May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 00:50 UTC


I don't sign this open letter because you judge by observations and probably misunderstood the meaning of a draft. Pushing letters to the head of state actually won't change anything because you do only ignite a wave of negativity against the current authors without even knowing who they are. At the other side, the constitution from my point of view should be mostly constructed by the society, only the formalization and finalization of the final document should be overseen and/or done by professional constitutional lawyers (or better judges who work on a constitutional level and want to contribute to asgardia as well) and those oversee actions and formalization should also not influence the constructed drafts. It's not a get-professional-you-are-too-stupid-to-do-that-thing.

Edit: If I would write the Head of my Nation, I would start with "To his Excellency, Interim President Dr. Ashurbeyli.", because I don't hold documents in my hands which guarantees my citizenship. If I would "Dear Mr. President Ashurbeyli" would be okay.

  Updated  on May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 01:00 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 01:17 UTC

@ nihylm I actually asked earlier if we could get an idea of who was writing this draft , but I was told it was private and confidential. I let it slide but seeing how a constitutional monarchy was decided upon when too my knowledge none of the suggestions we had before the draft was create suggested or supported a constitutional monarchy as a valid choice for a type of government we wanted. 

Seeing as this vote is tied to anyone wanting to continue with the project , I find a letter to official to be very much needed and not igniting a wave of negativity already against a unknown entity that is responsible for this draft. We only have a few weeks till the vote, and I highly doubt we would see a total revamp to the constitution to remove something we never wanted or asked for that makes up a large part of the constitution in that amount of time. This draft feels like a beta test , the main part has been made already and now they're changing some of the smaller details.

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 01:18 UTC

It actually does not matter who did it. The result matters.

In sum, I am fine with a Constitutional (democratic) Monarchy. It does not matter if the head of state is called President, King or Administrator. What they do matters.

  Updated  on May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 01:20 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 02:06 UTC

@petrv sorry where is this? I didn't hear that Dr.Ashurbeyli was the one who wrote it 

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 02:10 UTC

The lack of trust is the problem, the will to intervene into processes you can not control will ignite the "end of your journey" sooner or later. Frustration because of not trusting persons you previously be keen of is a very strong force. If you don't agree and you don't believe that responses in a forum where it is intended to collect feedback are enough, then chose right at the voting and mark the "no"-field.

To me, this open letter and its discussion do change nothing.

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 02:17 UTC

You have got to be kidding me

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 02:55 UTC

Well, let me describe that a bit with more details.

As many of you know, I was banned for a short time from the forums. In that time I experienced the intentions and professionality and dedication of the responsible officials in a very positive way which is the driving force behind my thoughts about what really happens on the official side and what not. I will say I see it as my duty to reward their dedication and professionality with believing and trusting them. I will do my best to support them because I believe in what they do (but not blindly if you think that) and I am a person of honor and I try to operate on the same level of professionality and dedication as they do.

In general: The officials do read the forums, I assure that because of I can guarantee that by my experiences and they do take everything posted here into account for the context it is posted in.

Transparency is a good approach but requires a strong framework to guarantee that. Such a framework needs a solid foundation (a Code of Conduct, a team to enforce and regulate, a Constitution and a pool of people who validate it from a civil side). Transparency is also a tool but a 100% transparency level is impossible and would consume more time as it is worth it. 100% transparency is also only needed when the level of trust of the involved audiences is down to a dramatic level (we are far away from that). Transparency is also a weapon, a weapon that can be used as a political threat by the audience that requires information, regardless if such information would add any value.

The thing is: some people who contribute here (you are one of them) mostly decide based on their current thoughts, based on incomplete references and they think that they are on a way that might be the best. Nothing wrong with that, this is how political intervention by civilians work nowadays. But the top-most of such attempts have only two endings: a failure where the person wants to leave and a micro-revolution which casts more threat on an entity that is under pressure. Sounds dramatical, but it isn't. It is based on frustration, but the results might increase such frustration even more because they do not see any relevancy for continue in trusting and dedicating to the entire thing because one cog of a complex machine does not work the way they wish.

We do need more dedication, we need more participation and activism, but we need it as contributions, not as guns on chests based on personal fears about a mechanism that was not entirely understood. I know this explanation might be hard to get, but such open letters to the boss of the bosses are one of such guns on chests. Nothing that ignites changes as you'll see.

To me, governments are fully based on trust and laws. What we can achieve here is to build laws, but that requires that we have to trust first that those laws we are about to construct will ever happen.

