Subject:	Keeping Edicta under Control
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 02:18:40 +0200

Salvete Quirites!

In the absence of a voluntary retraction of the
Praetorian Edictum, I am deeply grateful to Junior Consul M.
Audens for his veto of the old version and proposed veto of
the new. There cannot be a political situation here in our
real Forum in which citizens are threated with punishment
for discussing the issues of the day - which most
emphatically must include gender policy in Nova Roma.

But for the future MAY I PROPOSE that we establish as a
fixed custom - perhaps by Lex - that magistrates post their
proposed edicta for comment and consultation with the whole
People *before* enacting them? I believe that it is a
peculiar danger of our constitution and functioning over the
Internet that our magistrates, no doubt often with the best
of intentions, are led to issue edicta without a reasonable
amount of discussion and consultation in advance. They thus
are easily misled as to what degree of acceptibility their
edicta will have to the People.

In Roma Antiqua the magistrates constantly had friends
and family and associates around them with whom to discuss
their ideas informally. In Nova Roma there is far less of
this, and the magistracies function differently, sometimes
with a degree of relative isolation. And sometimes they
produce edicta which are extreme in nature or ignore
legitimate minority concerns or are simply badly thought out
or drafted.

And once they are officially issued, human nature makes
it difficult for the responsible magistrates to withdraw
them, as that would involve loss of face. Would it not,
therefore, be better for our Respublica to require our
magistrates to take counsel from the People in advance? It
would be easier for people with better ideas as to concept
or wording to present them early enough to have some
influence on the final version, and it would give an
opportunity for minority groups or individuals who would be
unfairly or disproportionally affected to protest before
such edicta went into effect.

It would protect the magistrates against many kinds of
serious miscalculation and subsequent embarrassment, it
would protect minorities, it would protect the freedoms of
the People, and it would generally conduce to a better
quality of magisterial legislation. It would not change the
fundamental nature of our Roman constitution, which we
should cherish, but it would simply help it to function more
naturally and effectively for the stable political life of a
free Nova Roma.

Will others of you support the idea of *advance public
consultation* for magisterial edicta? We must, Quiretes, do
something to stop this constant shocking of the body politic
by excessively controversial edicta issued by individuals.

Vivat Nova Roma - et Libertas!

Valete.

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae,
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
____________________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
_____________________________________________________

Subject:	Some Better Rules
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 03:16:05 +0200

Salvete Quirites!

I took it upon myself to prepare for our honourable
Praetor a more suitable set of rules for our List, but as
the second version of his edictum shows, he did not adopt
many of my ideas except the softening of the penalties. I
present the ideas here as a contribution to how such rules
might be formulated in a manner sufficiently clear to be
useful to us.

1. It is expected that debate on the Main List of Nova Roma
be polite and reasoned, and always exhibit the Virtue of
COMITAS. Posts will be considered on-topic for this list if
they relate to:

(a) Graeco-Roman history, culture, art, philosophy, and
religion (including religious reconstructionism), and the
Latin language.
(b) political and administrative matters relating to Nova
Roma as an organisation in the modern world and a sovereign
microstate, and
(c) friendly social messages among the citizenry.

2. No person, citizen or non-citizen, on the Nova Roma Main
List shall:

(a) use obviously insulting words or expressions against
another in
an ad hominem attack,

(b) state that any other List member is essentially or
basically "bad", or
incompetent as a human being (as contrasted with criticisms
or attacks directed against specific words or actions, or
directed against general performance in a specific office or
personal suitability for the same),

(c) use any List member's inclusion in any category defined
by religious
tradition, gender, sexuality, race, age, ethnicity,
nationality or geographical region of origin or abode as
reason, pretext, or means to attack or denigrate that
person,

(d) use defamatory language to incite substantial hatred or
illegal acts against any of the abovementioned categories of
persons, or

(e) post chain letters or pyramid schemes of any sort.

3. In case of the violation of the above rules, the offender

shall be warned by the competent authority either by public
posting or private e-mail or both. If after receipt of the
warning the offender repeats such violations within thirty
days, he shall be suspended from the Main List for ten days
from the time of public notice for such suspension. In case
of a second offence within sixty days of the end of this
suspension, the offender shall be suspended for ninety days
from the time of public posting of such suspension.

4. A citizen of Nova Roma in the case of a suspension may
always make an Appeal to the People in Comitia Centuriata
assembled and if such an appeal is made, the suspension
shall not go into effect until a conviction is made there.
Non-citizens shall not have this right of appeal.
------------------------

I do not specify the authority competent to carry out
this moderation of the list. Actually there is much to be
said in favour of the Praetors, although a Curator Sermonis
might also do the job, as previously.

I continue to believe that moderation is neither
necessary nor desirable for the list. It was the enactment
of the Gender Edictum which made extensive discussion of
gender and sexuality a natural and necessary matter of
discussion. I do not believe that the agitation over this
will go away until this novel limitation of the freedom of
our citizens, introduced without popular consultation by one
magistrate acting alone, is corrected for once and for all,
and the worthy citizens pressured out of Nova Roma
encouraged to return in dignity and with our apologies.


Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________

Subject:	Alba & Application Praises & Problems
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 03:58:03 +0200

Salve M. Octavi Germanice!

The new alba and citizenship application form are much
to be admired. Gratulor!

I think that there is still something to be desired in
the application form however. There we have the following
text:

The most important name is your nomen, or gens
name. It is
the middle of the usual three names of Roman
citizen. There are many suggested names found at
a link from the page "choosing a Roman name." Your
nomen is your gens name.

The sentence "There are many..." does not seem to actually
relate to the nomen but to the praenomen. There is also
still a lack of sufficient properly-sequenced orientation to
the link between the nomen and the gens. It seems to me more
logical to send the applicant out to find his/her gens first
of all, so that that will provide him/her with a nomen. This
really should be thought about more, presumably by the
Censores.

We should all thank you for this good work. If you or
someone wants more, how about etymologies of names?

Maps of the areas covered by our provinciae with towns
of cives marked would also be very nice, but I suppose I am
dreaming...

How about application forms in other languages with a
referral page? I might immediately think of Latin, French,
Italian, German, Esperanto, and Spanish... And no doubt my
friend Sarmaticus could easily think of more...

Good work! Macte!


Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 19:00:34 -0700

Salve

That isnt necessary. Our Constitution has built in checks and balances that
are more than sufficient. Remember the Edicta are the lowest form of laws
that anyone can pass. Let the law work. It has been shown to work! We
dont need any more additional burdens to our elected Magistrates. If you
dont know just HOW many checks there are built into the system, I really
advise all of our citizens to read the Constitution and see the limitations
that are built in by our excellent Dictator Flavius Vedius Germanicus. He
was very thorough when he drafted the new Constituion.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:

> Salvete Quirites!
>
> In the absence of a voluntary retraction of the
> Praetorian Edictum, I am deeply grateful to Junior Consul M.
> Audens for his veto of the old version and proposed veto of
> the new. There cannot be a political situation here in our
> real Forum in which citizens are threated with punishment
> for discussing the issues of the day - which most
> emphatically must include gender policy in Nova Roma.
>
> But for the future MAY I PROPOSE that we establish as a
> fixed custom - perhaps by Lex - that magistrates post their
> proposed edicta for comment and consultation with the whole
> People *before* enacting them? I believe that it is a
> peculiar danger of our constitution and functioning over the
> Internet that our magistrates, no doubt often with the best
> of intentions, are led to issue edicta without a reasonable
> amount of discussion and consultation in advance. They thus
> are easily misled as to what degree of acceptibility their
> edicta will have to the People.
>
> In Roma Antiqua the magistrates constantly had friends
> and family and associates around them with whom to discuss
> their ideas informally. In Nova Roma there is far less of
> this, and the magistracies function differently, sometimes
> with a degree of relative isolation. And sometimes they
> produce edicta which are extreme in nature or ignore
> legitimate minority concerns or are simply badly thought out
> or drafted.
>
> And once they are officially issued, human nature makes
> it difficult for the responsible magistrates to withdraw
> them, as that would involve loss of face. Would it not,
> therefore, be better for our Respublica to require our
> magistrates to take counsel from the People in advance? It
> would be easier for people with better ideas as to concept
> or wording to present them early enough to have some
> influence on the final version, and it would give an
> opportunity for minority groups or individuals who would be
> unfairly or disproportionally affected to protest before
> such edicta went into effect.
>
> It would protect the magistrates against many kinds of
> serious miscalculation and subsequent embarrassment, it
> would protect minorities, it would protect the freedoms of
> the People, and it would generally conduce to a better
> quality of magisterial legislation. It would not change the
> fundamental nature of our Roman constitution, which we
> should cherish, but it would simply help it to function more
> naturally and effectively for the stable political life of a
> free Nova Roma.
>
> Will others of you support the idea of *advance public
> consultation* for magisterial edicta? We must, Quiretes, do
> something to stop this constant shocking of the body politic
> by excessively controversial edicta issued by individuals.
>
> Vivat Nova Roma - et Libertas!
>
> Valete.
>
> Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
> Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
> Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae,
> Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
> ICQ# 61698049
> ____________________________________________________
> Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
> [Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
> _____________________________________________________
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 72% off on Name brand Watches!
> Come and buy today and get free shipping!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958868335/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958868335/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What is done is done
From:	"Rick Brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=189212253108160085015199190036129" >trog99@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 19:47:11 PDT

Salve Festus et. al:

You wrote earlier today Festus "A bad edict does not make a bad man."
Although both the orginal and revised Edicta need a "spit and polish", I do
believe that Pontiff and Praetor Graecus acted in the spirit of Bona Fide.
His actions and service to the res Publica to date reflect his dignatis and
goodness.

Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo


>From: <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] What is done is done
>Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 12:39:20 EDT
>
>Salvete,
>
> The Consul has vetoed the Praetorian edict. There is no longer any
>need
>for rancor or for disparigning remarks of the Praetor Graecus. The matter
>is
>being handled.
>
> Thanks to Consul Audens for taking the appropriate action. And let
>us
>have no hard feelings towards Praetor Graecus. A bad edict does not make a
>bad man!
>
> One personal note to Praetor Gracus; Thank you for the compliment on
>my
>Hypatia post. I also printed out two of your own posts; the one on the
>alleged third gender, and the post on Sol Invictus which I found on the
>Religio list archives.
>
>Gaius Lupinius Festus
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Save 75% on Products!
>Find incredible deals on overstocked items with Free shipping!
><a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958840769/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958840769/</a>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 19:56:54 -0700

Salvete.

Sulla! The checks and balances you speak of did not prevent two ill
considered and worded edicts from raising havoc in Nova Roma. I am
not [not, not, not] saying that Formosanus's suggestions are the basis
for a law, nor that they should be formed into a law -- NO [I feel I
must emphasis because people skim and then shoot off a post on what
they Thought they read] No I am not urging, suggesting, etc. any legal
action like this. If it was put forward I would be one of those
looking for seams to pick apart.

But I will say that the guidelines he puts forward would not be
harmful to the Republic if magistrates who are of the edictifying
persuasion did let the People comment on any prospective edicts. Why
not? This form of government IS a "thing of the People". Germanicus
Dictator had his edicts up for public discussion and criticism so that
he could address any concerns, and / or make any changes that were
needed.

Two quasi footnotes:

1) One reason I am such a nit picker about laws, and that I end up
voting No on them a lot is that I was (and am) of the opinion that we
should have tried to work without a written constitution as much as
possible. Roma and England lasted centuries without a written
constitution, I thought it might be worth a shot. Crafting what is
essentially a new form of government will require many changes as we
go along this path. I believe that it is easier to write on a clean
sheet of paper. We are on this path. As long as we, individually and
as a community, stick with this Res Publica we work with what we
have. -- this government, this constitution -- and accept taht
patches will have to be made. All human things change and grow.

2) Anybody who wants to hold my criticisms of Germanicus Dictator in
my face at the times that I am citing them and defending them is
welcome to do so. LOL! And if they telephone me (assuredly long
distance) I will explain to them why I am not contradicting my
previous stands while at the same time saying that Germanicus gave us
a good constitution. (and... Yes. I can say that even though I am
Still trying to figure it all out!)

