Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:08:33 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: <gmvick32@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists


> Salvete Omnes, Salvete Pater.
>
> Sulla, I believe your mandate to promote communication is legitimately a
mandate
> upon your office ONLY to make sure communication channels are in place and
> publicized, but you cannot enforce their usage. It seems
counterproductive to
> force people to sign up for an email service but then be able to make it
so they
> can ignore it. Some will resent and resist it. And you (or another
magistrate)
> will spend a lot of time that could be spent differently on monitoring
who's
> still signed up.

Sulla: I understand that. :)

> Ask yourself....do we want to build a Nova Roma that relies on force to
spur its
> membership to participate? I don't think so....and I think that's the
effect of
> this Edict.

Sulla: I have, The problem that I see is that over half of our citizens are
not on any list. Therefore have no contact with us. I am trying to close
that gap. If anyone has alternate suggestions to try to increase
involvement and participation. Its not like I want to sit here and add
people to a list. I would LOVE citizens to take responsibilty and add
themselves. But, in the 2 1/2 years, we have a 30 % voter turnout and about
a 40-45% citizen subscription to the email list..and about 35 citizens
subscribed to the Eagle, according to Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus.
These are sorry numbers, and I want to do my part to fix this.

> Pater, I urge you to reconsider this Edict.

How? Give me some reasonable alternatives, this is why my Edictum is up for
discussion for 6 more days, before it is officially adopted. Saying we
highly suggest people sign up isnt cutting it.

> I have an alternative suggestion to help the magistrates achieve their
goal
> without making a list mandatory. Consider this:
>
> When a new member is accepted into Nova Roma, have the censor
> automatically sign them up to the Nova Roma list and a provincial
> list, if there is one for that citizen. Then, have the introductory
> message specifically state that participation in the list is
OPTIONAL,
> and give the citizen instructions on how to either configure how they
> want to receive the email, or to unsubscribe altogether. Also, give
> them instructions on how to go to egroups and find other lists that
> might be of interest. This would be somewhat akin to having the
local
> welcome wagon show up on their doorstep, but they could still choose
> not to accept visitors.

I love this idea. However, Censors cannot add people to any list. Now,
Would I be able to do the smae thing for our existing citizens and allow
them to unsub themselves? I would like to do this idea..... :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Proconsul et Censor

> With respect,
> Valete,
> L Cornelia Aurelia
>
>
> "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <pjane@-------->
> > To: <novaroma@-------->
> > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 4:49 PM
> > Subject: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
> >
> > > Like others, I am a bit perplexed by the idea of making a provincial
> > > e-
> > > mail list mandatory.
> > >
> > > While many members of California Provincia may consider this a
> > > valuable
> > > way of keeping in touch, there may be some who prefer to participate
> > > in
> > > Nova Roma on a national level, or who are interested in remaining
> > > Citizens but do not have e-mail access, or who are unable to
> > > participate in provincial affairs for a time for some personal reason
> > > (illness, pregnancy, Army service, doctoral dissertation, general
> > > irritation after some flare-up of spleen on the list).
> >
> > Sulla: If citizens dont have email, then they obviously cannot be
signed up
> > on the list. :) Also, there is webmail (NO MAIL) if someone is going to
be
> > a way for a short or prolonged period of time. :)
> >
> > > In general, I favor laws which offer the maximum amount of personal
> > > freedom to Citizens. Plus, people are ornery: If you tell them they
> > > have to do something, they will usually respond with the moral
> > > equivalent of "Says who?" or "I don't want to." If I were a
> > > Californian
> > > receiving this edict, I might be tempted to find some way around it
> > > just to show I could.
> >
> > Sulla: I too, am a proponet of personal freedom, but as a magistrate I
have
> > goals to achieve too. There is a balance, and I believe I have reached
a
> > suitable balance between our citizens and the government that is trying
to
> > promote more interaction. By giving our citizens a means to choose the
> > method to receive their emails.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Proconsul
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965351314/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: <gmvick32@-------->
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:49:46 -0600
Sulla says:

Sulla: I have, The problem that I see is that over half of our citizens are
not on any list. Therefore have no contact with us. I am trying to close
that gap. If anyone has alternate suggestions to try to increase
involvement and participation. Its not like I want to sit here and add
people to a list. I would LOVE citizens to take responsibilty and add
themselves. But, in the 2 1/2 years, we have a 30 % voter turnout and about
a 40-45% citizen subscription to the email list..and about 35 citizens
subscribed to the Eagle, according to Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus.
These are sorry numbers, and I want to do my part to fix this.

Pater: You don't build communication channels by force.....you build them by
improving the quality of the communication channels. That's all I can say.

>


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no annual fee!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7874/8/_/61050/_/965352765/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:35:35 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: <gmvick32@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists


> Sulla says:
>
> Sulla: I have, The problem that I see is that over half of our citizens
are
> not on any list. Therefore have no contact with us. I am trying to close
> that gap. If anyone has alternate suggestions to try to increase
> involvement and participation. Its not like I want to sit here and add
> people to a list. I would LOVE citizens to take responsibilty and add
> themselves. But, in the 2 1/2 years, we have a 30 % voter turnout and
about
> a 40-45% citizen subscription to the email list..and about 35 citizens
> subscribed to the Eagle, according to Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus.
> These are sorry numbers, and I want to do my part to fix this.
>
> Pater: You don't build communication channels by force.....you build them
by
> improving the quality of the communication channels. That's all I can
say.

Sulla: Ok, how? I am open for suggestions. :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Proconsul


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Enjoy a half minute of relaxation
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7876/8/_/61050/_/965352937/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: StarWreck@--------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:42:29 EDT
In a message dated 8/3/00 9:37:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
alexious@-------- writes:

<< > improving the quality of the communication channels. That's all I can
say.

Sulla: Ok, how? I am open for suggestions. :) >>

Hmm... www.ureach.com has a toll-free number for sending voice-mail that you
can receive either over the phone or off of their website as voice-email.
And www.iHello.com lets you send and receive voice email.

Vale
Iuli Titini

P.S. Both of the services are free and their voice email service uploads and
downloads as quickly as text messages.

Visit <A HREF="http://www.starwreck.org">www.starwreck.org</A>
Get paid to read email! Earn up to $41 a day! Amazing, and it works!
Support www.starwreck.org, join at <A
HREF="http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/940232">This Link</A>

--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7873/8/_/61050/_/965353359/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:44:49 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: <StarWreck@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists


> In a message dated 8/3/00 9:37:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> alexious@-------- writes:
>
> << > improving the quality of the communication channels. That's all I
can
> say.
>
> Sulla: Ok, how? I am open for suggestions. :) >>
>
> Hmm... www.ureach.com has a toll-free number for sending voice-mail that
you
> can receive either over the phone or off of their website as voice-email.
> And www.iHello.com lets you send and receive voice email.

Ok, how would this help? I dont get it. :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix






--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965353489/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: StarWreck@--------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:50:31 EDT
In a message dated 8/3/00 9:45:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
alexious@-------- writes:

<< Ok, how would this help? I dont get it. :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix >>
Sometimes voice communication seems more comfortable than the formality of
text letters. Although it couldn't easily be used to contact all members of
Nova Roma at the same time it could be used to open up 2 way communication
lines between individual citizens. You said you were open to suggestions.

Vale
Iuli Titini

Visit <A HREF="http://www.starwreck.org">www.starwreck.org</A>
Get paid to read email! Earn up to $41 a day! Amazing, and it works!
Support www.starwreck.org, join at <A
HREF="http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/940232">This Link</A>

--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7873/8/_/61050/_/965353839/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:53:49 -0500 (CDT)
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:

> Given the recent discussion about the Email subscription Edictum....I
> understand the concerns. But, there has been no input about the
> Legate Edictum? Are there any comments about that?

It must have been perfect, if no one complained!

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
http://www.graveyards.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Enjoy a half minute of relaxation
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7876/8/_/61050/_/965354151/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:03:36 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: <StarWreck@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists


> In a message dated 8/3/00 9:45:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> alexious@-------- writes:
>
> << Ok, how would this help? I dont get it. :)
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix >>
> Sometimes voice communication seems more comfortable than the formality of
> text letters. Although it couldn't easily be used to contact all members
of
> Nova Roma at the same time it could be used to open up 2 way communication
> lines between individual citizens. You said you were open to suggestions.

Ave,

I am....I have never thought of voicemail. Becuase there are almost 50
citizens in the Californai Provicina...can I call each of them...with the
same message...and how long would it take for me to communicate with all 50
citizens? This is plan is interesting.... :)

Sulla Felix


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965354618/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: <gmvick32@-------->
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 20:22:44 -0600
What was it?? What did I miss??

....Livia gnaws at her fingertips.....

L Cornelia Aurelia

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>
> > Given the recent discussion about the Email subscription Edictum....I
> > understand the concerns. But, there has been no input about the
> > Legate Edictum? Are there any comments about that?
>
> It must have been perfect, if no one complained!
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
> Microsoft delenda est!
> http://www.graveyards.com/
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no annual fee!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7874/8/_/61050/_/965354761/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: <gmvick32@-------->
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 20:24:13 -0600
If I understand the concept, it would be a one to many broadcast.....you give
the message once, everybody on your distribution channel receives it.

Cool idea.....I'd help look at the technology.

L Cornelia

"L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <StarWreck@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
>
> > In a message dated 8/3/00 9:45:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > alexious@-------- writes:
> >
> > << Ok, how would this help? I dont get it. :)
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix >>
> > Sometimes voice communication seems more comfortable than the formality of
> > text letters. Although it couldn't easily be used to contact all members
> of
> > Nova Roma at the same time it could be used to open up 2 way communication
> > lines between individual citizens. You said you were open to suggestions.
>
> Ave,
>
> I am....I have never thought of voicemail. Becuase there are almost 50
> citizens in the Californai Provicina...can I call each of them...with the
> same message...and how long would it take for me to communicate with all 50
> citizens? This is plan is interesting.... :)
>
> Sulla Felix
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965354849/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:10:07 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Octavius Germanicus" <haase@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?


> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>
> > Given the recent discussion about the Email subscription Edictum....I
> > understand the concerns. But, there has been no input about the
> > Legate Edictum? Are there any comments about that?
>
> It must have been perfect, if no one complained!

LOL great...oh so only 2 out of about 15 that I have published this year
have not been perfect...LOL Thats pretty good...I think. :)

Sulla Felix


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!
4. Start making on-line purchases instantly!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7875/8/_/61050/_/965355008/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to...
From: "Caius Antonius Severus" <EmperorSeverus@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:12:11 -0700
Marcus Cassius Iulianus writes:

> I feel it is a wonderful thing to try and promote communication within
each
> of the Provinciae. However, I am afraid I strongly disagree with
declaring
> this to be law in an Edictum... especially as it has apparently been
done
> without consulting the Senate.

Surely a governor is not going to have to consult the Senate for every
action he or she takes. If that is the case why not simply do away with the
governors and enact direct Senatorial rule of the provinces.

> Firstly, what happens if a Citizen residing in the Provincia of
California
> does not want to be a member of your Provincia list? Have you been
invested
> with the power to remove them from Citizenship? No.

I did not see anything in the Edict that suggested this would be the
punishment for not subscribing. In fact there is no punishment listed. If a
person doesn't subscribe, they don't subscribe, but, they should. Perhaps we
should consider, as a nation, a means of determining who is a citizen in
good standing and who isn't.

