• All communications with us are subject to the caveat that you act civilly, non-disingenuously and with consideration for the safety and wellbeing of others. “Welcome”, “come to us”, “qualify” and “participate” below or on the About page are no carte blanche to disregard this point.
• Robustness of ideas and Intellectual Honesty. Those sending us answers to riddles, or brief demonstrations of PhD-level understanding alongside intellectually-substantial research are to do so in knowledge of the following. Aside from replying “no”, “yes” and “you are the first to give a correct answer to this using such and such a conceptualization”, you may receive Socratic responses… And if these reveal gaps, or more specific counter-examples, inconsistencies or holes in your proofs or other claims appear, you will neither take offense, nor disregard or ‘forget’ about these matters. Some can be patched over by change of method or change of statement of claimed domain in which the result holds. And some can not.
• No-gos. As a general rule, we are not presently interested in publicity. In works or subject areas that are not even conceptually well-founded, are inconsistent, or are sterile of results or applications. In those who insist that they always have to be right. Or are solely interested in discussing their own ideas. Or de facto only discuss their own ideas by never productively contributing to discussions of others’ ideas that they are nominally participating in.
• Conduct and Intellectual Freedom Nor in anybody who insists on perpetuating exclusive normativities by which intellectuals have been, openly or de facto, excluded from (what should have been) intellectual spaces. Be this insisted perpetuation everywhere or an attempt to impose such unpleasentries here. Including both matters that by now most of the general public know about: no racism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, LGBT+phobia, survivor-erasure, bullying, or socio-economic or occupational discrimination, and more. Also including, but certainly not limited to, accommodating intellectuals who only consider themselves able to participate as intellectuals if they can do so anonymously. Where they, not onlookers, get to define what types and strengths of anonymity their own safety requires. Furthermore, intellectual freedom is an evolving notion here, as opposed to being any kind of externally imposed norm. This notion includes, at the very least, that every intellectual is free to have, and live by, their own definition of intellectual freedom. This does not lead to contradictions by the device that nobody may conflate “my definition of intellectual freedom” with “anybody else’s intellectual freedom”. And thus nobody here shall attempt in any way to impose their own definition of their own intellectual freedom on anybody else.
• More no-gos. Nor appeals to authority. Nor accounts that rely on a single train of thought having to be adopted for the account to make sense. (Covering at least all of no dogmas, no cherrypicking, and no choices made without sufficient reason getting entrenched in all subsequent considerations of the subject matter.) Nor are we interested in being unsolicitedly mentioned on social media.* Nor in any offers, publicity or resources that we perceive as having strings attached to them.
• More conduct. No personal attacks. No kind of political, factional, pretext-based, financial, popularity, fashion, bureaucratic-classification, or bureaucratic-convenience reasons for dismissing or rejecting pieces of work are to occur here.
• On-topic and safe topics. and We only discuss and display Theory of STEM results here. There being more topics within this than we will ever have time to discuss, we will politely decline to discuss or display topics that are dangerous. This covers at least both that we are a place of peace and where conscientious objectors are welcome (so, say, no applications to weaponry shall be discussed or displayed here). And that we will not discuss or display any applications whose mention is, or may be perceived to be, dangerous (without of course feeling any need to mention any of these here). We may well also politely decline to discuss or display any matters which rest on physical laws failing within the regimes in which these laws have been highly tested. Or ideas that have been repeatedly refuted by scientific trials. From a slightly different angle, no pseudoscience and doubly no pseudoscience that is furthermore either presently, or previously recurrently, chiefly associated with attempted or actual fraud.
• This is for now a very partial disclaimer.
• We finally reserve the right to not answer to messages sent to us, or only to answer on the timescale of our choice. In each case without in any way having to say why. There is at least one question that we might be asked to which our timescale of choice for giving an answer would be at least 15 years.

* In contrast with us not consenting to be mentioned on social media, the usual convention that scientific articles elsewhere can cite scientific articles here does still apply. Where ‘article’ is specifically defined as intellectually contentful. Which does not imply that other things which are called “scientific” and “article” but are not scientific articles in this sense, such as (at least a large proportion of each of) popular science, science journalism, or ” ‘pedia” articles. Such can ask for permission to quote or link, provided that those asking are already doing so in acceptance that our default answer is no, and without us having any need to say why.