Poll: Should we ban Rossi-related discussions?

  • Should we ban or reduce Rossi-related topics at LENR Forum? 162

    1. No, let everything as is (81) 50%
    2. Yes, but NOT completely, for e.g. open one thread for discussions of new developments (72) 44%
    3. Yes, ban it completely (9) 6%

    Hello everyone!


    The last few weeks and days more and more people became aware of the weird stories Rossi is telling us since years, and is becoming embogged in even more weird theories and "reports".


    The vast amount of postings and threads at LENR Forum is covering Rossi topics. 99% of them are highly speculative and provoking aggressive emotions between different parties. These postings dislodge discussions about more open and convincing experiments and theories, so that they are either totally ignored or not noticed in any way.


    The Rossi story seem to have passed the "open minded"-point already long time ago and is just becoming even more abstruse the last days.


    So we ask you, as a member of LENR Forum to decide if you would like to see less Rossi-related topics in the forum, to give new ideas the chance to get more attention.
    Please feel free to also state your oppinion here in this thread.


    We could go back to open Rossi discussions when we see a clear evidence that the ecat exists in the way Rossi is claiming.


    The current situation is not only becoming more aggressive, but it als destroys the forum climate.

  • The discussions are natural and unavoidable, the LeonardoCorp.-industrial Heat exists and it will last. It will have a negative influence on the Secretary of Defense Report- will this be Rossiless as IH supporters want or including Rossi with direct discussions between him and the investigators? Reality does not go away if we ignore or ban it and the conflict is real.
    Discussions at the forum are organized in threads we ahve to take care to respect the subjects so everybody can happily neglect what it dislikes e.g. the argle-bargle.


    Peter

  • Yes. Single Rossi Thread at most. One exception being any significant news which transcends the long history of meaningless teases. Until some concrete and substantial evidence is produced, he is nothing more than an attention junky and distraction. Rossi has become a detriment to the field!

  • This is a forum for the enthusiasts following LENR development toward near free energy, liberating the world population from its controlled environment. So you ask the question, should we limit Rossi's contributions, and ignore such items as ; "Report on Preliminary Findings From E-Cat QuarkX Testing Posted on Ecat.com" etc.
    Come on, are you that skeptical.

  • I believe that banning Rossi would not benefit this site. It was Rossi and many followers and replicators of him that made this site what it is now. It is those who constantly fiercely argue against and for him that cause the problem. It is OK to say that Rossi has never really proven that his claims are proven, they are not. We all know that and you do not need endless arguing about that. If the Pros and Contras at this site finally stop arguing than it is OK. Just be disciplined, that's all that is needed.
    Let's prove :lenr: are true, that's all we want, isn't it?

  • You are taking sides in an unresolved legal case. I dont agree with you that Rossi is more or less suspicious than the company he is suing. Its a news worthy topic and you should let free discussions continue. As far as the science that is involved. Rossi's, nuclear shell resonance theory is one of the most credible and coherent scientific explanations of the phenomenon that's been published in a legitimate scientific journal.

  • The Industrial Heat scandal will indeed have a negative influence on the Secretary of Defense Report,
    but the Rossi eCats and Quark X designs and patents can not be ignored.


    Rossi the inventor of the Rossi Effect is a certainty and the discussion will go on even decades from now.

  • Last place in the world I thought I would find Censorship. In a forum there are threads handling a topic. Since LENR hasn't been proven scientifically, everything, every thread dealing with ANYTHING regarding LENR, is speculative in some form.


    Rossi is controversial. Yes. But that doesn't stop anyone from posting new ideas. In a forum, certain topics and threads will attract attention, which is a natural thing. Nothing strange about that.


    Hey, what's the next topic we should ban? Or should we start banning certain words? Hey, I know a guy who could write some cool code with some awesome algorithms which could erase certain words from the database!!! How cool is that? :lenr:


    I might be wrong, but I think banning certain topics within the LENR field is everything a LENR-forum shouldn't be. That's why there are moderators. Moderating a forum should be based on a set of rules. And those rules should be easy to follow and easy to find.


    Cheers!

