Apr 3, 17 / Tau 09, 01 16:18 UTC

Re: Banning of Members  

I wrote, [here](https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/general-discussion-14/topic/decree-n3-and-n4-4552/?post=22413#22413)(1), nearly the same you wrote.

About the whole thing, as I stated more and more times before, we are citizens... OR there is no reason at all for us to be here.
I received an official ID and, after I'll vote for Unity and Constitution, I'll (probably) receive an ID-card of some kind. But I'm a citizen right now, as Head of State is talking (to others Head of States, so officially) "in my name": he isn't talking "in the name of a forum's user" but "in the name of an Asgardia's citizen".

Here, in the forum, we can't do a trial, with attorneys presenting evidences or something like this: we're not lawyers and none of us can gather the evidences (as they've been removed by mods/admins, who deleted the posts/threads, by the way).
Nonetheless, to ban a citizen from his freedom of speech, so one (may be the most prominent, at the moment) of his civil rights, from the government's official organ, this forum, even more if the ban is lifetime long, there should be some kind of trial, somewhere, with evidences, public prosecutor, defense attorney, a trial's record, and a public judgment.

This thing, as others noticed, goes beyond the @EyeR and @nihylum de's bans: this way we're all treated like "forum users" and we're all subject to "removal" without anyone have to explain why it happened, nor to publish their (and our) reasons, nor other citizens can know anything about what happened or even that something happened, if they don't notice the "BANNED" status.
Our civil rights, freedom of speach (which, at the moment, is our only right), just removed.
And still no officials' answer too.
I'm still looking under my avatar's image, to see if I'm still "(Asgardian)" or "(BANNED)", really.

(1) I've also to completely disagree with the IT team who, adding some few formatting items, removed all the others (well documented by the "(banned)" @nihylum de, by the way): quoting is not working, ability to make links is not working, options are not working too: I'm used to see feature removed after the substituting ones are working, not before.
It seems, even more time after time, as @EyeR and @nihylum de wrote, they're culling our options to use this forum, starting from Search feature, which is key one.

Apr 3, 17 / Tau 09, 01 16:34 UTC

EyeR simply stated what would happen when the posts where removed from view and then asked politely for that not to happen. This occurred AFTER the ban. I'd imagine he felt it was handled unreasonably too .I don't see where Nihylum proclaimed to take control of anything, he simply disagreed with some things he thought were stupid. EyeR, however,  hasn't DONE anything. I see no evidence of damage. I suspect based on other posts,  if he had intented to do something he would have. The "danger" I believe is from the admins who have failed to take precautions to prevent this from happening. The mods/admin have ignored almost every infraction  by others that was aimed AT him, and concentrated on the infractions that represented a minority of his input.

That's exactly what I saw.
Not only: speaking about the ability to "take control of the forum" (but NOT doing it), @EyeR warned IT team that thing may be done (so a "good citizen"'s behavior, to me, as @EyeR is an IT security expert).
And it may be done even now, if admins just banned him, as we have no evidence that some measures had been taken. And, if some measure have been taken, why banning him? Just as he wrote he may do?
Lifetime banning someone just as he wrote "I kill you", even if the sentence is not that nice one (but no one of the banned wrote it), can't be the right measure.

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 01:41 UTC

OK. One thing I think we should be careful about is to always take threats seriously.  If someone tells you he/she is willing to take negative action in retaliation, you always listen and act accordingly.  Many a tragedy has been prevented just following this simple principle because more often than not, people tell you what they are going to do. IMHO

Now, I think Elwe Thor, Scarbs, Phicksur, bdaonion, sammwich, and almost everybody else who has contributed their opinion on the issue agrees on the fact that we need a system that's transparent, fair and that gives the opportunity for vindication. Elwe Thor is double-right, this is not just an internet forum, it is really all we, as Asgardians citizens, have to engage with each other.  This is pretty much the cornerstone of Asgardia right now for us.

So we need to feel secure in exercising our freedom of speech so that we can have truthful and open communication.  Otherwise people are just going to opt out. 

  Last edited by:  Yoevelyn Rodriguez (Asgardian, Comm Assistant)  on Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 01:58 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: Misspelled sammwich's name

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 02:29 UTC


  Updated  on May 25, 17 / Can 05, 01 18:33 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: I'm leaving Asgardia

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 02:49 UTC

^It seems to me you are misinterpreting what we mean when we say "transparency."

