Tau 04, 01 / Mar 29, 17 12:18 UTC

Re: Electoral process  

It's pretty far out - it's not incredibly likely IMHO - However I do not see a direct mitigation strategy beyond once signed up as Asgardian citizens they have effectively signed an agreement to leave Earth politics at the door. Failure in this regard would nullify their vote - the geographical commonality making it incredibly easy to filter - and communicating this to 100 million people without someone like me finding out will be incredibly difficult.

Tau 04, 01 / Mar 29, 17 12:45 UTC

So, now we are talking about counting only some votes, but not others.

Technically, all these people were Citizens at the time of their vote. Sure, they may have violated their oaths when they voted, but they would still have all the rights of Citizens. Are you going to punish them from the date of their citizenship, or after they have committed an act in violation of their oath? All legal messes, I can assure you.

Now, are you talking about having some sort of provisional citizenship status? Right now most of Asgardia's Citizens are Chinese, if the Chinese government got their population to join Asgardia to mess with something we wanted to vote on, would it be possible to ferret out the valid from the invalid? Wouldn't that disenfranchise those Chinese who were real Asgardians?

Tau 04, 01 / Mar 29, 17 20:49 UTC

The concept of discounting votes does not please me, and is not entertained lightly.

This violation of the oath is a two way violation. If one party fails to uphold the conditions of their contract, the other party equally loses obligations. There's no legal mess here.

Yes, ferreting out the valid from the invalid represents a problem. The "solution" of geofencing is an incredibly poor one. However I was trained that if it cannot be made secure it should not be present in the system. The alternative is you allow the malicous intent to procede. Unless you have a better, more reliable mitigation strategy. I'm sure the legitimately impacted will understand the reasoning behind the application of such a policy, and understand it is not directed at them personally.

Leo 10, 01 / Jun 27, 17 01:25 UTC

ARRRGH....

So I see he got banned already (or resigned, or something... DISAPPEARED).

But this is SO SIMPLE.  IN corporate law, when the SHAREHOLDERS VOTE, the official rolls of the membership are closed for 30 days prior to ensure that all questions on the matter are performed and the quorum (total) of voters eligible to vote to pass the measure set.  The quorum may be the total shareholders, or more often in bylaws are the total who SHOW UP for all matters of percentage voting.  Meaning that you must vote YES, NO, or ABSTAIN to participate if you attend.  But those not in attendance are not counted toward the percentage of the vote in most (sane) bylaws.

One does not simply have a "YES AGREE" ballot, nor count everyone who voted yes ONLY, or continue to allow people to enter the race while one takes a vote.  Nor kicks options off the ballot after the vote has begun.  Nor alters the documents or rules of the matter under vote after the first vote is cast prior the final tally.

To do so is madness.

Leo 11, 01 / Jun 28, 17 09:41 UTC

@stryx(Asgardian) on 27 June 2017, 1:25 a.m.

ARRRGH....

So I see he got banned already (or resigned, or something... DISAPPEARED).

But this is SO SIMPLE.  IN corporate law, when the SHAREHOLDERS VOTE, the official rolls of the membership are closed for 30 days prior to ensure that all questions on the matter are performed and the quorum (total) of voters eligible to vote to pass the measure set.  The quorum may be the total shareholders, or more often in bylaws are the total who SHOW UP for all matters of percentage voting.  Meaning that you must vote YES, NO, or ABSTAIN to participate if you attend.  But those not in attendance are not counted toward the percentage of the vote in most (sane) bylaws.

One does not simply have a "YES AGREE" ballot, nor count everyone who voted yes ONLY, or continue to allow people to enter the race while one takes a vote.  Nor kicks options off the ballot after the vote has begun.  Nor alters the documents or rules of the matter under vote after the first vote is cast prior the final tally.

To do so is madness.

Welcome to the mad circus!

Leo 11, 01 / Jun 28, 17 14:00 UTC

[OT part deleted, as requested by admins]

And, yes, @Eyer have been banned as he said things too real and unconfortable for the administration, so they "solved" the problem, if I can say that in this way.
They'll tell you he did something asocial (e.g. meanacing to disrupt the forum and the website) but, despite he only told he was able to do that, after they banned him (so, de facto, demonstrating his ability, and their inability to stop him ;-)), Asgardia website and forum doesn't really need any "external source of disruption", as they can do it by their own.

  Last edited by:  Luca Coianiz (Asgardian)  on Leo 11, 01 / Jun 28, 17 15:44 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: OT removed

Leo 11, 01 / Jun 28, 17 14:06 UTC

Yeah, a lot of us miss EyeR. He had all the social graces of a rabid wolverine, but he knew his shit.

OCR