> Secondly, why should a person be *forced* to communicate constantly?
Some
> people have hectic schedules, to the point where being continually
plugged in
> can be a real distraction and irritant. This strikes me somewhat in the
same
> vein as George Orwell's "1984", where Citizens were forced by law to
have the
> television on 24 hours a day. Nova Roma is not the Thought Police.

No, Nova Roma is not the 'thought police', but I don't think it at all 'big
brother' of us to mandate that citizens participate in some minimal way. The
webmail option gives a citizen a perfect way to remain within the law
without intruding into their 'hectic' lives.

> Also, what happens if a person goes offline? People's computers go down
all
> the time. One of the members of Gens Cornelia, Marcus Cornelius Felix,
has
> been without Internet connection for two months now due to a motherboard
> failure. He is unable to be subscribed to your "mandatory" Gens Cornelia
> list, or your new "mandatory" Provincia list. Is this member of the
Collegium
> Pontificum now not a Citizen? If so, I probably ought to be informed
about it
> as I am the Pontifex Maximus.

A computer breaking down doesn't unsubscribe someone automatically, in fact
there would be no way of knowing a person was offline so the scenario is, to
me anyway, irrelevant.

> I must also ask, what happens if a Citizen doesn't have a computer at
all?
> Nova Roma Citizens DO hand out flyers at live events when it is
possible, and
> we do have some Citizens without computer access. They have no way to
> receive your Edict, and no way to comply if they do hear about it.

I suppose this would technically be a violation, but, it's akin to a citizen
of the U.S. being guilty of tax evasion because they were kidnapped and held
hostage. I doubt you would ever see anyone without the means to subscribe be
found in violation of the law.

> In addition, are Citizens required by law to be subscribed to the main
list?
> No. And it's a good thing too, since the main list (and all such lists)
can
> be difficult places. Many Citizens take vacations from having to deal
with
> everyone, in order to cool down and regain some focus.

True, and frankly I can't understand why they aren't. Shouldn't there be
some requirements for citizenship? Shouldn't there be some civic duties?
Again the webmail option is there so citizens wouldn't have their mailboxes
clogged.

> And finally, can such an Edict force a person to communicate? No. I
> personally would find such an edict to be an incredible invasion of
privacy
> and freedom of choice. If for some reason I did decide to surrender my
choice
> and obey this edict, could you force me to participate? Suppose I
decided to
> summarily delete selected postings, say anything coming from the
Provincial
> Praetor? Or ALL postings? Will this circumstance be followed by other
edicta,
> such as "All Postings From The Provincial Praetor Must Be Read and
> Responded to Within One Week Under The Penalty Of Loss Of Citizenship?"
> You'd need another edict right after... "Citizens Making Mandatory
Replies To
> The Provincial Praetor Shall Not Be Allowed To Be Rude Or Make Fun Of My
> Tendency To Micromanage, Under Penalty Of Loss Of Citizenship."

You are absolutely right, no one can be forced to do anything online. But,
if we as a nation agree that there should be minimum standards for
citizenship, then I see no reason why we should be forced, or rather our
Censors should be forced, to compile lists of inactive people who,
apparently, don't care enough about the state of their nation to expend even
this miniscule amount of effort in the way of participation, when the means
are at their disposal. What good are such citizens to the nation? Perhaps
that is something that we should consider more carefully.

Caius Antonius Severus





--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965355118/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to... II
From: cassius622@--------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:15:12 EDT
In a message dated 8/3/00 5:26:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@-------- writes:

<<
> In a message dated 8/3/00 12:20:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Propraetor
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla (alexious@--------) writes:
>
> << I have published an Edictum as Proconsul of California to the
> CaliforniaNovaRoma email list. I have felt it would be wise to get
comments
> from the remainder of this great Micronation. Please feel free to debate
on
> this topic, I would be very interested to hear comments. Espically from
> other governors. :)
> >>
>
> Salvete,
>
> I feel it is a wonderful thing to try and promote communication within
each
> of the Provinciae. However, I am afraid I strongly disagree with declaring
> this to be law in an Edictum... especially as it has apparently been done
> without consulting the Senate.

Sulla:
Why, if I wasnt in the Senate....I wouldnt get any input from the Senators?
How would I, be able to participate? But for the sake of arguement, I did
as a matter of fact post this to the Senate when I was appointed as
Proconsul. Would you like me to repost that to you privately? Or you can
check the archieve in the Senate. :)

Cassius:
The Senate appointed you ProPraetor. You are a Senator. You have the ability
to issue edicts regarding your Provincia. However, you are not empowered to
issue edicts which you do not have the authority to back up, or specifically
conflict with the policys of Nova Roma at large.

As a Gens Paterfamilias, you instituted a Gens rule that ALL members of Gens
Cornelia must subscribe to your Gens Cornelia E-list. If they don't, they're
out of the Gens. As much as I personally find that kind of rule manipulative,
I do not in the least dispute your right to set it. As Paterfamilias you have
the right to decide who is, and who is not in your Gens. You can bring people
into your Gens and remove them with impunity.

Now you are trying to institute the same policy in your Provincia. The
difficulty is that you do not have the Paterfamilias power over the Citizens
in your provincia. You cannot remove people from Citizenship if they disobey
you....

> Firstly, what happens if a Citizen residing in the Provincia of California
> does not want to be a member of your Provincia list? Have you been
invested
> with the power to remove them from Citizenship? No.

Sulla:
No I never said in my Edictum I would remove citizenship Cassius, please
dont read into the Edictum. :)

Cassius:
Good heavens. How can I NOT read this into your Edictum? If you make
something *mandatory*, you are saying that people must do it "or else".
You've deliberately left the "or else" blank, but there must be some sort of
punishment implied. Otherwise the word mandatory is absolutely meaningless.
"It is mandatory that all Citizens join the Provincia list. Failure to comply
will result in no action being taken against you whatever."

> Secondly, why should a person be *forced* to communicate constantly? Some
> people have hectic schedules, to the point where being continually plugged
in
> can be a real distraction and irritant. This strikes me somewhat in the
same
> vein as George Orwell's "1984", where Citizens were forced by law to have
the
> television on 24 hours a day. Nova Roma is not the Thought Police.

Sulla:
Who is being forced to communicate? No Mail implies that they dont want to
get any email. We are not a Totalitarian Society, but we do need to foster
increased communication between our citizens and magistrates. By giving our
citizens a choice on HOW they want to receive email, I think your
Totalitiarian argument is diminished.

Cassius:
I hate to tell you this, but if someone doesn't voluntarily subscribe, and
you subscribe them anyway, (even if you put them on digest/no mail) Egroups
will summarily delete your group at the first hint of a complaint.
Subscribing people to a list without their consent is in essence spamming...
and it's dealt with harshly.

> Also, what happens if a person goes offline? People's computers go down
all
> the time. One of the members of Gens Cornelia, Marcus Cornelius Felix, has
> been without Internet connection for two months now due to a motherboard
> failure. He is unable to be subscribed to your "mandatory" Gens Cornelia
> list, or your new "mandatory" Provincia list. Is this member of the
Collegium
> Pontificum now not a Citizen? If so, I probably ought to be informed about
it
> as I am the Pontifex Maximus.

Sulla:
Easy, NO MAIL. That is how Marcus Cornelius Felix is listed on my
list...the Gens Cornelia List. :)

Cassius:
So you have subscribed someone to your list, even though they don't have a
computer. Interesting approach! Again, you're running a risk with Egroups
should anyone ever decide they really, really didn't want to be on your list
and you put them in anyway.

> I must also ask, what happens if a Citizen doesn't have a computer at
all?
> Nova Roma Citizens DO hand out flyers at live events when it is possible,
and
> we do have some Citizens without computer access. They have no way to
receive
> your Edict, and no way to comply if they do hear about it.

Sulla:
As I stated to P. Cassia, no computer means no email..therefore they cannot
be on the List! LOL That means they arent bound by the Edictum. However,
as a Governor, I can request from the Censor (myself) a list of citizens and
email addresses, just as you have done. :) And from those I can work with.
:)

Cassius:
Your edict makes no exception for people who do not have a computer.


> In addition, are Citizens required by law to be subscribed to the main
list?
> No. And it's a good thing too, since the main list (and all such lists)
can
> be difficult places. Many Citizens take vacations from having to deal with
> everyone, in order to cool down and regain some focus.

Sulla:
My Edictum has no bearing on the main list. However, I too, think that
needs revision...in my personal opinion.

Cassius:
So you'd have every Citizen subscribed to the list as a mandatory ruling. I
assure you that I would be the first person to unsubscribe. I'm on the list
because I wish to be, not because you believe I should be forced to.


> And finally, can such an Edict force a person to communicate? No. I
> personally would find such an edict to be an incredible invasion of
privacy
> and freedom of choice. If for some reason I did decide to surrender my
choice
> and obey this edict, could you force me to participate? Suppose I decided
to
> summarily delete selected postings, say anything coming from the
Provincial
> Praetor? Or ALL postings? Will this circumstance be followed by other
edicta,
> such as "All Postings From The Provincial Praetor Must Be Read and
Responded
> to Within One Week Under The Penalty Of Loss Of Citizenship?" You'd need
> another edict right after... "Citizens Making Mandatory Replies To The
> Provincial Praetor Shall Not Be Allowed To Be Rude Or Make Fun Of My
Tendency
> To Micromanage, Under Penalty Of Loss Of Citizenship."

Sulla:
Again, there is no forced communication. Where is the invasion of
privacy....you can select how you want to receive email....digest,
individual email or no mail....Cassius..your what if is hilarious I love
it....but its totally unrealistic with the goals of the Edictum.

Cassius:
Most list services view subscribing a person against their wishes - even on
"web only" status - as a serious offence. I honestly think it's something to
avoid. Do you really want Egroups deleting your list, and revoking your
capacity to be a list moderator?


Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator
Proconsul Nova Britannia Province

--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no annual fee!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7874/8/_/61050/_/965358919/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] [Fwd: [CaliforniaNovaRoma] Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to...
From: cassius622@--------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:26:53 EDT
In a message dated 8/3/00 4:25:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@-------- writes:

<< I understand your concern. However, one of the jobs we as Governors is to
try to promote interaction and organize meetings between our resident (and
visiting) citizens. How do you propose a way of involving them. I am
trying to be flexible by not clogging up their mail boxes by allowing all
types of methods of applicability to the list. (Individual Email, Digest
and WEBMail [No email]). This way if you dont want to receive any, at your
convinence you can go to egroups and view the email from Egroups. Our jobs
as Governors is to promote communication. To that end, this is what I am
trying to do, what do people do with the email they receive is their
business. If they read it or just delete it...that is their
preference....even if they decide they dont want to get it and switch to
webmail, at least they have the opportunity to voice their concerns at the
local level, as well as be apart of any events or get togethers that might
be planned throughout the provincia.
>>

Salvete,

Instead of subscribing people without their consent and putting them on "web
only", why not just make the list for your Provincia a public list? That way
anyone could read the archives if they were interested in the messages. In
this way people from outside your Provincia could also view the records...
anyone planning a visit to your area would be able to check out events, etc.

In this way you could easily avoid possible problems with Egroups, and also
give the Citizens in your Provincia at least the illusion that they had some
freedom of choice in the matter.

Perhaps you might consider setting up your Provincia list as a Public list?
For instance you can set the list to "public archives" where anyone can see
what's on the list, but have it set so that only members can post messages.
You would of course retain moderator control to be able to unsubscribe anyone
who caused problems...

