Hello Asgardia.

I found the Draft to be well designed, concise and to the point. I am a bit skeptical about the idea of a monarchy, but otherwise the draft seems fair.

According to Article 42, the voting age shall be 18 years. If I recall correctly, voting YES will grant third-tier citizenship. Also, Asgardian citizenship is open to people above 16, via Article 6. It would only be fair that if such a decree regarding age limits was to be enacted, then voting rights be given on the basis of Article 6, not 42; i.e. people aged 16 and above be allowed to vote. This way, all citizens have an equal opportunity for obtaining third-level citizenship.

I hope my queries are considered and addressed aptly.

Regards, 

Utkarsh

I got as far as page 3. I can only surmise that it was written by a non-native English speaker. In it's current state the document is meaninless gibberish.

Dear Asgardian

As many of you mentioned, I am firmly against the idea of Constitutional Monarchy, the rights to dissolve the Parliament and the obligatory taxation of citizens at this time.

I would vote NO for this draft. 

@thor - fair enough. I'm not disputing any of the factual bits of that. I think we all agree it's very difficult to get a clear view of what's going on. But maybe that is to be expected.  As you pointed out on another forum, at this stage it is more like a company. The CEO has a plan and he will basically determine which direction it will go - pretty much like every other country or company in the world.  Honestly, is it absolutely necessary for my thought's to be used by a guy who put's up his idea and money?  I'm not saying I like it or agree with it in principle. However I can't see the need to be upset if that guy doesn't take my thoughts into consideration. Having said that, I applaud your attitude of not involving yourself in negative posts so as not to engulf the forum in that direction. It is a sign of common sense that I know I can learn from.  In terms of the English involved in this document, I have tried to be a little subtle about it but actually @clive has it exactly correct (for the first half at least). Perhaps that isn't helping the carnage going on here.

@bigred

I don't think any individual is genuinely upset that their specific thought / idea / suggestion was not considered. If they are, they probably need to check themselves, because, as you rightly point out, it is Dr A's idea and money. However, what I am sensing from this thread (and others) is that a sizable portion of the community is upset because it seems that very few to none of all the thoughts / ideas / suggestions put forward were considered at all. This seems diametrically opposed to some of the stated concepts of Asgardia like "to serve entire humanity and each and everyone" and "the widest participation in this open project is one of our goals".

The lack of administrative response to all this really concerning, and honestly it feels like this is a glimpse into how asgardia will work in the future, and holy hell does that look bleak. If this nation is EVER going to work, the government leaders will have to actually engage with the community on a regular basis, which is mostly the opposite of what they are doing at this very critical moment, other than one editing a document without engaging us, and another pretty much blowing all our criticisms off, from what I suspect trying to tell us that our criticisms don't matter in a way that it doesn't quite sound like that, and pretty much acting like this: http://gunshowcomic.com/648

This is NOT how things should be at all. Our "dear leader" isn't engaging with us in any way. The least he could do is get a proper mediator, but from what I can see he doesn't post here at all in any way. How are we supposed to trust someone we barely know who put all this (at parts) crazy, vague, idealism-with-no-foundation gobledegook in a constitution without even bothering to take our input on it, let alone giving us much time to ammend it? This is not how a democracy works. From what I see, he seems more interested in acting like yet another politician. making speeches, congratulating world leaders (who is going to take that seriously right now?), and feeding us flashy stuff with no real substance.

If this doesn't change at all, I'm leaving, and even if it does the paranoia sirens in my mind have started sounding off. This whole thing is suspicious, and it's a god damned shame too.

@scarbs - yes i understand that is what the difficulty is. I just think it was to be expected if we had thought about the situation and circumstances objectively. 

This is all a fair way off topic but I just don't see the need to be upset about them not considering any of our ideas at this stage. I know we all want the utopian people's democracy but surely we understood at the beginning that's not the way the human brain works. Even you and I are pretty strongly enamoured with our opinions so we can't expect others not to be the same.  

