Have I ever said I thought forums were democratic? And I myself pointed out that forums can have whatever rules they want.
I agree there is nothing to stop this forum going the way of ECW - it is half way there already. However it is my view that the more LENR supporters form little coteries that do not listen to criticism the worse for them. And I agree there ois nothing to prevent like minded people at ECW from existing in a censored bubble. Nor is there (yet) anything to stop me here from saying that I view that state of affairs (strong censorship to promote falsehoods) as abhorrent. That is my personal view, to which I am entitled, and I don't expect others to share it.
It may be my views are so atypical of people here that this place will ban me, or start heavily moderating my posts (the same, because I would go). I won't complain about that, if it happens. Until it does I will stay in the corner of the few LENR supporters who believe robust criticism and debate the best way to progress scientific understanding.
MY's views are relevant here, because if Rossi is as she thinks we should be much less ready to accept things he claims as (probable) facts that will help unlock the LENR mystery.
Most people, considering Rossi's statements and work, will conclude that Rossi either has something that works or is fraudulent. I'm not in that group - as you know. But for all those, to refuse discussion about Rossi's possible fraud is to refuse discussion about the possibility that his stuff might not work. That refusal biasses the discussion in a way that is harmful.
So: yes MY is abrasive, but her contribution here was worth something, and this site is loses some integrity by bannoing her.
It is not for me to decide what are this site's rules or how are they interpreted, but unless I'm censored I will comment on this matter as I have done.
Re my "support" for MY. You have perhaps realised that I care passionately about freedom of speech. As in the US constitution. I don't think others have to agree, and therefore there will be many internet forums that care less about this than me. I did not make a fuss about tyy. He really did not add anything to the debate and though I would not have banned him, and feel sort of sorry, I cannot in that case make a fuss.
MY was banned precisely because she articulated one unpopular view with vigor and brought on occasion new facts to the table. I can see (from the number of -1s that even I get) that there is here not much stomach for listening to contrary views. I'm sorry. It won't stop me passionately for arguing that censorship is wrong.
Re ad homs. Do you remember my reason for disliking them? it was because they moved discussion from facts at issue to personalities of those debating. And that will never end. Debating Rossi's personality is different, since he is not a discussant here but is an object of discussion. It is, indeed, one of the facts at issue. My reticence on the matter is because I'm not confident to work out other people's personalities, and view all such meta-data as inherently unreliable. I prefer to judge people on their deeds, and judge Rossi on his lamentable behaviour over demos. I also prefer, even with Rossi, to highlight his actions rather than my inferences (if I have any) from these about his character.
But MY's different view of these things is tenable and she has, as has been pointed out, done more to save lives through her comment than me or you or Rossi.