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator
Proconsul, Nova Britannia Provincia


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7873/8/_/61050/_/965359618/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: cassius622@--------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:34:26 EDT
In a message dated 8/3/00 5:14:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@-------- writes:

<< Sulla: I too, am a proponet of personal freedom, but as a magistrate I
have
goals to achieve too. There is a balance, and I believe I have reached a
suitable balance between our citizens and the government that is trying to
promote more interaction. By giving our citizens a means to choose the
method to receive their emails.
>>

Cassius:
In George Orwell's "1984", Citizens had to have their televisions (replete
with governmental programming, and a monitoring camera) on 24 hours a day.
The people could choose to set the volume high, or set the volume low if they
wanted to sleep or not pay full "conscious attention" to the TV, but they had
no option of turning it completely off. After all, the voice of government
had to be able to reach everyone, and the government DID have to know what
was going on. Why rely on voluntary participation (and all the inherant
responsibilities of making such participation interesting and valuable) when
you can issue a law to make it mandatory?

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator
Proconsul, Nova Britannia Provincia

--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Enjoy a half minute of relaxation
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7876/8/_/61050/_/965360074/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to... II
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:36:36 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: <cassius622@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:15 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to... II


> In a message dated 8/3/00 5:26:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> alexious@-------- writes:
>
> <<
> > In a message dated 8/3/00 12:20:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Propraetor
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla (alexious@--------) writes:
> >
> > << I have published an Edictum as Proconsul of California to the
> > CaliforniaNovaRoma email list. I have felt it would be wise to get
> comments
> > from the remainder of this great Micronation. Please feel free to
debate
> on
> > this topic, I would be very interested to hear comments. Espically
from
> > other governors. :)
> > >>
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > I feel it is a wonderful thing to try and promote communication within
> each
> > of the Provinciae. However, I am afraid I strongly disagree with
declaring
> > this to be law in an Edictum... especially as it has apparently been
done
> > without consulting the Senate.
>
> Sulla:
> Why, if I wasnt in the Senate....I wouldnt get any input from the
Senators?
> How would I, be able to participate? But for the sake of arguement, I
did
> as a matter of fact post this to the Senate when I was appointed as
> Proconsul. Would you like me to repost that to you privately? Or you
can
> check the archieve in the Senate. :)
>
> Cassius:
> The Senate appointed you ProPraetor. You are a Senator. You have the
ability
> to issue edicts regarding your Provincia. However, you are not empowered
to
> issue edicts which you do not have the authority to back up, or
specifically
> conflict with the policys of Nova Roma at large.

Sulla: But Cassius you still failed to answer the question. First, IF I
WASNT in the Senate...what use would it serve for that body to debate and I
wouldnt have access to it.

Sulla: Second....I did present this as an agenda to the Seante....as
something I planned to do. You made no comment at all about it. Ericius
did..and him and I worked that part out..which I included. The Senate had
full knowledge of my intention and no debate insued.

> As a Gens Paterfamilias, you instituted a Gens rule that ALL members of
Gens
> Cornelia must subscribe to your Gens Cornelia E-list. If they don't,
they're
> out of the Gens. As much as I personally find that kind of rule
manipulative,
> I do not in the least dispute your right to set it. As Paterfamilias you
have
> the right to decide who is, and who is not in your Gens. You can bring
people
> into your Gens and remove them with impunity.

Sulla: Your right, I did make that a rule. Just as other Gens's have other
guidelines and rules...such as I know the Gens Iunius has a statement that
must be signed...and I know the Gens Maria has some stipulations. I dont
care if you find my rule manipulative, I find it very usefully to keep a
cohesive unit together and close......Like a True Family. :)

> Now you are trying to institute the same policy in your Provincia. The
> difficulty is that you do not have the Paterfamilias power over the
Citizens
> in your provincia. You cannot remove people from Citizenship if they
disobey
> you....

Sulla: I think this is a bit insulting. I have never claimed any
Paterfamilias over the provinca that is pure foolishness on your part. My
question to you is WHAT Punishment do I list?

> > Firstly, what happens if a Citizen residing in the Provincia of
California
> > does not want to be a member of your Provincia list? Have you been
> invested
> > with the power to remove them from Citizenship? No.
>
> Sulla:
> No I never said in my Edictum I would remove citizenship Cassius, please
> dont read into the Edictum. :)
>
> Cassius:
> Good heavens. How can I NOT read this into your Edictum? If you make
> something *mandatory*, you are saying that people must do it "or else".
> You've deliberately left the "or else" blank, but there must be some sort
of
> punishment implied. Otherwise the word mandatory is absolutely
meaningless.
> "It is mandatory that all Citizens join the Provincia list. Failure to
comply
> will result in no action being taken against you whatever."

Sulla: There is a reason it is BLANK...there is no punishment. Or else I
would have stipulated one.....

> > Secondly, why should a person be *forced* to communicate constantly?
Some
> > people have hectic schedules, to the point where being continually
plugged
> in
> > can be a real distraction and irritant. This strikes me somewhat in the
> same
> > vein as George Orwell's "1984", where Citizens were forced by law to
have
> the
> > television on 24 hours a day. Nova Roma is not the Thought Police.
>
> Sulla:
> Who is being forced to communicate? No Mail implies that they dont want
to
> get any email. We are not a Totalitarian Society, but we do need to
foster
> increased communication between our citizens and magistrates. By giving
our
> citizens a choice on HOW they want to receive email, I think your
> Totalitiarian argument is diminished.
>
> Cassius:
> I hate to tell you this, but if someone doesn't voluntarily subscribe, and
> you subscribe them anyway, (even if you put them on digest/no mail)
Egroups
> will summarily delete your group at the first hint of a complaint.
> Subscribing people to a list without their consent is in essence
spamming...
> and it's dealt with harshly.

Sulla: Well I have never had a complaint so I guess I wouldnt know.

> > Also, what happens if a person goes offline? People's computers go down
> all
> > the time. One of the members of Gens Cornelia, Marcus Cornelius Felix,
has
> > been without Internet connection for two months now due to a
motherboard
> > failure. He is unable to be subscribed to your "mandatory" Gens
Cornelia
> > list, or your new "mandatory" Provincia list. Is this member of the
> Collegium
> > Pontificum now not a Citizen? If so, I probably ought to be informed
about
> it
> > as I am the Pontifex Maximus.
>
> Sulla:
> Easy, NO MAIL. That is how Marcus Cornelius Felix is listed on my
> list...the Gens Cornelia List. :)
>
> Cassius:
> So you have subscribed someone to your list, even though they don't have a
> computer. Interesting approach! Again, you're running a risk with Egroups
> should anyone ever decide they really, really didn't want to be on your
list
> and you put them in anyway.

Sulla: Did I say that? M. Cornelius Felix was on my list before his
computer died..and he is still only list as NO mail. If anyone joins my
Gens, they know before hand that I have a list....it is up to them to accept
membership in my Gens.

> > I must also ask, what happens if a Citizen doesn't have a computer at
> all?
> > Nova Roma Citizens DO hand out flyers at live events when it is
possible,
> and
> > we do have some Citizens without computer access. They have no way to
> receive
> > your Edict, and no way to comply if they do hear about it.
>
> Sulla:
> As I stated to P. Cassia, no computer means no email..therefore they
cannot
> be on the List! LOL That means they arent bound by the Edictum.
However,
> as a Governor, I can request from the Censor (myself) a list of citizens
and
> email addresses, just as you have done. :) And from those I can work
with.
> :)
>
> Cassius:
> Your edict makes no exception for people who do not have a computer.

Sulla: My edict has NO BEARING on people who have no computer! LOL!!!!

>
> > In addition, are Citizens required by law to be subscribed to the main
> list?
> > No. And it's a good thing too, since the main list (and all such lists)
> can
> > be difficult places. Many Citizens take vacations from having to deal
with
> > everyone, in order to cool down and regain some focus.
>
> Sulla:
> My Edictum has no bearing on the main list. However, I too, think that
> needs revision...in my personal opinion.
>
> Cassius:
> So you'd have every Citizen subscribed to the list as a mandatory ruling.
I
> assure you that I would be the first person to unsubscribe. I'm on the
list
> because I wish to be, not because you believe I should be forced to.

Sulla: ROFL...did I say that....Cassius for someone usually tactful you
have dropped the ball on this big time!

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965360197/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] [Fwd: [CaliforniaNovaRoma] Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to...
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:38:03 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: <cassius622@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:26 PM
Subject: [novaroma] [Fwd: [CaliforniaNovaRoma] Edictum: Mandatory
Subscription to...


> In a message dated 8/3/00 4:25:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> alexious@-------- writes:
>
> << I understand your concern. However, one of the jobs we as Governors is
to
> try to promote interaction and organize meetings between our resident
(and
> visiting) citizens. How do you propose a way of involving them. I am
> trying to be flexible by not clogging up their mail boxes by allowing all
> types of methods of applicability to the list. (Individual Email, Digest
> and WEBMail [No email]). This way if you dont want to receive any, at
your
> convinence you can go to egroups and view the email from Egroups. Our
jobs
> as Governors is to promote communication. To that end, this is what I am
> trying to do, what do people do with the email they receive is their
> business. If they read it or just delete it...that is their
> preference....even if they decide they dont want to get it and switch to
> webmail, at least they have the opportunity to voice their concerns at
the
> local level, as well as be apart of any events or get togethers that
might
> be planned throughout the provincia.
> >>
>
> Salvete,
>
> Instead of subscribing people without their consent and putting them on
"web
> only", why not just make the list for your Provincia a public list? That
way
> anyone could read the archives if they were interested in the messages. In
> this way people from outside your Provincia could also view the records...
> anyone planning a visit to your area would be able to check out events,
etc.
>
> In this way you could easily avoid possible problems with Egroups, and
also
> give the Citizens in your Provincia at least the illusion that they had
some
> freedom of choice in the matter.
>
> Perhaps you might consider setting up your Provincia list as a Public
list?
> For instance you can set the list to "public archives" where anyone can
see
> what's on the list, but have it set so that only members can post
messages.
> You would of course retain moderator control to be able to unsubscribe
anyone
> who caused problems...

Sulla: I didnt create the list...nor am I moderator of it. the
Paterfamilias of the Gens Trocia created it after Helena killed the last
California List. Therefor that is not an option I have. Only he can do
that.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!
4. Start making on-line purchases instantly!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7875/8/_/61050/_/965360284/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:39:29 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: <cassius622@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists


> In a message dated 8/3/00 5:14:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> alexious@-------- writes:
>
> << Sulla: I too, am a proponet of personal freedom, but as a magistrate I
> have
> goals to achieve too. There is a balance, and I believe I have reached a
> suitable balance between our citizens and the government that is trying
to
> promote more interaction. By giving our citizens a means to choose the
> method to receive their emails.
> >>
>
> Cassius:
> In George Orwell's "1984", Citizens had to have their televisions (replete
> with governmental programming, and a monitoring camera) on 24 hours a day.
> The people could choose to set the volume high, or set the volume low if
they
> wanted to sleep or not pay full "conscious attention" to the TV, but they
had
> no option of turning it completely off. After all, the voice of government
> had to be able to reach everyone, and the government DID have to know what
> was going on. Why rely on voluntary participation (and all the inherant
> responsibilities of making such participation interesting and valuable)
when
> you can issue a law to make it mandatory?