I may be guilty of wishful thinking, however I'm just looking for a way to try and modify the worst ideas enclosed in these documents, fix the gibberish and see how I can make the rest work over time.  At this stage, as long as it doesn't bind me to something that is prohibitive to my life and other responsibilities, it can't be any worse than some of the current govts.  The non-binding dual citizenship clause pretty much negates them interfering in my life at the moment so it gives time for the project to grow and develop without imposing any of the big problems we have mentioned on the "citizens".  Perhaps by the time it can impose on me in any way we may have been able to clean these difficulties up.....companies do often work through their history like this (as do countries).

As all this is way off topic and yet is a very big current issue I'm happy to discuss the ramifications etc and possibly have my view modified via email if you want, we're in the same time zone after all. (p_bellamy @ hotmail com)

Like many of the others in this discussion, I would vote no to the monarchy described in the constitution. Many of the reasons are already outlined in the previous posts to this forum. I for one, certainly did not agree to having Mr Ashurbeyli decree himself as the head of state until he was 75 and then the only people who can become the next head of state are either someone nominated by him or potentially 2 others nominated by the parliament and the council (which he appoints). There needs to be some serious revisions of the constitution if it wants to get a yes vote.

Hi All,

l'm working on a new draft of the Constitution. I invite you to work with me on it. Looking for serious contenders only. This is not somewhere to leave your complaints. If you are not going to help write the new constitution, then I ask that you sit on the sidelines and watch.

Target Completion date: 2017 May 26
Discord Server: https://discord.gg/5U5YaBR
GitHub Repo: https://github.com/lorezyra/Asgardia.Government.git
Proposed Constitution: https://github.com/lorezyra/Asgardia.Government/blob/master/Asgardia.Constitution.Proposal.txt 
*Please note that this doc is a direct text copy of the one on this site. I will begin stripping what doesn't belong and then work to restructure the government sections.

IF wish to contact me directly, You can send a message via http://RichieBartlett.com/ .

Contents of Asgardia are copyrighted, I hope you have the authorization of Asgardia Officials to republish it at GitHub.

@ nihylum(Asgardian) on 23 May 2017, 4:50 a.m.

Contents of Asgardia are copyrighted, I hope you have the authorization of Asgardia Officials to republish it at GitHub.

Thanks for the reminder. I have removed copyrighted docs (original PDFs from Asgarda.Space). 

You're welcome. The last thing I will see is people in danger for breaking laws or copyrights here.

Hey all, i want to join Asgardia Constitution Draft and I already send the email to volunteer asgardia a few days ago but reply is still not coming, I'm thankful if someone help and solve this problem, thanks again.

I have read the draft Constitution in the Russian language, it makes a very strange impression. 

A Constitutional Monarchy, the Royal Council, taxes, orbital weapon platforms... and other Galactic Empires... somehow it does not fit with the stated values next. 

I was expecting to see something similar to the Novosibirsk Akademgorodok heyday of the Soviet Union, but not a remake of Saudi Arabia (without the oil). 

Consider, for the period of the formation really should be as broad powers of the founder (as the captain on the ship), but then the principles should be very different. requires serious processing. 

It is impossible, as in the mythology of the "pour new wine into old wineskins", to reproduce the inefficient models (all the most famous monarchy in the result or more or less catastrophically disintegrated, or quietly stagnate). 

Perhaps influenced by the impressions of childhood, but "bright space future" was not what I expected.

I don't like it.

My clear opinion: cyber currency should be firmly tied to measurable physical units. 

The only way possible to avoid uncontrolled emissions, and other tricks that are typical today for all traditional currencies after abandoning the gold standard. 

A good example is given in the SF novel by Vladimir Savchenko "Behind the pass" (sorry, I can't find the English translation and give a link). 

There in the network economy is a unit of "BiJ" ("Bit - Joule"). Emissions of BiJes is determined by the total amount of produced information and are produced or stored (unscattered) energy. There is generally a lot of practical advice on the subject, although the model described at the end of the 1970s. 

About the nature of "Gor" not specified anything. Under existing conditions, it is easily subjected to manipulation of speculators.