| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:59:46 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
I wasn't suggesting we forgo taxation. I was suggesting we should follow the
forms of Antiqua. Did the Romans adjust taxes due to the prosperity of an
area? If so then we should also. Who collected the taxes? The Publicani did,
and could do so again, bonded, probably without the ability to overtax to
make a profit as was done in Roma. The overtaxing would be done on behalf of
the Province, whether publicani are appointed by the Senate or Propraetor.
Who appointed them in Roma. WWRD. What would Roma Do?. In my opinion that
phrase can answer a lot of questions for us.
Next year in the Forum!
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark A Bird" <mark_a_bird@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited
> Salvete
>
> Unfortunately we all have to exist in the real world. Albeit that we wish
> to create a world based on the old Republic, the SPQR in the current world
> has to pay for things such as web site hosting, stationary and god knows
> what else. Anyone that has been involved from the local scout group to
the
> local football club knows that there is such a thing as "subscriptions".
> How can we grow without some source of revenue - I mean we have the flags
> and stickers, but how much does that make for NOVA - bugger all - the
simple
> fact is that if a Citizen does not pay their taxes, then they are no
longer
> Citizens. All citizens enjoy the benefit of what the taxes pay for - it
is
> as simple as that - what we should also consider is that NOVA can consider
> levying taxes on Citizens according to their real world income - so as
that
> those who can afford to pay more will pay more and those that cannot will
> only make a minor tribute - TAX and REVENUE is not a dirty word - PROFIT
is
> not a dirty word - it pays for things that benefits all of us ...
>
> The quotation "but who is to guard the guards themselves?" is offensive
and
> shows an attitude of distrust on the whole concept - we must trust those
who
> have been elected - how else can NOVA operate but through Trust and
loyalty
> ...
>
> Marcus Sentius Claudius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Mauricius Procopious [mailto:procopious@--------]
> Sent: Monday, 9 April 2001 9:26 Am
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited
>
>
> Salvete Omnes,
> It sounds like we are trying to reinvent the wheel. There's no need to
> devise a tax plan. Let's look at how it was done in antiqua. We are
> reconstructors are we not?
> (Procopious winces and dons his breastplate and helm)
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
> (This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> procopious@--------
> ICQ# 83516618
> *America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
> http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
> * The Gens Mauricia
> http://www.geocities.com/procopious
>
> "Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
> affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the
reason
> for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
> to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
> decide for himself according to his taste."
> -Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited
>
>
> > Salvete Quirites et Gnae Salix,
> >
> > ((snipped))
> >
> > > 2.- My second point is about the "punishment" due for
> > > not paying your taxes. I've read about placing
> > > non-payers in the four urban tribes of the Comitia
> > > Tribuna. I think any voting "punishment" should be
> > > restricted to downclassing the "offender" in the
> > > Comitia Centuriata. As this latter Comitia holds a
> > > great amount of power, it'd be a strong "deterrent".
> > > But to "downclass" them in the Comitia Tributa would
> > > be not only too strong for my liking, but also
> > > historically unappropriate, as Comitia Tributa were
> > > supposed to be undifferent to personal wealth and to
> > > the payment of taxes in Roma Antiqua. I'd suggest
> > > instead that every citizen should be even with taxes
> > > before applying to any public position (elected or
> > > not).
> >
> > I quite agree here. People who don't pay should not be punished. It's
very
> > dangerous: what if citizen Lentus forgets to pay, or his payment comes
in
> > late? Or what if a certain propraetor steals the money and leaves NR,
and
> a
> > few people say "I paid", not being able to prove it? The day that
happens,
> > I'm leaving. People who want to pay, pay, people who don't want to, or
> > cannot, don't. I would suggest though that Senatores and higher
> magistrates
> > (Praetores, Consules, Censores) pay.
> >
> > One might argue: in a macronation, everyone pays tax. But in exchange,
in
> a
> > macronation, you can get protection from your local police officers and
> the
> > fire department. If I get attacked in the city, I might be waiting
> centuries
> > for the first Aedilis to come to the rescue. Paying taxes = more power
is
> a
> > 19th century system which led to bloody revolutions, and will lead to
> > secessions here. My opinion.
> >
> > > 3.- My third point is about tax control. I know that,
> > > in theory, taxes and such items fall under senatorial
> > > control. I've also seen many propositions which state
> > > that taxes should be determined by provincial
> > > governors. I'd approve both things. But I'd like to
> > > see just another, more "democratic" way of tax
> > > control.
> > > I know that's what Tribuni Plebis are for, but I'd
> > > like to see an additional tax control system. Maybe
> > > the Senate and Provincial Praetores should present
> > > (and vote) the Expenditurae Rerum Publicarum to the
> > > Comitia Tribuna, which could approve them (or not).
> >
> > I find this a very good idea. On a related note, I'm suddenly reminded
of
> > Iuvenalis: "but who is to guard the guards themselves?"