Bene valete, Quirites.
C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator. Augur. Pontifex. Retired Propraetor of California and Nevada.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:

> Salve
>
> That isnt necessary. Our Constitution has built in checks and
> balances that
> are more than sufficient. Remember the Edicta are the lowest form
> of laws
> that anyone can pass. Let the law work. It has been shown to
> work! We
> dont need any more additional burdens to our elected Magistrates.
> If you
> dont know just HOW many checks there are built into the system, I
> really
> advise all of our citizens to read the Constitution and see the
> limitations
> that are built in by our excellent Dictator Flavius Vedius
> Germanicus. He
> was very thorough when he drafted the new Constituion.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor
>
> "M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:
>
> > Salvete Quirites!
> >
> > In the absence of a voluntary retraction of the
> > Praetorian Edictum, I am deeply grateful to Junior Consul M.
> > Audens for his veto of the old version and proposed veto of
> > the new. There cannot be a political situation here in our
> > real Forum in which citizens are threated with punishment
> > for discussing the issues of the day - which most
> > emphatically must include gender policy in Nova Roma.
> >
> > But for the future MAY I PROPOSE that we establish as a
> > fixed custom - perhaps by Lex - that magistrates post their
> > proposed edicta for comment and consultation with the whole
> > People *before* enacting them? I believe that it is a
> > peculiar danger of our constitution and functioning over the
> > Internet that our magistrates, no doubt often with the best
> > of intentions, are led to issue edicta without a reasonable
> > amount of discussion and consultation in advance. They thus
> > are easily misled as to what degree of acceptibility their
> > edicta will have to the People.
> >
> > In Roma Antiqua the magistrates constantly had friends
> > and family and associates around them with whom to discuss
> > their ideas informally. In Nova Roma there is far less of
> > this, and the magistracies function differently, sometimes
> > with a degree of relative isolation. And sometimes they
> > produce edicta which are extreme in nature or ignore
> > legitimate minority concerns or are simply badly thought out
> > or drafted.
> >
> > And once they are officially issued, human nature makes
> > it difficult for the responsible magistrates to withdraw
> > them, as that would involve loss of face. Would it not,
> > therefore, be better for our Respublica to require our
> > magistrates to take counsel from the People in advance? It
> > would be easier for people with better ideas as to concept
> > or wording to present them early enough to have some
> > influence on the final version, and it would give an
> > opportunity for minority groups or individuals who would be
> > unfairly or disproportionally affected to protest before
> > such edicta went into effect.
> >
> > It would protect the magistrates against many kinds of
> > serious miscalculation and subsequent embarrassment, it
> > would protect minorities, it would protect the freedoms of
> > the People, and it would generally conduce to a better
> > quality of magisterial legislation. It would not change the
> > fundamental nature of our Roman constitution, which we
> > should cherish, but it would simply help it to function more
> > naturally and effectively for the stable political life of a
> > free Nova Roma.
> >
> > Will others of you support the idea of *advance public
> > consultation* for magisterial edicta? We must, Quiretes, do
> > something to stop this constant shocking of the body politic
> > by excessively controversial edicta issued by individuals.
> >
> > Vivat Nova Roma - et Libertas!
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> > Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
> > Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
> > Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae,
> > Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
> > ICQ# 61698049
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
> > [Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
> > _____________________________________________________
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > 72% off on Name brand Watches!
> > Come and buy today and get free shipping!
> > <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958868335/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958868335/</a>
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 19:59:03 -0700

Two Edictas. Out of How many! 15-20? Please! There ARE checks....even in
my Edictum. Regardless if you agree with the Edictum or not. There are
checks. I know you have read the Constiution so there is no reason to explain
to you the numerous ways an edicta can be overturned.

Razenna wrote:

> Salvete.
>
> Sulla! The checks and balances you speak of did not prevent two ill
> considered and worded edicts from raising havoc in Nova Roma. I am
> not [not, not, not] saying that Formosanus's suggestions are the basis
> for a law, nor that they should be formed into a law -- NO [I feel I
> must emphasis because people skim and then shoot off a post on what
> they Thought they read] No I am not urging, suggesting, etc. any legal
> action like this. If it was put forward I would be one of those
> looking for seams to pick apart.
>
> But I will say that the guidelines he puts forward would not be
> harmful to the Republic if magistrates who are of the edictifying
> persuasion did let the People comment on any prospective edicts. Why
> not? This form of government IS a "thing of the People". Germanicus
> Dictator had his edicts up for public discussion and criticism so that
> he could address any concerns, and / or make any changes that were
> needed.
>

Each Magistrate is elected by the People. Given that they are elected by the
People, they already have the People's Trust. Regardless if some of their
action is unpopular. You cannot micromanage the actions of magistrates to the
point that nothing gets done. That is why we have checks within the framework
provided by the new Constitution.

>
> Two quasi footnotes:
>
> 1) One reason I am such a nit picker about laws, and that I end up
> voting No on them a lot is that I was (and am) of the opinion that we
> should have tried to work without a written constitution as much as
> possible. Roma and England lasted centuries without a written
> constitution, I thought it might be worth a shot. Crafting what is
> essentially a new form of government will require many changes as we
> go along this path. I believe that it is easier to write on a clean
> sheet of paper. We are on this path. As long as we, individually and
> as a community, stick with this Res Publica we work with what we
> have. -- this government, this constitution -- and accept taht
> patches will have to be made. All human things change and grow.
>

I understand that...but due to the prevlance of American Constitutional
thought and the fact that most Nova Romans are American and feel very safe
having a written Constitution that wasnt going to happen. Even the old
Constitution of Nova Roma was written down. And look what happened to that.
:)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Subject:	Re: [SenatusRomanus] Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00052001
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 23:12:19 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete, Conscript Fathers, Pontiff / Praetor Graecus, and Citizens of
Nova Roma;

I have returned home from an extended trip into Northern Massachusetts
where I must return again very early in the morning. Upon my return I
find no reply from Pontiff / Praetor Graecus, but I do find support for
my intended actions as indicated this morning before I left from the
Senior Consul and three Senators, together with some support from the
Citizens.

You have ignored the needs of Nova Roma in the harshness of your
proposed rules, you have not seen fit to share your ideas with the other
Magistrates of Nova Roma, and you have rejected the advice of the Senior
Consul who has tried to guide your actions into a more reasonable
statement of Onelist Behavior Rules. By your actions you have confused
the Citizens, and angered many Magistrates, not to mention the total
stoppage of government effort to attend to this very unpleasant but
necessary action.

Since you have made these decisions in the face of overwhelming
objections from the citizens, the magistrates and your peers, I now take
the following action:

At this date, May 20, 2000, at approximately11:15 P.M. (EST) I VETO your
Pratorian Edictum 00052001.

I take this action for the same reasons that I stood here and Vetoed the
last Edictum. I now inform you that unless you significantly change the
proposed rules in accordance with the suggestions that you have recieved
from various sources and submit those rule-sets to your senior
Magistrates for thier review, it is my intention to continue this action
as long as necessary to develop some guidelines that are reasonable and
usable in the eyes of the Citizens of Nova Roma, the Magistrates of Nova
Roma, and the Senate of Nova Roma.

In closing, you have my sincere apologies for the embarassment that I am
causing you. It hurts me just as it must sting you, but you have given
me no choice, in forcing this action by taking yourself out of
circulation when these questionable Edicts were issued. They fly in the
face of what is best for the Citizens of Nova Roma, and therefore I
believe they fly in the face of my Oath to that nation.

I have done--and It is my fervant hope that these actions find favor in
the eyes of the Gods and Goddesses of Rome to whom I owe my sincere
respect and admiration.

Valete, With Great Respect;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Consul et Senator




Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Some Better Rules
From:	"Rick Brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=189212253108160085015199190036129" >trog99@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 20:35:31 PDT

Salve Apollonius Formosanus:

I saw your post and thought I would give you my thoughts.

For the most part, I like the wording of Section 2 in that it, in my view,
better defines what constitutes "offensive" and "insulting"...terms used in
both Praetoral Edicta.

Just one little thing: in "b" of section 2, you wrote "personal
suitability for the same" . I find this a bit ambiguous. I would change
this to "professional suitability for the same", if you are defining how
someone may opinionate about how qualified a cive is for a particular
office. Now I may be reading you incorrectly and be way off base, but
that's how I read it:))

In the moderation of any communication, there will always be "judgement
calls" the moderator will have to make regarding what is and isn't
acceptable dialogue. But giving these two terms better definition, as you
have in your offering here, provides a more solid base from which both a
moderator and citizens can judge their conduct.

It was good of you, I think, to take the time to produce these suggested
guidelines :)

In Amicitia,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo




>From: "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: novaroma <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] Some Better Rules
>Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:16:05 +0200
>
>Salvete Quirites!
>
> I took it upon myself to prepare for our honourable
>Praetor a more suitable set of rules for our List, but as
>the second version of his edictum shows, he did not adopt
>many of my ideas except the softening of the penalties. I
>present the ideas here as a contribution to how such rules
>might be formulated in a manner sufficiently clear to be
>useful to us.
>
>1. It is expected that debate on the Main List of Nova Roma
>be polite and reasoned, and always exhibit the Virtue of
>COMITAS. Posts will be considered on-topic for this list if
>they relate to:
>
>(a) Graeco-Roman history, culture, art, philosophy, and
>religion (including religious reconstructionism), and the
>Latin language.
>(b) political and administrative matters relating to Nova
>Roma as an organisation in the modern world and a sovereign
>microstate, and
>(c) friendly social messages among the citizenry.
>
>2. No person, citizen or non-citizen, on the Nova Roma Main
>List shall:
>
>(a) use obviously insulting words or expressions against
>another in
>an ad hominem attack,
>
>(b) state that any other List member is essentially or
>basically "bad", or
>incompetent as a human being (as contrasted with criticisms
>or attacks directed against specific words or actions, or
>directed against general performance in a specific office or
>personal suitability for the same),
>
>(c) use any List member's inclusion in any category defined
>by religious
>tradition, gender, sexuality, race, age, ethnicity,
>nationality or geographical region of origin or abode as
>reason, pretext, or means to attack or denigrate that
>person,
>
>(d) use defamatory language to incite substantial hatred or
>illegal acts against any of the abovementioned categories of
>persons, or
>
>(e) post chain letters or pyramid schemes of any sort.
>
>3. In case of the violation of the above rules, the offender
>
>shall be warned by the competent authority either by public
>posting or private e-mail or both. If after receipt of the
>warning the offender repeats such violations within thirty
>days, he shall be suspended from the Main List for ten days
>from the time of public notice for such suspension. In case
>of a second offence within sixty days of the end of this
>suspension, the offender shall be suspended for ninety days
>from the time of public posting of such suspension.
>
>4. A citizen of Nova Roma in the case of a suspension may
>always make an Appeal to the People in Comitia Centuriata
>assembled and if such an appeal is made, the suspension
>shall not go into effect until a conviction is made there.
>Non-citizens shall not have this right of appeal.
>------------------------
>
> I do not specify the authority competent to carry out
>this moderation of the list. Actually there is much to be
>said in favour of the Praetors, although a Curator Sermonis
>might also do the job, as previously.
>
> I continue to believe that moderation is neither
>necessary nor desirable for the list. It was the enactment
>of the Gender Edictum which made extensive discussion of
>gender and sexuality a natural and necessary matter of
>discussion. I do not believe that the agitation over this
>will go away until this novel limitation of the freedom of
>our citizens, introduced without popular consultation by one
>magistrate acting alone, is corrected for once and for all,
>and the worthy citizens pressured out of Nova Roma
>encouraged to return in dignity and with our apologies.
>
>
>Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
>Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
>Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
>Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
>ICQ# 61698049
>________________________________________________________
>
>Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
>[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
>________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>GET WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE FREE! GET THE OFFICIAL COMPANION
>TO TELEVISION'S HOTTEST GAME SHOW PHENOMENON PLUS 5 MORE BOOKS FOR
>$2. Click for details.
><a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/6/_/61050/_/958871780/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/6/_/61050/_/958871780/</a>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Isis Aretalogies/Roman Period
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 00:00:13 EDT

The following aretalogies were translated and copyrighted by Niall
McCloskey, and are posted here with his kind permission. I found them at
<a href="http://duke.usask.ca/~niallm/252/Aretalog.htm" target="_top" >http://duke.usask.ca/~niallm/252/Aretalog.htm</a>.

Gaius Lupinius Festus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

Kore Kosmou (3rd Century A.D.)

It is Isis and Osiris who filled life with life.

It is Isis and Osiris who brought to an end the savagery of mutual murders.

It is Isis and Osiris who blessed en with laws, food and housing.

'It is Isis and Osiris who', said Hermes, 'who will understand the secrets of
my writing and will interpret them, and even if they hold back some of these
for themselves, those things which [my writings] reveal about the worship of
the gods they will engrave on pillars and obelisks.

It is Isis and Osiris who first revealed law courts and then filled them with
justice and lawfulness.

