoid being censored... oops i mean "moderated"... > i am certain that the moderator will do a great job, but i just do not > lie the idea of my postings having to go through another person before > it makes it to the net. echo "I AGREE WITH YOU 100%" Pat Meehan
bandy@lll-crg.ARpA (Andrew Scott Beals) (12/12/85)
In article <277@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP> taylor@glasgow.UUCP (Jem Taylor) writes: > Jem Taylor, Computer Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, SCOTLAND. Europe doesn't get net.jokes. -- Outlaw thievery - repeal the 16th amendment! andy beals - bandy@lll-crg.arpa - {seismo,ihnp4,qantel}!lll-crg!bandy
yogi@xanth.UUCP (Chuck Flaherty) (12/14/85)
In article <993@seismo.CSS.GOV>, rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >In article <244@galbp.UUCP>, bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) writes: >> if you take away net.jokes, i'll post my jokes on random news groups >> to avoid being censored... oops i mean "moderated"... >If you try anything this childish, I'll post a 10 line "fix" to inews that >will cause it to reject any article posted by you or if necessary >from your site. If a few sites install this, then you might learn >the true meaning of censorship. I can't believe that anyone would want to moderate something as harmless and as open as net.jokes. It seems to me that we are all grown-ups here, and a dirty joke now and then shouldn't send you running to your bible in a fit moral indignation. However, it appears that Mr. Adams senses the need to teach us "the true meaning of censorship". I feel that I do not need anyone deciding what is appropriate for my personal consumption. It would be unfortunate if someone had to place their jokes in a random news group to escape another's morality. It would be worse, however, if someone did a "fix" to shutdown a site because he felt trying to avoid moderation is childish. Chuck Flaherty ihnp4!burl!icase!xanth!yogi
jmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) (12/16/85)
In article <242@xanth.UUCP> yogi@xanth.UUCP (Chuck Flaherty) writes:
some drivel about how censoring dirty jokes is dumb
Read the articles proposing mod.jokes from the gentleman (sorry, I have
forgotten his name) who offered to moderate. He specifically said there
would be no censorship. The main purpose is to avoid duplicated jokes,
and as an extra added bonus, he would ensure that possibly offensive jokes
were properly rot'ed.
Don't complain when you don't know what you're talking about.sahunt@warwick.UUCP (Steve Hunt) (12/17/85)
I believe that net.jokes is one of the newsgroups that aren't brought across to Europe - we only see the jokes that have been cross-posted to other newsgroups. Perhaps mod.jokes, with lower volume and higher signal-to-noise ratio, could be shipped over. How about it, mcvax? In the meantime... keep cross-posting! -- Steve Hunt "Wel-come ho-o-ome!" Computer Science Dept "On-our-way-'ome" Warwick University Coventry CV4 7AL, ENGLAND ...mcvax!ukc!warwick!sahunt
brianc@tekla.UUCP (Brian Conley) (12/19/85)
> In article <993@seismo.CSS.GOV>, rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: > >In article <244@galbp.UUCP>, bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) writes: > >> if you take away net.jokes, i'll post my jokes on random news groups > >> to avoid being censored... oops i mean "moderated"... > > >If you try anything this childish, I'll post a 10 line "fix" to inews that > >will cause it to reject any article posted by you or if necessary > >from your site. If a few sites install this, then you might learn > >the true meaning of censorship. > > I can't believe that anyone would want to moderate something as harmless > and as open as net.jokes. It seems to me that we are all grown-ups > here, and a dirty joke now and then shouldn't send you running to your > bible in a fit moral indignation. However, it appears that Mr. Adams > senses the need to teach us "the true meaning of censorship". I feel > that I do not need anyone deciding what is appropriate for my personal > consumption. It would be unfortunate if someone had to place their > jokes in a random news group to escape another's morality. It would > be worse, however, if someone did a "fix" to shutdown a site > because he felt trying to avoid moderation is childish. > > > Chuck Flaherty > ihnp4!burl!icase!xanth!yogi Perhaps we should "fix" Mr. Adams and see how he enjoys being censored. Maybe it will cure his distinct anal-cranial inversion.
