Subject:	Re: Casual Enthusiasts vs Life
From:	Nodigio@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 00:19:18 EST

In --------ss--------d-------- 12/5/98 10:49:05 AM Centr--------t--------rd Time, Dexippus@--------
writes:

> Well...as I may agree with you in spirit, I think it would be quite
> subjective
> to define someone's level of citizenship.
>

It was just midnight ramblings....I'm not even sure _I_ agree with me! I was
just thinking of all the people who quit, wondering what their commitment
level was, and why they petitioned for citizenship if they didn't mean to
stick it out. My feelings are - it's kind of like marriage, and kind of like
living in a city/state/country - patriotism, loyalty, and effort are needed to
stay there and keep it going. Inertia eventually runs down, and being carried
on the shoulders of a few burns the few out too soon.

Maybe 'immigration laws' might more clearly define it - petition for
membership, get your green card, eventually take the citizenship test, and be
welcomed into the ranks of citizens. Only citizens can vote and hold
'governmental' offices. Although greencard members could hold lesser offices
and head subgroups, etc.

Just another midnight ramble....

Secunda Floria Zonara

Subject:	Re: Auxiliary Citizenship
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 05:15:26 -0500 (EST)

My Dear Metullius;

My example as you say has some physical advantages over the Nova Roma
offerings but there are similarities as well. The person that I spoke
of who was elected to the Presidency in the fullness of time did not use
the range or the trail walk, and frankly has better places to camp This
club that I spoke of has the feeling of Nova Roma. The people are warm
and friendly and they work well together.
You very cleverly picked up my point in that Auxiliary Members can be a
benefit at a later time. In the meantime the auxiliary membership is
not looked down upon in our BP group, but rather it is understood to be
a position of a lesser expectancy because of the member's other
commitments.

Now several people on the list have made mention of the "selection" of
those to be in the Auxiliary Membership, and it is clear that I did not
make my meaning plain. I intended to say the position should be
"offered" not "selected' and I believe that I mentioned that the offer
was quite popular. This may occur here, if the "offer" is made in a
calm, and fair way with a considerate message to acompany asking the
membership to consider this new offer based on the number we have in
membership and the number we have active and let the members make thier
own decisions. From that point on, offer both citizenships to all new
members.

In your message you indicated that you thought about this for some
period of time and "even hesitated" before joining NR because of what it
might cost you. I think that is great, but I do not see the majority of
people doing that based upon my experiene of many years with volunteer
organizations. Other things come up, and like "Sorry I can't make it!".
With the aux. membership not quite as big a hole is left. Is it the
perfect solution, probably not, will it always work that way? No, but I
think that some attempt should be made to differentiate those who have
joined the NR seriusly and those not so seriousy, for the member's sake
as well as for Nova Roma.

M. Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: Auxiliary Citizenship
From:	Mike Macnair MikeMacnair@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 05:20:04 -0500

Salvete omnes!

Ericius writes:

>...there is a Roma Antiqua structure that we might be able to adapt,
>with minor cutting, welding and painting.
> The tribes.
> The Urban tribes were the ones that had the most say in the
voting.

Unfortunately, this is upside down. There were 4 urban (=inner-city)
tribes, the rest were rural (=suburban). Since voting was by tribe, not by
head, the suburbs (=the wealthy) had a voting majority though not a
numerical one. In Comitia Centuriata the wealth-based franchise was
explicit: the rich got more centuries per class & the proles (those who
couldn't even afford a sword) were all in one century. Presumably, if you
lost all your money, the Censors would move you into a lower century.

It might be possible to adopt some variant on the Com. Centuriata system,
e.g. to get into the numerous "top" centuries you have to commit to a
certain level of participation, but all "auxiliaries" are put into one
century. Or "auxiliaries" could be "resident peregrines" who didn't get to
vote at all. But, like L. Marius Fimbria, I don't think we should be asking
the Censors to assess the activity levels of existing Citizens. At most we
should offer some sort of auxiliary status as an option to new applicants.

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

Subject:	Re: Casual Enthusiasts vs Life
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 16:15:27 EST

In a message dated 12/5/98 12:48:41 PM EST, m--------oon@-------- wr--------:

<< Perhaps we should also start thinking about the perks of Citizenship vs.
not being one. Being a Citizen should carry a certain level of
responsibility -- what does everyone think? >>

Thumbs up here!

--Dexippus

Subject:	Re: Auxiliary Citizenship
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 16:17:19 EST

In a me--------e dated 12/5/98 2:17:26 PM EST, legion6@-------- write--------r>
<< Dexippus' point is also well-taken (yes, I'm actually agreeing with him
on something! >({|;-) ): >>

And yet another one won over!