> >
> > Valete bene,
> > Draco
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
> for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:07:35 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
M. Apollonius wrote:
This is a right in the world civil society that we live in.
And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of that person to
Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are sane and humane,
we will welcome back all who choose to return, as any other normal
organization would.
And:
If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other normal membership
organization, one can join and leave according to one's own needs and
desires, and the worst that might happen is that one must wait for
the applications for rejoining to be processed each time and perhaps
one might have to pay a year's dues over again if unlucky. That
commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
Respondeo: I'm not interested in being sane and humane or following a
commonsensical state of affairs unless that is the model of Roma Antiqua.
WWRD?
As a reconstructor in a reconstructionist group I am most fortunate to have
these decisions made for me by the culture and people I wish to emulate.
Next year in the Forum!
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue of the
Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as infamous as the
Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally ill-considered, unfair, and
punitive nature.
The principal problems with it are two:
1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles and de facto
punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma, based simply on
their having been members in good standing before, and having chosen
to leave. Discouraging persons from leaving would be a natural desire
(if improper and impossible), but causing problems for those wishing
to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps changes in their
life conditions is targetting a group that deserves rather to be
welcomed home.
2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons who have
committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental principle of
justice. Neither leaving Nova Roma nor choosing to return are crimes,
but normal affairs of life. And yet the provisions dripping with icy
unwelcome and punitive intent treat returners as though they were
criminals and suspect characters, instead of persons sufficiently in
love with Nova Roma to take the trouble to return after for one
reason or another leaving for a time.
We are here not here talking about people who have been exiled - our
nearest approach to capital punishment - but about persons who simply
becasue of personal (or possibly moral or political) reasons decided
to leave. This is a right in the world civil society that we live in.
And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of that person to
Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are sane and humane,
we will welcome back all who choose to return, as any other normal
organisation would.
In the previous debate there was too much emphasis on the
micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic extent, and in
comparing ourselves with macronations we got involved with a model
not truly relevant to us, and one apparently touching off excessive
emotions in some. We are a micronation, but not a macronation. No one
depends on us for his passport and his right to live in a place,
travel internationally, and hold down a job. Our citizenship is
always a second citizenship, and carries fewer natural benefits: it
must therefore carry fewer responsibilities if it is to be taken
seriously, and no amount of pomposity in the phrasing of our laws can
change that basic fact.
If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other normal membership
organisation, one can join and leave according to one's own needs and
desires, and the worst that might happen is that one must wait for
the applications for rejoining to be processed each time and perhaps
one might have to pay a year's dues over again if unlucky. That
commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that might actually
deserve to be addressed: "revolving door" membership, in which a
member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing an unreasonable
amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding this, however,
could be effected with one simple rule:
"Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
once in any twelve-month period."
With this simple rule, the censors would not be bothered
unreasonably, and returning persons would not be treated with
suspicion or de facto punishments for non-crimes. It would do its job
and not infringe on the natural rights of the person to freedom of
association.
The provisions for senators and gens membership are no problem. But
let us remember that many people can leave for many reasons: loss of
easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or family pressures,
legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme sickness, normal
fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of these involves
hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our real human lives
- let us, then, treat them so.
Quirites, we need to give up on punitive laws and remember that we
exist because we can attract people to come here - and back to here -
and to stay and participate. We need more of a will to please and to
serve our cives, and less of an inclination to rule them or hold them
in awe to a state that they can leave at any time - as many notable
and active persons here rcently did. Nova Roma *is* its cives, and it
behooves us to treat each other decently and well, and as fellow
human beings - not as potential objections of regulation, humiliation
and punishment.
Valete!
________________
Draco scripsit:
Subject: Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict
Salve iterum Consul Vedi,
Well, I've come to bother the people once again :).
> EDICTUM CENSORIAL DE CIVITATE EIURANDA
>
>
> RESIGNATION OF CITIZENSHIP IN NOVAROMA
>
> AUGUST 27, 2000
(snipped)
> When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, and the
>resignation becomes official after nine days, the ex-citizen is
>barred from reapplication and reinstatement for a period of six
>months, effective from the date his or her
> resignation became official.
Opponents of this edict said that people who °really° want out simply
won't care for this edictum, while people who truly love Roma are
being punished by this. This was and is a non-solution for a
non-problem.
> (For example, if a citizen resigned on May 1 2000, and his
>resignation became official on May 9, 2000, he could not be
reinstated until November 9, 2000)
>
(snipped)
> Senatorial status may be resumed
> at the discretion of both the Senate and of the censores
>collegially. Gens affiliation in all instances remains at the
>discretion of the pater or materfamilias.
Why would the Censores have power over the Senate in this matter? In
fact, they are both Senatores, so even if 18 out of 20 Senatores vote
in favour of said citizen, the two Censores could still prevent that
citizen from returning into the Senate. So I'd scrap the Censores
from this paragraph.