Sulla: ROFLMAO, 1984! Please.....that is so cliche! So
melodramatic...Thank you for the entertainment....but Cassius, this isnt
that by any stretch of the imagination.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965360372/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Re: [Fwd: [CaliforniaNovaRoma] Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to the Provincia Mailing List]
From: "Les Peterson" <procopious@-------->
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 07:28:57 -0000
--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
wrote:


Salutatio!
I hope I'm not out of place posting to the list. This is my first day
on the list, and I'm not yet a citizen of Nova Roma ( I'd like to
find a home in a gens first, unless I have that backwards ) but I
couldn't help but respond to the current thread regarding the email
edict. I feel there is a much bigger issue at hand here. One which I
have pondered much the last several weeks as I've researched Nova
Roma. What are the goals of the nation?
Marcus Aurelius wrote in "To myself" ( meditations ) "Guard also
against another kind of error: the folly of those who weary thier
days in much business, but lack any aim on which thier whole effort,
nay, thier whole thought, is focused." What is the aim of the nation?
Our Roman ancestors were bold, strong, conquerers. Should we not
aspire to the same. If not with swords then with pens, or PCs, or
ideas, or dollars. If Nova Roma as a group chooses to expend the
energy to follow the admonition to focus thier whole thought on one
aim why not be a bold conquerer and aim for the secret desire of the
heart. Be bold enough to set dreams as goals. If every Nova Roman
dreamt of an actual geographic nation of Nova Roma what might happen?
When we dream alone it's just a dream, whe we dream together it's
reality.
But I digress. I'm not a melodramatic lunatic. I realize how far
fetched that goal sounds. I'm really only using it to make this
point. How can the group as a whole achieve mundane goals, let alone
dream goals, if the individual members are not committed to at least
the degree that they would be willing to follow simple instructions.
Like to get thier mail. Part of the appeal of Roman society for me is
the idea that it was hierarchical (sp?). A place for everyone and
everyone in thier place. Sure you could advance, you knew where you
were and hopefully where you wanted to go.
I apologize for the length of my ramble, humblest apologies if I've
caused any offense or commited any faux pas. Until I find a home in a
gens I'll simply sign off with my (prospective) cognomen.

Cum Observare
Procopious

P.S.
Please feel free to privately mail me
any corrections to this missive. Your
help would be greatly appreciated.
Procopious@--------


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7873/8/_/61050/_/965374145/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists
From: "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 10:24:13 +0100
Ave Luci Corneli

I got this OK first time.

Vado.

----- Original Message -----
From: L. Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 1:46 AM
Subject: Fw: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists


> This never appeared..so I am resending it. :)
>
> SF
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists
>
>
> > > Salvete omnes,
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree. I think it is a noble intention and effort to
> > > encourage communication among the cives of a given province. I
> > > personally believe that some might be put-off by the word "mandatory."
> > > We have it in our means to communicate by a plethora of
> > > methods, e-mail, chat software, etc. but person-t0-person is best.
> > > While we strive to encourage interaction, let us first reach out to
> > > others in our provincia and develop a rapport in order to familiarize
> > > ourselves with each other. THEN, perhaps we could "highly suggest"
> > > subscribing to a webmail list as a form of supplementing that
> > > interaction.
> > > As a cives from California, I must admit, I have yet to
> > > communicate in any way with others in my provincia. I am more than
> > > willing to post my ICQ and AOL IM usernames to any who is interested.
> > > The first steps in a relationship are always awkward, so let's take
> > > things slowly.
> > > In any case, I think it's a worthy attempt to encourage
> > > interaction. Let's just not scare anyone off with the wording
> > > ("mandatory").
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > Now this is interesting, maybe I can add an execption for IM programs.
I
> > agree that person to person is preferred also. I will have to think
about
> > this, and maybe include something about an execption if individuals have
> > Instant Messaging programs. As Censor I am trying to promote the use of
> > Instant Messaging programs. This might be another way of doing that as
> > well. The issue will be in the coordinating of meetings throughout the
> > provincia, email still is the easiest way of making announcements,
similar
> > to the one for Roman Days West. And, the August 12 meeting in
> Pasadena/San
> > Gabriel, CA.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Proconsul et Censor
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Click here for Back-To-School ideas that really make the grade!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7841/8/_/61050/_/965386136/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:26:55 +0100
EX DOMO PROPRAETORIS BRITANNIAE

Inquit L. Cornelius Provinciae Californiae Proconsul:

> Given the recent discussion about the Email subscription Edictum....I
understand the >concerns. But, there has been no input about the Legate
Edictum? Are there any >comments about that?

Respondeo: I feel I can do little better than offer the proposals adopted by
my worthy precursor in office Q. Claudia Lucentia Aprica. They do not have
the legal force of an Edictum, and I have modified them a little to meet the
changing demands of circumstance in Britannia, but the original text written
by Aprica is appended to the foot of this post.
At the time, Fl. Vedius Germanicus Dictator praised Aprica's proposals as
exemplary of how a provincia should be run.

Now I know California and Nevada are different in many ways from Britannia,
but these guidelines have worked well for Britannia (at least, no one has
complained or offered a better alternative!).

I have to say that Drusus Cornelius' proposals strike me as rather
unnecessarily inflexible and numerous: take, for example, the proposed
number of Legates, and their having to report formally to the Governor 26
times a year instead of Aprica's 2 times a year (I only require one formal
report a year, but it better be a good one - and so far, this has always
been the case).

Too many rules with the force of law can end up with you painting yourself
into a corner, and others with you, sometimes. No room for manoeuvre. It may
turn out not to be practicable to insist on a fixed number of Legates, much
as one might like to have them to assist one. True, one looks at natural and
demographic areas in a provincia, takes into account actual and projected
civic population, income and expenditure etc., then identifies a need for
certain Legati in certain defined Regiones - but one must ask: do I have the
people resident in each Regio who are able and willing to fill the positions
and do the work?

If not, you may find you're in a situation similar to that of Britannia,
where we have 5 Regiones but only 3 Legati. However, I am lucky to have two
very hardworking and conscientious Legati to assist me, and both volunteered
to take over an extra Regio each contiguous to their own Regiones.
Admittedly the fifth, Regio Britanniae Meridianalis, is run by a lazy bugger
Aprica appointed and who I haven't got around to firing yet. I might as well
do the job myself. ;-)

Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is, if you have a few high-quality
people, a prescriptively large number of Legates and reports isn't an
important issue after all.

The other thing I'd like to offer comment on here is the very sensible idea
of appointing someone to take over the Provincia in case something happens
to take the Governor out of service. But a Legate may not want all the extra
responsibility and work of a Governor; and again, which of several Legati is
to be the deputy Governor if the Governor isn't around to make a decision?

One way around the problem is to find someone with known ability and
willingness to take over as head of the provincial government, and make that
proactively a specific, different appointment. You can call that officer a
Procurator, for example, and s/he need not be a serving Legate, but is
someone who as Governor you keep well informed of everything you do.

In sum, I'd say: keep it simple, remember that guidelines are more flexible
than rules, and that simplicity and flexibility make for a more resilient
organisation, where complexity and rigidity can prove to be too brittle.

Hope this helps.

N. Moravius Vado

Propraetor Britanniae et Legatus suis ipsissimus Britanniae Meridianalis.

BEGINNING OF TRANSCRIPT:

1. Titles and areas of Regiones and their Legati:

The Provincia of Britannia shall be divided into five
subordinate areas, to be known as 'Regiones' (singular
= 'Regio'), or 'Regiones Britanniae'. Each Regio may
be put under the supervision of a magistrate, to be
known as a 'Legatus' or 'Legatus Britanniae' (plurals
= 'Legati' and 'Legati Britanniae'). The titles of
individual Regiones and the Legati responsible for
them, and the areas to be included in each Regio, are
as follows:

Britannia Caledonia (Legatus Britanniae Caledoniae)
Area = equivalent to modern Scotland, including all
outlying islands.
Current Nova Roman population = 0

Britannia Cymrica (Legatus Britanniae Cymricae)
Area = equivalent to modern Wales, including all
outlying islands.
Current Nova Roman population = 3 (Pub. Claudius
Lucentius Severus, Ap. Claudius Lucentius Nigellus and
Ap. Caledonia Aeliana).

Britannia Septentrionalis (Legatus Britanniae
Septentrionalis)
Area = defined by the Scottish border to the north,
the southern borders of the modern counties of
Cheshire, Derby, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire to
the south, and the coastlines between these two
borders to east and west, including all outlying
islands.
Current Nova Roman population = 2 (M. Mucius Scaevola
Magister and Aug. Iulia Caesaria Nocturnia)

Britannia Media (Legatus Britanniae Mediae)
Area = defined by the northern borders of the modern
counties of Shropshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire,
Cambridgeshire and Norfolk to the north, the southern
borders of the modern counties of Gloucestershire,
Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, greater London and Essex
to the south, the Welsh border to the west, and the
coastline between the northerly and southerly borders
to the east, including all outlying islands.
Current Nova Roman population = 5 (Q. Claudia
Lucentia Aprica, M. Claudius Lucentius Pavo, Cn.
Claudius Lucentius Corvinus, M. Valerius Britannicus
Secundus and G. Caselius Cantor)

Britannia Meridiana (Legatus Britanniae Meridianae)
Area = defined by the northern borders of the modern
counties of Avon, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Surrey and
Kent to the north, and circumscribed by the southern
coastline of Britain, including all outlying islands.
Current Nova Roman population = 4 (Fl. Claudius
Tertius Julianus, N. Moravius Vado, Ti. Claudius
Lucentius Vindex and Claudia Lucentia Sulicena).


2. Administrative infrastructure:

The Praetor Britanniae will ensure that all Legati
know at all times both each others' email addresses
and that of the Praetor, and will keep records of the
email addresses of all Legati. Telephone numbers and
postal addresses may also be exchanged between
individual magistrates by mutual agreement if deemed
appropriate.

The names of the Legati shall be displayed, with
their positions, on the Britannia web-page, with
hot-links to their email addresses, and prospective
citizens will be invited to contact the Legatus for
their Regio as a line of first enquiry. Separate pages
for each Regio will be added in due course, with
content to be determined jointly by the Praetor
Britanniae and the Legatus concerned. Legati are also
encouraged as an alternative to establish web-pages
for their Regiones themselves, which will then be
linked from the Britannia page.

Legati will be appointed as a result of
recommendation to the senate by the Praetor
Britanniae, and their positions will be reaffirmed
each year by the senate, as is the case for Praetores.
A vacant legateship may be held by any Nova Roman
citizen resident in the Regio to which it relates.
When a legateship becomes open, the Praetor shall
invite all citizens in the relevant Regio to put
themselves forward for office. Where more than one
citizen puts themselves forward for office, the choice
of Legatus shall be at the Praetor's discretion, to be
determined by any means deemed appropriate.


3. Duties and responsibilities of Legati Britanniae:

The Legati are asked to establish and maintain
personal contacts as far as is possible with the
citizens resident in the Regio for which they are
responsible. The Legati shall act as a point of first
contact and enquiry for interested prospective
citizens, and are asked to offer advice to such
prospective citizens to the best of their abilities,
concerning application for Nova Roman citizenship, and
any related fields. The Legati shall also act as a
point of contact for existing citizens, to whom they
are also asked to offer advice relating to any aspect
of Nova Roma to the best of their abilities.

The Legati are encouraged to correspond regularly
with the Praetor Britanniae, reporting new
developments or events in their Regiones, and asking
advice where necessary. To ensure a minimum degree of
communication, Legati are _required_ to present
reports on their Regiones to the Praetor on or near
the 1st April and 1st October. These reports must
outline, to the best of the Legatus' knowledge, the
current population of his or her Regio, the events
which have been held in connection with Nova Roma
during the past six months in his or her Regio, and
any further information which the Legatus may deem
useful or necessary.

Legati are encouraged to participate in further
activities to promote Nova Roma, such as, but not
restricted to, the distribution of Nova Roman flyers,
the hosting of social events or the securing of
advertising for Nova Roma.

