Comment Policy
Comment Policy
Dot Theory / Constitutional Physics
Discussion is welcomed as part of the scientific, philosophical, technical and creative work presented on this site.
Comments may include agreement, criticism, correction, alternative interpretation, methodological challenge, supporting evidence, competing models and unresolved disagreement. The purpose of moderation is not to enforce agreement. It is to preserve a discussion environment in which claims, objections and their development remain intelligible, attributable and useful.
1. General principle
Constructive disagreement is welcome.
Where reasonably possible, contributors are encouraged to distinguish between:
observation or evidence;
interpretation;
hypothesis or speculation;
mathematical or conceptual argument;
personal opinion; and
claims concerning physical or ontological reality.
A comment need not be formally scientific to participate in discussion. However, stronger claims may reasonably be asked to carry stronger support.
Disagreement with the author, Dot Theory, Constitutional Physics or another contributor is not, by itself, grounds for moderation or removal.
2. Relevance and good-faith participation
Comments should bear a reasonable relationship to the page, discussion or research object on which they appear.
Contributors are encouraged to address arguments rather than personalities and, where challenging another participant's account, to identify the particular claim, inference, assumption or evidence being questioned.
Questions, partial ideas and speculative proposals are welcome when presented as such.
Repeated disruption, deliberate misrepresentation, personal hostility or attempts to prevent substantive discussion may be moderated.
3. Scientific and epistemic standing
Publication of a comment does not constitute endorsement, validation or adoption of its contents by Dot Theory, Constitutional Physics, the Information Physics Institute, the site author or any other participant.
Likewise:
publication ≠ validation
preservation ≠ endorsement
provenance ≠ truth
agreement ≠ equivalence
disagreement ≠ falsification
A comment may be preserved because it forms part of the history of an argument even where its claims later prove incorrect, incomplete or superseded.
Where a discussion develops into research material, distinctions among source statement, interpretation, correction, successor position and residual disagreement may be preserved explicitly.
4. Documentary and archival status
Some discussions on this site form part of an evolving research and documentary record.
Public comments may therefore be preserved together with relevant contextual information such as:
contributor name or public display name;
date and time;
page or discussion location;
reply relationships;
later corrections or clarifications; and
the state of the discussion in which the comment originally appeared.
This may include preservation outside the active commenting interface where necessary for continuity of the record.
For example, if the commenting platform changes, ceases operating, or stops displaying earlier material, comments may be reproduced or archived in order to preserve the historical discussion.
Where an archival reconstruction is necessary, it should be identified as such rather than presented as an original native-platform record.
5. Quotation and research use
Because comments are made publicly within a research-oriented environment, substantive contributions may be quoted, referenced or discussed in later research notes, articles, experimental records or archival materials where relevant.
Where practicable, attribution and sufficient context should be preserved so that a contributor's position is not materially misrepresented.
Quotation or archival preservation does not imply that the contributor endorses any later interpretation placed upon the discussion.
If a contribution becomes relevant to a formal experiment or publication requiring additional consent or a different role, that should be dealt with separately rather than inferred merely from participation in public comments.
6. Corrections and successor statements
Contributors are encouraged to correct themselves where their position changes.
Where technically possible and documentary integrity matters, a correction or successor comment may be preferable to silently altering an earlier substantive statement.
A later correction does not necessarily erase the historical significance of the earlier contribution. Both may be preserved where the transition itself is relevant.
This is particularly important where a discussion forms part of an experimental, provenance or framework-development record.
7. Moderation
Comments may be held for review, edited only where expressly agreed, hidden, closed to further replies or removed where reasonably necessary for:
spam or commercial solicitation;
abusive or threatening behaviour;
persistent personal attacks;
defamatory or unlawful material;
impersonation;
disclosure of private, confidential or sensitive information;
malicious links or technical abuse;
copyright infringement;
materially irrelevant repetitive posting;
deliberate disruption of discussion; or
preservation of legal, privacy or archival obligations.
Substantive scientific disagreement will not normally be removed merely because it is uncomfortable, critical or inconsistent with the author's position.
Where practicable, moderation should alter the documentary record no more than is necessary.
