Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 12:06 UTC


How come there isn't a choice to disagree the constitution. I didn't notice that part, can someone point it?

Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 12:07 UTC

It is a lot easier to state "100% of our citizens voted in favor of adopting the Constitution" if there is no possible way to vote against it.

It is politics, the very thing we were promised would be avoided in Asgardia, and it's happening even before things get off the ground.

I just am refusing to vote.


Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 15:17 UTC

So true!

And, if you'll ask "why is this happening?" they'll answer something like: "'cause of technical reasons, we'll count positive votes only". At least this will spare them the time to have to differentiate "absent" ones from "disagreeing" ones.
By the way, this also is in open violation of Decree N3 points 4 and 5.

Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 16:38 UTC

Jason, it is fairly obvious that if the reasoning used in administration was as you say, that you all did not consider the attitudes of your actual citizenry.

Asgardia was a utopian vision, and in a utopia all persons wish to be treated and considered as equals with equal rights and voices. By limiting the options available to Asgardians to either vote in favor or not at all, you are unnecessarily restricting their voices. Some believe very strongly that this Constitution is not good, and want to voice strong opposition to it, but are unable to do so.

I can understand the idea that only having an affirmative vote will prevent people from being pressured into voting that may not otherwise vote, but that idea falls flat when you consider that most Asgardians want ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT in some fashion or another. By attempting to be considerate to those who may not have strong opinions, you have alienated those who do possess strong opinions against. As a result, they will make certain their voices are being heard however they can: in the forums (some possibly quite disruptive), on Facebook, and in all other available forms of media.

So, while the principle is all well and good, you guys really didn't consider your whole audience.


Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 16:55 UTC

Phicksur +1

Also, how do we truely know how many voted and what the population count was on voting day. Be transparent, otherwise you look like a banana republic.

BTW Jason, I don't accept your explaination. As time passes more and more accounts will become inactive, far more than the number of active accounts and you would never get anything to pass a vote. 

In fact you missed a trick. If you worded the question like something along the lines of "Do you NOT accept the constitution" and gave the only option "not accept" and included all non votes as accepting you could include dead Asgardians, dead email addresses, and people that don't even know there is a vote. That would be a propper Banana republic.

  Updated  on Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 16:56 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 17:49 UTC

@Jason Rainbow
Essentially the only reason to divide into Yes / No / didn't vote groups  would be for statistical purposes or (if you wanted to feel that a more  nefarious scheme was involved) to determine who in the group you could  not rely on.

Believe me, Jason, I'm really appreciating your efforts: climbing on glass is never that easy. ;-)
As a matter of fact you just wrote why we'll never see voting stats.
Even the quorum data is really not clear: even if we may assume that the "all asgardians" amount can stay into a 180.000 - 200.000 units range, having no stats on the voting process will made easy to bring out new numbers from fantasy.

That apart: it will be interesting to see how the current 20k positive votes can reach at least the 90k threshold... but I'm sure that someone will invent something to lower the threshold itself so to "declare victory" anyway.

Schrodinger cat should have eaten nearly 80.000 asgardians before to die: In my very poor and flawed math 100.000 + 10.000 + 5.499 + 5.001 = 120.500 ... if you start to count votes that way I can see how Igor will declare victory with nearly no effort at all. ;-)

@Phicksur +1

  Last edited by:  Luca Coianiz (Asgardian)  on Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 17:57 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: P.S. added

Jun 23, 17 / Leo 06, 01 11:26 UTC

Jason Sayeth:

Well @Clive,

I guess someone figured it was the better option to make it as difficult as possible to ratify the document

But, Jason, now they have rewritten the acceptance criteria in the Constitution. Now, only votes counted are considered for acceptance. Thus, by having no possibility of a dissenting vote, the Constitution is now guaranteed to pass with only three votes. (It states it has to have over half the votes affirmative, which happens as soon as three yes votes are cast.)

Do you still think that this whole process is clear and transparent when even the administration isn't being told what the hell is really going on?


Jun 23, 17 / Leo 06, 01 20:51 UTC

So, maybe I've been a prophet, @Phicksur. ;-)

Jun 23, 17 / Leo 06, 01 21:22 UTC

@  Jason Rainbow(Asgardian, Global Admin)

[quote]Well @Clive,

I guess someone figured it was the better option to make it as difficult as possible to ratify the document[/quote]

I guess someone figured it was the better option to make it as easy  as possible to ratify the document