The Legati Britanniae shall each have responsibility
for the day-to-day administration of the Regiones for
which they are responsible, but they shall remain at
all times subordinate to and answerable to the Praetor
Britanniae. If at any time the Praetor Britanniae has
cause to believe that an individual Legatus is failing
to fulfill his or her duties to a reasonable standard
or indulging in activities which are illegal under
British law, the Praetor should contact the Legatus to
warn him or her of the possible consequences of such
action, and ask for an improvement in standards. If no
response is made to such communication in the space of
a month, or the Legatus fails to satisfy the Praetor's
requirement over the same time-scale, the Praetor may
recommend to the Senate that the Legatus be dismissed,
and a new Legatus appointed in his or her place.

Should individual Legati consider it useful or
necessary in the future, they may recommend to the
Praetor Britanniae that magistrates to be known as
'Praefecti' (singular = 'Praefectus') should be
appointed to administer the Nova Roman populations of
individual towns or counties. The Legati may either
recommend suitable candidates for these offices from
amongst all citizens resident in the relevant town or
county, or may ask the Praetor to invite offers of
candidacy from amongst the same citizens. The
candidate chosen may then be recommended to the Senate
as a Praefectus by the Praetor Britanniae. Precise
rules and recommendations concerning the office of
Praefectus must be formulated by the Praetor
Britanniae at some time before the first Praefectus
shall be appointed.

:END OF TRANSCRIPT




--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/8/_/61050/_/965386139/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] email list fuss
From: wicachu@--------
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:51:03 EDT
Hmmmm.. it seems that yet again we have a controversy sparked by two
conflicting goals. Public good and private rights, a pair that have been at
each others throats for millennia. Censor Sulla has required citizens in
California to be on the province email list, in the idea ( do correct me if
I'm wrong) that if one is to be a citizen, one should be -at least- willing
to be informed about the doings of your area, as a minimum.
This is being seen as a dire threat to personal privacy and choice, an
overstepping of bounds regarding power in Nova Roma. Well... let's think on
this.
In American voting, the voter has the responsibility to know enough
about the candidates and issues to make a decision and then make it. If the
voter doesn't do so, and his candidate isn't elected.. and the new governemnt
makes decisions that he doesn't agree with... whose fault is it? The citizen
was given a chance, and didn't take it. Govenment or citizen? What is the
MTV slogan..? Choose or Lose? The government is based off of the idea that
EVERYONE -will- vote.. will be foaming at the MOUTH to vote.. and would kill
to keep that right. But do we as a whole?
If a government is of, for and by the people... are you still a citizen if
you don't participate? If you arent part of the goverment, then the
government has no part of you. Or does it? Can one then complain about a "
tax and spend" president if one didn't vote?
So the punishment for being a bench sitter is a loss of say in everything.
Loss of opportunities, loss of friendships, loss of the right to be heard.
So what does this have to do with the California list?
Hard to vote if you don't even know there is an election. Hard to have lunch
with other nova romans if you don't know where to meet them. Sulla seems to
be hoping that making it mandatory will increase the participation level,
thereby making the goverment and social aspects of the Province better, more
cohesive and complete. Will it?
I may be old jaded and cynical... ok ... I am... I tend to believe that
as long as there is a delete button on someones inbox, there ain't no such
thing as mandatory. If email isnt wanted, it gets deleted sight unseen. What
I think ( personally) is that the ones that WANT to participate, WILL. The
ones that WANT to communicate, WILL. The rest will ignore you anyway. It's
the old adage about the horse and the water.
So what to do? I am not sure that making it mandatory does a bit of good
in the long run. If that wont work, what will? What if we concentrate on the
citizens that DO stay in touch? What if they are rewarded? We can look at
branching out, finding new ways and means of communicating. Buuuut.. only
the ones that want to communicate are ever going to use them. Sad fact
there methinks. So what to do about the bench sitters? Well, they can be
ignored and left there like statues , they can be courted and coaxed to get
of the bench, or the bench can be removed and taken elsewhere. If it is a
problem, a thorn in the side, then maybe it might be handled via the gens
mamma and daddies. Tell them who is and isnt with the program, and allow them
to deal with it or not as they see fit? I don't know really. Just tossing
out ideas.
Just some thoughts from a cranky ol' lady ...

Iona Sententiosa Britaega




--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
Click Here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/5480/8/_/61050/_/965393470/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] email list fuss
From: jmath669642reng@--------
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:52:36 -0400 (EDT)
Salve, Iona Braetega;

I am impressed with your approach to this discusson of mandatory listing
of citizens to a organ of communication.

In my view there is another force at work here, which seems to indicate
a varying amount of available time and desire to spend on the
advancement of Nova Roma.

Many Nova Romans including myself have additional commitments which must
be dealt with in the world outside Nova Roma, and there are those who do
not seem to have as many of those commitments. The problem arises when
the latter trys to change the former, for whatever reason.

Censor Sulla has asked for a discussion of his Edictum, and he has
pinpointed Praetors as his preferred responders which seems to me a
sensible designation. So far he has recieved some pretty fair arguments
against his edict, and he chooses to defend his position, which to me
sounds as though he is trying to convince himself of the worth of his
own Edict.

As I have said in the past, I personnally feel that relying on many
Edicts for a position of governing is risky because peope get nervous
about it. In this case, which is a Provincial matter, he has asked for
comment and gotten it. In my view, why not take the information
offered, thank everyone for thier trouble, and consider the offerings at
my liesure and then make a decision, that is his to make in the first
place. I fear that his responses to an honored Senator, and Pro-Consul
come close to the mark of being insulting, and I am more positive that
his arguments will not change the views of his responders in the
slightest.

I have not entered the lists in this area, because I am not a Praetor,
and because my feelings in regard to Censor Sulla's Edict and his
placing people on any "list" without thier permission is against
everything I believe in, which he well knows from previous discussions,
and I believe as Senator Cassius has indicated this act is in violation
of EGroups Policy, although I am not absolutely positive about that
point.

I do not mean to take up your time in mundane ideas madame, as my
original intention was to offer you a sadly delayed welcome to Nova
Roma. and to tell you that your posts, are always a pleasure to read. I
hope that you will find, for the most part, that the people of Nova Roma
are warm, friendly and agreeable citizens, who are aware, and generally
very helpful or so I have found them, except perhaps when one seeks to
impose upon thier self-viewed rights and dignity.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to talk with you and I wish
you many days of happiness among us and the blossoming of new
friendships.

Vale, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
BTW: Did you buy that new car yet?
If not, check this site out.
They're called CarsDirect.com and it's a pretty sweet way to buy a car.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6847/8/_/61050/_/965397162/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: jmath669642reng@--------
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
Salvete, Citizens;

I do not recall a Legate Edictum. Perhaps someone would be kind enough
to copy me again on that document.

Valete, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
Click Here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/5480/8/_/61050/_/965397374/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription
From: DTibbe2926@--------
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:11:12 EDT
Ex Domo Procuratoris Britanniae

This is a statement. I offer no alternative ideas or solutions.

I do think the need for mandatory subscription to ANY list is not required.
All it'll do is unnecessarily antagonise a section of NR. I don't see how
having everyone on the list will increase participation in society. People
who are interested will take the time to subscribe and take part. In any
nation there are citizens that take no interest in that nation unless it's
something really important like a cricket match against the Australians. Are
those citizens any less welcome? If anything, the current antipathy of our
citizenry to NR's political institutions, mailing lists, etc shows that Nova
Roma is very much akin to many a nation state!

Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
Procurator Britanniae

--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere!
Conference in the whole family on the same call.
Let the fights begin! Visit Firetalk.com - Click below.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5476/8/_/61050/_/965405479/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to... II
From: "Razenna " <razenna@-------->
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:54:26 -0000
I am snipping this down to the part that has prompted me to speak up:


Sulla Wrote:


Sulla: Second....I did present this as an agenda to the
Seante....as
something I planned to do. You made no comment at all
about it. Ericius
did..and him and I worked that part out..which I
included.


C. Aelius Ericius:
In a manner that will be recognized by those who have noted his
style,
Sulla has "shaped" our exchange to make himself look Good. His first
thought was to require everyone to be at least digest. I told him
that
I chose my own forms of subscription and No Mail suited well for that
present. I told him, in the polite wording that we attempt to
communicate in, to bug off. Perhaps I should have spoken plainly as
well as honestly. I will draft a longer contribution on this matter
when I am at home. (My break is fast drawing to a close.) By the
way:
I think the other edict Sulla is trying to foist on we Californians
also sucks. Simply not as blatantly as this Big Brother one. Just
like the edict that he put out with the infamous gender one was also
ripe, but over shadowed by its industrial strength partner.

With respect to Roma and Nova Roma,
C. Aelius Ericius.
(who is a)
Augur. Pontifex. Senator.
Paterfamilias of gens Aelia.
Retired Propraetor of California and Nevada.




--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no annual fee!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7874/8/_/61050/_/965415275/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] ATTN: Antonius Gryllus Graecus absentus est
From: "Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 19:54:50 +0100
Antonius Gryllus Graecus Populo Romano S.P.D.

I inform you that I shall be away from tomorrow until the August 20s. I will
nevertheless be able to read email in the next few days.

Valete



--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere!
Visit Firetalk.com - click below.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5479/8/_/61050/_/965415693/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to... II
From: <gmvick32@-------->
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 13:51:15 -0600
Salvete Omnes:

Marcus Cassius Julianus writes:
>>I hate to tell you this, but if someone doesn't voluntarily subscribe, and
>>you subscribe them anyway, (even if you put them on digest/no mail) Egroups
>>will summarily delete your group at the first hint of a complaint.
>>Subscribing people to a list without their consent is in essence spamming...
>>and it's dealt with harshly.

The Senator actually brings up a very good point here, in that macronations and
internet companies take issues of right to privacy in forms of electronic
communication very seriously. The Senator's point totally INVALIDATES my own
proposal to automatically sign people up and let them chose to subscribe or
unscribe themselves. That would, technically, be spamming and would indeed
threaten the entire list's status with E-Groups (or rightly should). Therefore,
I have to revoke my suggestion around that point and urge Sulla not to go down
that sticky path.

I'm usually a little more forward thinking about consequences, but I slipped.
Pater, we have talked long about this of late, and again I urge you to reconsider
this edict, and instead work proactively to make the forms of communication as
robust and interesting as possible.

And please.....to a few people, let's try to keep our comments to each other
constructive and about the topic, NOT an jab at another person. That does
nothing to sell the value of a list to Nova Romans. We would be wise to do this
in private conversation as well as public.

L Cornelia Aurelia

>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Apply NOW!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Enjoy a half minute of relaxation
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7876/8/_/61050/_/965417671/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: "Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:08:01 -0500
4 Aug 2000

Salve Consul

If some has not already sent you this here it is.

