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)