> If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
>second time, that ex-citizen is barred for two years from
>reinstatement. Such a citizen is furthermore barred from running for
>any elected public office for two
> years following re-admission, with no recourse.
>
> If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
>second time, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a third time,
>that ex-citizen is barred forever from reinstatement. The
>ex-citizen has despised his citizenship and shown contempt for the
>state: he may never be reinstated thereafter.
"Contempt for the state" sounds, and I am sorry to say it, °very°
authoritarian. However, I do think two paragraphs above are better,
and truly offer a solution (for what is still a non-problem anyway)
in case some cives keep leaving and coming back. I'd change the "two
years" to six months though.
(snipped)
Valete bene,
Draco
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
Amicus Dignitatis; Scriba Censorius
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
____________________________________________________
Memento Idus Martias - non omnino bene Respublica se habet.
(Remember the Ides of March - it is not all well with the Republic.)
____________________________________________________
All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict |
| From: |
Marius the Wanderer <peregrinus@--------> |
| Date: |
Date header was inserted by mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net |
|
Ex papilio Luci Mari Peregrini omnes Quirites s.p.d.
Salvete omnes...
Well, there you have it: the text of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis,
the 'Name-change Edict', as posted by our senior Consul last week. It
is difficult to appreciate, to look at the present edict, that it was
the interim solution for *the* biggest controversy in Nova Roma last
year. And to think that it all started out with a simple Censor's
ruling that the grammatical gender of all Citizens' Roman names should
correspond to their biological sex...
(If that sounds as invasive to any of you as it does to me, you may
begin to grasp just how strong the feelings were that were raised by
the original 'Gender Edict'.)
The present edict was a great improvement on its predecessor. I myself
was very much in favor of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis when it
first appeared. I called it a fine Edict that deserved to be made into
a fine Lex. The Roman-name sections with which it begins are still the
best guidance we've got going for how to properly construct an
authentic Roman name; and, with one great exception to be noted and
discussed, the means specified for changing or correcting one's Roman
name are not a particular burden to anyone involved.
But should a Citizen, for whatever reason, wish to change the
grammatical gender of his or her listed Roman name, that seems to be
the one direction the present edict won't flex. It does contain
'transgender provisions', yes; but these are unduly complicated and
have thus far been applied in all the most cumbersome ways possible.
First of all, why would a Citizen want to change the gender of his
Roman name? I can think of three reasons:
-- the gender of the Citizen's name was originally entered in error
(as Nomenclator I saw a lot of this, male applicants choosing names
with feminine components and vice versa);
-- the Citizen is no longer living as the gender specified by his or
her Roman name (as, for example, transgendered individuals);
-- the Citizen has had his or her sex physically changed (as for
transsexuals) or never had a clearly-defined physical sex to begin
with (as in the case of hermaphrodites).
None of these reasons justify the kind of jumping-through-hoops and
sharing of sensitive info demanded by those sections of the Edict. In
the first case we are talking about a simple administrative error, a
correction of records. In the last two cases, we are speaking of
matters of personal identity or sensitive medical nature that need as
little outside interference as possible, such decisions being difficult
enough for the people who have made them.
What a Citizen chooses to be called should be between himself, his
Paterfamilias, and his gods if he has any. None of it, except for the
record-keeping, should be the purview of the Censores' Office.
So, just for grins, a few months ago I came up with an alternate
drafting for the transgender provisions that would not be so heavy on
the paperwork, and would put the thing even more squarely in the hands
of the Paterfamilias. All article, section and clause numberings are
as in the original; anything not specifically changed remains the
same...and of course any feedback is welcome!
<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
From: Marius the Wanderer <peregrinus@-------->
Subject: Re: Alternative to Edictum d.M.N.
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:18:41 -0600 (CST)
Our revisions below; my suggestions in [brackets].
XIX.
iv) The [grammatical] gender of the name is to be consistent. Each
part is to agree with all others in [grammatical] gender.
I know it is stated at the beginning of the Edictum that the term
"gender" shall refer to linguistic gender only; but that was, what,
sixteen articles ago?, and I think the authors got a little confused on
that point themselves by the time they wrote the 'offending articles'
in question.
The basic problem is that, while the Edictum sets forth specific terms
for (a) physical sex and (b) grammatical gender, there is no
corresponding term for *social* gender (id est, the gender role a
Citizen fulfills in daily life) even though there is a fairly lengthy
article treating of same. I would suggest modifying Article IV to
read:
[IV. Also note that this document uses the term 'sex' to describe the
physical sex of a person, the term 'social gender' to refer to the
gender role a person fulfills in daily life, and the term 'grammatical
gender' to refer to linguistic gender only.]
Okay, now the big one...
[XX.
A Citizen who wishes to change the sex he or she previously
registered or the gender of the name initially registered shall
inform his or her Mater-/Paterfamilias. The citizen and the
Paterfamilias shall be required to appear jointly before the
Censores, and to swear or affirm before the Censores that the change
is being made to
(a) correct an original inaccuracy,
(b) accommodate a change of the Citizen's physical sex (as for
example by surgical means), or
(c) conform to a change in the social gender lived out by the
Citizen in everyday life in his or her place of physical residence.]