Vale

QS


> Legate Edict:
>
> The purpose of this edict is to set guidlines for the appointment of
> Legates
> in the Nova Roman province of California and Nevada. This edict will
> also
> set requirements limits on the appointment of Legates to prevent the
> practice
> of nepotism.
>
> Section 1: Privileges and responsibilities of Legates in California
>
> -- A Legate in the province of California and Nevada is given the
> authority
> to create, distribute, and enact means for the advertisement and
> recruitment
> of new citizens for Nova Roma (such as flyers) after gaining approval of
> the
> provincial governor under which he/she serves.
>
> -- A Legate in the province of California and Nevada is given the
> authority
> to speak for the governor should the governor loose access to his/her
> normal
> means of communication with Nova Roma.
>
> -- A Legate in the province of California and Nevada is given the
> authority
> to organize meetings and gatherings of citizens of the province.
>
> -- A Legate in the province of California and Nevada is responsible for
>
> whatever duties assigned to him/her by the governor within boundary of
> Nova
> Roman law.
>
> -- All Legates must maintain communication with the Governor. In the
> beginning an email every two (2) weeks giving the Proconsul an update
> should be sufficient.
>
> Section 2: Limits on the appointment of Legates in California
>
> -- The provincial governor of the province of California and Nevada may
>
> appoint as many as five Legates to serve the various purposes in which
> he/she
> needs assistance.
>
> -- The province of California and Nevada must have at least four (4)
> Legates
> for the following reasons:
> 1. A Legate must be appointed for the upkeep of the provincial
> website
> 2. A Legate must be appointed from Northern California
> 3. A Legate must be appointed from Southern California
> 4. A Legate must be appointed from Nevada
>
> -- No more than two (2) of the Legates appointed by the governor may be
>
> members of that governor's gens.
>
> -- The governor must, upon appointing a Legate, define publicly the
> duties
> which that Legate is responsible for. The governor may declare the
> purpose
> of the Legate simply as: "To assist me in the various duties of
> governance."
>
> This Edicta will now be up for dicussion amongst us for 7 days.
> Beginning Aug 2nd. Without any changes, it will become formalized on
> Aug. 9th. I would personally like to thank my Legate Drusus Cornelius
> Claudius for his assistance in helping me draft this Edictum.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Proconsul





----- Original Message -----
From: <jmath669642reng@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?


> Salvete, Citizens;
>
> I do not recall a Legate Edictum. Perhaps someone would be kind enough
> to copy me again on that document.
>
> Valete, Respectfully;
> Marcus Audens
>
> Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/8014/8/_/61050/_/965420209/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: duplicate email
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:24:11 -0700
Thanks... :) It took 2 hours to get back to me...LOL thanks. :) Oh
well...gotta love Earthlink. ;)

SF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists


> Ave Luci Corneli
>
> I got this OK first time.
>
> Vado.



--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere!
Visit Firetalk.com - click below.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5479/8/_/61050/_/965427882/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:25:49 -0700
Thank you for this, I will definately review this and will try to
incorporate it. I am sure both Edicta's will be revised. As a matter of
fact, I am sure both will be revised based upon the input I have received.
:) Thank you very much.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Proconsul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?


> EX DOMO PROPRAETORIS BRITANNIAE
>
> Inquit L. Cornelius Provinciae Californiae Proconsul:
>
> > Given the recent discussion about the Email subscription Edictum....I
> understand the >concerns. But, there has been no input about the Legate
> Edictum? Are there any >comments about that?
>
> Respondeo: I feel I can do little better than offer the proposals adopted
by
> my worthy precursor in office Q. Claudia Lucentia Aprica. They do not have
> the legal force of an Edictum, and I have modified them a little to meet
the
> changing demands of circumstance in Britannia, but the original text
written
> by Aprica is appended to the foot of this post.
> At the time, Fl. Vedius Germanicus Dictator praised Aprica's proposals as
> exemplary of how a provincia should be run.
>
> Now I know California and Nevada are different in many ways from
Britannia,
> but these guidelines have worked well for Britannia (at least, no one has
> complained or offered a better alternative!).
>
> I have to say that Drusus Cornelius' proposals strike me as rather
> unnecessarily inflexible and numerous: take, for example, the proposed
> number of Legates, and their having to report formally to the Governor 26
> times a year instead of Aprica's 2 times a year (I only require one formal
> report a year, but it better be a good one - and so far, this has always
> been the case).
>
> Too many rules with the force of law can end up with you painting yourself
> into a corner, and others with you, sometimes. No room for manoeuvre. It
may
> turn out not to be practicable to insist on a fixed number of Legates,
much
> as one might like to have them to assist one. True, one looks at natural
and
> demographic areas in a provincia, takes into account actual and projected
> civic population, income and expenditure etc., then identifies a need for
> certain Legati in certain defined Regiones - but one must ask: do I have
the
> people resident in each Regio who are able and willing to fill the
positions
> and do the work?
>
> If not, you may find you're in a situation similar to that of Britannia,
> where we have 5 Regiones but only 3 Legati. However, I am lucky to have
two
> very hardworking and conscientious Legati to assist me, and both
volunteered
> to take over an extra Regio each contiguous to their own Regiones.
> Admittedly the fifth, Regio Britanniae Meridianalis, is run by a lazy
bugger
> Aprica appointed and who I haven't got around to firing yet. I might as
well
> do the job myself. ;-)
>
> Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is, if you have a few high-quality
> people, a prescriptively large number of Legates and reports isn't an
> important issue after all.
>
> The other thing I'd like to offer comment on here is the very sensible
idea
> of appointing someone to take over the Provincia in case something happens
> to take the Governor out of service. But a Legate may not want all the
extra
> responsibility and work of a Governor; and again, which of several Legati
is
> to be the deputy Governor if the Governor isn't around to make a decision?
>
> One way around the problem is to find someone with known ability and
> willingness to take over as head of the provincial government, and make
that
> proactively a specific, different appointment. You can call that officer a
> Procurator, for example, and s/he need not be a serving Legate, but is
> someone who as Governor you keep well informed of everything you do.
>
> In sum, I'd say: keep it simple, remember that guidelines are more
flexible
> than rules, and that simplicity and flexibility make for a more resilient
> organisation, where complexity and rigidity can prove to be too brittle.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> N. Moravius Vado
>
> Propraetor Britanniae et Legatus suis ipsissimus Britanniae Meridianalis.
>
> BEGINNING OF TRANSCRIPT:
>
> 1. Titles and areas of Regiones and their Legati:
>
> The Provincia of Britannia shall be divided into five
> subordinate areas, to be known as 'Regiones' (singular
> = 'Regio'), or 'Regiones Britanniae'. Each Regio may
> be put under the supervision of a magistrate, to be
> known as a 'Legatus' or 'Legatus Britanniae' (plurals
> = 'Legati' and 'Legati Britanniae'). The titles of
> individual Regiones and the Legati responsible for
> them, and the areas to be included in each Regio, are
> as follows:
>
> Britannia Caledonia (Legatus Britanniae Caledoniae)
> Area = equivalent to modern Scotland, including all
> outlying islands.
> Current Nova Roman population = 0
>
> Britannia Cymrica (Legatus Britanniae Cymricae)
> Area = equivalent to modern Wales, including all
> outlying islands.
> Current Nova Roman population = 3 (Pub. Claudius
> Lucentius Severus, Ap. Claudius Lucentius Nigellus and
> Ap. Caledonia Aeliana).
>
> Britannia Septentrionalis (Legatus Britanniae
> Septentrionalis)
> Area = defined by the Scottish border to the north,
> the southern borders of the modern counties of
> Cheshire, Derby, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire to
> the south, and the coastlines between these two
> borders to east and west, including all outlying
> islands.
> Current Nova Roman population = 2 (M. Mucius Scaevola
> Magister and Aug. Iulia Caesaria Nocturnia)
>
> Britannia Media (Legatus Britanniae Mediae)
> Area = defined by the northern borders of the modern
> counties of Shropshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire,
> Cambridgeshire and Norfolk to the north, the southern
> borders of the modern counties of Gloucestershire,
> Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, greater London and Essex
> to the south, the Welsh border to the west, and the
> coastline between the northerly and southerly borders
> to the east, including all outlying islands.
> Current Nova Roman population = 5 (Q. Claudia
> Lucentia Aprica, M. Claudius Lucentius Pavo, Cn.
> Claudius Lucentius Corvinus, M. Valerius Britannicus
> Secundus and G. Caselius Cantor)
>
> Britannia Meridiana (Legatus Britanniae Meridianae)
> Area = defined by the northern borders of the modern
> counties of Avon, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Surrey and
> Kent to the north, and circumscribed by the southern
> coastline of Britain, including all outlying islands.
> Current Nova Roman population = 4 (Fl. Claudius
> Tertius Julianus, N. Moravius Vado, Ti. Claudius
> Lucentius Vindex and Claudia Lucentia Sulicena).
>
>
> 2. Administrative infrastructure:
>
> The Praetor Britanniae will ensure that all Legati
> know at all times both each others' email addresses
> and that of the Praetor, and will keep records of the
> email addresses of all Legati. Telephone numbers and
> postal addresses may also be exchanged between
> individual magistrates by mutual agreement if deemed
> appropriate.
>
> The names of the Legati shall be displayed, with
> their positions, on the Britannia web-page, with
> hot-links to their email addresses, and prospective
> citizens will be invited to contact the Legatus for
> their Regio as a line of first enquiry. Separate pages
> for each Regio will be added in due course, with
> content to be determined jointly by the Praetor
> Britanniae and the Legatus concerned. Legati are also
> encouraged as an alternative to establish web-pages
> for their Regiones themselves, which will then be
> linked from the Britannia page.
>
> Legati will be appointed as a result of
> recommendation to the senate by the Praetor
> Britanniae, and their positions will be reaffirmed
> each year by the senate, as is the case for Praetores.
> A vacant legateship may be held by any Nova Roman
> citizen resident in the Regio to which it relates.
> When a legateship becomes open, the Praetor shall
> invite all citizens in the relevant Regio to put
> themselves forward for office. Where more than one
> citizen puts themselves forward for office, the choice
> of Legatus shall be at the Praetor's discretion, to be
> determined by any means deemed appropriate.
>
>
> 3. Duties and responsibilities of Legati Britanniae:
>
> The Legati are asked to establish and maintain
> personal contacts as far as is possible with the
> citizens resident in the Regio for which they are
> responsible. The Legati shall act as a point of first
> contact and enquiry for interested prospective
> citizens, and are asked to offer advice to such
> prospective citizens to the best of their abilities,
> concerning application for Nova Roman citizenship, and
> any related fields. The Legati shall also act as a
> point of contact for existing citizens, to whom they
> are also asked to offer advice relating to any aspect
> of Nova Roma to the best of their abilities.
>
> The Legati are encouraged to correspond regularly
> with the Praetor Britanniae, reporting new
> developments or events in their Regiones, and asking
> advice where necessary. To ensure a minimum degree of
> communication, Legati are _required_ to present
> reports on their Regiones to the Praetor on or near
> the 1st April and 1st October. These reports must
> outline, to the best of the Legatus' knowledge, the
> current population of his or her Regio, the events
> which have been held in connection with Nova Roma
> during the past six months in his or her Regio, and
> any further information which the Legatus may deem
> useful or necessary.
>
> Legati are encouraged to participate in further
> activities to promote Nova Roma, such as, but not
> restricted to, the distribution of Nova Roman flyers,
> the hosting of social events or the securing of
> advertising for Nova Roma.
>
> The Legati Britanniae shall each have responsibility
> for the day-to-day administration of the Regiones for
> which they are responsible, but they shall remain at
> all times subordinate to and answerable to the Praetor
> Britanniae. If at any time the Praetor Britanniae has
> cause to believe that an individual Legatus is failing
> to fulfill his or her duties to a reasonable standard
> or indulging in activities which are illegal under
> British law, the Praetor should contact the Legatus to
> warn him or her of the possible consequences of such
> action, and ask for an improvement in standards. If no
> response is made to such communication in the space of
> a month, or the Legatus fails to satisfy the Praetor's
> requirement over the same time-scale, the Praetor may
> recommend to the Senate that the Legatus be dismissed,
> and a new Legatus appointed in his or her place.
>
> Should individual Legati consider it useful or
> necessary in the future, they may recommend to the
> Praetor Britanniae that magistrates to be known as
> 'Praefecti' (singular = 'Praefectus') should be
> appointed to administer the Nova Roman populations of
> individual towns or counties. The Legati may either
> recommend suitable candidates for these offices from
> amongst all citizens resident in the relevant town or
> county, or may ask the Praetor to invite offers of
> candidacy from amongst the same citizens. The
> candidate chosen may then be recommended to the Senate
> as a Praefectus by the Praetor Britanniae. Precise
> rules and recommendations concerning the office of
> Praefectus must be formulated by the Praetor
> Britanniae at some time before the first Praefectus
> shall be appointed.
>
> :END OF TRANSCRIPT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7873/8/_/61050/_/965427967/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists
From: "pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 22:29:37 -0000

> When a new member is accepted into Nova Roma, have the censor
> automatically sign them up to the Nova Roma list and a
provincial
> list, if there is one for that citizen. Then, have the
introductory
> message specifically state that participation in the list is
OPTIONAL,
> and give the citizen instructions on how to either configure
how they
> want to receive the email, or to unsubscribe altogether.
Also, give
> them instructions on how to go to egroups and find other lists
that
> might be of interest. This would be somewhat akin to having
the local
> welcome wagon show up on their doorstep, but they could still
choose
> not to accept visitors.