It is Isis and Osiris who were the designers of trust and good faith and
brought into the very great god Orkos.

It is Isis and Osiris who taught men right way to dress those who had ceased
to live.

It is Isis and Osiris who probed the savage nature of death and perceived
that there is an external breath which comes periodically to the material
parts of the body and that if it comes too late, it creates an absence of
spirit which cannot be replaced.

It is Isis and Osiris who alone learned from Hermes the hidden decrees of God
and were the inventors and controllers of all the arts, sciences and skills
among men.

It is Isis and Osiris who learned from Hermes that the things above were
organized by the Creator to correspond to the things above and established
the rites instituted on earth alongside the Mysteries in Heaven.

It is Isis and Osiris who perceived the mortality of bodies and, devised the
Seers' perfection in all things, so that the Seer as He goes to lift up his
hands to the gods should never be unaware of any of the Beings and that
philosophy and magic should nourish the soul and that the healing art should
save the body when it suffers in any way.

My child, when we had done all these things and looked on the completed
Cosmos we were recalled by the beings who dwell in Heaven. We could not
return, however, before proclaiming the Monarch so that the Container might
be full of this vision and that we ourselves might receive a welcoming
return,. for God rejoices in hymns

'Mother', said Horus, 'Bestow on me the knowledge of this Hymn, in order the
I may not be one of the ignorant.' Isis replied, 'Heed me, child.'

Translated by Niall Mc Closkey

Aretalogy from Kyme (circa 100 A.D.)
1. Demetrios son of Artemidorus and Thrasea from Maiandros in Magnesia offers
this prayer to Isis

2. These things were written on the pillar in Memphis which was set up beside
the Hephaestion

3. I am Isis, Mistress of every place. I was educated by Hermes. I found the
sacred writings and the public writings in order that all might not be
written in the texts.

4. I established laws for men and ordained matters which none can change.

5. I am the eldest daughter of Kronos.

6. I am wife and sister of Lord Osiris.

7. I am the she who found nourishment for mankind.

8. I am the mother of Lord Horus.

9. I am she who rises in the constellation of the Dog.

10. 9. I am she who is called The Goddess among women.

11. The city of Boubastos was founded by me

12. . I am she who divided the land from the sea.

13. . I am she who revealed the paths of the stars.

14. . I am she who coordinated the paths of the Sun and the Moon.

15. I am she who discovered the works of the sea.

16. I am she who made Justice strong

17. I am she who brought together man and woman.

18. I am she who devised for women to bring a ten-month fetus into the light.

19. I am she who decreed that parents should be strongly loved by the child.

20. I am she who ordained recompense for parents who are unloved

21. I am she who, with my brother Osiris, put an end to murders.

22. I am she who taught men initiations.

23. I am she who taught them to carve images of the gods.

24. I am she who set up the sacred precincts of the gods.

25. I am she who dissolved the powers of tyrants.

26. I am she who put an end to killings.

27. I am she who made it necessary for women to be loved by men.

28. I am she who made Justice stronger than gold or silver.

29. I am she who decreed that Truth be considered beautiful.

30. I am she who invented marriage contracts

31. I am she who put in order the speech of Greeks and of barbarians.

32. I am she who made the beautiful and the foul be distinguished by Nature.

33. I am she who made nothing should be more awesome than Orkos.

34. I am she who handed over as a bondsman the one who plotted unjustly
against another to the one against whom he had plotted.

35. I am she who exacts recompense from those who act unjustly.

36. I am she who required that suppliants be pitied.

37. I am she who honors those who are justly protected.

38. Justice is strong by my side.

39. I am Queen of the rivers, of the winds and of the sea.

40. No one is glorified without my approval.

41. I am the Mistress of War.

42. I am the Mistress of the Thunderbolt.

43. I keep the sea calm and control it.

44. I am in the rays of the Sun.

45. I have my throne beside the path of the Sun.

46. Whatever seems good to me is accomplished.

47. All things yield to me.

48. I am she who releases those in chains.

49. I am Mistress of sea-faring.

50. I am she who makes the navigable unnavigable whenever it pleases me.

51. I am she who established the boundaries of cities.

52. I am she who is called Thesmophoros.

53. I am she who brought the islands out of the abyss into the light.

54. I am the Mistress of the rain

55. I am she who conquers Fate.

56. Fate obeys me.

57. Rejoice, Egypt which gave me birth.

Subject:	Consular Veto
From:	"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 04:23:33 GMT

Salve Omnes:


With the greatest respect for Praetor Gryllus Graecus, I believe the actions
of Consul Audens were both appropriate and necessary in meeting the needs
and wishes of the Nova Roman populace.

Consul, you have given this matter your detailed and expedient attention, as
you do in all other areas of your administration.
Thanks for handling this delicate and unpleasant situation so efficiently.

Most people know I am your scriba. But I speak with objectivity in this
regard; However, I cannot be completely speechless about the admiration I
have accrued for you in seeing the fine work you do.

Ave!
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Scriba Consula
Marcus Minucius Audens




Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] An Ancient Letter
From:	"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 04:50:35 GMT

Salve, Feste:

Thanks for sharing this.
Pompeia Cornelia


>From: <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] An Ancient Letter
>Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 11:35:16 EDT
>
>Salvete,
>
> I found this in a New Testament commentary by the late Prof. William
>Barclay of the University of Glasgow. It is a letter written by a soldier
>named Apion to his father Epimachus, and was written from Misenum. I do
>not
>know a date for this letter.
>
> "Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.
>
>I pray above all that you are well and fit;and that things are going well
>with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother. I thank my Lord
>Serapis that he kept me safe while I was in peril on the sea. As soon as I
>got to Misenum I got my journey money from Caesar---three gold pieces. And
>things are going fine with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a
>line,
>first to let me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly,
>that I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because of
>that hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my heartiest
>greetings, and my brothers, and Serenilla and my friends. I sent you a
>little picture of myself paintwed by Euctemon. My military name is
>Antonius
>Maximus. I pray for your good health. Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos
>Daimon's boy, and Turbo, Gallonius's son".
>
>Barclay cites G. Milligan, 'Selections from the Greek papyri', 36 as his
>source for this letter.
>
>Gaius Lupinius Festus

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Tribunes.
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 02:38:00 EDT

Salvete!

I'm curious, with the Tribune Tarquinius Caesar stepping down, is there
going to be another emergency election, or will we remain with just the one
Tribune for the remainder of the year?

For the Senate and the People of Rome, Valete!
Drusus Cornelius Claudius

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 02:35:42 -0400

Salve,

Raz-------- <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=194166216056078116169218163036129208" >raz--------@--------</a> wrot--------r>
> not? This form of government IS a "thing of the People". Germanicus
> Dictator had his edicts up for public discussion and criticism so that
> he could address any concerns, and / or make any changes that were
> needed.

At the risk of dipping my toe once more into Nova Roman politics (which I am
loathe to do now-- one stint as Dictator was more than sufficient warning to
stay the Hel away!), I would like to clarify something.

My decision to open up my decision-making process as Dictator was purely a
matter of personal style and choice. Our Constitution makes no provision or
requirement for such things, and I would have been absolutely within my
rights to simply impose a New Order whole-borne from my head and be done
with it. ("Divus Germanicus" does have a certain ring to it, I'll admit...)

However, I think we do have a natural break on such behavior; would the
Senate actually appoint someone to the awesome office of Dictator whom they
believed capable of such an act? I would pray not.

I would, however, issue this piece of advice to all magistrates current and
future. Take heed of the wisdom and will of the Citizens. I don't think it's
right to make such things mandatory; there are times when any magistrate has
to act, and act decisively. That's why we have magistrates and don't rely
solely on the Comitiae. To mandate a period of contemplation and discussion
would hamstring the magistrates' effectiveness. However, the needs and
wishes of the Citizens should never be forgotten. Let us never run into the
trap of "I know what is best for Nova Roma, even if the Citizens don't..."
Down that path lies ruin and tyranny.

I urge the magistrates, great and small, to post their ideas and solicit as
much input as they can. But ultimately the decision must be theirs; that's
why we are a Republic and not a Democracy ("Sorry, this is Nova Roma. Neo
Athene is two doors down, on the left...")

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Paterfamilias, Proconsul, Augur, et Senator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tribunes.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 02:51:01 -0400

Salve,

> I'm curious, with the Tribune Tarquinius Caesar stepping down, is
there
> going to be another emergency election, or will we remain with just the
one
> Tribune for the remainder of the year?

Personally, I don't see a problem. I assume you're talking about the need
for two Tribunes and the requirement that intercessio be practiced
"collegially". I read that (and I speak as the person who wrote it) as that
if the Tribunes disagree on a particular veto, it doesn't happen. If there
are two or thirty or one Tribune, it doesn't matter. They all have to agree
for an intercessio to be effective. If there's only one Tribune, then he can
pronounce intercessio, since there's nobody to disagree with him.

No emergency situation, but I think it'd be nice to have a second Tribune.
There are two for a reason...

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
He-who-has-posted-more-to-the-Nova-Roma-list-in-the-last-four-days-than-in-t
he-last-four-months

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tribunes.
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 23:52:34 -0700

>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> He-who-has-posted-more-to-the-Nova-Roma-list-in-the-last-four-days-than-in-t
> he-last-four-months
>

Oh Germancius dont you love us still.....hehehe ;)

SF

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Some Better Rules
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 03:02:35 -0400

Salve,

Please reconcile these ideas against the Constitutional right that all Nova
Roman Citizens (not non-Citizens, I'll point out) enjoy, namely:

"The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and the
right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. Such
communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the
State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the
Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably
moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" (Paragraph
II.B.4)

All Nova Roma Citizens have the right to say anything they please.
Christian, Pagan, Straight, Gay, whatever. I see nowhere in there the right
to be free from being offended; it's certainly possible to be "civil" and
still delve into personal information and be very insulting. The risk of
seeing something that might offend is one that is present in any free
society; Political Correctness cannot destroy it.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Brett <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=189212253108160085015199190036129" >trog99@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Some Better Rules


> Salve Apollonius Formosanus:
>
> I saw your post and thought I would give you my thoughts.
>
> For the most part, I like the wording of Section 2 in that it, in my view,
> better defines what constitutes "offensive" and "insulting"...terms used
in
> both Praetoral Edicta.
>
> Just one little thing: in "b" of section 2, you wrote "personal
> suitability for the same" . I find this a bit ambiguous. I would change
> this to "professional suitability for the same", if you are defining how
> someone may opinionate about how qualified a cive is for a particular
> office. Now I may be reading you incorrectly and be way off base, but
> that's how I read it:))
>
> In the moderation of any communication, there will always be "judgement
> calls" the moderator will have to make regarding what is and isn't
> acceptable dialogue. But giving these two terms better definition, as you
> have in your offering here, provides a more solid base from which both a
> moderator and citizens can judge their conduct.
>
> It was good of you, I think, to take the time to produce these suggested
> guidelines :)
>
> In Amicitia,
> Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
>
>
>
>
> >From: "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
> >Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> >To: novaroma <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> >Subject: [novaroma] Some Better Rules
> >Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:16:05 +0200
> >
> >Salvete Quirites!
> >
> > I took it upon myself to prepare for our honourable
> >Praetor a more suitable set of rules for our List, but as
> >the second version of his edictum shows, he did not adopt
> >many of my ideas except the softening of the penalties. I
> >present the ideas here as a contribution to how such rules
> >might be formulated in a manner sufficiently clear to be
> >useful to us.
> >
> >1. It is expected that debate on the Main List of Nova Roma
> >be polite and reasoned, and always exhibit the Virtue of
> >COMITAS. Posts will be considered on-topic for this list if
> >they relate to:
> >
> >(a) Graeco-Roman history, culture, art, philosophy, and
> >religion (including religious reconstructionism), and the
> >Latin language.
> >(b) political and administrative matters relating to Nova
> >Roma as an organisation in the modern world and a sovereign
> >microstate, and
> >(c) friendly social messages among the citizenry.
> >
> >2. No person, citizen or non-citizen, on the Nova Roma Main
> >List shall:
> >
> >(a) use obviously insulting words or expressions against
> >another in
> >an ad hominem attack,
> >
> >(b) state that any other List member is essentially or
> >basically "bad", or
> >incompetent as a human being (as contrasted with criticisms
> >or attacks directed against specific words or actions, or
> >directed against general performance in a specific office or
> >personal suitability for the same),
> >
> >(c) use any List member's inclusion in any category defined
> >by religious
> >tradition, gender, sexuality, race, age, ethnicity,
> >nationality or geographical region of origin or abode as
> >reason, pretext, or means to attack or denigrate that
> >person,
> >
> >(d) use defamatory language to incite substantial hatred or
> >illegal acts against any of the abovementioned categories of
> >persons, or
> >
> >(e) post chain letters or pyramid schemes of any sort.
> >
> >3. In case of the violation of the above rules, the offender
> >
> >shall be warned by the competent authority either by public
> >posting or private e-mail or both. If after receipt of the
> >warning the offender repeats such violations within thirty
> >days, he shall be suspended from the Main List for ten days
> >from the time of public notice for such suspension. In case
> >of a second offence within sixty days of the end of this
> >suspension, the offender shall be suspended for ninety days
> >from the time of public posting of such suspension.
> >
> >4. A citizen of Nova Roma in the case of a suspension may
> >always make an Appeal to the People in Comitia Centuriata
> >assembled and if such an appeal is made, the suspension
> >shall not go into effect until a conviction is made there.
> >Non-citizens shall not have this right of appeal.
> >------------------------
> >
> > I do not specify the authority competent to carry out
> >this moderation of the list. Actually there is much to be
> >said in favour of the Praetors, although a Curator Sermonis
> >might also do the job, as previously.
> >
> > I continue to believe that moderation is neither
> >necessary nor desirable for the list. It was the enactment
> >of the Gender Edictum which made extensive discussion of
> >gender and sexuality a natural and necessary matter of
> >discussion. I do not believe that the agitation over this
> >will go away until this novel limitation of the freedom of
> >our citizens, introduced without popular consultation by one
> >magistrate acting alone, is corrected for once and for all,
> >and the worthy citizens pressured out of Nova Roma
> >encouraged to return in dignity and with our apologies.
> >
> >
> >Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
> >Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
> >Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
> >Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
> >ICQ# 61698049
> >________________________________________________________
> >
> >Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
> >[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
> >________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >GET WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE FREE! GET THE OFFICIAL COMPANION
> >TO TELEVISION'S HOTTEST GAME SHOW PHENOMENON PLUS 5 MORE BOOKS FOR
> >$2. Click for details.
> ><a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/6/_/61050/_/958871780/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/6/_/61050/_/958871780/</a>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Save 75% on Products!
> Find incredible deals on overstocked items with Free shipping!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958880132/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958880132/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

