Dear Seniors,
 
There is a never-ending noise in FISH-ECOLOGY (600+ scientific members
from 34 countries). It seems that all backchanneling to tell dos and
donts is useless. It seems that many users do not read the slightest
sentence on "how-to" in the network.
 
As consequence of this FISH-ECOLOGY has lost several Senior sources.
The Seniors are the "Apollos" in the marine science research world.
They have little time to waste and never come back if they leave for
being annoyed by idiocy or technical failures at nodes. For instance,
we lost a Senior from FAO, the most important one, during the last
crash at the ESGBOX node in Spain when messages were bouncing all
over the place. We still have some Seniors left.
 
I have come to the conclusion that not-moderating FISH-ECOLOGY will
never create the conditions for a high-quality-no-noise-free-of-
idiocy-medium. A weeks job may go wasted by a single bad message. I
got an express unsub & protest for the P&V signature. I got a bunch
of unsubs (higher than expected) after the P&V signature talking
about her political agenda. And the never ending "John, get me a copy
of ..." sent to 600+ people, etc for which I have received protests
and further unsubs. People need this to enhance productivity, not to
waste their time.
 
Now, we got disinformation from environmental groups forwarded by
third and fourth parties into the network. And I feel "doomsday"
approaches if we do not move fast and surgically. We need some
commando-operation here.
 
Please, advice a junior on whether going private & moderated.
Would a votation from the subscribers be good ?
What are the less good aspects of moderating in your opinion ?
What are the implications of moderation on "Freedom of Speech" ?
Is dicatorship the only solution ?
 
Thank you for your expertise.
 
    APS (FISH-ECOLOGY/SEARN/SUNET/SE)