I've been reading the postings for the past few days and really am
glad that so many of you have been able to "moderate" (in the
dictionary definition) your lists without "editing" (in the technical
computer sense) them.  Over the last 3 years I've tried almost
every one of the techniques that have been described.  However,
as subscription numbers increased those methods completely fall apart.
Also, having the group "gang up" on miscreants is a bit adolescent imho.
 
I found after my discussions increased over 600 that the workload involved
in "moderating" was much greater than that for "editing"  A liberal
editing policy- no censorship and a specific set of guidelines for a
team of moderators/editors work very well for me.   We have no
garbage commands sent, we have no accidental embarrassing personal mail,
and we are able to make notes that say...only the first 1000 answers to
this question will be posted...or short notes that say....we are
a discussion for Library Reference Issues not of Campaign Politics or
Religion or whatever without ever having to make a big deal out of it.
 
Cheers!
Diane
 
Diane Kovacs,
Libref-l
Govdoc-L
Arachnet
DOROTHYL
EJVC and LIBRES E-journals, etc.