Hi Everyone,

I hope all is well for all fellow Asgardians! 

Please continue to submit your comments and suggestions for the wording of each point. The team and I will compile all into the Official draft before it will be finalized.

@LoreZyra - sorry what capacity are you working in when you refer to "...the team and I..."?

And who is "the team" exactly?

No harm meant, I'm just curious.

It would be beneficial to have feedback from the "team" who is looking at this officially for our good doctor and his administration.  Basically loads of ideas without feedback on the original intent and meaning leaves the conversation one sided and possibly off track.

Hi @BigRed,

By team, I'm referring to the volunteers responsible for reviewing and compiling all community suggestions into a single (Google docs) document. 

>> This document was compiled by a community volunteer team comprised of the following members:

1. John Skieswanne
2. Denise Blair 
3. Richie C. Bartlett, Jr. (aka LoreZyra)
4. Nikhil Chaudhary 

• Once the compilation is complete, it will be passed on to the lawyers to review and finalize. I'm here, like you, as an eager Citizen in waiting, to see how this will turn out. And, I'm contributing the best way I can... as a volunteer. FYI, I'm based out of Japan. So, my hours don't always match with most English speakers - Unless I'm up absurdly late. ;)

@LoreZyra - perhaps a link to this document would be good reading for the rest of us

Is this document officially recognised by the administration team as the authoritative text from this forum or is it just something you are compiling as a help text hoping they will accept it as some form of authoritative text.

Once again I don't mean any harm, I'm just curious.

As humans our nature, out of pure intentions, often steps in the middle of discussions and appoints ourselves as the authority. Many people on various forums have already tried to do this. I'm asking without any intent other than to know where this whole discussion stands.  Personally I am not sure I would wish to be presenting myself as representative of other's thoughts and opinions unless I was officially appointed to be doing so.  If it was the case that I was appointed by the administration then I would want to make that very clear within the discussion forum.  That way I would be able to pass information back and forth to the originators of the discussion in order to keep the discussion on track and get the best and most relevant suggestions.

Please don't take that wrongly, I like to speak clearly so there can be no misunderstanding, however that does not imply judgement.

I am mostly in Australia and SE Asia so our time zones are the same.

@FloydKelly and @guzlomi,

Just thought you should know that we have incorporated all your comments into the compilation for creating the second draft of this Declaration of Unity document.

@guzlomi,

"Maybe a step by step approach would be wiser. Lets center on protection of Earth and defend Peace in space so our descendants will have a real opportunity to exist and then pursue their own goals..."

It's my strong opinion that we don't need to have this in the Declaration. This can be defined under the Constitutional Article for Security Services and Systems under Chapter five. 

@bigred,

"perhaps a link to this document would be good reading for the rest of us"

"Once again I don't mean any harm, I'm just curious."

No offense/harm taken at all! :) 

I sent an email to Rebekah Berg and requested to become a volunteer. Shortly thereafter, I received an invitation to join the group as a volunteer. We are the official volunteers that will hand the document over to the official team charged with the final draft of the declaration. I should add that I am not paid nor do I work for the company sponsoring Asgardia. Like you, I am an eager citizen-in-waiting looking to do my part in the creation process.

I understand your concern and the strong desire for transparency.  I'll ask Rebekah if we can post the official update where everyone can read only.

Here is the announcement and link.

Working Thread - Compilation of Community Suggestions for the Declaration of Unity

And the Google Doc

I would like to make a suggestion ... about History ... is one of the most controversial points. I agree that every winner, every writer, has wanted to make his version of the story. Even the "facts" seen from what culture ... are different. We have Asgardian historians ... we can try to make a General History of Humanity. As  objective as possible, from the perspective of all cultures ... For  example, the "discovery of America" is seen different from Spain than  from America ... trying to be aseptic ...  A scientific view of history. regards

Asgardia uzayda seyehatide gercekleştirir ise ilk gitmek isteyen ben olmak isterim ?! 

I have pleasure to declare our unity .All asgardians are well disciplined and discussion forum is also smoothly running.I appreciate it's sincere staff working.thanks.

Unit Statement: We are all mankind.

I cant see the declaration. Anyone else ?? Please help

@nataliaaph It shows up fine for me.  Make sure you have Adobe Reader or Acrobat installed and allowed to run in your browser (it's installed and activated by default in most browsers). Here is a direct link to the PDF: https://asgardia.space/storage/docs/Decree_4.pdf

@LoreZyra - thanks for posting the links

I have read the google document, and I think you guys have done a good job of putting together the core of everyone's suggestions.

I think this might be difficult to do, however I think it might be relevant to put in some of the expanded explanations as to why people suggested some things. 

Example: it is sometimes hard to get @guzlomi meaning because he/she has a good grasp of legalese and uses it, plus English is not her/his first language. So some of us miss the point and have to ask her/him to explain. The explanations are excellent and critical to why the suggestion was penned in that manner (especially the legal terminology).

I also think that a lot of the statements on points 9 and 11 are due to misunderstanding the intent of the original due to translation difficulties.  I can be pretty sure the good doctor does not mean to do away with political structure (considering the table of contents he published for the constitution).  I can be equally as sure that he, being a survivor of some of the more dreadful events of our past century, is not intent on preaching disposal of our human history.  Indeed his job and the people he deals with on a day to day basis (which gives him the knowledge, political understanding, ability and opportunity to undertake this statehood project) would decree that he must be involved in politics and history.

So I think it might shine an incorrect light on the suggestions if you place those misunderstandings as a final statement in section 9 and 11 of your document.  

Perhaps it might help to say something like "...the English wording and phrasing of the original document caused some people to think it meant there would be no political structure, rights or process in line with a democracy. Their feeling on this is that political parties or at least democratic checks and balances in line with allowing opposition and free speech against the government was necessary."  

and " ... the English wording and phrasing of the original document caused some people to think it meant that the history of Earth would be subjugated in some manner and that it may turn out to be illegal to teach it.  Their feeling on this matter is that history cannot be forgotten and that we need to learn from history and teach new generations to avoid those pitfalls by looking to create new paradigms that don't reflect the problems of the past history."

I think this is a less reactionary statement and allows for a less "reactionary" reaction (...??? weird wording :-D ) based on the thought "these people just don't understand so their suggestions are not useful", to the suggestions we have put forward.  After all the current administration are human as well and will react much the same to a poorly worded document as people did on reading the poorly worded original.

It might also be nicer to leave out the bit about punishment as a lot of the people who submitted do not have English as their first language and so are at a bit of a disadvantage in that respect :-D

what do you think?