--Dexippus
Divus Maximus Extremus

Subject:	Re: The position of Tribune Plebis
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 16:19:37 EST

In a message dated 12/5/98 2:50:55 PM EST, jmath669642reng@-------- --------es:

<< We really do need to try and stay as close to the original
Republican standards as possible until we find that they simply will not
work in this time period. >>

Then perhaps patricians should have an extra clout in order to stay consistent
with Roma Antica. If then a problem arise, we can "fix" it.

--Dexippus

<<Wisdom from the Abyss>>

Subject:	Re: Auxiliary Citizenship
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 16:21:46 EST

In a m--------g--------t--------2/5/98 4:04:59 PM EST, raz--------@-------- writ--------br>
<< If this idea of gradations of membership and activity is
seriously considered, there is a Roma Antiqua structure that we
might be able to adapt, with minor cutting, welding and painting.

The tribes.

The Urban tribes were the ones that had the most say in the
voting.

I'm sure some of our more creative, and more sane members can
think out a set blueprints for the project. Then, of course, we
shall all chime in with suggestions. What we want is to have
things work (without pieces dropping out of the bottom of the
vehicle [big Friendly smile] ).
>>

See...if we went into auxillary membeships then I can see the Plebeian Tribune
position as the official voice of these non-voting members. Then perhaps Full
Citizens can be regarded as Patricians and auxillary members as Plebeians.
That would fit well with the Tribune position.

--Dexippus

Subject:	Re: The position of Tribune Plebis
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 16:26:33 EST

In --------ss--------d-------- 12/5/98 4:59:48 PM EST, LSergAust@-------- writes:

<< I think we've already experienced problems with the _absence_ of a
tribunis plebis. Had I been one, I would have vetoed the actions that
altered the voting process and excluded Germanicus from the Senate for
what I consider silly, petty reasons. We obviously need this magistrate
as a check on the behavior of other magistrates, patrician or plebian. >>

But this has nothing to do with Patrician or Plebian. Why should such a
position be voted upon only by Plebian citizens if it is to serve everyone in
the Republic. It just makes no sense.

<<It is obvious that some of
those who were here earliest have a tendency to "lord it over" the rest
of us, lecturing us on what Nova Roma is for (always to forward their
personal interests, regardless of what the Founders advertised on the Web
site), and making extra-legal decisions on their own or in consultation
with the other "Boni.">>

This is bogus! No one is "lording over" the power of Nova Roma. Prior
discussion of what is and what is not Nova Roma had nothing to do with Plebian
or Patrician. And Nova Roma is what the website and the founders say it is.
We can't swing the pendulum every few months just because one group wants to
whether Plebian or Patrician.

--Dexippus

Subject:	Re: Auxiliary Citizenship
From:	legion6@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 15:55:52 -0600 (CST)

MariusFimbria said:

>>Dexippus' point is also well-taken (yes, I'm actually agreeing with
>>him on something! >({|;-) ): >>

...to which Dexippus replied:

>And yet another one won over!

...and MariusFimbria has this to say, in private, in return:

On this issue, yes. But don't count your chickens just yet; you and I
have deep differences and are diametrically opposed when it comes to
the question of how far Nova Roma needs to go to accommodate people who
do not think just like you. Your unbending outlook on things like
religious requirements for citizenship and/or magistracies, translating
our founding documents for non-primarily-English-speakers, and other
matters close to my heart has placed a gulf between us that will
require a little bit more than a rope-bridge to cross.

I am actually willing to make the effort to cross the chasm, if you are
willing to do the same. By all accounts you are a hard-working citizen
and a worthwhile person to get to know. But I do not respond well to
sexual humor, in-your-face paganism, or being told on almost every
issue that if I don't approach Nova Roma the same way you do, I need to
pack it up and go home. I'm sure you did not aim most of those
comments specifically at me. All the same, they are the chief obstacle
to my being able to feel completely welcome here.

Dex, you are entitled to your opinions and to the free expression
thereof. We can, I think, agree to disagree on many things while still
holding each other as fellow Romans-in-spirit. But this
love-it-or-leave-it, my-way-or-the-highway jingoism has got to stop. I
am probably one of the most incredibly tolerant members of my faith you
will ever encounter. (I say this after having been run out of one
church after another for being too open-minded; the evolution of
American Christianity is, sadly, not selecting for tolerance; one
reason why I am not an American Protestant.) If even *I* cannot find a
home here, who have practiced the Via (if not the Religio) solo for
almost eight years, what hope is there for anyone who is not actually a
Roman Pagan? And where do you suppose we're going to find enough of
those on the planet to run the whole show with no need for the rest of
us?