["Everyday life" shall here be construed as real personal contacts
with employers, intimates and the public, and not local legal
preassumptions, of whose equitableness in any given jurisdiction Nova
Roman authorities cannot be certain. Having changed social gender,
the Citizen may and must adopt an otherwise properly-formed Roman
name in the corresponding grammatical gender.]
<----- End Forwarded Message ----->
In amicitia et fides,
***********************************************************
Lucius Marius Peregrinus <peregrinus@-------->
Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, |>[SPQR]<|
Historical Re-Creationist |\=/|
and Citizen of Rome ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
"Is Rome worth one good man's life? ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
We believed it once. | | / )\ \| /
Make us believe it again." _|_| / _/_| /`(
-- Lucilla, _Gladiator_ /./..=' /./..'
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:08:08 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites, et salve, Apollonie Draco.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your comments
on my proposal. I'm not even a full citizen yet (I
haven't received my citizenship acceptance from the
censores), but I feel pretty enthusiastic about Nova
Roma, and it is mainly because of people like you.
I have read many of your own contributions to the mail
list, and find them very interesting. It is just
wonderful to discuss these kind of things with people
like you.
After all this senseless flattery (sorry, I was just
expressing my feelings :-) ), I'd like to make a few
comments on your own comments.
--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
escribió: > Salvete Quirites et Gnae Salix,
>
> ((snipped))
>
> > 2.- My second point is about the "punishment" due
> for
> > not paying your taxes. I've read about placing
> > non-payers in the four urban tribes of the Comitia
> > Tribuna. I think any voting "punishment" should be
> > restricted to downclassing the "offender" in the
> > Comitia Centuriata. As this latter Comitia holds a
> > great amount of power, it'd be a strong
> "deterrent".
> > But to "downclass" them in the Comitia Tributa
> would
> > be not only too strong for my liking, but also
> > historically unappropriate, as Comitia Tributa
> were
> > supposed to be undifferent to personal wealth and
> to
> > the payment of taxes in Roma Antiqua. I'd suggest
> > instead that every citizen should be even with
> taxes
> > before applying to any public position (elected or
> > not).
>
> I quite agree here. People who don't pay should not
> be punished. It's very
> dangerous: what if citizen Lentus forgets to pay, or
> his payment comes in
> late? Or what if a certain propraetor steals the
> money and leaves NR, and a
> few people say "I paid", not being able to prove it?
> The day that happens,
> I'm leaving. People who want to pay, pay, people who
> don't want to, or
> cannot, don't. I would suggest though that Senatores
> and higher magistrates
> (Praetores, Consules, Censores) pay.
>
> One might argue: in a macronation, everyone pays
> tax. But in exchange, in a
> macronation, you can get protection from your local
> police officers and the
> fire department. If I get attacked in the city, I
> might be waiting centuries
> for the first Aedilis to come to the rescue. Paying
> taxes = more power is a
> 19th century system which led to bloody revolutions,
> and will lead to
> secessions here. My opinion.
>
Your point of view is very interesting, and I agree
with it completely. I actually hadn't thought about
these aspects, but I certainly share your points.
Thank you for making my mind broader.
> > 3.- My third point is about tax control. I know
> that,
> > in theory, taxes and such items fall under
> senatorial
> > control. I've also seen many propositions which
> state
> > that taxes should be determined by provincial
> > governors. I'd approve both things. But I'd like
> to
> > see just another, more "democratic" way of tax
> > control.
> > I know that's what Tribuni Plebis are for, but I'd
> > like to see an additional tax control system.
> Maybe
> > the Senate and Provincial Praetores should present
> > (and vote) the Expenditurae Rerum Publicarum to
> the
> > Comitia Tribuna, which could approve them (or
> not).
>
> I find this a very good idea. On a related note, I'm
> suddenly reminded of
> Iuvenalis: "but who is to guard the guards
> themselves?"
>
> Valete bene,
> Draco
>
This is my opinion, too. I suppose all this brings us
back to the old Roman Recreation/Modern Liberties
dicotomy. I guess that, when money is on, modern
points of view should prevail.
I'd like to know, though, what do you think about the
first point of my previous message. I think it touched
a quite important aspect of this issue, myself being
pretty sensitive to it, being a novissimus civis.
Thank you again for your comments; I invite all
Novoromans to express their opinions.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:32:18 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani.
I fully agree with every statement of Apollonius
Formosanus on his latest message.
I know that this Edictum was a response to a certain
ill-feeling due to several resignations in the last
month. But I also think that true power is not the
power to condemn, or the power to punish. True power
lies in the ability to pardon earlier offenses, to
forgive past conducts, and to welcome back the
prodigal son. I believe that kind of conduct should be
deducted from the Roman virtues we so dearly want to
relive. I think that Formosanus' proposal, "Any civis
may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
once in any twelve-month period.", is both simple and
appropriate.