8. Privacy and personal information
Please do not publish information that you are not entitled to make public.
In particular, contributors should avoid posting:
private contact information;
medical or other sensitive personal data concerning another person;
confidential correspondence without appropriate permission;
passwords, access credentials or security information;
private identifying information about third parties; or
material subject to contractual or professional confidentiality.
A public scientific discussion is not an appropriate place for information that requires private handling.
Material may be removed or obscured where necessary to protect privacy or comply with applicable law.
9. Authorship and attribution
Please comment under a name or identity you are entitled to use.
Do not impersonate another person or falsely attribute statements to them.
Where quoting another contributor, source or publication, please make the distinction between quotation and your own interpretation clear.
Links to relevant source material are encouraged where they help another reader recover the basis of a claim.
10. Intellectual property
Please post only material that you are entitled to publish.
Short quotations for discussion, criticism and scholarly reference should be appropriately attributed.
Do not reproduce substantial copyrighted works, unpublished manuscripts, confidential documents or other protected material without appropriate permission or another lawful basis.
The fact that a comment appears publicly on this site does not transfer ownership of the contributor's underlying intellectual work to Dot Theory.
11. AI-generated contributions
AI-assisted comments are not prohibited, but the person submitting the comment remains responsible for what is posted.
Where AI has materially generated analysis, quotations, references or factual claims, contributors are encouraged to verify those claims before publication and, where relevant, identify significant AI involvement.
A model's statement about its own processes, sources, memory or intentions should not automatically be treated as independently verified evidence of those matters.
12. Experimental discussions
Some comment threads may develop into candidate research or experimental objects.
Ordinary participation in a discussion does not automatically enrol a contributor in an experiment.
Where a prospective experiment requires defined roles, frozen objects, exposure conditions, consent, independent review or other methodological safeguards, those conditions should be constituted separately before experimental execution.
Historical discussion may inform the design of a later experiment without being retrospectively declared to have been an experiment.
13. Platform changes and reconstructed archives
The site may from time to time change commenting systems.
Where historical comments are migrated, reconstructed or reproduced from an earlier platform, the archival status should be stated clearly.
A later platform timestamp records the time of migration or republication unless the original timestamp is independently recoverable and explicitly preserved.
Reconstructed material should not be presented as though it originated natively on the successor platform.
Where possible, source records, export files, hashes or other provenance information may be retained privately or publicly to support documentary integrity.
14. Right of reply
Where practical, participants whose substantive scientific or methodological position is criticised should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to reply.
This does not create an obligation to preserve indefinitely repetitive or abusive exchanges.
The aim is to preserve the distinction between:
claim → response → correction or defence → residual disagreement
rather than reducing disagreement to moderation.
15. Removal requests
A contributor may request review of a comment concerning privacy, attribution, legal concerns or other substantial reasons.
Because some comments may form part of an established documentary or research record, removal may not always be the only appropriate response. Depending on the circumstances, alternatives may include anonymisation, redaction, contextual annotation or preservation of a successor correction.
Requests will be considered in light of privacy, legal obligations, documentary integrity and the legitimate interests of the contributor and wider discussion.
16. No requirement to participate
Participation is voluntary.
Contributors are under no obligation to continue a discussion, defend a position indefinitely or respond to subsequent use of their public comment.
Silence should not be interpreted as agreement.
17. Moderation authority
The site owner retains final responsibility for moderation and publication decisions on this website.
That authority concerns administration of the discussion environment. It does not confer scientific authority over the correctness of the claims being discussed.
18. Policy changes
This policy may evolve as the research programme, commenting infrastructure and documentary practices develop.
Material changes should be dated.
Where a later policy differs substantially from the policy under which an earlier discussion occurred, the later policy should not automatically be treated as having governed the earlier contribution retrospectively.
Effective date: 21 August 2026
Site: Dot Theory — www.dottheory.co.uk
Short-form principle
Constructive disagreement is welcome. Evidence, interpretation and hypothesis should be distinguished where relevant. Comments may be moderated for relevance, privacy, legality and archival integrity, but disagreement itself is not grounds for removal. Public discussions may be preserved as part of the documentary research record, with attribution and context where appropriate.
