I agree on most points, but I want to throw something else out there I think several of you guys are missing.
I could be wrong, but I don't think what Jim's trying to say or do smacks of protecting people from themselves or blocking out dissenting views. The idea he's trying to push is that there are simply some people, that large groups, just don't like. Not because of what they are saying, but because of just how annoying they are about presenting it -- beating a dead horse, repeating, scatter gun approach to discussions, annoying in a way that works with the rules. I'm the same way. Some people are just frustrating and it's simply impossible to "train" everybody to not respond to people like that. There are just too many conflicting and different personalities in the world. Somebody is going to take a shot at the guy(s) on nearly ever post he/they make. Just going to happen.
Much like the EDIG board, there are *large* groups of people who like to gather and discuss IDCC without the interference of one or two people. When I say interference, that's what I mean. Interference, annoynace. I can name a handful of people on the IDCC board who point out the negatives of the equity, and are welcomed with open arms. They do it in a balanced way, aren't blind to one side of the other. They are welcomed. I like those type people. They can acknowledge a positive and a negative and *discuss* it.
My point being, I understand there are philosophical/site/moral principles involved here, but at the heart, we are a discussion platform provider.
If we have 700 (I don't know the real figure) customers that want a board that can block out 1 person, we are stupid not to provide it for them. For whatever reason. But let's figure in the moral variable.
Ok, so we don't want to block dissenting, but very annoying, often repetitive, but still withint the TOU views/opinions. Ok, no problemo.
If a board is large enough, you keep the "main" board and spinoff a "private" board with blocking facilities.
What's wrong with that? There's a free, public board and a closed-end exlusive membership board. It's your choice which you view, follow, sign up for. Totally yours. We offer the options. *EVERYBODY* can post somwhere on the site regarding IDCC.
My new, simple, revised idea has been sent to you via PM, as you know. I didn't want to open up for discussion, but I think a few of you are missing the central point here.
In the case of an OTCBB with no revenues, sure I can see people really working hard to scam people with this private board thing. In the case of a fully-listed Nasdaq stock that's priced at $20/share, I'd be willing to take it on a limited-test run, using the points I sent via PM to Bob. Then, in the future, private/banning boards only being created upon need and my approval. And it's highly unlikel I'd approve a private board for an OTC stock, unless it was just absolutely chaotic.
Just like the COB having to go through a few different lives and reshapings, this is something, I think, is worth a "test" and THEN discussing as it goes...
Food for though, Mr. President.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