In sum, the lack of knowledge about some significant things at the constitution is the other thing that must be defused (by us or research, not by officials). One of those significant things is the (currently drafted) chosen government. A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy, so far so good. A monarchy itself might suppose the existence of a ruling representative, called a king. The truth is, a monarchy is just a loosely defined body of a government where an (in general representative) king is at the top of the hierarchy. There is no general pattern for monarchies that define that a king has all powers or that a king serves as the king for his entire life. A monarchy can be based on democracy, even a king could be elected every 4 years. The head of the monarchy is just a role in a complex hierarchy, not more. A monarchy is also about distributing tasks to lower ranks of the monarchy, but it's not written down how that must be distributed. It's also not described anywhere that a monarchy must be ruled by the king, it can be a prince, princess, emperor or even a president.

The other significant thing is, a draft is not meant as a final document. A draft is open to changes and the request for feedback - as long as you don't require to see any negative intentions - is a request for contributions to modify the document which was composed by the few to the needs of the many.

As I said in this response, it is not blind trust that forces me to support it in a very positive manner. It is the belief in the entire thing and the experience and knowledge I have that provides me a point of view on where we are and where we go and what is possible and finally what is the fuel of my dedication and loyalty. I have no personal goals I do follow here, I do aim for higher goals which are why I do not place my private merits when deciding what might be good for Asgardia and what might fail.

I hope it is now more clear why I do what I do and why those things might have more value than some people might think it has. We all do work here for one thing: a future of Asgardia. This is why we are here, don't get bunkered by misunderstandings, if needed theorize about a (probably wished or mostly intended) government and show them why you think it won't work, but consider to get surprised that - with enough research - you might change your mind and consider it as a valuable government.

Thank you.


  Updated  on May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 02:55 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 03:45 UTC

You get me wrong, I don't support an idea, I support a nation and the officials of Asgardia. I don't see a nation as a project, that will not work, but you are right, it must gain more communication as it gets currently.

My experience regarding communicating with Asgardia Officials is actually the worst, I still wait since 5 Month for a reply to a mail and Asgardia Civic owe me some Information. My trust is based on actions, not the quality of communication.

  Updated  on May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 03:47 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 04:03 UTC

What if I tell you that establishing a nation is not one big project but many small projects orchestrated by a company? Would that change anything?

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 04:34 UTC

The most of my daily work works like this. :)

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 09:41 UTC

@nihylum(Asgardian) on 21 May 2017, 2:55 a.m.

My hat is off to you sir!

And yes, the forum is heavily monitored by Asgardia staff. As a Chapter advocate and quasi-moderator, I can tell you there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes. We are not hiding anything. But we are steadily trying to make this as smooth a process as we can for all.

May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 11:25 UTC

@ All,

It's great that you have created this open letter. However, I'm afraid that this should really be directed in email to the Admin staff at . Also, direct towards Citizens@Asgardia.Space .

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on May 21, 17 / Can 01, 01 23:22 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: Corrected admin email

May 24, 17 / Can 04, 01 13:28 UTC

Accordingly to wikipedia records: "Igor Raufovich Ashurbeyli (Azerbaijani: İqor Rauf oğlu Aşurbəyli;, Russian: Игорь Рауфович Ашурбейли; born 9 September 1963, Baku, Azerbaijan) (...) a descendant of an Azerbaijani noble familyAshurbeyov (...) [a] family originated from Ashur khan Afshar. Ashur khan was Nadir shah’s relative, and due to this, he became governor of Tabriz, then vicar of Iranian Azerbaijan during the reign of Nadir shah."

Now that you got this (very little, as public) piece of information you'll have to destroy it by eating it and, I'm sorry, as others before you (as well as me too) have to be banned and your user's rights suspended (you're just lucky we're not on the Asgardia's Space Colony or we both had to be ejected by the first airlock, having to put our fate on the infinite improbability laws ;-))).

May I add, hoping I'm not too bold, the answer seems more some kind of automated reply than something other?

That apart, it seems we've no chance to speak with any official nor to our king: this rensembles the way things will go after the Constitution will be approved (and it will be, without doubts, as good @Phicksur made us to notice).

as you're able to, and it seems I'm unable, try searching data on Asgardia AG.

May 25, 17 / Can 05, 01 09:21 UTC

@Jason Rainbow
I've some problem in reading cyrillic characters, but I also looked into even public other sites (e.g.

May 25, 17 / Can 05, 01 21:27 UTC

Damn'd petrv... 41 results: now I'll have to stay awake all the night...