Ok, this thread has just too many responses to start commenting on, so I just try to restate the original question and try to convey where my concerns are.

First off, the question "Why do we have an ATM section" was more a rhetorical one, but what I saw see happening in many ATM threads is that the discussions either end up in a shouting contest, or in banning of the proposer (or closing a thread bcause otherwise the banning would become effective), or it just peters out. I think that some changes to the ATM rules and ATM section can help. I wil be generalising many issues, while in reality many shades of grey exist, but I will do so to hopefully get the points across.

I think therethere’s 2 kinds of people posting to this forum: "professionals" and "amateurs". Most professionals do not propose an ATM theory in this board (I know of only 2 people currently active in ATM threads who do/did), if you do astronomy/cosmology/physics for a living the peer-reviewed journals are where those people would "post". As a matter of fact there are many ATM-papers published, and personally I would like to discuss those papers along with anomalous observations, because I believe that much can be learned from the "edge" of science. Unfortunately there is no room here on BAUT for those discussions. If I want to know if some ATM-papers are valid, I am supposed to act as "stand-in author" and defend the paper with the possibility to get banned if I don’t answer in a "timely fashion". And contrary to what some people have asserted here’ "I don’t know" is not a valid answer for an ATM proposer. It can get you banned, or it can get the thread closed, or both.

The problem in the ATM section is that non-specialists rise to the challenge and try to either advocate someone else’s ATM theory/model, or start with their own idea and "see what comes of it". They will encounter people who know a lot more about any subject than they do (I think this is a fact, ATM proposers, with a few exceptions, are generally amateurs, the challengers are mostly professionals). What happens next is crucial; as the professionals will point out the flaws in the models/theories it will depend on both the proposer’s and challenger’s skills to avoid a potential out of line argument.

Any ATM proponent can rest assured that there are flaws in his idea/model/theory; if he accepts these comments as true, it basically ends the discussions. The ATM proposal is invalidated, discussion ends or the thread is closed. If he doesn’t want to give up easily, there is the possibility of a heated argument where the proponent needs to actually be a professional to counter the arguments. This won’t happen (with a few exceptions), so the thread ends with accusations of goal post shifting, handwaving and "typical pseudo-scientific behaviour" and generally flaming posts will occur. This will also end the discussions (sometimes they drag out for many pages until people loose their temper) and results in banning/suspensions.

So unless the proposer is a professional (for all practical purposes), or if the challengers are able to restrict their gleeful attacks to the ideas and not the proposer, and I think that "It is obvious that you have absolutely no idea how real scientific research is done" is as close to a personal attack as you can get, nothing will be gained/learned by both sides.

Imo, this is a no win situation for the ATM section.

I agree with Ari’s argument to make the rules for answering pertinent questions in a timely manner not only apply to ATM proponents, but also for the challengers.

I want to add some suggestions that would, imo, benefit the ATM section where I think making some subdivisions could help.
e.g.

- Your NOvel Theory (YNOT, original theories from BAUT members looking for advice, comparable with the current ATM section).

- New Physics (allows discussions of both mainstream (DM/ST/DE/MOND) and ATM theories where new physics is involved, without the specific ATM rules that can get you banned, (except the normal "be nice" rules).

- Anomalies (Pioneer, MgII absorbers GRB's/QSO’s etc.).

- ATM papers (Arp, Lerner, Lieu, anti-BB papers etc, discussing their validity).

Adding these sections, or allowing them to be discussed without the antagonism forced by the ATM rules, "Then, if you still want to post your idea", "remember you came here", will keep many poster from getting in trouble.

One additional point
I don’t think this sentence is logical, I don’t see how handling the "glee and fervor" has anything to do with the validity of "your theory", but this is maybe a nitpick, or just the way I perceive the text.

Cheers.