What is meant by "transparency" is "clearly defined guidelines for the banning and reinstating of banned of members, when possible/applicable." Also, I fail to recognize where in all of this is anyone advocating for the reinstating of EyeR or anybody else, in particular.  I, for one, only ask for clearly stated timeframes for banning (in general) and specific guidelines (I am aware there is a set of guidelines but as one of our members pointed out, they weren't applicable to the context of the situation that followed with EyeR and nyhilum, or weren't applied properly.

How does transparency in this situation not turn into a popularity contest?  I don't know, how does it?

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 04:35 UTC

I'm not following you, thymeless.  Why would people vote on banning?  And if they did, following the metaphors used by others, the voters would be jurors, not Asgardians at large.

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 04:48 UTC

@thymeless  I just saw the "free EyeR" post.  It comes across as a bit tongue-in-cheek if you ask me.  Very provocative.   

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 11:51 UTC

EyeR doesn't want to be unbanned. I have quoted him there.

The overall problem of procedure and seeming of arbitrary punishments, however, is still of great concern and should continue to be addressed.


Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 12:18 UTC

Let's lay down some points, @thymeless. I'll be schematic to help the conversation.

  1. Moderation is a need in every forum (every forum which didn't agree on "auto-moderation" or have some kind of "vote kick" to disturbers, which is not our case).
  2. Our Moderators and Admins are asgardian's volunteers, so we can only thank them, as they're doing more than the average citizen.
  3. Anyway, the average citizen have the duty (as a citizen, not as a user) to help Mods/Admins keeping things calm, respecting each other starting from the ones who works more (exactly: Mods and Admins).
  4. This said, we can't place on their shoulders too heavy duties other than to moderate the forum and to administer Asgardia's things in general: they're not judges nor attorneys, they're moderators (by the way: I never saw a TV moderator sending a guest out of the scene: they "moderate" him, they don't "trash" him).
  5. That's why I spoke about civil rights, trials (in such cases moderation is not enough: before to ban forever a citizen from Asgardia's life, here), prosecutors, attorneys, records, etc.: as we're citizens, we need to be judged, if needed, we can't be "moderated only", as a moderator (and even an admin) can't handle things like "civil rights", "freedom of speech", etc.: it's not fair to them, at least, asking them to be judges, over the "moderation" level, and even unfair to the "judged" citizens too. That's why, by the way, it's never a problem, to me, when a moderator says his/her opinion in the forum (stating it's his/her opinion and not a matter of moderation): I feel like a limitation to their civil rights (of asgardian's citizens) choosing not to speak, it seems unfair to me, as they are "asgardia's citizens with more duties and responsabilities", not "more powers", it's different (that to answer to @Phicksur even, on this subject: moderators and admins have the right to express themselves without limitations and this doesn't mean they're "driving" the conversation).
  6. So, moderators have to do their job, to "moderate". But, when things become too heavy, they should, in my humble opinion, "pass the ball" at higher levels, as @RebekahBerg correctly told.
  7. It remains one thing only, to us: to be sure we're into a democratic scenario: the (actual) upper levels can't act like Kings or Queens, administering the justice saying "because yes" as reasons: if they also thinks things are over the "moderation" level, they should make a trial, giving the (possible) "culprit" the time and way to explain his/her actions, maybe aided by an attorney, if they need to, and with records which, after the judgement, should be left public. That to avoid rough justice (injustice).

That (I repeat again and again, as it seems to me asgardian people have the feeling to be on some kind of FaceBook, which is completely different than we're doing here) as we are citizens, not users.

If we're not citizens but users, just tell me and I'll go elsewhere: I've no need to be part of a FaceBook.space.

Last but not least, let me express how I'm seeing things into Asgardia:

  1. At the moment we're a de facto nation, not recognized by other nations nor by UN. This doesn't mean we're not a nation as, to be, our declaration of will is enough (for us, not for others).
  2. As stated at the bottom of every asgardia.space's pages, "ASGARDIA and ASGARDIA.SPACE are registered trademarks of AIRC" which (AIRC) is a company owned by Dr. Ashurbeyli, our Head of State: so, we can say, a company is owning our istitutional forum, our official information organ, and even our nation's name.
    This is not how usually things goes: nations usually owns companies, not the contrary (or the CEO become like "the King").
    It can be done, at this time, as the nation is still into it's "building stage", so "someone" is needed (an association or a company, so a CEO) who organizes (and sponsorize) things, or we'll end with nothing in our hands than bare words. Dr. Ashurbeyli and AIRC knows how to do things, and they're doing, being helped by us, the citizens, in many of the things.
  3. Following the previous statements, at the moment we, technically, are "users" (of Asgardia, asgardia.space, and the forum.
  4. If our Head of State have to speak "for us" (and he is doing) we must be "more than users": that's why we are citizens, and we explicitly given Dr. Ashurbeyli the right to speak in our name. That's the way we're going to behave. That's the way we must think we're.
  5. Not thinking this way, not believing we're citizens or a nation, makes all Asgardia like an house of cards, which will fall at the first wind blowing... that's why I warned moderators as "they're doing more than they should do" (I wrote that in their interest, first, and in our one too).
  6. Handling "forum's things" like we're users just lead the people to think we are, really, "only users", so a moderator, maybe 'cause of his/her own decision, can "just ban" us, with no consequences. That's, into a "nation and citizens" scenario just cannot be.

