Something to keep in mind if we really want to do a Constitution. There are no shortcuts. Everyone must be on board.

And how's that coming? :)

It's called theater.

The recent proposal of a Constitution introduces the question: What standard should apply to voting for it?

1. Simple Unanimity: Realistically, any proposal open to a large enough electorate is never going to obtain *unanimous* support. Even if it’s just a troll passing by the stream voting “no” for the lolz. So this isn’t realistic and I’d discourage it.

2. Supermajority: A document as important and durable as a Constitution ought to be passed by a tough supermajority requirement — e.g. 3/4 of the electorate. In this case, after setting aside some time to debate and draft specific provisions leading up to the next vote, a “yay” or “nay” on the Constitution could be introduced as a separate option on the ballot.

3. Unanimity among “states”: Another option, based again on the history of our Founding, would be to divvy up the stream community into independent political units — “states” — and have them hold separate votes on ratifying the Constitution. If supermajorities within every “state” pass the Constitution, then the Constitution passes. “States” can be created by self-sorting according to ideological affinity (e.g. conservative, liberal, centrist) or even by random number generation.

I like option #3 as it introduces the most opportunity for roleplay fun. E.g. The WUBBZY state negotiating with the MILITARY state on proper procedures to render punishment to trolls, mindful that any agreements reached could still be shot down by the SCAR state.

Reliving the Founding. How cool is that?

...The issue of the state idea is that we won't all fit into 'states' since we all have radically different beliefs and ideals.

True...

Especially me, since it would seem nobody here shares my ideals.
...literally nobody.