Matt, you raise some good points but on this one you are just plain wrong:
"Yes, I'll stand behind that comment. If a pumper wants to move a stock, he needs new blood. He isn't going to get that from people who are fully educated on the stock and discuss it daily. He has to cover new ground."
I'm not saying this to butt heads but I think you need to consider that the world of pumpers is much broader than what you are contemplating. For example, simple pump and dump is not how the bulk of these scams happen, the regulators are on to that model and it is far, far too easy to detect. No, the modern scammer works on higher volume stocks, over longer periods and with more tools than just message board hype, often working directly with management of the targeted stock and/or institutional money manager who can provide the needed volume. The message board hype just gives him the little tool he needs.
How does all this apply to your comment? Well, you are only considering that the hype might make someone buy the stock for the first time. There are also the cases where the pumper wants existing shareholders to dig deeper and double or even triple their position. This is especially effective if the stock has already made a nice move to the upside after the initial recommendation.
Then there is the hype that is designed to get people to hold on to their shares when recent developments are screaming "SELL"! This gives the pumper more latitude to unload more of his own shares without cratering the price.
There is also the case of the pumper having a verbal agreement with a monied investor. In this case the pumper may be provided with a percentage of the profits in which case he has a lot of incentive to keep existing shareholders from dumping their shares simultaneously with the liquidation of the pumpers partner. So it ain't all about introducing a newbie to the stock. There are supply and timing issues at work here that would be especially effective with a large base of shareholders who regularly turned over some trading shares when it seemed right. There are participants on the IDCC board that claim to control 50,000-100,000 shares and those shares haven't been sitting there since the stock traded at $82 either, they go in and out.
But none of that is a good reason not to have boards where only approved people can participate. I'll let you do that experiment yourself but I think you will find it bad for business. Not only are a majority of your current customers opposed to it and think it will fail but it has another problem as well.
I, for one, will feel a little strange having forked over for full subscription services and yet still not have full access to the site. But if you think it's a non-issue, go for it!
I think others will have a problem paying for a subscription if they know there will still be areas off-limits or areas that they could be kicked out of without breaking any rules. How would someone feel if they bought a lifetime subscription and later were told they were no longer able to post in that room because the moderator decided they weren't contributing the "proper" kind of information? And would non-paying members be allowed to post in these private rooms or would they need to subscribe?
Finally, I don't know what kind of insurance you have but one lawsuit, regardless of it's merits, could really put a big dent in your business. There is no doubt the likelihood of lawsuits (of many different types) are higher when people begin to be excluded and the rules are not the same for all as they are now. Make sure your insurance policy doesn't exclude this sort of situation. You know in America anyone can sue anyone for just about anything.
But it sounds like you are bound and determined to try private rooms and I'm curious to see how the experiment works.
Good luck!
Once
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