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 12:50 UTC

+1 Elwe. Well said.

It really does boil down to the question of whether we are a nation of citizens or a group of users.

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 13:05 UTC

On these forums, we are both. However, it has been stated by management that only our state as users can be affected by our actions on these forums. Our citizenship remains intact, regardless of our behavior on the forums, or that is what I have been led to believe by statements made thus far.

The differentiation is that here, we cannot speak without it being public. On these forums, there is no 'private speech' and as such we are held accountable to management (note I do not say the State) for everything we say or do. Needless to say, misunderstandings and differences in culture and background have already caused certain members to be banned or self-banned (by not returning).

There have been several times I'd like to have been able to send someone a private message instead of having to put the statement out for the public, because I recognize that the manner of my statement or question would be likely to be misinterpreted by the population at large to convey a message other than that I wished to convey. Thus, I use Discord or Skype to converse using private messages (or, as EyeR did, using a private message on an entirely different forum).

Personally, I'd like to see someone (perhaps even EyeR) set up an independent forum that would be more for generalized conversation and allow the use of private messages so that, in the event that things 'go badly' here on the official Asgardian forums, their voice will not be silenced. I would do it myself but I'm between hosting services at the moment and am not a great security expert.


Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 14:10 UTC

That's why I asked for IRC/XMPP support, which manages even "private chats" (keeping in mind even a "private" chat is recorded into Asgardia's servers logs).
If it counts, still hoping nothing "terrible" will happen, my e-mail is reachable via nick's name.surname@gmail.com (don't write me anything sensitive to NSA/USA government, please ;-)).

That apart, as I previously wrote, we are technically users, but legally citizens: that's the whole difference between a traditional forum and this one. And that's why @sammwich opened the petition I signed too.
If we're not recognized as citizens, there is no sense to stay here, to believe in Asgardia, to help building a nation to be loyal to, a Constitution and to do even more things.

Actual Asgardia's (ad interim) government must solve this problem, to help Asgardia survive: this is a foundational stone, to be citizens or users, guests: I'm not going to be "a guest" into my own nation, absolutely.

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 14:18 UTC

Hi all,

Private messaging is coming. They want to build it in part with the blogs. As soon as there's any concrete information about it that can be shared, we will do so. :)


Rebekah Berg

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 01:15 UTC

@Elwe Thor 

  • "Our Moderators and Admins are asgardian's volunteers, so we can only thank them, as they're doing more than the average citizen.
  • Anyway, the average citizen have the duty (as a citizen, not as a user) to help Mods/Admins keeping things calm, respecting each otherstarting from the ones who works more (exactly: Mods and Admins)."

I would like to emphasize this^ part.  Moderating can sometimes be a thankless job.  Yeah, we should question our mods when it is necessary to, but one also needs to understand the reasonable limits of what we can expect from them.

@ Rebekah I can wait for that to happen.  I have a lot of plans for my (future) blog.

  Last edited by:  Yoevelyn Rodriguez (Asgardian, Comm Assistant)  on Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 01:17 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Spelling

Apr 11, 17 / Tau 17, 01 16:41 UTC

Any update to the situation?

Maybe I'm wrong but

  1. two banned citizens are still banned, so they had their "freedom of speech" removed for this exact reason: "___" <- fill here any reason you know
  2. we're still into some definitions' limbo: "users" or "citizens"?
    a. I believe we're citizens
    b. Dr. Ashurbeyli implicitly believes we're citizens
    c. Officials didn't answer at all
      (apart Lena De Winne who answered here(1) but haven't spent any word about the petition's core questions)

Am I missing something?

(1) https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/general-discussion-14/topic/petition-no-confidence-in-interim-asgardian-government-demand-for-response-action-by-the-head-of-nation-to-ensure-stability-success-of-asgardia-4698/?post=22488#22488