But on the associate memberships, I agree with you that, if we're going
to have them, it should not be up to the Censors to decide which type
of citizenship any of us gets. I am not one to turn down a good idea
or a useful thought just because of who it came from! Let this be a
start, then, to mending things between us. I would like to be your
friend, and for you to consider me likewise.

Have an olive-branch...?
---
__________ _<~) __________
<-\\\\@@@@@) /##\ (@@@@@////-> Märia Villarroel legion6@--------
<-\\\@@@@(#####@@@@///-> Historical Re-Creationist
<-\\\*##*///-> and Citizen of Rome
o---<<<<||SPQR||>>>>---o Latin lessons, History lectures
///\\\ Role-playing Games, too!

aka Lucius Marius Fimbria on the weekends

Subject:	Re: Auxiliary Citizenship
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:06:01 EST

Lucius Marius Fimbria wrote:
{with much snipping here}
>If even *I* cannot find a
>home here, who have practiced the Via (if not the Religio) solo for
>almost eight years, what hope is there for anyone who is not actually a
>Roman Pagan? And where do you suppose we're going to find enough of
>those on the planet to run the whole show with no need for the rest of
>us?
Oh goodness, you've opened the box again!! :-)

Can we not agree that "pagan" has nothing to do with Republican Rome. The
Religio Romana was not paganism, not Hellenism, not [whathaveyou] -- it
was the Religio Romana. Nobody was "pagan" until the Christians came
along and labeled everybody else with that.

I may practise the Religio, but I will not be "pagan." Roma Antiqua was
not "pagan" (except to the Christians).

So what is a "Roman Pagan?" A Roman who's still running from
Constantine's agents?

L. Sergius Aust.


ita, te adloquor.

(Yeah, I'm talking to you.)

Subject:	Re: The position of Tribune Plebis
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:05:58 EST

>From: Dexippus@--------
>
>In --------ss--------d-------- 12/5/98 4:59:48 PM EST, LSergAust@-------- writes:
>
><< I think we've already experienced problems with the _absence_ of a
> tribunis plebis. Had I been one, I would have vetoed the actions that
> altered the voting process and excluded Germanicus from the Senate for
> what I consider silly, petty reasons. We obviously need this magistrate
> as a check on the behavior of other magistrates, patrician or plebian. >>
>
>But this has nothing to do with Patrician or Plebian.
Not directly, but it involved decisions in which the prevailing voices
were of those who had been here in the beginning and thus were in
position to make those decisions.

But admittedly, although that may serve as a rationale for having the
plebian tribunes, it doesn't serve to justify their being voted for only
by plebians. That is only a matter of tradition.

> Why should such a
>position be voted upon only by Plebian citizens if it is to serve everyone in
>the Republic. It just makes no sense.
Traditions often don't makes sense when they've persisted beyond their
original purposes. I suggest that we retain the title of the position for
tradition's sake and to distinguish it from other tribunes (such as
military tribunes), but allow it to be voted on by all citizens.

><<It is obvious that some of
>those who were here earliest have a tendency to "lord it over" the rest
>of us, lecturing us on what Nova Roma is for (always to forward their
>personal interests, regardless of what the Founders advertised on the Web
>site), and making extra-legal decisions on their own or in consultation
>with the other "Boni.">>
>
>This is bogus! No one is "lording over" the power of Nova Roma.
I refer the honorable gentleman to the archives. Those whose voices were
most strident and hostile seemed to me to be among the early-joiners. Of
course, it is true that some of the most reasonable participants in those
debates were also early-joiners. It's not a real strong case I made there
(although it isn't entirely "bogus" either). Hey, I'm a Sergius -- I have
to uphold family tradition sometimes, at least! :-)

>Prior discussion of what is and what is not Nova Roma had nothing to do with
>Plebian
>or Patrician. And Nova Roma is what the website and the founders say it is.
>We can't swing the pendulum every few months just because one group wants to
>whether Plebian or Patrician.
I suspect that, in the long run, Nova Roma will be what the majority of
the most active citizens make it to be. I've appealed to the
explanation/description/definition that appeared on the original Web
site, with the hope that that would represent a stable anchor we could
all agree upon (at least to some extent): values, culture, traditions,
_and_ religio. Some people here have seemed to argue that only (their
idea of) the Religio really matters. Others have already felt crowded out
or un-welcomed by those arguments. I don't want to re-open any of that
mess -- I agree that, happily, we seem to have some stability developing.

