I would like to suggest a new forum that relaxes the global rules pertaining to Overly Speculative Posts. I would offer the following alteration to the global rules for this one forum only: XXX Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. [STRIKE]It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted.[/STRIKE] This forum provides an outlet for individuals looking for objective criticism for personal theories, forbidden elsewhere at PF. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited. XXX This would provide people with legitimate interests in having non-mainstream ideas evaluated, while quarantining these ideas from the mainstream science forums. This is further emphasizes by placing this forum in the Lounge, suggesting a recreational aspect of this forum. The existence of such a forum would also give site moderators an alternative to deleting a speculative post on a pet theory, when the poster is looking for feedback. It would also act as a lightning rod for crackpottery. The forum rules above (or otherwise unmodified) would still prohibit a post that (and justify locking a post whose conversation) crosses the line from active inquiry to dogmatic rejection of standard scientific reasoning or empirical evidence. The typical thread in this forum should follow the following outline: 1) Poster: Here is my idea of how something might work. 2) Reply: I think you are talking about this other theory, at this link. 3) Reply: Can you please clarify what you mean by this part of your explanation? 4) Reply: Wouldn't this also cause such and such as a side effect? 5) Poster: Response to replies. 6) Repeat steps 2-5. 7) Poster: I guess I did not think of that. (Or: I guess I should write this up and submit it!) Reports on negative results are notoriously suppressed. Having a collection of debunked alternative theories, evaluated objectively and honestly, could be useful in its own right. If nothing else, it could provide an interactive example of the scientific method at work.