Subject:	Clothing, Tunica, etc.
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 02:43:06 -0500

Salve,

I am a tailor in my spare time, and I was curious if anyone may want some
custom work done, it needn't be specifically Roman in flavour, although I
have just completed my first Tunic and I must say, it came out rather well.
Any questions, write:

Decius Aucelius Sebastianus
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132056219009194233015098190036129" >Decius@--------</--------;

Vale.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 09:15:51 +0100

Quritibus, Salutem!

I endorse wholeheartedly this very sensible proposal of M. Apollonius
Formosanus:
to me, the whole idea of day-to-day legislation by one-man edicta without a
constitutional check other than the Tribunician or Consular veto
(especially when it is doubtful whether the legislation exceeds that issuing
magistrate's imperium) is going to be a constant source of friction.

'Shocks to the body politic', Foromosanus calls such edicta. Who can
disagree? And, at present, having only the aforementioned veto seems like
trying to drive a car using only the handbrake. Or a train using only the
emergency brake. It's either OFF, or it's ON. No use as a way of moderation.
The veto-ed magistrate then has to do his edictum over again, only to risk
(as now) a second veto. And so on.

To my mind, Formosanus' proposal is truly Republican in spirit, and truly
Roman in that it makes no
radical change. It threatens no infringements on anyone's Constitutional
rights, which the last three edicta have - nor does it seriously diminish
the power of any magistrate who is acting with good intent and not in bad
faith.

I would like to see this drafted as a lex and before the Senate at the
Senate's earlist convenience.

Bene valete, valeatque Libertas,

N. Moravius Vado
Propraetor Britanniae
Accensus Consulis etc.


> But for the future MAY I PROPOSE that we establish as a
> fixed custom - perhaps by Lex - that magistrates post their
> proposed edicta for comment and consultation with the whole
> People *before* enacting them? <AMPUTATIO>
> And sometimes they
> produce edicta which are extreme in nature or ignore
> legitimate minority concerns or are simply badly thought out
> or drafted.

> And once they are officially issued, human nature makes
> it difficult for the responsible magistrates to withdraw
> them, as that would involve loss of face. Would it not,
> therefore, be better for our Respublica to require our
> magistrates to take counsel from the People in advance
>It would protect the magistrates against many kinds of
> serious miscalculation and subsequent embarrassment, it
> would protect minorities, it would protect the freedoms of
> the People, and it would generally conduce to a better
> quality of magisterial legislation. It would not change the
> fundamental nature of our Roman constitution, which we
> should cherish, but it would simply help it to function more
> naturally and effectively for the stable political life of a
> free Nova Roma.


> We must, Quiretes, do
> something to stop this constant shocking of the body politic
> by excessively controversial edicta issued by individuals.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Some Better Rules
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 09:22:35 +0100

Iterum salutem!

Marce Apolloni, IMHO this is excellently well done. If you ever run for the
office of Praetor, you will have my vote and, I think, the vote of many
others. Euge!

Vado.

> I took it upon myself to prepare for our honourable
> Praetor a more suitable set of rules for our List, but as
> the second version of his edictum shows, he did not adopt
> many of my ideas except the softening of the penalties. I
> present the ideas here as a contribution to how such rules
> might be formulated in a manner sufficiently clear to be
> useful to us.
>
> 1. It is expected that debate on the Main List of Nova Roma
> be polite and reasoned, and always exhibit the Virtue of
> COMITAS. Posts will be considered on-topic for this list if
> they relate to:
>
> (a) Graeco-Roman history, culture, art, philosophy, and
> religion (including religious reconstructionism), and the
> Latin language.
> (b) political and administrative matters relating to Nova
> Roma as an organisation in the modern world and a sovereign
> microstate, and
> (c) friendly social messages among the citizenry.
>
> 2. No person, citizen or non-citizen, on the Nova Roma Main
> List shall:
>
> (a) use obviously insulting words or expressions against
> another in
> an ad hominem attack,
>
> (b) state that any other List member is essentially or
> basically "bad", or
> incompetent as a human being (as contrasted with criticisms
> or attacks directed against specific words or actions, or
> directed against general performance in a specific office or
> personal suitability for the same),
>
> (c) use any List member's inclusion in any category defined
> by religious
> tradition, gender, sexuality, race, age, ethnicity,
> nationality or geographical region of origin or abode as
> reason, pretext, or means to attack or denigrate that
> person,
>
> (d) use defamatory language to incite substantial hatred or
> illegal acts against any of the abovementioned categories of
> persons, or
>
> (e) post chain letters or pyramid schemes of any sort.
>
> 3. In case of the violation of the above rules, the offender
>
> shall be warned by the competent authority either by public
> posting or private e-mail or both. If after receipt of the
> warning the offender repeats such violations within thirty
> days, he shall be suspended from the Main List for ten days
> from the time of public notice for such suspension. In case
> of a second offence within sixty days of the end of this
> suspension, the offender shall be suspended for ninety days
> from the time of public posting of such suspension.
>
> 4. A citizen of Nova Roma in the case of a suspension may
> always make an Appeal to the People in Comitia Centuriata
> assembled and if such an appeal is made, the suspension
> shall not go into effect until a conviction is made there.
> Non-citizens shall not have this right of appeal.
> ------------------------
>
> I do not specify the authority competent to carry out
> this moderation of the list. Actually there is much to be
> said in favour of the Praetors, although a Curator Sermonis
> might also do the job, as previously.
>
> I continue to believe that moderation is neither
> necessary nor desirable for the list. It was the enactment
> of the Gender Edictum which made extensive discussion of
> gender and sexuality a natural and necessary matter of
> discussion. I do not believe that the agitation over this
> will go away until this novel limitation of the freedom of
> our citizens, introduced without popular consultation by one
> magistrate acting alone, is corrected for once and for all,
> and the worthy citizens pressured out of Nova Roma
> encouraged to return in dignity and with our apologies.
>
>
> Marcus Apollonius Formosanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 01:33:18 -0700

Nick Ford wrote:

> Quritibus, Salutem!
>
> I endorse wholeheartedly this very sensible proposal of M. Apollonius
> Formosanus:
> to me, the whole idea of day-to-day legislation by one-man edicta without a
> constitutional check other than the Tribunician or Consular veto
> (especially when it is doubtful whether the legislation exceeds that issuing
> magistrate's imperium) is going to be a constant source of friction.

Salve.

Well unfortuantely it shouldn't be just a "one-person" Edicta. The whole
purpose of having dual magestrial position is specifically a check on that.
Unfortunately, we should not blame the magistrate for that situation when a
colleague leaves, resigns, or disappears. What that speaks too is lack of
dedication of the elected official, and we should compliment and praise the
official who does act....for at least he/she DOES.

Many times in Nova Roma's past we have had magistrates who are elected and
either disappear, vanish or resign their post. This means that the sole
magistrate must pick up the pace and work twice as hard. Again, the only way to
resolve this is to have the PEOPLE of Nova Roma take a vested interest in the
vacant political positions and run for office. So, if you want to prevent
situations where you disagree with Edictas, it should be apart of your duty to
Run for office and see for yourself the degree of responsibilty that each
position takes. Dont just sit in the sidelines and bitch. Get involved.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Edicta Controls and "Better Rules"
From:	Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 04:58:04 -0400

Salvete!

On the matter of control of Edicta, Sulla is wrong, but I can agree with
both Formosanus and with Germanicus's comments. What we need is what in
England is called a "Constitutional Convention", i.e. a rule which is
political but not legal, that Edicts should not be issued without
consultation unless they are either (a) to deal with genuine emergencies,=

or (b) on trivial administrative matters ("I appoint Aulus Aegerius my
scriptor"). The mode of enforcement should be, as has been the case with
Graecus' Edict, prompt veto by a competent magistrate, NOT as an objectio=
n
to the merits but simply to force consultation. A lex would make the syst=
em
overcumbersome, but we are very dependent on the magistrates' willingness=

to veto proposals with which they do not disagree in order to create a
political culture of collegiality and consultation.

On Formosanus' proposed rules, I think Germanicus is wrong. They do littl=
e
more than prohibit defamation in a somewhat elaborate way. Some of the
postings in the past period have certainly exposed their authors, and qui=
te
possibly Nova Roma, to liability in the macronational courts. I still
think, however, that the core issue - what are the implications of
"reconstructionism" for NR's discussing live issues in the modern world -=

has not been faced. We need a good deal longer discussion before we are
ready to have a clear sense of what's "off-topic".

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 10:21:08 +0100

Salutem!

I will thank any citizen replying to a post of mine to refer to me by my
citizen name, a courtesy I
have never refused to extend to anyone.

It is usual for propraetors in Britannia, of whom there is only ever one at
a time, to appoint assistants (Legati) to advise, and further that it is
usual for the cives provinciales to be consulted before any edicta are
issued (not that many edicta are, ever) . True, Britannia is itself only a
fraction of Nova Roma Universa, but it appears to work very well there. What
experience do other Propraetores have in their Provinciae?

I would, even so, feel happier if magistrates who feel they can govern alone
without help or advice or regard to the wishes and feelings of others, were
required by law to take notice of the wishes and feelings of those they
govern, and of the good counsel of their colleagues. I agree with what
Germanicus says with regard to the need for decisive, autonomous magisterial
action in the case of an emergency, but personally I don't recall seeing any
emergency having arisen to justify the last three edicta - although they
have, IMHO, dam' nearly caused one as a result of having been issued.
N. Moravius Vado
Propraetor Britanniae etc.




> Nick Ford wrote:
>
> > Quritibus, Salutem!
> >
> > I endorse wholeheartedly this very sensible proposal of M. Apollonius
> > Formosanus:
> > to me, the whole idea of day-to-day legislation by one-man edicta
without a
> > constitutional check other than the Tribunician or Consular veto
> > (especially when it is doubtful whether the legislation exceeds that
issuing
> > magistrate's imperium) is going to be a constant source of friction.
>
> Salve.
>
> Well unfortuantely it shouldn't be just a "one-person" Edicta. The whole
> purpose of having dual magestrial position is specifically a check on
that.
> Unfortunately, we should not blame the magistrate for that situation when
a
> colleague leaves, resigns, or disappears. What that speaks too is lack of
> dedication of the elected official, and we should compliment and praise
the
> official who does act....for at least he/she DOES.
>
> Many times in Nova Roma's past we have had magistrates who are elected and
> either disappear, vanish or resign their post. This means that the sole
> magistrate must pick up the pace and work twice as hard. Again, the only
way to
> resolve this is to have the PEOPLE of Nova Roma take a vested interest in
the
> vacant political positions and run for office. So, if you want to prevent
> situations where you disagree with Edictas, it should be apart of your
duty to
> Run for office and see for yourself the degree of responsibilty that each
> position takes. Dont just sit in the sidelines and bitch. Get involved.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 02:30:45 -0700

Salvete Omnes...