Excellent idea, Aurelia! I recommend that this be brought to the
Consuls for consideration by the Senate.

Patricia Cassia
oh, I suppose I ought to list the titles:
Quaestrix, Senatrix et Curatrix Sermonem



--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965428185/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Improving quality of communication channels.
From: "pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 22:34:15 -0000
--- In novaroma@--------, StarWreck@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/3/00 9:37:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> al--------us@-------- writ--------/font>
>
> << > improving the quality of the communication channels. That's
all I can
> say.
>
> Sulla: Ok, how? I am open for suggestions. :) >>

I don't think technology is what was meant here. My professional
specialty is online content, and my experience is that participants
in
a channel (an e-mail list, newsgroup, in-person gathering, chat room)
are more likely to want to stay when communication is clear,
informative, supportive and encouraging.

Behavior that gets in the way of such communication - such as posting
something for feedback and then reacting defensively when you get it,
or posting more than, say, three times in a 24-hour period -
decreases
the value of the channel.

Patricia Cassia



--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Missing old school friends? Find them here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/8015/8/_/61050/_/965428459/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Edictum of Subscription on Email lists - Null and Void
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:37:40 -0700
Ave,

Given the responses I have given, and the fact that I am totally open for comments and have gotten them. I remove the proposed Edictum for consideration. It will not be adopted for the California Province. I am still very interested in hearing alternative ways of trying to promote communication.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Proconsul


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965428660/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists
From: <gmvick32@-------->
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:14:55 -0600
Oh no!! There is support for my suggestion, and I pondered on it and decided
it wouldn't work! We have to love the group process....:)

What I would recommend is if enough Senators think the idea is indeed worth
considering, that we contact Egroups and make sure they are ok with the
idea!! If we can get them to state that they are ok with it (esp. in email),
then we could proceed with it.

I still like the idea myself. I just didn't want to open us to the
liability of spamming charges.

In service,
L Cornelia Aurelia



"pjane@--------" wrote:

> > When a new member is accepted into Nova Roma, have the censor
> > automatically sign them up to the Nova Roma list and a
> provincial
> > list, if there is one for that citizen. Then, have the
> introductory
> > message specifically state that participation in the list is
> OPTIONAL,
> > and give the citizen instructions on how to either configure
> how they
> > want to receive the email, or to unsubscribe altogether.
> Also, give
> > them instructions on how to go to egroups and find other lists
> that
> > might be of interest. This would be somewhat akin to having
> the local
> > welcome wagon show up on their doorstep, but they could still
> choose
> > not to accept visitors.
>
> Excellent idea, Aurelia! I recommend that this be brought to the
> Consuls for consideration by the Senate.
>
> Patricia Cassia
> oh, I suppose I ought to list the titles:
> Quaestrix, Senatrix et Curatrix Sermonem
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/8012/8/_/61050/_/965429898/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: <gmvick32@-------->
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:16:53 -0600
Salvete Omnes

An open statement to L Cornelius Sulla:

Pater, I have reviewed the Legate Edict and I, personally find nothing in it
to take issue with. If I were in your Provincia, I would find this a
completely acceptable edict.

L Cornelia Aurelia


> > Legate Edict:
> >
> > The purpose of this edict is to set guidlines for the appointment of
> > Legates
> > in the Nova Roman province of California and Nevada. This edict will
> > also
> > set requirements limits on the appointment of Legates to prevent the
> > practice
> > of nepotism.
> >
> > Section 1: Privileges and responsibilities of Legates in California
> >
> > -- A Legate in the province of California and Nevada is given the
> > authority
> > to create, distribute, and enact means for the advertisement and
> > recruitment
> > of new citizens for Nova Roma (such as flyers) after gaining approval of
> > the
> > provincial governor under which he/she serves.
> >
> > -- A Legate in the province of California and Nevada is given the
> > authority
> > to speak for the governor should the governor loose access to his/her
> > normal
> > means of communication with Nova Roma.
> >
> > -- A Legate in the province of California and Nevada is given the
> > authority
> > to organize meetings and gatherings of citizens of the province.
> >
> > -- A Legate in the province of California and Nevada is responsible for
> >
> > whatever duties assigned to him/her by the governor within boundary of
> > Nova
> > Roman law.
> >
> > -- All Legates must maintain communication with the Governor. In the
> > beginning an email every two (2) weeks giving the Proconsul an update
> > should be sufficient.
> >
> > Section 2: Limits on the appointment of Legates in California
> >
> > -- The provincial governor of the province of California and Nevada may
> >
> > appoint as many as five Legates to serve the various purposes in which
> > he/she
> > needs assistance.
> >
> > -- The province of California and Nevada must have at least four (4)
> > Legates
> > for the following reasons:
> > 1. A Legate must be appointed for the upkeep of the provincial
> > website
> > 2. A Legate must be appointed from Northern California
> > 3. A Legate must be appointed from Southern California
> > 4. A Legate must be appointed from Nevada
> >
> > -- No more than two (2) of the Legates appointed by the governor may be
> >
> > members of that governor's gens.
> >
> > -- The governor must, upon appointing a Legate, define publicly the
> > duties
> > which that Legate is responsible for. The governor may declare the
> > purpose
> > of the Legate simply as: "To assist me in the various duties of
> > governance."
> >
> > This Edicta will now be up for dicussion amongst us for 7 days.
> > Beginning Aug 2nd. Without any changes, it will become formalized on
> > Aug. 9th. I would personally like to thank my Legate Drusus Cornelius
> > Claudius for his assistance in helping me draft this Edictum.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Proconsul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jmath669642reng@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 8:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
>
> > Salvete, Citizens;
> >
> > I do not recall a Legate Edictum. Perhaps someone would be kind enough
> > to copy me again on that document.
> >
> > Valete, Respectfully;
> > Marcus Audens
> >
> > Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
> >
> >
> > http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive
chemistry experiments.
http://click.egroups.com/1/8013/8/_/61050/_/965430023/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to...
From: cassius622@--------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:15:23 EDT
In a message dated 8/3/00 12:20:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Propraetor
Lucius Cornelius Sulla (alexious@--------) writes:

<< I have published an Edictum as Proconsul of California to the
CaliforniaNovaRoma email list. I have felt it would be wise to get comments
from the remainder of this great Micronation. Please feel free to debate on
this topic, I would be very interested to hear comments. Espically from
other governors. :)
>>

Salvete,

I feel it is a wonderful thing to try and promote communication within each
of the Provinciae. However, I am afraid I strongly disagree with declaring
this to be law in an Edictum... especially as it has apparently been done
without consulting the Senate.

Firstly, what happens if a Citizen residing in the Provincia of California
does not want to be a member of your Provincia list? Have you been invested
with the power to remove them from Citizenship? No.

Secondly, why should a person be *forced* to communicate constantly? Some
people have hectic schedules, to the point where being continually plugged in
can be a real distraction and irritant. This strikes me somewhat in the same
vein as George Orwell's "1984", where Citizens were forced by law to have the
television on 24 hours a day. Nova Roma is not the Thought Police.

Also, what happens if a person goes offline? People's computers go down all
the time. One of the members of Gens Cornelia, Marcus Cornelius Felix, has
been without Internet connection for two months now due to a motherboard
failure. He is unable to be subscribed to your "mandatory" Gens Cornelia
list, or your new "mandatory" Provincia list. Is this member of the Collegium
Pontificum now not a Citizen? If so, I probably ought to be informed about it
as I am the Pontifex Maximus.

I must also ask, what happens if a Citizen doesn't have a computer at all?
Nova Roma Citizens DO hand out flyers at live events when it is possible, and
we do have some Citizens without computer access. They have no way to receive
your Edict, and no way to comply if they do hear about it.

In addition, are Citizens required by law to be subscribed to the main list?
No. And it's a good thing too, since the main list (and all such lists) can
be difficult places. Many Citizens take vacations from having to deal with
everyone, in order to cool down and regain some focus.

And finally, can such an Edict force a person to communicate? No. I
personally would find such an edict to be an incredible invasion of privacy
and freedom of choice. If for some reason I did decide to surrender my choice
and obey this edict, could you force me to participate? Suppose I decided to
summarily delete selected postings, say anything coming from the Provincial
Praetor? Or ALL postings? Will this circumstance be followed by other edicta,
such as "All Postings From The Provincial Praetor Must Be Read and Responded
to Within One Week Under The Penalty Of Loss Of Citizenship?" You'd need
another edict right after... "Citizens Making Mandatory Replies To The
Provincial Praetor Shall Not Be Allowed To Be Rude Or Make Fun Of My Tendency
To Micromanage, Under Penalty Of Loss Of Citizenship."

It's always better to encourage people than to make demands, especially with
little and inconsequential things. If you want participation in your
Provincia List, post good information, things that they want to know and that
inspire them to discussion, research and participation. Let people know that
good conversation is going on, and keep selling them on the fact that all
local event information will be posted there, etc. You catch more flies with
honey than with vinegar.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator
Proconsul, Nova Britannia Provincia




--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6628/8/_/61050/_/965348129/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to...
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:25:23 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: <cassius622@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:15 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Edictum: Mandatory Subscription to...


> In a message dated 8/3/00 12:20:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Propraetor
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla (alexious@--------) writes:
>
> << I have published an Edictum as Proconsul of California to the
> CaliforniaNovaRoma email list. I have felt it would be wise to get
comments
> from the remainder of this great Micronation. Please feel free to debate
on
> this topic, I would be very interested to hear comments. Espically from
> other governors. :)
> >>
>
> Salvete,
>
> I feel it is a wonderful thing to try and promote communication within
each
> of the Provinciae. However, I am afraid I strongly disagree with declaring
> this to be law in an Edictum... especially as it has apparently been done
> without consulting the Senate.

Why, if I wasnt in the Senate....I wouldnt get any input from the Senators?
How would I, be able to participate? But for the sake of arguement, I did
as a matter of fact post this to the Senate when I was appointed as
Proconsul. Would you like me to repost that to you privately? Or you can
check the archieve in the Senate. :)

> Firstly, what happens if a Citizen residing in the Provincia of California
> does not want to be a member of your Provincia list? Have you been
invested
> with the power to remove them from Citizenship? No.