I don't think an act of resignation should be
considered a crime. And I remember having read in the
Annals of Nova Roma about a certain resignation of
particularly catastrophic implications which was later
revoked to the relief of every Novoroman. That
decision should be a reference and taken as a
precedent in any case of the same nature that should
happen; for in that occasion common sense triumphed
over rancor or regret.
Thank you, M. Apollonius Formosanus, for your wise
words. Thanks to the Gods and my own homeland Hispania
to have given birth to an individual as Seneca. And to
you all Novoromans, please remember my words were not
written to insult or to offend. I've just written my
own feelings and believes about this issue.
---- "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
escribió: > M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus
Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue
> of the
> Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as
> infamous as the
> Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally
> ill-considered, unfair, and
> punitive nature.
>
> The principal problems with it are two:
>
> 1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles
> and de facto
> punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma,
> based simply on
> their having been members in good standing before,
> and having chosen
> to leave. Discouraging persons from leaving would be
> a natural desire
> (if improper and impossible), but causing problems
> for those wishing
> to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps
> changes in their
> life conditions is targetting a group that deserves
> rather to be
> welcomed home.
>
> 2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons
> who have
> committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental
> principle of
> justice. Neither leaving Nova Roma nor choosing to
> return are crimes,
> but normal affairs of life. And yet the provisions
> dripping with icy
> unwelcome and punitive intent treat returners as
> though they were
> criminals and suspect characters, instead of persons
> sufficiently in
> love with Nova Roma to take the trouble to return
> after for one
> reason or another leaving for a time.
>
> We are here not here talking about people who have
> been exiled - our
> nearest approach to capital punishment - but about
> persons who simply
> becasue of personal (or possibly moral or political)
> reasons decided
> to leave. This is a right in the world civil society
> that we live in.
> And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of
> that person to
> Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are
> sane and humane,
> we will welcome back all who choose to return, as
> any other normal
> organisation would.
>
> In the previous debate there was too much emphasis
> on the
> micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic
> extent, and in
> comparing ourselves with macronations we got
> involved with a model
> not truly relevant to us, and one apparently
> touching off excessive
> emotions in some. We are a micronation, but not a
> macronation. No one
> depends on us for his passport and his right to live
> in a place,
> travel internationally, and hold down a job. Our
> citizenship is
> always a second citizenship, and carries fewer
> natural benefits: it
> must therefore carry fewer responsibilities if it is
> to be taken
> seriously, and no amount of pomposity in the
> phrasing of our laws can
> change that basic fact.
>
> If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other
> normal membership
> organisation, one can join and leave according to
> one's own needs and
> desires, and the worst that might happen is that one
> must wait for
> the applications for rejoining to be processed each
> time and perhaps
> one might have to pay a year's dues over again if
> unlucky. That
> commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
>
> Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that
> might actually
> deserve to be addressed: "revolving door"
> membership, in which a
> member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing
> an unreasonable
> amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding
> this, however,
> could be effected with one simple rule:
>
> "Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation
> not more than
> once in any twelve-month period."
>
> With this simple rule, the censors would not be
> bothered
> unreasonably, and returning persons would not be
> treated with
> suspicion or de facto punishments for non-crimes. It
> would do its job
> and not infringe on the natural rights of the person
> to freedom of
> association.
>
> The provisions for senators and gens membership are
> no problem. But
> let us remember that many people can leave for many
> reasons: loss of
> easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or
> family pressures,
> legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme
> sickness, normal
> fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of
> these involves
> hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our
> real human lives
> - let us, then, treat them so.
>
> Quirites, we need to give up on punitive laws and
> remember that we
> exist because we can attract people to come here -
> and back to here -
> and to stay and participate. We need more of a will
> to please and to
> serve our cives, and less of an inclination to rule
> them or hold them
> in awe to a state that they can leave at any time -
> as many notable
> and active persons here rcently did. Nova Roma *is*
> its cives, and it
> behooves us to treat each other decently and well,
> and as fellow
> human beings - not as potential objections of
> regulation, humiliation
> and punishment.
>
> Valete!
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:45:37 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Procopie.
--- Lucius Mauricius Procopious <procopious@-------->
escribió: > Salvete Omnes,
> It sounds like we are trying to reinvent the wheel.
> There's no need to
> devise a tax plan. Let's look at how it was done in
> antiqua. We are
> reconstructors are we not?