As with all of my published Edictas, ALL 10 of them. I have a core group of
individuals who I seek advice from before I publish any of my Edictas. I get
feedback, make adjustments and get more feedback. All but one of my Edictas
have not recieved any feedback other than very positive. So, in my experience I
have had an overwelhming positive experience. Given the nature of the
Censorship position. I have experienced every legal-procedure making process in
Nova Roma. In areas that cater to the position of the Censorship, I feel more
comfortable, given the limitiations of the position to publish Edicta.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Nick Ford wrote:

> Salutem!
>
> I will thank any citizen replying to a post of mine to refer to me by my
> citizen name, a courtesy I
> have never refused to extend to anyone.
>

Well I wasnt respond to you specfically but to the People of Nova Roma. If it
was to you it would have gone to you privately.

>
> It is usual for propraetors in Britannia, of whom there is only ever one at
> a time, to appoint assistants (Legati) to advise, and further that it is
> usual for the cives provinciales to be consulted before any edicta are
> issued (not that many edicta are, ever) . True, Britannia is itself only a
> fraction of Nova Roma Universa, but it appears to work very well there. What
> experience do other Propraetores have in their Provinciae?
>
> I would, even so, feel happier if magistrates who feel they can govern alone
> without help or advice or regard to the wishes and feelings of others, were
> required by law to take notice of the wishes and feelings of those they
> govern, and of the good counsel of their colleagues. I agree with what
> Germanicus says with regard to the need for decisive, autonomous magisterial
> action in the case of an emergency, but personally I don't recall seeing any
> emergency having arisen to justify the last three edicta - although they
> have, IMHO, dam' nearly caused one as a result of having been issued.
> N. Moravius Vado
> Propraetor Britanniae etc.
>
> > Nick Ford wrote:
> >
> > > Quritibus, Salutem!
> > >
> > > I endorse wholeheartedly this very sensible proposal of M. Apollonius
> > > Formosanus:
> > > to me, the whole idea of day-to-day legislation by one-man edicta
> without a
> > > constitutional check other than the Tribunician or Consular veto
> > > (especially when it is doubtful whether the legislation exceeds that
> issuing
> > > magistrate's imperium) is going to be a constant source of friction.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > Well unfortuantely it shouldn't be just a "one-person" Edicta. The whole
> > purpose of having dual magestrial position is specifically a check on
> that.
> > Unfortunately, we should not blame the magistrate for that situation when
> a
> > colleague leaves, resigns, or disappears. What that speaks too is lack of
> > dedication of the elected official, and we should compliment and praise
> the
> > official who does act....for at least he/she DOES.
> >
> > Many times in Nova Roma's past we have had magistrates who are elected and
> > either disappear, vanish or resign their post. This means that the sole
> > magistrate must pick up the pace and work twice as hard. Again, the only
> way to
> > resolve this is to have the PEOPLE of Nova Roma take a vested interest in
> the
> > vacant political positions and run for office. So, if you want to prevent
> > situations where you disagree with Edictas, it should be apart of your
> duty to
> > Run for office and see for yourself the degree of responsibilty that each
> > position takes. Dont just sit in the sidelines and bitch. Get involved.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Censor
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 72% off on Name brand Watches!
> Come and buy today and get free shipping!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958901156/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958901156/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Some Better Rules
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 00:09:59 -0700

Salve

I agree with Senator Flavius Vedius on this. Everyone, at one time or another
is going to get offended. I think you can ask just about every magistrate, and
you will get the same answer....yes we ALL have been offended at one time or
another.

Many times I have tried to talk to citizens either on the phone or privately
trying to tell them that this is going to happen. Take it as a grain of salt.
It is the price of committment to an organization that we all think, believe,
and feel that is going to last longer than we are alive!

Is Nova Roma worth all the feelings of anger, disgust, disagreement, and
outright hatred sometimes. I feel that it is. Remember we are building a
nation as much as a community. We all have our egos, preceptions and direction
that we want Nova Roma to go. We all fight for that cause, whether that is in
the chatroom, email list, Senate Chamber. But, we all have to remember, we are
all in this together!

Our rights are protected via the Constitution that was passed last year. It is
designed to provide as free for all forum as possible, so that everyone has an
opportunity to be heard, within the broad limits of the Constitution. This is a
blessing for each of us, but sometimes, especially during heated discussions,
civility is forgotten and that is why the Lex Vedia provides for a list
moderator, Curator Sermo.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve,
>
> Please reconcile these ideas against the Constitutional right that all Nova
> Roman Citizens (not non-Citizens, I'll point out) enjoy, namely:
>
> "The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and the
> right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. Such
> communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the
> State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the
> Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably
> moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;" (Paragraph
> II.B.4)
>
> All Nova Roma Citizens have the right to say anything they please.
> Christian, Pagan, Straight, Gay, whatever. I see nowhere in there the right
> to be free from being offended; it's certainly possible to be "civil" and
> still delve into personal information and be very insulting. The risk of
> seeing something that might offend is one that is present in any free
> society; Political Correctness cannot destroy it.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick Brett <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=189212253108160085015199190036129" >trog99@--------</a>
> To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Some Better Rules
>
> > Salve Apollonius Formosanus:
> >
> > I saw your post and thought I would give you my thoughts.
> >
> > For the most part, I like the wording of Section 2 in that it, in my view,
> > better defines what constitutes "offensive" and "insulting"...terms used
> in
> > both Praetoral Edicta.
> >
> > Just one little thing: in "b" of section 2, you wrote "personal
> > suitability for the same" . I find this a bit ambiguous. I would change
> > this to "professional suitability for the same", if you are defining how
> > someone may opinionate about how qualified a cive is for a particular
> > office. Now I may be reading you incorrectly and be way off base, but
> > that's how I read it:))
> >
> > In the moderation of any communication, there will always be "judgement
> > calls" the moderator will have to make regarding what is and isn't
> > acceptable dialogue. But giving these two terms better definition, as you
> > have in your offering here, provides a more solid base from which both a
> > moderator and citizens can judge their conduct.
> >
> > It was good of you, I think, to take the time to produce these suggested
> > guidelines :)
> >
> > In Amicitia,
> > Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
> > >Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> > >To: novaroma <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> > >Subject: [novaroma] Some Better Rules
> > >Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:16:05 +0200
> > >
> > >Salvete Quirites!
> > >
> > > I took it upon myself to prepare for our honourable
> > >Praetor a more suitable set of rules for our List, but as
> > >the second version of his edictum shows, he did not adopt
> > >many of my ideas except the softening of the penalties. I
> > >present the ideas here as a contribution to how such rules
> > >might be formulated in a manner sufficiently clear to be
> > >useful to us.
> > >
> > >1. It is expected that debate on the Main List of Nova Roma
> > >be polite and reasoned, and always exhibit the Virtue of
> > >COMITAS. Posts will be considered on-topic for this list if
> > >they relate to:
> > >
> > >(a) Graeco-Roman history, culture, art, philosophy, and
> > >religion (including religious reconstructionism), and the
> > >Latin language.
> > >(b) political and administrative matters relating to Nova
> > >Roma as an organisation in the modern world and a sovereign
> > >microstate, and
> > >(c) friendly social messages among the citizenry.
> > >
> > >2. No person, citizen or non-citizen, on the Nova Roma Main
> > >List shall:
> > >
> > >(a) use obviously insulting words or expressions against
> > >another in
> > >an ad hominem attack,
> > >
> > >(b) state that any other List member is essentially or
> > >basically "bad", or
> > >incompetent as a human being (as contrasted with criticisms
> > >or attacks directed against specific words or actions, or
> > >directed against general performance in a specific office or
> > >personal suitability for the same),
> > >
> > >(c) use any List member's inclusion in any category defined
> > >by religious
> > >tradition, gender, sexuality, race, age, ethnicity,
> > >nationality or geographical region of origin or abode as
> > >reason, pretext, or means to attack or denigrate that
> > >person,
> > >
> > >(d) use defamatory language to incite substantial hatred or
> > >illegal acts against any of the abovementioned categories of
> > >persons, or
> > >
> > >(e) post chain letters or pyramid schemes of any sort.
> > >
> > >3. In case of the violation of the above rules, the offender
> > >
> > >shall be warned by the competent authority either by public
> > >posting or private e-mail or both. If after receipt of the
> > >warning the offender repeats such violations within thirty
> > >days, he shall be suspended from the Main List for ten days
> > >from the time of public notice for such suspension. In case
> > >of a second offence within sixty days of the end of this
> > >suspension, the offender shall be suspended for ninety days
> > >from the time of public posting of such suspension.
> > >
> > >4. A citizen of Nova Roma in the case of a suspension may
> > >always make an Appeal to the People in Comitia Centuriata
> > >assembled and if such an appeal is made, the suspension
> > >shall not go into effect until a conviction is made there.
> > >Non-citizens shall not have this right of appeal.
> > >------------------------
> > >
> > > I do not specify the authority competent to carry out
> > >this moderation of the list. Actually there is much to be
> > >said in favour of the Praetors, although a Curator Sermonis
> > >might also do the job, as previously.
> > >
> > > I continue to believe that moderation is neither
> > >necessary nor desirable for the list. It was the enactment
> > >of the Gender Edictum which made extensive discussion of
> > >gender and sexuality a natural and necessary matter of
> > >discussion. I do not believe that the agitation over this
> > >will go away until this novel limitation of the freedom of
> > >our citizens, introduced without popular consultation by one
> > >magistrate acting alone, is corrected for once and for all,
> > >and the worthy citizens pressured out of Nova Roma
> > >encouraged to return in dignity and with our apologies.
> > >
> > >
> > >Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
> > >Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
> > >Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
> > >Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
> > >ICQ# 61698049
> > >________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
> > >[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
> > >________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >GET WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE FREE! GET THE OFFICIAL COMPANION
> > >TO TELEVISION'S HOTTEST GAME SHOW PHENOMENON PLUS 5 MORE BOOKS FOR
> > >$2. Click for details.
> > ><a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/6/_/61050/_/958871780/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/6/_/61050/_/958871780/</a>
> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Save 75% on Products!
> > Find incredible deals on overstocked items with Free shipping!
> > <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958880132/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958880132/</a>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GET WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE FREE! GET THE OFFICIAL COMPANION
> TO TELEVISION'S HOTTEST GAME SHOW PHENOMENON PLUS 5 MORE BOOKS FOR
> $2. Click for details.
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/6/_/61050/_/958892719/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/6/_/61050/_/958892719/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Ordo Equester (was: Clothing, Tunica, etc.)
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 09:07:43 EDT

In a message dated 5/21/00 12:36:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132056219009194233015098190036129" >Decius@--------</--------; writes:

<< I am a tailor in my spare time, and I was curious if anyone may want some
custom work done, it needn't be specifically Roman in flavour, although I
have just completed my first Tunic and I must say, it came out rather well.
Any questions, write:

Decius Aucelius Sebastianus
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132056219009194233015098190036129" >Decius@--------</--------; >>

Salvete!

We do have some limited costuming being offered in the Macellum, but more is
needed! Perhaps you will consider joining the Ordo Equester so that your
items may be continually represented in the Macellum as well?

There is no charge to join the Ordo Equester, although one does have to agree
to split 10% of the proceeds generated *from Nova Roma sales* back to the
treasury in return for promotion. To apply is simple. One needs to contact
the Censors and get approval for one's wares, service, etc... and you're in.
Having a website that Nova Roma can link to is of course helpful.

At present there are *many* Roman-related businesses that are needed in Nova
Roma. Statuary, jewelry, herbs, more costuming, published materials, artwork,
pottery, mosaics, religious articles, reenactor arms/armor, etc. etc. etc.
Small hobby businesses are quite welcome so long as one can be sure of being
able to supply at least one type of item on a regular basis. (In other words,
a vast product line isn't needed to join the Ordo Equester!)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 08:49:30 -0700

Well put Vedius Germanicus. Your "piece of advice" is the essence.
It is also the crux of our recent flaps. Not entirely what the edicts
issued were aiming at as the way they were gone about. I think
another way that taking "heed of the wisdom of all the Citizens" also
can be called "laying the ground work".

