Matt: I'm not sure where you are going with this "higher level of banning" concept. Since you specifically mentioned me in your post, am I to understand that you are again revisiting whether or not you the moderator should be able to banish me even if I do not break the rules?
Also, what evidence do you have that there is no intent to scam others, pump the stock or misleading shareholder by those who want to eliminate contrary points of view or the correction of misrepresented facts? IMO, that element very definitely exists on that board.
When a stock becomes as illiquid as EDIG is, the motive to keep "everyone else" invested is increased since even relatively small sell-offs can cause a major drop in the share price. Additionally, with a company that relies on sales of freshly minted stock to stay in business, there is a motive to get others to buy the stock since there is always a certain supply for sale.
In the end, you may decide to capitulate to the demands of penny stock touts and naive investors who believe the myth that only paid bashers criticize their stock. If you do, you no longer have a "discussion," but a tout board.
An analogy could be made to a discussion board about cigarette smoking. The tobacco companies would like to suppress information about the health hazards of smoking and those addicted to cigarettes would rather not hear the bad news about these proven hazards. If you reverse your position and begin to allow "banning" of certain members because they have a contrary point of view (often the more truthful and accurate one), you would be taking a similar action as banning those who would post about the health hazards of smoking on a smoking discussion board.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