  • Agree fully what @Peter Gluck nicely said above.
    I would also like to add that if change something, I wouldn't mind if moderation and other readers would remind people to stick with topic of the thread. We already have free speech (playground) thread which is good. But that said also new additional 'Rossi' IH, Bight llight power whatnot. -threads can be added when radically new developments surfaces (=not just one IH thread).


    I (if as a moderator or as a fellow reader) would not allow people to fill wrong thread with nonscientific and nonrelated stuff. Also I'm fine if people every now and ten are asked to behave like civilized people.


    Edit: Need to add that as long as things of interest area are unclear or unproven, like E-Cat or high COP LENR, only open discussion and argumentation is interesting. In these conditions I tend to leave too sanitized one opinion forums (JONP, E-Catworld).


    Edit2: @barty would this forum SW allow readers to be grouped somehow. I mean granting posting rights to strictly scientific threads could then be given to posters that can stick to topic if needed. Whereas they would be free to post in more general discussions.

  • There is a question of dominance of that debate on the other discussions.
    The stake are high, but we have few data to cut, and our "sources" are not consensual.
    No easy answer. Best would be that when discussion seems sterile because nobody seems able to change, people stop trying to convince, and just report facts, analysis, trying to integrate as much as they can, others point of view... Very difficult. I plead guilty.


    Maybe not just one thread, but few one, or a dedicated zone.
    Or just wait for the uncertainty to be reduced.

  • I welcome the proposals and a much tougher regiment of moderation from the admin team. However, I am slightly surprised that admin would prioritise to moderate people beliefs rather than unethical behaviour.


    I'd make it the nr 1 priority to deal with the bad apples - then go from there.
    So - no vote from me.

  • Even if there is a will to moderate discussions about Rossi so they get more informative and less agressive, it will just ask more admin time for clearing messages and banning/explaining bans/managing feelings


    As you've probably noticed there is social engineering at work here, in the form of filibustering (Lomax), vitriolic attacks (Weaver, Renzzzz), upvotes/downvotes machines with the occasional outburst of support or critique (Mark H, Malcolm Lear)
    For some of those dudes it is their job and/or their hobby, don't expect them to quit them even if conversations are more moderated: stealth accusations, laisser-entendre etc to rile up people will be their modus operandi


    I was previously somewhat convinced about Rossi, and now completely (the only other rational explanation for the FUD campaign we're witnessing now as we've been for years, is that he's a willing patsy set up to set back the LENR field -dissing him creates sympathy, strenghtens his fans' belief, if he's then proven wrong hopes are crushed, research goes into depression- but this is really far-fetched), I for one would happily see all discussions here purged from any Rossi reference, direct or not, and people banned for referencing him. Broken window policy.


    This would leave you scientists to exchange peacefully about LENR instead of having Thomas Clarkes droning on about thermocouples, Rothwells nitpicking unverified data to reinforce his emotional bias, Weavers dealing their toxicity, and Keieueues trying to rile them up just to piss off professional FUD engineers


    Hell, you should preventively screen forum members and make sure they have serious scientific knowledge, related to LENR
    Then at least you'll have professionally scientific professional social engineers, they'll still pester you with the cheapest sarcastic jibes but there'll be more theoretical discussions.
    You'll probably get some "new-agey nutjobs with scientific background" (they're great at providing dead-ends, wild goose chases), but it seems many of the real forum members here are already interested and knowledgeable in "fringe" domains, so you'll probaly see through them easily.

  • I am in principle against bans - what I would like to ban is any words that use crude, vulgar or offensive language in describing either part and or their activities or the persons involved.


    But, human nature being what it is and personal agendas being what they are, I don't hold out much hope this could be achieved.


    Doug Marker

  • Problem is we all disagree on who is toxic, and who is imperfectly helpful.
    This is why freedom of speech was developed.
    There is however question of volume, place, mixing.
    Since I'm too exhausted to do moderation, I have no lesson to give.


    the playground was a nice idea, provided we avoid doxxing and other IRL attack.

  • Apply a 'dislike' indicator criterium to put misbehaving posters on hold for an agreed period of time.
    If a poster gets too many dislikes (e.g. likes/dislike ratio smaller than 1:10) and the dislikes surpasses a certain minimum threshold (e.g 20), he gets a ban-period of say 2 weeks for commenting and starting new discussions.