C. Aelius Ericius.
Augur. Pontifex. Senator. Paterfamilias.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> I would, however, issue this piece of advice to all magistrates
> current and
> future. Take heed of the wisdom and will of the Citizens. I don't
> think it's
> right to make such things mandatory; there are times when any
> magistrate has
> to act, and act decisively. That's why we have magistrates and don't
> rely
> solely on the Comitiae. To mandate a period of contemplation and
> discussion
> would hamstring the magistrates' effectiveness. However, the needs
> and
> wishes of the Citizens should never be forgotten. Let us never run
> into the
> trap of "I know what is best for Nova Roma, even if the Citizens
> don't..."
> Down that path lies ruin and tyranny.
>
> I urge the magistrates, great and small, to post their ideas and
> solicit as
> much input as they can. But ultimately the decision must be theirs;
> that's
> why we are a Republic and not a Democracy ("Sorry, this is Nova
> Roma. Neo
> Athene is two doors down, on the left...")


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Clothing, Tunica, etc.
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 08:53:27 -0700

Pictures? Could put a scanned picture up on the Egroups site? In the
graphics folder.

Thank you.

Ericius.

Decius Aucelius Sebastianus wrote:

> Salve,
>
> I am a tailor in my spare time, and I was curious if anyone may want
> some
> custom work done, it needn't be specifically Roman in flavour,
> although I
> have just completed my first Tunic and I must say, it came out
> rather well.
> Any questions, write:
>
> Decius Aucelius Sebastianus
> <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132056219009194233015098190036129" >Decius@--------</--------;
>
> Vale.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Safeguards and Consultation
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 18:07:03 +0200

Salve Marce Audens Consul et L. Corneli Sulla Censor!

I would like to thank Consul Audens for his resolute veto of
the second version of the Praetorian Edictum which would
have sorely limited the citizens of Nova Roma in dealing
with the problems facing us, most especially the discussion
of gender politics which Sulla's Gender Edictum makes
imperative. Having to twice veto the actions of an esteemed
fellow magistrate was no doubt painful for you.

Our good Censor Lucius Cornelius has written that there are
abundant safeguards built into our Constitution, and that
therefore my suggestion that there should be a normal custom
among us of presenting edicta for popular comment and
consultation before enactment is unnecessary (and also no
doubt a burden to the hard-working magistrates).

The fact that I began this message by thanking the Junior
Consul for being such a safeguard shows that there are
safeguards, and that they sometimes work in practice.
HOWEVER, consider *how* they work in cases like this:

1) An edictum flashing onto our screen has already
become law. The magistrate who proposed it was elected
(perhaps I have voted for him myself), yes, but no one
supposes that any human being is infallible.

2) If the edictum contains something against fundamental
justice like the Gender Edictum or something against our
basic freedoms like the Praetorian Edictum (or is just badly
conceived or phrased like both), then it is necessary to
make a great clamour of protest. This in itself brings much
other useful business to a virtual standstill and must be
embarassing for the (probably well-intentioned) magistrate.
And it may lead to so much heat and incivility that list
members leave or are deterred from joining Nova Roma.

3) The Constitutional safeguards are exercised and an
intercessio (veto) saves the day - which is no doubt not
pleasant for the magistrates on the giving or receiving end
- OR

4) The Constitutional safeguards don't work at once. The
Gender Edictum is still with us (although I understand that
the Senate is considering it). It becomes necessary to wage
a long-term campaign to undo a law while it continues to do
its harm. The same law could have been much more easily
modified to the general satisfaction if it had been placed
before the People before it was a fait accompli. Much
unhappiness, embarassment, and conflict would have been
spared the Respublica.

THESE are the reasons why I cannot agree with our good
Censor with respect to his too blithe assertion that there
is no problem because of checks and ballances in the
Constitution. They are there and may indeed work eventually.
***But look at the harm that is done when they have to be
invoked!!! *** Would it not be better if much conflict were
avoided by posting edicta first for comment and
consultation?

Please note that none of this is about changing the
right of the magistrates to issue edicta according to their
own judgement. It is simply to suggest that this could be
carried out more openly, transparently, and wisely by a
minor but important change in our political/administrative
custom and expectation.

And please remember, that we are not talking about
*crises* (although Marcus Audens did indeed sollicit
opinions before his recent vetoes, even in a crisis, which
is much to be commended). In a crisis it is good for a
magistrate to act decisively if there is no time for
consultation or no time to get a clear consensus or
majority. However, I did not see any crisis when the Praetor
proposed his rather draconian law - simply a few unpleasant
posts. There was in fact a fairly rational discussion going
on about whether the List should be moderated, and it needed
more time to reach any conclusion. There was also debate on
the gender policies, which was very much to the point
because of the Gender Edictum.

That Gender Edictum was also not issued in any crisis
(although it was issued in the whirlwind of activity by
which the good Censor caught up with that backlog of
citizenship applications, for which we should thank him).
The Censor announced that he wished to keep frivolous
rôle-playing enthusiasts from electing the opposite sex
among us, so that that would not at some time in the future
detract from the serious aspect of our microstate. That is a
reasonable aim, but it is not obvious that getting this done
quickly constituted any sort of crisis.

I imagine that if the Gender Edictum had been presented
to us in advance of promulgation, there would have been a
chance for its unfairness towards transgendered (or
transgendering) persons to be made apparent, and the evident
unfairness of that and its relevency to the
anti-discrimination clause in our Constitution would have
been made apparent to the Censor and to all.

After all, transsexuals are not frivolous rôle players;
they are people whose fundamental sense of gender has given
them problems, who need the support of society to live
according to the gender that in their heart of hearts they
truly feel themselves to be. Legislation intended for
fun-loving rôle players must not be couched in terms that
catch these innocent people who deserve our fellow-feeling
and support.

I proposed a most reasonable and moderate alternative
IMHO, to wit that we simply insist that applicants for our
citizenship must choose a name with a gender consistent with
the sex on passport or driver's licence. Censor Sulla has
never commented on this rather straightforward proposal,
which would stop the frivolous, and at the same time not
harm or discriminate against any transgendered person who
had in fact changed his civil identity where he lives. *** I
would be DEEPLY grateful to Lucius Cornelius if he would be
so kind as to make a public reply to this proposal and tell
me why he finds it unsatisfactory if he does. It is, after
all, exactly what other nations and U.S. states normally
do.***

I never insisted on a lex being passed about my proposal
for pre-posting edicta for popular comment and consultation.
I asked basically for the adoption of a *custom*. Any
magistrate can even now announce that in non-crisis
situations he intends to at least give pre-posting a try. Or
they can simply start doing it. Do others agree?

L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:

Subject: Re: Keeping Edicta under Control

Salve

That isnt necessary. Our Constitution has built in checks
and balances
that are more than sufficient. Remember the Edicta are the
lowest form of laws that anyone can pass. Let the law
work. It has been shown to work! We dont need any more
additional burdens to our elected Magistrates. If you dont
know just HOW many checks there are built into the system, I
really advise all of our citizens to read the Constitution
and see the limitations that are built in by our excellent
Dictator Flavius Vedius Germanicus.
---------------------------
Yes, we all should read our Constitution. I heartily
agree with the Censor.
--
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________

Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Keeping Edicta under Control
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 12:32:07 EDT

Salve Vado

It doesn't matter whether the edicta issued exceeds or does not exceed
the imperium of the magistrate issuing it, and it is not really a
question of having to engage in "dueling edicts" as Gracchus has done
with the Consul. A "veto" is just that -- it stops the action vetoed cold
-- it becomes a dead issue -- it's history thereafter. The only reason
that we had to sit through Edicta #2 is because Audens only specified
Edict #1 as the target of his veto. I think Audens didn't anticipate that
the Praetor would persist in such rank (no pun intended) insubordination.
If there is an Edict #3, then I will put an end to the whole thing by
specifying any further action interfering with citizens' access to the
list and then there will be no more of these edicts.

A veto - or intercessio - is effective regardless of whether the act
vetoed was legal or within the magistrate's purview or authority or not.
It is the ultimate safeguard within the Roman system. There is no appeal
from it except to a magistrate with the power to overturn it, and there
is no magistrate who can overturn a Tribune's veto (except the other
Tribune when you have one). In Roma Antiqua, the usual method of
countering a Tribune's veto was to murder the Tribune -- I much prefer
Germanicus' Constitution. ;-)

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus
Tribunus Plebis

On 5/21/00 3:15 AM Nick For--------lt;a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=123056234112159192112061175246231253136100139046209" >gens_moravia@--------</a>)
wrote:

>Quritibus, Salutem!
>
>I endorse wholeheartedly this very sensible proposal of M. Apollonius
>Formosanus:
>to me, the whole idea of day-to-day legislation by one-man edicta without a
>constitutional check other than the Tribunician or Consular veto
>(especially when it is doubtful whether the legislation exceeds that issuing
>magistrate's imperium) is going to be a constant source of friction.
>
>'Shocks to the body politic', Foromosanus calls such edicta. Who can
>disagree? And, at present, having only the aforementioned veto seems like
>trying to drive a car using only the handbrake. Or a train using only the
>emergency brake. It's either OFF, or it's ON. No use as a way of moderation.
>The veto-ed magistrate then has to do his edictum over again, only to risk
>(as now) a second veto. And so on.
>
>To my mind, Formosanus' proposal is truly Republican in spirit, and truly
>Roman in that it makes no
>radical change. It threatens no infringements on anyone's Constitutional
>rights, which the last three edicta have - nor does it seriously diminish
>the power of any magistrate who is acting with good intent and not in bad
>faith.
>
>I would like to see this drafted as a lex and before the Senate at the
>Senate's earlist convenience.
>
>Bene valete, valeatque Libertas,
>
>N. Moravius Vado
>Propraetor Britanniae
>Accensus Consulis etc.


certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)

Subject:	forms of address
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 12:32:13 EDT

Salvete omnes

This is my understanding of how Roman names are used in addressing one
another. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Polite address -- used when you mean to be formal or respectful
Use the other person's nomen and praenomen, e.g., Gaius Julius Caesar
would be addressed as "Gaius Julius."

Less formal, everyday address
Use only the nomen, e.g., "Hey Sergius -- get over here." This is the
equivalent of the common practice in the english-speaking world of
referring to someone by only their last name.

Informal address, used between friends or acquaintences
Use the cognomen, such as "Good morning Caesar, do you want jelly on your
toast?" Also used to refer to third parties when there is no need to be
respectful -- "Sulla really tied one on last night, didn't he?"

There seems to be an additional form, using what in other languages are
considered affectionate diminuitives of names, but I'm not confident
enough with my pidgin Latin to go into that.

Do we have forms of address addressed anywhere on the Website?

Valete,

L. Sergius Aust.

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Some Better Rules
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 12:32:10 EDT

Salve Marcus Apollonius

You have done an outstanding job of formulating reasonable rules, but I
think it might be better to try to specify what sort of posts would be
ruled "off-topic" rather than to attempt to define a limiting set of
on-topic subjects. Better yet, I would leave out such definitions
altogether and focus on your excellent rules of conduct.

I still think the list needs a moderator, and I think the idea that it
should be moderated by the praetors is unacceptable if that means Praetor
Gracchus. That is not ad hominem -- he has demonstrated even before now
that he is highly intolerant of other peoples' views and is prone to
holler "Off with their heads!" over the slightest deviation from his own
opinions. Anyway, we have long had an appointed moderator -- first
Patricia Cassia and later Fimbria -- who has always been reasonable and
effective. I would be happy to see either of them, or someone who would
behave like them, in the post again.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust.