> (Procopious winces and dons his breastplate and
> helm)
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
> (This is an unofficial post for which I assume full
> responsibility)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd also like to know exactly how was the subject of
taxes solved in Roma Antiqua. It could be a great
source of ideas. Alas, things are quite different in
this Dark Age of ours, and maybe this time
reconstruction might not be the answer.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:15:27 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
Marius wrote:
What a Citizen chooses to be called should be between himself, his
Paterfamilias, and his gods if he has any. None of it, except for the
record-keeping, should be the purview of the Censors Office
Respondeo: Once again, how was it done in antiqua? As reconstructionist we
should reconstruct. Unless I'm misinformed, and I'm sure you'll ALL let me
know if I'm historically inaccurate, Romans were allowed a great deal of
latitude in how they chose to express their gender. If they required an
individual to have a name corresponding to their physical gender then so
should we. I'd rather be part of a society that allows personal freedom
while calling a spade a shovel rather than live in a society where my right
to call myself what I want is protected yet my neighbors look down their
puritanical noses at my choice of lifestyle. The latter is a comparison to
my perception of my macronation not to any post on this list. As for those
posts, again, let's reconstruct!
Next year in the Forum!
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marius the Wanderer" <peregrinus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: [novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict
> Ex papilio Luci Mari Peregrini omnes Quirites s.p.d.
>
> Salvete omnes...
>
> Well, there you have it: the text of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis,
> the 'Name-change Edict', as posted by our senior Consul last week. It
> is difficult to appreciate, to look at the present edict, that it was
> the interim solution for *the* biggest controversy in Nova Roma last
> year. And to think that it all started out with a simple Censor's
> ruling that the grammatical gender of all Citizens' Roman names should
> correspond to their biological sex...
>
> (If that sounds as invasive to any of you as it does to me, you may
> begin to grasp just how strong the feelings were that were raised by
> the original 'Gender Edict'.)
>
> The present edict was a great improvement on its predecessor. I myself
> was very much in favor of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis when it
> first appeared. I called it a fine Edict that deserved to be made into
> a fine Lex. The Roman-name sections with which it begins are still the
> best guidance we've got going for how to properly construct an
> authentic Roman name; and, with one great exception to be noted and
> discussed, the means specified for changing or correcting one's Roman
> name are not a particular burden to anyone involved.
>
> But should a Citizen, for whatever reason, wish to change the
> grammatical gender of his or her listed Roman name, that seems to be
> the one direction the present edict won't flex. It does contain
> 'transgender provisions', yes; but these are unduly complicated and
> have thus far been applied in all the most cumbersome ways possible.
>
> First of all, why would a Citizen want to change the gender of his
> Roman name? I can think of three reasons:
> -- the gender of the Citizen's name was originally entered in error
> (as Nomenclator I saw a lot of this, male applicants choosing names
> with feminine components and vice versa);
> -- the Citizen is no longer living as the gender specified by his or
> her Roman name (as, for example, transgendered individuals);
> -- the Citizen has had his or her sex physically changed (as for
> transsexuals) or never had a clearly-defined physical sex to begin
> with (as in the case of hermaphrodites).
>
> None of these reasons justify the kind of jumping-through-hoops and
> sharing of sensitive info demanded by those sections of the Edict. In
> the first case we are talking about a simple administrative error, a
> correction of records. In the last two cases, we are speaking of
> matters of personal identity or sensitive medical nature that need as
> little outside interference as possible, such decisions being difficult
> enough for the people who have made them.
>
> What a Citizen chooses to be called should be between himself, his
> Paterfamilias, and his gods if he has any. None of it, except for the
> record-keeping, should be the purview of the Censores' Office.
>
> So, just for grins, a few months ago I came up with an alternate
> drafting for the transgender provisions that would not be so heavy on
> the paperwork, and would put the thing even more squarely in the hands
> of the Paterfamilias. All article, section and clause numberings are
> as in the original; anything not specifically changed remains the
> same...and of course any feedback is welcome!
>
>
> <---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
> From: Marius the Wanderer <peregrinus@-------->
> Subject: Re: Alternative to Edictum d.M.N.
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:18:41 -0600 (CST)
>
> Our revisions below; my suggestions in [brackets].
>
> XIX.
> iv) The [grammatical] gender of the name is to be consistent. Each
> part is to agree with all others in [grammatical] gender.
>
> I know it is stated at the beginning of the Edictum that the term
> "gender" shall refer to linguistic gender only; but that was, what,
> sixteen articles ago?, and I think the authors got a little confused on
> that point themselves by the time they wrote the 'offending articles'
> in question.
>
> The basic problem is that, while the Edictum sets forth specific terms
> for (a) physical sex and (b) grammatical gender, there is no
> corresponding term for *social* gender (id est, the gender role a
> Citizen fulfills in daily life) even though there is a fairly lengthy
> article treating of same. I would suggest modifying Article IV to
> read:
>
> [IV. Also note that this document uses the term 'sex' to describe the
> physical sex of a person, the term 'social gender' to refer to the
> gender role a person fulfills in daily life, and the term 'grammatical
> gender' to refer to linguistic gender only.]
>
> Okay, now the big one...
>
> [XX.