No I never said in my Edictum I would remove citizenship Cassius, please
dont read into the Edictum. :)

> Secondly, why should a person be *forced* to communicate constantly? Some
> people have hectic schedules, to the point where being continually plugged
in
> can be a real distraction and irritant. This strikes me somewhat in the
same
> vein as George Orwell's "1984", where Citizens were forced by law to have
the
> television on 24 hours a day. Nova Roma is not the Thought Police.

Who is being forced to communicate? No Mail implies that they dont want to
get any email. We are not a Totalitarian Society, but we do need to foster
increased communication between our citizens and magistrates. By giving our
citizens a choice on HOW they want to receive email, I think your
Totalitiarian argument is diminished.

> Also, what happens if a person goes offline? People's computers go down
all
> the time. One of the members of Gens Cornelia, Marcus Cornelius Felix, has
> been without Internet connection for two months now due to a motherboard
> failure. He is unable to be subscribed to your "mandatory" Gens Cornelia
> list, or your new "mandatory" Provincia list. Is this member of the
Collegium
> Pontificum now not a Citizen? If so, I probably ought to be informed about
it
> as I am the Pontifex Maximus.

Easy, NO MAIL. That is how Marcus Cornelius Felix is listed on my
list...the Gens Cornelia List. :)

> I must also ask, what happens if a Citizen doesn't have a computer at
all?
> Nova Roma Citizens DO hand out flyers at live events when it is possible,
and
> we do have some Citizens without computer access. They have no way to
receive
> your Edict, and no way to comply if they do hear about it.

As I stated to P. Cassia, no computer means no email..therefore they cannot
be on the List! LOL That means they arent bound by the Edictum. However,
as a Governor, I can request from the Censor (myself) a list of citizens and
email addresses, just as you have done. :) And from those I can work with.
:)

> In addition, are Citizens required by law to be subscribed to the main
list?
> No. And it's a good thing too, since the main list (and all such lists)
can
> be difficult places. Many Citizens take vacations from having to deal with
> everyone, in order to cool down and regain some focus.

My Edictum has no bearing on the main list. However, I too, think that
needs revision...in my personal opinion.

> And finally, can such an Edict force a person to communicate? No. I
> personally would find such an edict to be an incredible invasion of
privacy
> and freedom of choice. If for some reason I did decide to surrender my
choice
> and obey this edict, could you force me to participate? Suppose I decided
to
> summarily delete selected postings, say anything coming from the
Provincial
> Praetor? Or ALL postings? Will this circumstance be followed by other
edicta,
> such as "All Postings From The Provincial Praetor Must Be Read and
Responded
> to Within One Week Under The Penalty Of Loss Of Citizenship?" You'd need
> another edict right after... "Citizens Making Mandatory Replies To The
> Provincial Praetor Shall Not Be Allowed To Be Rude Or Make Fun Of My
Tendency
> To Micromanage, Under Penalty Of Loss Of Citizenship."

Again, there is no forced communication. Where is the invasion of
privacy....you can select how you want to receive email....digest,
individual email or no mail....Cassius..your what if is hilarious I love
it....but its totally unrealistic with the goals of the Edictum.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!
4. Start making on-line purchases instantly!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7875/8/_/61050/_/965348725/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists
From: "Gaius Metellus Valentinus" <websurfer07@-------->
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:28:53 -0000
--- In novaroma@--------, "pjane@j... " <pjane@j...> wrote:
> Like others, I am a bit perplexed by the idea of making a provincial
> e-
> mail list mandatory.
>
> While many members of California Provincia may consider this a
> valuable
> way of keeping in touch, there may be some who prefer to participate
> in
> Nova Roma on a national level, or who are interested in remaining
> Citizens but do not have e-mail access, or who are unable to
> participate in provincial affairs for a time for some personal
reason
> (illness, pregnancy, Army service, doctoral dissertation, general
> irritation after some flare-up of spleen on the list).
>
> In general, I favor laws which offer the maximum amount of personal
> freedom to Citizens. Plus, people are ornery: If you tell them they
> have to do something, they will usually respond with the moral
> equivalent of "Says who?" or "I don't want to." If I were a
> Californian
> receiving this edict, I might be tempted to find some way around it
> just to show I could.
>
> In Sulla's situation I would "strongly encourage" Citizens to join,
> but
> leave it at that.
>
> Patricia Cassia

Salvete omnes,


I agree. I think it is a noble intention and effort to
encourage communication among the cives of a given province. I
personally believe that some might be put-off by the word "mandatory."
We have it in our means to communicate by a plethora of
methods, e-mail, chat software, etc. but person-t0-person is best.
While we strive to encourage interaction, let us first reach out to
others in our provincia and develop a rapport in order to familiarize
ourselves with each other. THEN, perhaps we could "highly suggest"
subscribing to a webmail list as a form of supplementing that
interaction.
As a cives from California, I must admit, I have yet to
communicate in any way with others in my provincia. I am more than
willing to post my ICQ and AOL IM usernames to any who is interested.
The first steps in a relationship are always awkward, so let's take
things slowly.
In any case, I think it's a worthy attempt to encourage
interaction. Let's just not scare anyone off with the wording
("mandatory").

Avete, G. Metellus Valentinus


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965348938/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:37:41 -0700
> Salvete omnes,
>
>
> I agree. I think it is a noble intention and effort to
> encourage communication among the cives of a given province. I
> personally believe that some might be put-off by the word "mandatory."
> We have it in our means to communicate by a plethora of
> methods, e-mail, chat software, etc. but person-t0-person is best.
> While we strive to encourage interaction, let us first reach out to
> others in our provincia and develop a rapport in order to familiarize
> ourselves with each other. THEN, perhaps we could "highly suggest"
> subscribing to a webmail list as a form of supplementing that
> interaction.
> As a cives from California, I must admit, I have yet to
> communicate in any way with others in my provincia. I am more than
> willing to post my ICQ and AOL IM usernames to any who is interested.
> The first steps in a relationship are always awkward, so let's take
> things slowly.
> In any case, I think it's a worthy attempt to encourage
> interaction. Let's just not scare anyone off with the wording
> ("mandatory").

Ave,

Now this is interesting, maybe I can add an execption for IM programs. I
agree that person to person is preferred also. I will have to think about
this, and maybe include something about an execption if individuals have
Instant Messaging programs. As Censor I am trying to promote the use of
Instant Messaging programs. This might be another way of doing that as
well. The issue will be in the coordinating of meetings throughout the
provincia, email still is the easiest way of making announcements, similar
to the one for Roman Days West. And, the August 12 meeting in Pasadena/San
Gabriel, CA.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Proconsul et Censor


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no annual fee!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7874/8/_/61050/_/965349461/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Fw: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:46:44 -0700
This never appeared..so I am resending it. :)

SF
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Provincial e-mail lists


> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> >
> > I agree. I think it is a noble intention and effort to
> > encourage communication among the cives of a given province. I
> > personally believe that some might be put-off by the word "mandatory."
> > We have it in our means to communicate by a plethora of
> > methods, e-mail, chat software, etc. but person-t0-person is best.
> > While we strive to encourage interaction, let us first reach out to
> > others in our provincia and develop a rapport in order to familiarize
> > ourselves with each other. THEN, perhaps we could "highly suggest"
> > subscribing to a webmail list as a form of supplementing that
> > interaction.
> > As a cives from California, I must admit, I have yet to
> > communicate in any way with others in my provincia. I am more than
> > willing to post my ICQ and AOL IM usernames to any who is interested.
> > The first steps in a relationship are always awkward, so let's take
> > things slowly.
> > In any case, I think it's a worthy attempt to encourage
> > interaction. Let's just not scare anyone off with the wording
> > ("mandatory").
>
> Ave,
>
> Now this is interesting, maybe I can add an execption for IM programs. I
> agree that person to person is preferred also. I will have to think about
> this, and maybe include something about an execption if individuals have
> Instant Messaging programs. As Censor I am trying to promote the use of
> Instant Messaging programs. This might be another way of doing that as
> well. The issue will be in the coordinating of meetings throughout the
> provincia, email still is the easiest way of making announcements, similar
> to the one for Roman Days West. And, the August 12 meeting in
Pasadena/San
> Gabriel, CA.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Proconsul et Censor
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965350006/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:54:48 -0700
Ave!

Given the recent discussion about the Email subscription Edictum....I understand the concerns. But, there has been no input about the Legate Edictum? Are there any comments about that?

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965350489/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
From: <gmvick32@-------->
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:17:07 -0600
Salvete Omnes, Salvete Pater.

Sulla, I believe your mandate to promote communication is legitimately a mandate
upon your office ONLY to make sure communication channels are in place and
publicized, but you cannot enforce their usage. It seems counterproductive to
force people to sign up for an email service but then be able to make it so they
can ignore it. Some will resent and resist it. And you (or another magistrate)
will spend a lot of time that could be spent differently on monitoring who's
still signed up.

Ask yourself....do we want to build a Nova Roma that relies on force to spur its
membership to participate? I don't think so....and I think that's the effect of
this Edict.

Pater, I urge you to reconsider this Edict.

I have an alternative suggestion to help the magistrates achieve their goal
without making a list mandatory. Consider this:

When a new member is accepted into Nova Roma, have the censor
automatically sign them up to the Nova Roma list and a provincial
list, if there is one for that citizen. Then, have the introductory
message specifically state that participation in the list is OPTIONAL,
and give the citizen instructions on how to either configure how they
want to receive the email, or to unsubscribe altogether. Also, give
them instructions on how to go to egroups and find other lists that
might be of interest. This would be somewhat akin to having the local
welcome wagon show up on their doorstep, but they could still choose
not to accept visitors.

With respect,
Valete,
L Cornelia Aurelia


"L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <pjane@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 4:49 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] Provincial e-mail lists
>
> > Like others, I am a bit perplexed by the idea of making a provincial
> > e-
> > mail list mandatory.
> >
> > While many members of California Provincia may consider this a
> > valuable
> > way of keeping in touch, there may be some who prefer to participate
> > in
> > Nova Roma on a national level, or who are interested in remaining
> > Citizens but do not have e-mail access, or who are unable to
> > participate in provincial affairs for a time for some personal reason
> > (illness, pregnancy, Army service, doctoral dissertation, general
> > irritation after some flare-up of spleen on the list).
>
> Sulla: If citizens dont have email, then they obviously cannot be signed up
> on the list. :) Also, there is webmail (NO MAIL) if someone is going to be
> a way for a short or prolonged period of time. :)
>
> > In general, I favor laws which offer the maximum amount of personal
> > freedom to Citizens. Plus, people are ornery: If you tell them they
> > have to do something, they will usually respond with the moral
> > equivalent of "Says who?" or "I don't want to." If I were a
> > Californian
> > receiving this edict, I might be tempted to find some way around it
> > just to show I could.
>
> Sulla: I too, am a proponet of personal freedom, but as a magistrate I have
> goals to achieve too. There is a balance, and I believe I have reached a
> suitable balance between our citizens and the government that is trying to
> promote more interaction. By giving our citizens a means to choose the
> method to receive their emails.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Proconsul
>
>


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!

1. Fill in the brief application
2. Enjoy a half minute of relaxation
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!

Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7876/8/_/61050/_/965350806/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-



Subject: Re: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:55:38 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:54 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Conversation about the Legate Edictum?


> Ave!
>
> Given the recent discussion about the Email subscription Edictum....I
understand the concerns. But, there has been no input about the Legate
Edictum? Are there any comments about that?
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Proconsul

That should have been Proconsul....my bad. ;)




--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/965350538/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-