On 5/20/00 8:16 PM M. Apollonius Formosanus (<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>) wrote:

>Salvete Quirites!
>
> I took it upon myself to prepare for our honourable
>Praetor a more suitable set of rules for our List, but as
>the second version of his edictum shows, he did not adopt
>many of my ideas except the softening of the penalties. I
>present the ideas here as a contribution to how such rules
>might be formulated in a manner sufficiently clear to be
>useful to us.
>
>1. It is expected that debate on the Main List of Nova Roma
>be polite and reasoned, and always exhibit the Virtue of
>COMITAS. Posts will be considered on-topic for this list if
>they relate to:
>
>(a) Graeco-Roman history, culture, art, philosophy, and
>religion (including religious reconstructionism), and the
>Latin language.
>(b) political and administrative matters relating to Nova
>Roma as an organisation in the modern world and a sovereign
>microstate, and
>(c) friendly social messages among the citizenry.
>
>2. No person, citizen or non-citizen, on the Nova Roma Main
>List shall:
>
>(a) use obviously insulting words or expressions against
>another in
>an ad hominem attack,
>
>(b) state that any other List member is essentially or
>basically "bad", or
>incompetent as a human being (as contrasted with criticisms
>or attacks directed against specific words or actions, or
>directed against general performance in a specific office or
>personal suitability for the same),
>
>(c) use any List member's inclusion in any category defined
>by religious
>tradition, gender, sexuality, race, age, ethnicity,
>nationality or geographical region of origin or abode as
>reason, pretext, or means to attack or denigrate that
>person,
>
>(d) use defamatory language to incite substantial hatred or
>illegal acts against any of the abovementioned categories of
>persons, or
>
>(e) post chain letters or pyramid schemes of any sort.
>
>3. In case of the violation of the above rules, the offender
>
>shall be warned by the competent authority either by public
>posting or private e-mail or both. If after receipt of the
>warning the offender repeats such violations within thirty
>days, he shall be suspended from the Main List for ten days
>from the time of public notice for such suspension. In case
>of a second offence within sixty days of the end of this
>suspension, the offender shall be suspended for ninety days
>from the time of public posting of such suspension.
>
>4. A citizen of Nova Roma in the case of a suspension may
>always make an Appeal to the People in Comitia Centuriata
>assembled and if such an appeal is made, the suspension
>shall not go into effect until a conviction is made there.
>Non-citizens shall not have this right of appeal.
>------------------------
>
> I do not specify the authority competent to carry out
>this moderation of the list. Actually there is much to be
>said in favour of the Praetors, although a Curator Sermonis
>might also do the job, as previously.
>
> I continue to believe that moderation is neither
>necessary nor desirable for the list. It was the enactment
>of the Gender Edictum which made extensive discussion of
>gender and sexuality a natural and necessary matter of
>discussion. I do not believe that the agitation over this
>will go away until this novel limitation of the freedom of
>our citizens, introduced without popular consultation by one
>magistrate acting alone, is corrected for once and for all,
>and the worthy citizens pressured out of Nova Roma
>encouraged to return in dignity and with our apologies.
>
>
>Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
>Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
>Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
>Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
>ICQ# 61698049


certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)

Subject:	The System Works
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 13:05:34 EDT

Salvete,

The recent Consular Vetoes on the Praetorian Edict is evidence that the
Constitutional system Nova Roma has is working fine. A Praetor issued
unpopular edicts, the complaints were lodged, the Consuls acted, and the
result is that the edict is no longer in force. The system works.

Also in evidence are the three fair and just edicts issued by Censor
Sulla. No one at any time has been denied a voice. Anyone, at anytime, can
email the Senate and the Magistrates, and/or voice displeasure on the mailing
list. The one edict which has become controversial is where? In the Senate
being decided upon. What prevents the citizens from petitioning the Senate
or the Magistrates and calling for vetoes? Nothing.
And what prohibits the people from being directly involved in the process by
standing for the magisterial offices? Nothing.

The Constitution written by Germanicus during his Dictatorship has
proven sufficient for the handling of political disputes and has, as recent
events show, the necessary checks and balances needed to overturn bad laws.
Wise magistratres will, as Germanicus and Sulla have done, consult with
others before acting. Unwise magistrates will habitually issue bad edicts,
and if this happens, they can be dealt with and the magistrate prevented from
doing further mischief. Then, he can be voted out of office. The key, as
Sulla has said, is to get involved.

Gaius Lupinius Festus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Safeguards and Consultation
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 13:05:38 EDT

In a message dated 5/21/00 12:07:48 PM Eastern Da--------ht Time, <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
writes:

<< 4) The Constitutional safeguards don't work at once. The
Gender Edictum is still with us (although I understand that
the Senate is considering it). It becomes necessary to wage
a long-term campaign to undo a law while it continues to do
its harm. >>


May I remind you sir, that the edict in question has many supporters as
well as opponents? If this were an edict foisted upon the people with
unanimous opposition, would it still be in force? Of course not. The
Praetorian Edict was overwhelmingly opposed, and is now vetoed. The
excellent 'gender edict'', issued Constituionally, is still in force,
continuing to do good, because it has support. That a group of people do not
get their way over and above everyone else is not at all a sign of the system
being unfair. It is a sign howver, that the "will of the people" may not be
entirely behind you.

Gaius Lupinius Festus

Subject:	[novaroma] The System Works
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 13:37:29 EDT

Salvete!

Here here Festus!
I believe that it is a very honorable thing for a magistrate to present
his/her Edicts to the people for discussion before issuing it; however, we
simply must not make some sort of law requiring that. If we were to do that,
we would severely limit our magistrates' ability to act quickly and
decisively. Our government in Nova Roma is beautifully designed to address
the will of the people on many levels. In order for a magistrate to pass and
edict, he/she must pass it first through his colleague and then each of the
superior magistrates and the Tribunes. Perhaps we can use the system to
voice our displeasure rather than changing it? Just my opinion.

For the Senate and the Roman People, Valete!
Drusus Cornelius Claudius,
Legate of California Provincia
Assensus Consulis



In a message dated 5/21/00 1:08:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
writes:

<< Salvete,

The recent Consular Vetoes on the Praetorian Edict is evidence that the
Constitutional system Nova Roma has is working fine. A Praetor issued
unpopular edicts, the complaints were lodged, the Consuls acted, and the
result is that the edict is no longer in force. The system works.

Also in evidence are the three fair and just edicts issued by Censor
Sulla. No one at any time has been denied a voice. Anyone, at anytime,
can
email the Senate and the Magistrates, and/or voice displeasure on the
mailing
list. The one edict which has become controversial is where? In the Senate
being decided upon. What prevents the citizens from petitioning the Senate
or the Magistrates and calling for vetoes? Nothing.
And what prohibits the people from being directly involved in the process by
standing for the magisterial offices? Nothing.

The Constitution written by Germanicus during his Dictatorship has
proven sufficient for the handling of political disputes and has, as recent
events show, the necessary checks and balances needed to overturn bad laws.
Wise magistratres will, as Germanicus and Sulla have done, consult with
others before acting. Unwise magistrates will habitually issue bad edicts,
and if this happens, they can be dealt with and the magistrate prevented
from
doing further mischief. Then, he can be voted out of office. The key, as
Sulla has said, is to get involved.

Gaius Lupinius Festus
>>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Clothing, Tunica, etc.
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 14:50:23 -0500

Salve, Razenna.

I will endeavour to take some pictures of some of my works and place them as
Jpg on this website.
----- Original Message -----
From: Raz-------- <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=194166216056078116169218163036129208" >raz--------@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Clothing, Tunica, etc.


: Pictures? Could put a scanned picture up on the Egroups site? In the
: graphics folder.
:
: Thank you.
:
: Ericius.
:
: Decius Aucelius Sebastianus wrote:
:
: > Salve,
: >
: > I am a tailor in my spare time, and I was curious if anyone may want
: > some
: > custom work done, it needn't be specifically Roman in flavour,
: > although I
: > have just completed my first Tunic and I must say, it came out
: > rather well.
: > Any questions, write:
: >
: > Decius Aucelius Sebastianus
: > <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132056219009194233015098190036129" >Decius@--------</--------;
: >
: > Vale.
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: >
:
:
:
: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
:
:
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Save 75% on Products!
: Find incredible deals on overstocked items with Free shipping!
: <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958924396/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958924396/</a>
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:

Subject:	Re: List Moderators.
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 15:46:17 EDT

In a message dated 5/20/00 7:27:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197166104009127132130232203026129208071" >pap--------s@--------</a> wr--------:

<< The point of all this is that you're dooming whoever becomes moderator to
a
life of obscurity and unpopularity.

Cassius:
Lol! This can be true, (and is something to keep in mind) yet is not
universally the case. The Nova Roma list has been moderated for 99% of it's
existence. While there has been the occasional difficulty, to date our
moderators have received more praise than condemnation. We've never had a
moderator quit because they were under too much strain or were being given
too hard a time. The Consuls and Senate have made sure not to leave a
moderator "flapping in the wind" when difficulties arise... a support
structure which most list moderators don't have available.

Papirius:
You are pretty much ensuring that they
cannot aspire to a political career in Nova Roma or any other 'public'
function.

Cassius:
As I understand it we have a few people willing to take up the job right
now... all are magistrates already and have political careers. Oddly enough
this is probably a good thing, since a magistrate must be polite, fair and
even handed if they wish to maintain public support. Such qualities are also
crucial to good list moderation.

Papirius:
>You should seriously think about rewarding the person who takes
up the task with Patrician status and various other privileges just on this
basis alone.You also put this person at risk from the senatorial elite here
... what happens if it is one of our magistrates who is in need of
moderation? Do you think they will not take that as a personal offense (as
would anyone else)?

Cassius:
Most people who take up responsibility in Nova Roma seem to be motivated by a
love of Roman culture and a desire to have a hand in it's restoration, rather
than by a need for reward. (Good thing too, since an ambition to collect
kudos, perks and an adoring public following would be quickly disappointed!)
I'm not sure what rewards ANY of our positions of responsibility offer,
except the chance to serve the ideal of Roma.

Papirius:
Nova Romans: think long and hard when you demand a moderator. If you're
thinking of becoming the moderator, think long and hard about whether you
*really* are up to it. It isn't a cakewalk and you will likely alienate a
huge chunk of people you consider to be friends ...

Cassius:
At least one of our moderator candidates has moderated at least two other
lists for years, and is still happily at it. Lists can be tough, but not all
are as punishing as the ones you seemed unlucky enough to be saddled with!
However, your advice is interesting in that it seems to go pretty equally as
well for ANY public position in Nova Roma. Anyone taking office here in any
capacity will find that political life isn't a cakewalk. You'll have
arguments. You'll lose friends. You'll be publicly reviled at least once, if
not on an ongoing cyclic basis! ;)

Yet, you'll have had the opportunity to DO something in the rebuilding of
Roma. Taking action usually means getting a few lumps in the process, but
speaking from experience, they're worth it.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator, Pontifex Maximus, Proconsul

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Safeguards and Consultation
From:	Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 15:48:19 -0400

Salvete omnes,

Festus wrote,

> May I remind you sir, that the edict in question has many supporters a=
s =

>well as opponents? If this were an edict foisted upon the people with =

>unanimous opposition, would it still be in force? Of course not. The =

>Praetorian Edict was overwhelmingly opposed, and is now vetoed. The =

>excellent 'gender edict'', issued Constituionally, is still in force, =

>continuing to do good, because it has support. That a group of people d=
o not =

>get their way over and above everyone else is not at all a sign of the s=
ystem =

>being unfair. It is a sign howver, that the "will of the people" may no=
t be =

>entirely behind you.

I have no idea, as things stand, whether there is majority support for th=
e Gender Edict =

or whether it is merely the case that some officials agree with it and ot=
hers didn't realise
it would be controversial. It is perfectly possible that it is FESTUS who=
in this case =

represents a vocal minority, though he may also represent the majority (o=
r even the "silent =

majority in American society who look as unfavourably on paganism than th=
ey do on transsexuals, =

etc?)

This is the disadvantage of using Edicta, without pre-posting drafts, to =
legislate on major =

policy issues like gender rules affecting citizen names. In the case of a=
lex we may agree or =

disagree with it but we can at least be confident that is has majority su=
pport among those =

who could be bothered to vote.

In addition, in the present case:

1) Sulla issued the Gender Edict when he had no colleague who could veto =
it. I do not suggest =

any bad faith on his part - he clearly didn't imagine it would be controv=
ersial.

2) The only people with power to veto the Censors are the Tribunes, and w=
hen Sulla issued the =

Edict (and since!) one of the Tribunes has been unavailable, while the Co=
nstitution requires both =

Tribunes to act. (This may be why Graecus' Edict was vetoed by a Consul, =
rather than by the =

Tribunes).

So constitutional mechanisms for blocking this Edict and forcing a vote o=
n the issue were =

unavailable. All that is left for opponents to do is make a fuss on the =
List and hope that =

the Senate will act.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister=

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 16:01:28 EDT

In a message dated 5/20/00 7:12:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> --------es:

<< I thank you for the posting of your experience as well as the content of
your enciteful message. You have said in a calm and unruffled way what
I attemped to say some hours ago. I thank you for your supporting
message. I believe in our two former list moderators, they have endured
some of what you describe, to the point in one case where she has been
forced to resign her position, and in the other, she chose to move out
of the task for a space although fhe has again volunteered her services
in this venue. >>

Salvete,

Our august Consul Audens has perhaps been misinformed about our past list
moderators - hopefully I can assist by providing some additional information.