Do I not recall that there are some positions open only to patricians?
(Priesthoods?)
If we let the patricians into the "plebian tribune" positions, are we
going to let plebians into those other positions?

Vale!

L. Sergius Aust.

Lucius Sergius Catalina -- in your heart you know he's right (or
Left???)!!!

Subject:	Re: Auxiliary Citizenship
From:	"Gaius Marius Merullus" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:20:17 -0500

Salvete Audens et alii



From: jmath669642reng@-------- (James Mathe--------br>
My Dear Metullius;

Audens, are you referring to me? I suppose that I have been called worse
things...

You wrote-
With the aux. membership not quite as big a hole is left. Is it the
perfect solution, probably not, will it always work that way? No, but I
think that some attempt should be made to differentiate those who have
joined the NR seriusly and those not so seriousy, for the member's sake
as well as for Nova Roma.

I ask-
I think that I understand what you propose to do and the logic of how it
would work. What I do not yet understand is the cause that should motivate
us to do this. So far, the only three problems that have been presented in
connection with membership to my knowledge are:

1. Postage to distribute the election Eagle to a lot of inactive cives,
2. Generally staying in touch with inactive cives,
3. As a corollary to 2, informing inactive cives of their tribal and
centurial assignments.

My ideas for ameliorating these problems:

1. If the subscription fee for the Eagle is not covering postage, including
postage for special issues like the election one, raise the subscription
rate and/or reimburse from the treasurty the parties currently diffraying
postage.
1a. If this results in a hole in our treasury, it is time to pursue t-shirt
and/or coin sales more aggressively.
2. It should be the burden of each civis to remain in contact with the
center by whatever medium available to them. The censors have a postal
address for this purpose, I think. Maybe provincial praetors could
propagate postal addresses too through the Eagle or some other mailing?
3. Here is a means for cives to categorize themselves of their own
volition. Those who stay in contact, make sure that they get their voter
codes and vote will be more active than those who move and do not inform the
censors.

I realize that there may be problems of which I as a bystander am unaware;
but those are my thoughts.

Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus



M. Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.

Subject:	Nova Roma Vote - PLEASE READ
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 22:27:01 EST

Salvete,

At last, the voter codes have been mailed to every Citizen with a valid Email
address. There have been a few addresses "kicked back" - so it seems that some
folks have changed their Email addresses and forgotten to let the Censors
know. If you are a Citizen that joined Nova Roma before November 22nd, and you
have NOT recieved a Voter Code as yet, please send me a personal Email. I'll
get your voter code to you, and we'll update your information! :)

So far votes have been rolling in. It looks like we'll have a good number of
voters in spite of the difficulties we've had with this first election
process... it looks like we'll manage a better percentage of votes than most
U.S. elections get!

Remember, if you have your voter code but haven't voted yet, you have until
December 13th to cast your ballot. The votes will be tallied then, and the the
results will be posted on the website as soon as a complete count has been
done and verified.

Many thanks to everyone who has already voted. Your sticking with the election
process even through the rough bits has meant a lot, and will help ensure that
Nova Roma continues to progress through the next year. Your participation is
valued and appreciated!

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul

Subject:	Re: Nova Roma Vote - PLEASE READ
From:	JusticeCMO@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:56:57 EST

Cassius,

I tried to send a private e-mail to you, but AOL claims that *Cassius662* is
not a known member. I have not received a voter code. Please send along as
soon as possible. Thanks!

Priscilla Vedia Serena

Subject:	Re: Nova Roma Vote - PLEASE READ
From:	JusticeCMO@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 1998 23:59:49 EST

****OOPS!! The adress I tried *was* Cassius622 but I wrote it incorrectly
below. Sorry!!!!****


<<Cassius,

I tried to send a private e-mail to you, but AOL claims that *Cassius662* is
not a known member. I have not received a voter code. Please send along as
soon as possible. Thanks!

Priscilla Vedia Serena>>

Subject:	Re: Auxiliary Citizenship
From:	Razenna razenna@--------
Date:	Sun, 06 Dec 1998 17:34:56 -0800

Dexippus@-------- wrote:

> See...if we went into auxillary membeships then I can see the Plebeian Tribune
> position as the official voice of these non-voting members. Then perhaps Full
> Citizens can be regarded as Patricians and auxillary members as Plebeians.
> That would fit well with the Tribune position.
>
> --Dexippus

This is a very interesting angle of approach to the idea. Any other opinions on
this point?

C. Aelius Ericius