mjc@cad.cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) (12/23/85)
>>> [some immature person writes that if net.jokes becomes moderated, he'll >>> post his stuff in inappropriate groups all over the net.] >> [Rick Adams says if this happens, he will post a fix to software to ignore >> the above person.] From: brianc@tekla.UUCP (and others) >Perhaps we should "fix" Mr. Adams and see how he enjoys being censored. >Maybe it will cure his distinct anal-cranial inversion. You (and many others) miss the point. Rick is not trying to censor the net. He is trying to prevent abuse of the net. Anyone who posts his intentions to abuse the net is asking for trouble and should be pounced on by the net.gods, his system administrator, and anyone else who cares to join the fray. It was the original poster who showed "anal-cranial inversion", not Rick Adams. By the way, I support mod.jokes and it has nothing at all to do with censorship. I've been on the net for a year and a half. I've seen the canonical list of lightbulb jokes 3 or 4 times, and each time it is followed by dozens of messages (many duplicates) saying "you forgot this one". I've seen the same father goose stories many times. I've seen the same "mommy, mommy" jokes over and over. You get the idea. I still read net.jokes because occasionally there is new material there. It would help a lot, though, if someone could act as a filter to trap the numerous duplicates. Will someone please tell me why this filtering process is unreasonable? Brian, and Chuck Flaherty, and all you others who have flamed on this issue, please pay some attention to what has been said by all involved before pouncing. You'll save yourselves from looking like jerks. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-cad!mjc or if that doesn't work: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
donn@neurad.UUCP (Donn S. Fishbein) (12/27/85)
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!donnags@pucc-h (Dave Seaman) (12/28/85)
In article <246@neurad.UUCP> donn@neurad.UUCP (Donn S. Fishbein) writes: >Perhaps a reasonable compromise to the problem of low signal to noise ratio >versus censorship would be a "semi-moderator". The suggestion is that the "person-in-charge" would function mainly as a conduit between joke submitters and joke readers. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be "semi-conductor." -- Dave Seaman pur-ee!pucc-h!ags
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (12/29/85)
In article <246@neurad.UUCP> donn@neurad.UUCP (Donn S. Fishbein) writes: >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. This is exactly what almost all current moderators do today. Very few newsgroups have any sort of quality standards - net.announce is the major one that actually rejects things (and such rejections are usually accompanied with a suggested alternate newsgroup to post to.) Many of you seem to think that having a newsgroup moderated means that people would be prevented from posting. While such strict quality control is done in publications such as journals and magazines, and while there have been many people asking for high quality newsgroups (where having a message accepted implies prestige) the fact is that most moderation is simple filtering of duplicates and mistakes. Even if the net went to 100% moderation (say, because of Stargate requirements) almost everyone could still get messages posted. The outright rejection without an alternate newsgroup (where the poster really wanted it posted, even after seeing possible duplicates) would be an incredibly rare event, probably only legally libelous messages would be completely refused. However, nobody is advocating total moderation. Just moderation of the groups which would benefit from it. Newsgroups where large numbers of readers have had to unsubscribe because they lack the time to read it all are prime candidates, and net.jokes is probably an excellent example. Remember, moderators are responsible to the readers of the newsgroup. If the readers feel the person isn't letting important things through (or is too slow, or is letting too much through, or whatever) they can tell the moderator. If we should ever get into the situation where the readers want to recall a moderator (and there is an alternate candidate) we can always hold an election. Mark Horton
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (12/29/85)
for what it's worth, i'm against mod.jokes...
i personally am fairtly new to the net, and it seems to me
that deciding a joke is "too well known" is a job that is too
subjective for any one person to make... i haven't seen any
father goose jokes yet...
i suppose after a few years on the net, my views may change,
and i may come to dislike net.jokes like you older members.
i suggest we have both mod and net.jokes then as we the new-
commers grow tired of the "same old stuff", we can leave net.jokes
to the new new-commers... and so on...
besides, i really do object at my postings having to go through another
person before it makes it to the net, not that i'm egotistical or anything,
it just goes against my grain...
oh and someone flamed me on my writing style... so i don't like capital letters.
i might try explaining my love of e e cumming's poetry, but that's another storyi guess.
(B)bing
--
|
-*-
/|\
/ \ Season's greetings
/ \ Bing
/ \
/_________\
_______________|_|_____________ ...akgua!galbp!bingchad@anasazi.UUCP (Chad R. Larson) (01/01/86)
I think the idea of a moderator for the jokes is a good one only if the filtering is limited to removing duplicates. Please don't set up a system whereby any individual must be forced to make decisions on "taste". -crl Your generic disclaimer here.