Here is /u/Porknuckles' original reply, courtesy of Google Cache:

You're correct, we should impose that the psychic not ask yes or no questions.

As for the comment about the people in pain... People in pain are not necessarily gullible. That is a very strange assumption. Having said that; even if the sitter is biased to miracles, we have the skeptics present to review from a more objective stance. Is that not sufficient?

I didn't say it wasn't a test at the end, I said it wasn't scientific because science would require far more riggerous controls.

Although I agree with your statement about prohibiting yes' and no answers, I argue that if a psychic makes fully formed statements and only requests validation for the specific statements he or she makes, then that is not leading. Furthermore the psychic is a human being with a psychology. If the psychic needs SOME validation for the things they see in order to keep the ability working that should be regarded as a valid request during such a test.

As I understand it, psychic visions can be cryptic and flash quite fast so the medium may need to at least make sure that they are connecting the information to the client correctly. This is not unreasonable and the skeptics can decide if the yes or no really lead the psychic. For example. How could a yes lead a psychic to say an initial or name of the deceased? How could a yes or no lead a psychic to bring up a completely random subject that does apply specifically to the sitter such as cancer or loss of job?

This is worth exploring. I have the psychic medium who is willing to participate ready when you are.