> A Citizen who wishes to change the sex he or she previously
> registered or the gender of the name initially registered shall
> inform his or her Mater-/Paterfamilias. The citizen and the
> Paterfamilias shall be required to appear jointly before the
> Censores, and to swear or affirm before the Censores that the change
> is being made to
> (a) correct an original inaccuracy,
> (b) accommodate a change of the Citizen's physical sex (as for
> example by surgical means), or
> (c) conform to a change in the social gender lived out by the
> Citizen in everyday life in his or her place of physical residence.]
>
> ["Everyday life" shall here be construed as real personal contacts
> with employers, intimates and the public, and not local legal
> preassumptions, of whose equitableness in any given jurisdiction Nova
> Roman authorities cannot be certain. Having changed social gender,
> the Citizen may and must adopt an otherwise properly-formed Roman
> name in the corresponding grammatical gender.]
>
> <----- End Forwarded Message ----->
>
> In amicitia et fides,
> ***********************************************************
> Lucius Marius Peregrinus <peregrinus@-------->
> Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, |>[SPQR]<|
> Historical Re-Creationist |\=/|
> and Citizen of Rome ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
> "Is Rome worth one good man's life? ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
> We believed it once. | | / )\ \| /
> Make us believe it again." _|_| / _/_| /`(
> -- Lucilla, _Gladiator_ /./..=' /./..'
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 02:10:26 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Sentie Claudie.
--- Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@-------->
escribió: > Salvete
>
> Unfortunately we all have to exist in the real
> world. Albeit that we wish
> to create a world based on the old Republic, the
> SPQR in the current world
> has to pay for things such as web site hosting,
> stationary and god knows
> what else. Anyone that has been involved from the
> local scout group to the
> local football club knows that there is such a thing
> as "subscriptions".
I agree with this. I am not against the idea of taxes
by itself, and I think that idea was not implied in my
previous message. My suggestions were about how that
issue should be handled in my humble opinion.
> How can we grow without some source of revenue - I
> mean we have the flags
> and stickers, but how much does that make for NOVA -
> bugger all - the simple
> fact is that if a Citizen does not pay their taxes,
> then they are no longer
> Citizens.
THIS is exactly the point that seems not so clear to
me. Don't get me wrong, I intend to pay my taxes (once
I become a full citizen). But I wouldn't like other
citizens to be expelled from Nova Roma just for being
too slow -or too poor- for the tax collector. If I may
remind you once more of the Antiqua Roma's system,
people who didn't pay any tax were just placed in the
fifth class of the Comitia Centuriata. They did not
loose their citizenship, and they were equal to the
first-class citizens (who payed top sextertii) when
the Comitia Tribuna were called.
> All citizens enjoy the benefit of what
> the taxes pay for - it is
> as simple as that - what we should also consider is
> that NOVA can consider
> levying taxes on Citizens according to their real
> world income - so as that
> those who can afford to pay more will pay more and
> those that cannot will
> only make a minor tribute - TAX and REVENUE is not a
> dirty word - PROFIT is
> not a dirty word - it pays for things that benefits
> all of us ...
>
> The quotation "but who is to guard the guards
> themselves?" is offensive and
> shows an attitude of distrust on the whole concept -
> we must trust those who
> have been elected - how else can NOVA operate but
> through Trust and loyalty
> ...
>
> Marcus Sentius Claudius
>
Although I didn't write that quotation myself, I don't
think it was written with the intention to offend.
Besides, trust and loyalty must be gained by those who
aspire to be at the reception end. I think most of the
leaders of Nova Roma have already earned the trust and
loyalty of citizens (if not, why were they elected?).
But trust and loyalty are things that must be fought
for every day through good government (exactly the way
Old Romans build their Empire).
I think that a little control would not damage our
wise leaders' work; if anything else, it would be a
mild reminder of their condition of public servants.
Humilitas is a Roman virtue that is specially
important in public matters.
I'd like to remind you all, once more time, that is
not my intention to offend anyone. My sole motive for
writing these letters is to explain my point of view.
Should anyone feel personally attacked by my
assertions, please accept my sincere apologies.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 02:23:57 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites.
--- Lucius Mauricius Procopious <procopious@-------->
escribió: > Salvete Omnes,
>
> M. Apollonius wrote:
> This is a right in the world civil society that we
> live in.
> And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of
> that person to
> Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are
> sane and humane,
> we will welcome back all who choose to return, as
> any other normal
> organization would.
> And:
> If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other
> normal membership
> organization, one can join and leave according to
> one's own needs and
> desires, and the worst that might happen is that one
> must wait for
> the applications for rejoining to be processed each
> time and perhaps
> one might have to pay a year's dues over again if
> unlucky. That
> commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
>
> Respondeo: I'm not interested in being sane and
> humane or following a
> commonsensical state of affairs unless that is the
> model of Roma Antiqua.
> WWRD?
> As a reconstructor in a reconstructionist group I am
> most fortunate to have
> these decisions made for me by the culture and
> people I wish to emulate.
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
Well, let me say that common sense, humanity and
sanity all were pretty traditional Roman virtues :-).