Our two past list moderators have been Lucius Marius Fimbria, and my wife
Patricia Cassia. It certainly is correct that in their tenure as moderator
both had to deal with the occasional negative situation. That is what a
moderator is for. However, their experiences were not out of line with those
of OTHER magistrates in Nova Roma. Think of the experiences that over time
have been endured by Flavius Vedius Germanicus, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus,
and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, just as a small example!

In any case. Lucius Marius Fimbria was not forced to resign, most especially
from 'moderator stress' (my term). She resigned in protest over the recent
Gender Edict. That, and nothing more. Even so, she hopes to regain
Citizenship once matters are solved. Patricia Cassia simply resigned from
being too busy with her job. She is now working at a new job, and feels she
has sufficient time to take the position again if the Senate doesn't prefer
another candidate.

Most lists are simply lists only. The moderator is THE law, and therefore
bears a huge responsibility. Our list is simply one part of a system. In Nova
Roma we have a government... so a moderator is simply person carrying out a
duty, with plenty of people and a Constitution to back up their authority and
ratify their decisions.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Safeguards
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 16:27:07 EDT

In a message dated 5/21/2000 12:49:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a> writes:

<< (This may be why Graecus' Edict was vetoed by a Consul, rather than by the
Tribunes >>
Salvete!
Exactly. We had discussed this. And both my colleague and I agreed that
this was the way to go.
About the timing of the Edicta. Actually since we were upgrading the website
requirements for citizenship the time we thought that they should be
announced and formalized before they went up. And the system does work. Out
of Lucius Cornelius' edicta only one was serious enough to raise a public
outcry. And so the citizens did their job, now the Senate does theirs. We
are a republic. Things don't happen here over night. Some of the good
people in Rome should remember this before rushing off to resign in mass.


As for Antonius Gryllus, he erred on the side of extreme force true, but
before we all judge him, (something we are all good at doing), remember he
comes from a predominate Catholic country, and he loves Roman history. This
is something that can't be changed over night. He saw what he felt was major
offenses to the list. And he reacted to them. Without his colleague's input
he had to react unilaterally.
But, we had the check in place to limit that reaction.
By the way, has any body else heard from our other Praetor Urbanus?

So in closing I say this. We will continue to run Rome by the constitution
even though sometimes it takes time for the system to work. But work it does.
Valete.
Q. Fabius Maximus

Subject:	Keeping Edicts under Control with Safe Guards And Consultations - the Non-Sequel
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 14:04:52 -0700

Sulla, regarding your 10 edicts; I looked in the Tabularium and
could only find Nine Censorial edicts. I not only because you keep
repeating that number, but because we are not involved in this present
round of troubles from edicts dealing with staffing and other pieces
of administerial housekeeping. Your last four edicts were issued in a
lump. Whatever could be said in criticism about the other three, and
there are things that could be, the disastrous and infamous Gender
Edict overshadowed them.

I include the titles of the edicts that L. Cornelius Sulla has issued,
in one case in conjunction with then Censor Flavius Vedius Germanicus.

1. Appointment of Scribes (Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla 01/01/00)

2. Guidelines for Choosing a Roman Name (Censores L. Cornelius Sulla
and F. Vedius Germanicus 01/02/00)

3. Regarding incomplete information on Citizenship applications
(Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla, 03/08/00)

4. Guidelines for submission of articles to Censores (Censor Lucius
Cornelius Sulla, 03/10/00)

5. Mandatory rules for submission of citizen applications to Censores

(Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla, 03/17/00)

6. Censorial Edicts on citizen applications (Censor Lucius Cornelius
Sulla, 04/23/00)

7. Censorial Edict on Gender Naming Policy (Censor Lucius Cornelius
Sulla, 04/24/00)

8. Censorial Edict on Honesty Policy (Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla,
04/24/00)

9. Censorial Edict on changes to citizen application (Censor Lucius
Cornelius Sulla, 04/24/00)

10. I could not find a tenth Censorial edict that you had a role in,
Sulla, but there is one from your time as Consul Suffectus.:
Edicta for the Comitia Centuriata (Consul Lucius Cornelius Sulla
9/28/99)

I doubt that anybody will want to go into critiques of any of these at
this time. I'm putting them up for what its worth. Maybe somebody
will want to go into the Tabularium and read what they say. And think
about how they have fared interfacing with reality. I do not have the
texts before me at this instant, but more than one of them had to do
about people having full Roman names in order to be admitted as
citizens. A look at the Album Civium showed that there are civi with
only one name. There are also a few with non-Roman names as well as
names that include the latter developed letters ("J", "Y", etc.). I
am not saying that anything should be done to or about these names
(other than urging the one namers to get into a gens. [ *** Shameless
Plug: Gens Aelia will accept you. To the two named Gaius and the one
named Caius I say that your praenomens are already in keeping with
Aelian tradition. Contact me and we will find you a great cognomen
and let the Censores know! Gens Aelia also extends its welcome to the
other names. I have few naming preferences. Some, but I'm a
forgiving Paterfamilias. ;-) *** ] I am just saying that the edicts
concerning names does not seem to have solved this sticky point in the
Censor job. Public comments on some issues might make things go more
smoothly. It can even make the road smoother.

This has been written through a number of interruptions. I apologize
in advance for any confusion. I wanted to address the basic matter of
adopting a tradition -- not a lex -- of allowing the Quirites to
comment on prospective edicts that are more than just appointing
assistants and minor administerial matters.

A good and pleasant day to you all. (Taking into account the varying
meteorological conditions throughout the lands that Nova Romans are
in. The foregoing is a wish, not a guarantee.)

Valete.
Caius Aelius Ericius.
Paterfamilias gens Aelia.
Senator. Augur. Pontifex.
Retired Propraetor of California and Nevada.

Ave, Roma Immortalis.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Safeguards and Consultation
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 17:27:37 EDT

On 5/21/00 2:48 PM M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
(<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>) wrote:

[SNIP]
>
>1) Sulla issued the Gender Edict when he had no colleague who could veto
>it. I do not suggest any bad faith on his part - he clearly didn't imagine it
>would be controversial.
>
>2) The only people with power to veto the Censors are the Tribunes, and
>when Sulla issued the Edict (and since!) one of the Tribunes has been
>unavailable, while the Constitution requires both Tribunes to act. (This may
be
>why Graecus' Edict was vetoed by a Consul, rather than by the Tribunes).
>..........

Actually, I expected to veto Graecus' edicts, with the expectation that
my veto would be challenged for lack of a colleague, but the Consuls
acted first. (I slept late.)

When Sulla issued his controversial Edict on names, both Tribunes were
involved but we were divided on the issue -- that is why there was no
veto in that matter at that time.

Since then, Germanicus has made it clear that what is required for a
tribunicial veto is unanimity among the tribunes serving, whatever their
number. That being the case, and since I am unanimous in my opinions
(shades of "Are You Being Served!") I _could_ clearly veto the
controversial Edict of Censor Sulla. I shall not do so because now it is
to be debated by the Senate and we will then have a better idea of
whether Nova Roma as a whole supports or rejects it. The tribunes' veto
is there to protect the citizens and the Constitution from abuses, and
not to simply try to play oneupmanship over other magistrates and organs
of state.

If citizens are unhappy with the decision of the Senate, they can take
the matter to their Comitiae and pass a law to effect what they want. A
law from any of the Comitiae outranks a Censor's Edict. A vote by the
citizens is a more satisfactory and lasting way of making law than a veto
by a tribune, IMHO.

Lucius Sergius Australicus
lone, unanimous, opinionated Tribunus Plebis
(if you feel threatened by that, you'd better elect another one ;-) )

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] forms of address
From:
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 15:02:57 -0700

Salvete Quirites.

L. Sergius Australicus has done a service with this short post. I do
have a different interpretation, I would more correctly say
understanding. my sources are spread over many years of reading Roman
materials, including the better historical novels (perhaps not best
sellers, but better).

First I wish to mention a convention in writing the name of a Roman
citizen. It is a convention I resisted for a long time, since I like
to write out "Caius", but according to several works including the
Adkins and Adkins "Handbook..." citizens abbreviated their praenomen
if it was one of those that had a traditional abbreviation. These
abbreviations can be found in any number of books on Rome and Latin
dictionaries. Since not all praenomen could be abbreviated one's
citizen status is not firmly indicated, but it was a convention that I
finally adopted when I joined Nova Roma.



<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=226107192180229130130232031248147208071048" >LSergAust@--------</--------; wrote:

> Salvete omnes
>
> This is my understanding of how Roman names are used in addressing
> one
> another. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
>
> Polite address -- used when you mean to be formal or respectful
> Use the other person's nomen and praenomen, e.g., Gaius Julius
> Caesar
> would be addressed as "Gaius Julius."

CAE:Yes. This has been my understanding for some time. To go a step
further, to use the full name is very formal, as it is in our
contemporary societies.


> Less formal, everyday address
> Use only the nomen, e.g., "Hey Sergius -- get over here." This is
> the
> equivalent of the common practice in the english-speaking world of
> referring to someone by only their last name.

CAE:
This is also what I have understood from my readings, with a but that
is in the next paragraph. There is the aspect of this form of address
that one is using the gens nomen, which would apply to everyone of
that gender of that gens. It might have been understood to mean the
senior present. A comment on using a last name in the United States;
this can be taken as unfriendly. Unless it is in some sort of
situation, usually blue collar work, where last names are used by
everybody except those individuals who are actually friends.

I can also subscribe to the impression that the nomen is seldom used
on its own unless the cognomen is not that well established, or used
in everyday business. An example is Pompeius. Pompey in the English
form. We all know who is meant by that. We know he was Gn. Pompeius
Magnus, but he is known by his nomen, not his cognomen. With this
I'll go on to the next part...

> Informal address, used between friends or acquaintences
> Use the cognomen, such as "Good morning Caesar, do you want jelly on
> your
> toast?" Also used to refer to third parties when there is no need to
> be
> respectful -- "Sulla really tied one on last night, didn't he?"

CAE:
I don't think I would term this the "informal" mode since we know that
it was often used in places such as Cicero's speeches to the Senate
and Caesar's Commentaries. It seems to have come down to the Romans
knowing that their naming conventions made it difficult to distinguish
between people simply by their names. And that the full name was
cumbersome. Caesar [C. Iulius Caesar the victorious general and
Dictator] refers to Labienus, and Q. Cicero rather than full
praenomen, nomen, cognomen. I believe it is the process that
languages go through of tending to simplification, and clarity.
Caesar might refer to Ti. Labienus in some places, but he will also
say, Labienus led the relief column. Romans were practical, and they
knew the world was not in stasis. The Informal Form of this type of
address, just as the more formal, would be in context. Another of the
names might be used in conjunction to further specific
identification. Of course this comes to the problem of many Roman
families having very few names that they traditionally used. C.
Iulius Caesar was son of C. iulius Caesar, who was the son of C.
Iulius Caesar. From this point I shall flee -- in a dignified Roman
manner.


> There seems to be an additional form, using what in other languages
> are
> considered affectionate diminuitives of names, but I'm not confident
>
> enough with my pidgin Latin to go into that.

CAE: Sergius puts this quite well.

> Do we have forms of address addressed anywhere on the Website?

CAE:It might be imbedded in the section of women's names since good
examples are Agrippina and Agrippinilla.
Lucia, Lucilla, Lucililla ? I can not think, off hand, of any
diminutive nicknames for Roman men. They did have the possibility of
acquiring cognomen that were not part of the families' tradition. I
just read that the emperor Caracalla got that cognomen because he
often wore a certain type of Gaullish coat.

> Valete,
>
> L. Sergius Aust.

Valete, L. Sergius Australicus et Quirites.

C. Aelius Ericius.
-----------------
Dici mihi paulum quod sentis.

et

Cave, aliquod squalaris est in hac sede!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
Date:	Sun, 21 May 2000 19:50:09 -0400 (EDT)

Salve, Senator Julianus.

In regard to the "forced" resignation of Maria / Marius Fimbria, some of
her posts have referred to a personal feeling that the stresses of being
a moderater, may have had something to do with the resignation. While
it is true that I do not personnally know Fimbria, and have not met her
face to face, I do not believe that I know anyone well enough to be
absolutely positive in regard to their total range of motives for
action. My words were couched in that aspect. Of course, I may well be
mistaken, I often am, it seems, to be corrected just as often by my
peers, but in this particular case, I believe I would rather be assured
of my error by Fimbria herself rather than a third party.

Vale, Very Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!