@Buck Rogers

This seems to be your response to most people

It most certainly is not, as my posting history very clearly shows. It has only been with you in two threads. Please do not post false accusations, it's extremely rude.

As for your questions, please take an opportunity to review where they've been addressed. From time to time I expect I may have been mistaken keeping track of what thread what was posted and by whom, but nonetheless they're threads you've participated in and received these answers.

You may not agree with those answers, or perhaps not understand them, and that makes for some great conversation, but continually repeating the same questions and statements as if they've gone unanswered does not.

My apologies,

I miss typed, I meant "the response to most people", not your " your".  

"As for your questions, please take an opportunity to review where they've been addressed. From time to time I expect I may have been mistaken keeping track of what thread what was posted and by whom, but nonetheless they're threads you've participated in and received these answers.

You may not agree with those answers, or perhaps not understand them, and that makes for some great conversation, but continually repeating the same questions and statements as if they've gone unanswered does not."

Can this not be said the same of this post, that officials, forums admins and moderators have answered these questions in multiple places and you either fail to read or understand or agree with the response and post something else on the same theme somewhere else.

As I said, my argument with this is based on your presentation of assumption as fact.  Even a high school student knows not to do this

@Buck Rogers

There is no assumption. Once again, you haven't paid attention to the conversation.

We do not have a legal, binding constitution—that is a fact. It lost its vote for ratification—that is a fact. The legal voting period, as defined by regulation and decree, has ended—that is fact. A video Q&A  does not supercede regulations or decrees—that is a fact. Posts on a forum or social media do not supercede regulations or decrees—that is a fact. A draft constitution that is not legally binding cannot legitimately be used to define, grant, or deny citizenship—that is a fact.

Now it's your turn. Rather than continuing to offer your opinion only, dismissing whatever you don't agree or don't understand, and repeatedly asking the same questions, try dealing with facts.

Travin,

"There is no assumption. Once again, you haven't paid attention to the conversation."

I'm sorry did I miss the original post where you present assumed figures as facts,

Such as the total number of people registered on the site as being all those that have taken part in the vote, or the number that have voted no, as this is not even possible to deduce from the data available.  Your initial post is assumption and not FACT.

please do not accuse me of dealing in anything but in a post that is originally based in assumption 

@Protean

You're not understanding the discussion. Perhaps you haven't been reading it. But for you, one more time, I'll repeat it.

The voting for the draft Constitution ended and there have been no official changes or amendments to the regulations or decrees, so it's done. By these regulations, anyone that didn't vote during the voting period means they didn't participate and fulfill their duties as a citizen. They have abstained and that is equal to a no vote.

There are only Yes/Accept votes counted. Subtract it from the current number of citizens and you have your No vote count. It's very simple math.

They have said on multiple occasions

Those who participate in the vote are counted

You only participate if you go to the voting page

So you CANNOT say that everyone has visited that page and thus you are  assuming  that everyone has, without further data this cannot be confirmed for all we know the actual figure of people who went to that page could be 288157 (total registered right now), or it could be 100000.  We don't know saying anything else is an assumption,


Edit:

P.S.  With the data we have right now all we can say for sure is that 99526 people have visited the page and participated.

@Buck Rogers

Again, you aren't grasping the conversation. Perhaps it's a language issue, I don't know, but it's really annoying.

The Original Post:

"As of this post, that is the number.

186,385 voted No

97,377 voted yes

283,762 citizens in total

Asgardia, 66% of your citizens reject this Constitution draft. Time to go back to the drawing board.

Per Lena, the website automatically registers your vote as no if you don't immediately vote Yes. And when you first log in you're sent to the voting page. And so it's a simple math equation.

And it needed to be plainly stated."

186,385 voted No -       ASSUMPTION

97,377 voted yes - At time of post FACT

283,762 citizens in total - At time of post FACT

Per Lena, the website automatically registers your vote as no if you don't immediately vote Yes. And when you first log in you're sent to the voting page. And so it's a simple math equation.  - ASSUMPTION

Not everyone registered may have logged in to be counted as part of the vote.

Therefore POST TITLE :"186,385 (66%) REJECT the draft Constitution"  = ASSUMPTION



Regardless of any other legal subjects brought up here, the post is based on ASSUMPTION not Fact

@Buck Rogers

Sorry dude, but your just not following and understanding the parameters of the discussion. We've been through this same thing several times in multiple threads. Time to move on and let it go.

@Protean

Then please respond to my post to you and tell me what you disagree with so I can better understand you. A useful discussion means I say one thing and you say where you disagree, I get to respond and then we figure it out. Completely ignoring what you can't refute and declaring yourself a winner isn't a useful discussion.

Travin ??????????????????????????????????????????????????

"@Protean
Then please respond to my post to you and tell me what you disagree with so I can better understand you. A useful discussion means I say one thing and you say where you disagree, I get to respond and then we figure it out. Completely ignoring what you can't refute and declaring yourself a winner isn't a useful discussion."

This is exactly what you have just done!

"@Buck Rogers
Sorry dude, but your just not following and understanding the parameters of the discussion. We've been through this same thing several times in multiple threads. Time to move on and let it go."

My disagreement in this post is that you are taking assumptions with your data and presenting them as fact.

Something that I hoped in a nation based upon the principles of Science I would not see so soon.



You can take assumed data and use it to create an hypothesis by all means, but to present the incomplete data in which you have filled in the gaps with assumed values and then presented as fact to the community goes against the basic tenets of scientific principals.  

Honestly I'm not sure why there is such a problem in seeing this!  

I also looked for other examples in the forum of where incomplete or assumptive data has been presented as fact and couldn't find any, so how this has been covered in various threads honestly eludes me at this point.  

So we don't infect another completely unrelated post with this:

Following on from here:
https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/general-discussion-14/topic/100000-accepted-the-challenge-7348/?post=33834#33834

"@Buck Rogers
If you review the facts, it's not an assumed value. A reasonable estimate, definitely. But it's certainly not an assumption."

Estimate:
A rough or approximate calculation based upon judgment of a value. _{(Oxford English Dictionary)}

Assume:
suppose to be the case without proof. _{(Oxford English Dictionary)}

As you have no values from which to make an approximate "guess" (estimate) of the number of people who took part by visiting the page then your best estimate is an assumption.

Without a vague value to begin or end an estimate figure we can take any value we like between the number who accepted and the number of registered persons (this is why estimates are accompanied by a +/- value due to the uncertainty).  


Either way your presentation of your ESTIMATE as fact is equally incorrect in it's approach

After more research my post is invalid. Pardon useless post.

@Buck Rogers

You're wasting everyone's time endlessly repeating the same thing over and over completely ignoring posts and the points people make.

You're just making a nuisance of yourself and it's rather boring—the reason you were politely asked to leave the conversation some time back.

@Vespei

Thanks though. No matter what viewpoint you ended up developing, you at least made an effort to communicate, do some research and better understand the topic. Cheers for that. 👍