As the Asgardia nation at space looks forward into the fullness of infinity, the flag stands frozen while its new anthem, wordless and soundless, speaks of unreachable aspirations.

It is no secret that the foundations of Asgardia are based on much of the most peaceful policies and attitudes in home Earth. The spectrum of governmental doctrines that have and are being practiced on Earth all have been shown to have fatal faults, of one kind or another, when it comes to representing the general citizenry. Asgardia is no different as it begins its hopeful journey of expansion. Don't misunderstand, this is not pessimism; it is hope. The search on Earth for better stability and security in life had to lead to the Asgardian movement. Asgardian's proposed constitution speaks of protecting this hope, dream, but simultaneously, by adopting so many of Earth's governmental patterns of social control, it concurrently plants the seed of its own discontent.

Humanity is not perfect and Asgardians don't preach from a higher moral or intellect platform, but its foundation does need unity, peace, and protection at space. The issue arises when Asgardians are asked to expect a more humane society when humans, given time, tend to instill its prejudices, greed, and attitudes in most (if not all) social infrastructures. Why can't Asgardians strive for a new type of social representation, control, and distribution than what has been catastrophically attempted and practiced at home-Earth? Have political systems achieved utopian levels at home-Earth that nothing else could be created? Does meritocratic leadership elected by a measure of society give the best results? Hasn't social wisdom been controlled too? The questions are, what to do and how to do it better? How do Asgardians achieve it without invoking the worst in humanity?

Should the proposition be silenced? Is this why the citizens younger than forty-years-old won't be allowed to participate in representation? Should the brave new world begin in a silent-pretence of what's ideally unachievable through currently instituted social constructs and structures?

Asgardian leadership professes not being the best (if that could be determined), but Asgardia should begin to dream of a better place, not a near duplicate of Earth transplanted in a vastly superior medium - space. Asgardia should find a niche of true inspiration in the idea that evolutionary change is achievable through a social-technological transmutation of what has failed humanity/society on Earth. Only in this footing does Asgardia has hope.

Recently, Asgardia began offering its citizens the opportunity to be heard through a petition process that promised a government review of every petition that accumulated at least 1000 votes. "What an excellent idea," I thought to myself. A suggestion box for Asgardia! At that time, there were only a dozen or so petitions submitted - visible under the SpaceNation\Petitions at the top menu of the homepage.  In my excitement, I decided to petition for an improvement to the idea. My first petition was titled something similar to this (I wasn't able to recover after I submitted it):

Petition 1.

EVERY PETITION WILL BE REVIEWED & APPROVED/REJECTED BY THE ASGARDIAN CITIZENS WITHOUT THE NEED OF MINIMUM SUPPORT - WITH GOVERNMENT RETAINING VETO POWER (IF EXERCISED WITHIN 90 DAYS).

The idea was to have every suggestion reviewed and approved/rejected by the active citizenry of Asgardia without the need of fabricating any amount support. This would allow any citizen to have a voice, a connection of ideas to the masses. A few minutes after the petition was submitted I received the following e-mail:

SUBJECT: Your petition has been approved by the moderating team

"Asgardia.Space"Asgardia.Spaceno-reply@asgardia.space> "Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 1:37 PM" 1:37 PM (19 hours ago)

Your petition did not get approved by the moderating team , and will not be posted.If you would like to dispute the decision, please contact the moderating team.

It was accepted on the subject and rejected on the body!!!  (NOTE: 24 hours later, the petition had not been posted)

Nothing else followed - no contact information or resolution process was provided. There was no link to contact the moderating team, not even an email address. A knew a phone number would be out of the question.

After leisurely perusing the site looking for the contact information and finding none (after 15 minutes or the equality of infinity in web browsing terms), I grew concerned about the level of difficulty in the search for this valuable information. So I decided to look for my petition - somehow I had 'assumed' wrongly that it would be saved to my profile. I did not find it, and I grew concerned. Where did my petition go? "I should have made a copy," I reprimanded myself. So I wrote a new petition (This time I saved it in the event that it became unretrievable again). It went exactly like this:

Petition 2.

PETITIONS REJECTED BY THE MODERATOR SHOULD INCLUDE THE BASIS FOR REJECTION ON THE REJECTION EMAIL AND AN EMAIL TO ADDRESS CONCERNS - ALSO ALL REJECTED PETITIONS SHOULD ACCESSIBLE FOR POSTERITY PURPOSES.

When a petition is rejected by the petition-moderator, citizens get an email simply stating that the petition was rejected and to contact the moderator for explanations. No email, link or reference number is given. Above all, no hint about the reason for rejection.

For all purposes, the petition is lost. There is no link in the citizen's profile to return to it or to make edits prior to resubmission (if necessary).

The response on Sat, Jun 24, 2017, at 4:42 PM (16 hours ago) was equally perplexing. The petition was accepted on the subject line and rejected on the body of the email message.

I looked at the other petitions to see if mine had been too extremist in comparison. I found a range of constitutional amendment suggestions, taking over unclaimed land territory in Earth, and deep space exploration-habitable planet search -- ALL of these had been accepted and posted to the petition forum and open to voting. Why then were my petitions rejected, censored? Why the conflicting approval/rejection email message? Was it a TEAM or was it an individual rejecting the petitions? Why wasn't the moderator team contact information provided? But equally important, where is Petition 1, shouldn't I have access to it for revisions?

In conclusion, in my attempt to expand the fantastic idea of having every citizenry's voice openly heard at the critical stage of a nation's birth, I discovered that an individual or small team is deciding the fate of every citizen's petition - the birth of censorship.

Shouldn't leadership take notice and begin upholding & solidifying the Asgardian core principles?

As the Asgardia nation at space looks forward into the fullness of infinity, the flag stands frozen while its new anthem, wordless and soundless, speaks of unreachable aspirations.

It is no secret that the foundations of Asgardia are based on much of the most peaceful policies and attitudes in home Earth. The spectrum of governmental doctrines that have and are being practiced on Earth all have been shown to have fatal faults, of one kind or another, when it comes to representing the general citizenry. Asgardia is no different as it begins its hopeful journey of expansion. Don't misunderstand, this is not pessimism; it is hope. The search on Earth for better stability and security in life had to lead to the Asgardian movement. Asgardian's proposed constitution speaks of protecting this hope, dream, but simultaneously, by adopting so many of Earth's governmental patterns of social control, it concurrently plants the seed of its own discontent.

Humanity is not perfect and Asgardians don't preach from a higher moral or intellect platform, but its foundation does need unity, peace, and protection at space. The issue arises when Asgardians are asked to expect a more humane society when humans, given time, tend to instill its prejudices, greed, and attitudes in most (if not all) social infrastructures. Why can't Asgardians strive for a new type of social representation, control, and distribution than what has been catastrophically attempted and practiced at home-Earth? Have political systems achieved utopian levels at home-Earth that nothing else could be created? Does meritocratic leadership elected by a measure of society give the best results? Hasn't social wisdom been controlled too? The questions are, what to do and how to do it better? How do Asgardians achieve it without invoking the worst in humanity?

Should the proposition be silenced? Is this why the citizens younger than forty-years-old won't be allowed to participate in representation? Should the brave new world begin in a silent-pretence of what's ideally unachievable through currently instituted social constructs and structures?

Asgardian leadership professes not being the best (if that could be determined), but Asgardia should begin to dream of a better place, not a near duplicate of Earth transplanted in a vastly superior medium - space. Asgardia should find a niche of true inspiration in the idea that evolutionary change is achievable through a social-technological transmutation of what has failed humanity/society on Earth. Only in this footing does Asgardia has hope.

Any suggestions?