Can't say you're wrong, @Travin. ;-)))
But the real question is: does it matter to anyone?

how about a thread on how many threads have been created that complain about the constitution and the topic of voting. an someone do a percentage on that. Then add that to the responses by anyone in power, divide it by those who actually care take that answer, set it aside, and then create another thread on this answer.

I understood the video as saying if you look at the page it records you as having taken part in the vote,  and that it records you as a No vote unless you say otherwise.  

So, by deduction, that would indicate that if you don't ever visit the page then you have never been logged as taking part and so that person cannot be counted as taking part in the election.


The problem with your math is that we don't know how many people are active on the site to have visited the page to be part of the vote count.  

All we can say (by using averages) is that approx. 57000 people (+/- 25000) signed up in the voting period and that we can only guarantee that these people took part in the vote - For all we know most of the 167837 signed up by January could have left and not said anything.

Even taking this at the maximum average value we can say that 82000 new signups ticked the box,  that still leaves 16000 unaccounted for from the previous signups.

What's more likely to believe is that people are willing to accept the document and change it later but are unwilling to place comments in the forum currently as the theme tends to be to "bully" anyone who disagrees with the negative points raised on this subject.

But to confirm that we would need to know the number of people who log in daily but don't comment here.

Looking at the daily blog creations I would say that this is more than likely!

Travin, You cannot be a citizen until you agree to a nations constitution by definition of what a citizen is:

"In general, A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties."

From Black's Law dictionary.

We should not be getting confused between the Colloquial term:

"an inhabitant of a particular town or city."

Oxford Dictionary of English

This is the term that seems to have been used here to define us all as members or virtual inhabitant of the Asgardia forum.  Not legal citizens of the Asgardia Nation.




As they have actually said a number of times that you will still be able to be a part of the forum the forum community regardless of your acceptance or not you cannot say that they are taking away your citizenship (as per colloquial definition) ,  only those that do are getting legal citizen rights (as per legal definition).  

If you are talking about a legal subject you cannot use a common use definition of the word as a standard.  

Sorry Tarvin,

You seen to be agreeing with me at the same time as trying to argue with me.

You are correct I am not understanding what the point you are trying to make is.  
As Lena said in her video we will make mistakes.  

I think the mistake was trying to place a fixed period on the acceptance and not an affixed number as is common in most constitutional documents.

 Travin,

You have presented speculation as fact this is what I do not agree with.  
You are presenting figures and your results as fact, however as I said we are all missing data and only making assumptions.  

Making an outlandish claim that everyone who has ever registered on the site has taken part In the vote can only be an assumption.


We could equally assume that only people that signed up after January have taken part in the vote, and that those before are inactive as they don't comment:

So that's:

Voted No = 19732

Voted Yes = 98480

286049 - 167837( provided in the constitution) = 118212

Asgardia, 83% of your citizens ACCEPTED this Constitution draft.

Travin,

This seems to be your response to most people who disagree with your views, they are wrong, they are not paying attention.  

Still we cannot change the fact that your initial post is based on assumption and presented as fact.. 

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

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 

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.

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

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.

@Protean, I'm with you now!!!

This is a joke!