Besides, are you sure THAT was the way of Roma
Antiqua?
As long as I can recall from my History lessons, many
times an exiled citizen would return to Rome and be
readmitted as a citizen without further discussion.
The first example was Camillus' return to fight the
Gauls in 363 a.u.c. (390 BCE), but many more examples
of immediate reacquirement of citizenship were
recorded all throughout Roman history.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:24:40 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Just a correction to you Gn. Salix, you might want to go back to the
Archives on the NR main list. For this resignation edict was
promulgated last year (about 8 months ago), during the Censorship of C.
Marius Merullus and myself.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> Salvete, romani.
>
> I fully agree with every statement of Apollonius
> Formosanus on his latest message.
> I know that this Edictum was a response to a certain
> ill-feeling due to several resignations in the last
> month. But I also think that true power is not the
> power to condemn, or the power to punish. True power
> lies in the ability to pardon earlier offenses, to
> forgive past conducts, and to welcome back the
> prodigal son. I believe that kind of conduct should be
> deducted from the Roman virtues we so dearly want to
> relive. I think that Formosanus' proposal, "Any civis
> may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
>
> once in any twelve-month period.", is both simple and
> appropriate.
>
> I don't think an act of resignation should be
> considered a crime. And I remember having read in the
> Annals of Nova Roma about a certain resignation of
> particularly catastrophic implications which was later
> revoked to the relief of every Novoroman. That
> decision should be a reference and taken as a
> precedent in any case of the same nature that should
> happen; for in that occasion common sense triumphed
> over rancor or regret.
>
> Thank you, M. Apollonius Formosanus, for your wise
> words. Thanks to the Gods and my own homeland Hispania
> to have given birth to an individual as Seneca. And to
> you all Novoromans, please remember my words were not
> written to insult or to offend. I've just written my
> own feelings and believes about this issue.
>
> ---- "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
> escribió: > M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus
> Quiritibus S.P.D.
> >
> > I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue
> > of the
> > Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as
> > infamous as the
> > Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally
> > ill-considered, unfair, and
> > punitive nature.
> >
> > The principal problems with it are two:
> >
> > 1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles
> > and de facto
> > punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma,
> > based simply on
> > their having been members in good standing before,
> > and having chosen
> > to leave. Discouraging persons from leaving would be
> > a natural desire
> > (if improper and impossible), but causing problems
> > for those wishing
> > to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps
> > changes in their
> > life conditions is targetting a group that deserves
> > rather to be
> > welcomed home.
> >
> > 2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons
> > who have
> > committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental
> > principle of
> > justice. Neither leaving Nova Roma nor choosing to
> > return are crimes,
> > but normal affairs of life. And yet the provisions
> > dripping with icy
> > unwelcome and punitive intent treat returners as
> > though they were
> > criminals and suspect characters, instead of persons
> > sufficiently in
> > love with Nova Roma to take the trouble to return
> > after for one
> > reason or another leaving for a time.
> >
> > We are here not here talking about people who have
> > been exiled - our
> > nearest approach to capital punishment - but about
> > persons who simply
> > becasue of personal (or possibly moral or political)
> > reasons decided
> > to leave. This is a right in the world civil society
> > that we live in.
> > And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of
> > that person to
> > Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are
> > sane and humane,
> > we will welcome back all who choose to return, as
> > any other normal
> > organisation would.
> >
> > In the previous debate there was too much emphasis
> > on the
> > micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic
> > extent, and in
> > comparing ourselves with macronations we got
> > involved with a model
> > not truly relevant to us, and one apparently
> > touching off excessive
> > emotions in some. We are a micronation, but not a
> > macronation. No one
> > depends on us for his passport and his right to live
> > in a place,
> > travel internationally, and hold down a job. Our
> > citizenship is
> > always a second citizenship, and carries fewer
> > natural benefits: it
> > must therefore carry fewer responsibilities if it is
> > to be taken
> > seriously, and no amount of pomposity in the
> > phrasing of our laws can
> > change that basic fact.
> >
> > If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other
> > normal membership
> > organisation, one can join and leave according to
> > one's own needs and
> > desires, and the worst that might happen is that one
> > must wait for
> > the applications for rejoining to be processed each
> > time and perhaps
> > one might have to pay a year's dues over again if
> > unlucky. That
> > commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
> >
> > Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that
> > might actually
> > deserve to be addressed: "revolving door"
> > membership, in which a
> > member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing
> > an unreasonable
> > amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding
> > this, however,
> > could be effected with one simple rule:
> >
> > "Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation
> > not more than
> > once in any twelve-month period."
> >
> > With this simple rule, the censors would not be
> > bothered
> > unreasonably, and returning persons would not be
> > treated with
> > suspicion or de facto punishments for non-crimes. It
> > would do its job
> > and not infringe on the natural rights of the person
> > to freedom of
> > association.
> >
> > The provisions for senators and gens membership are
> > no problem. But
> > let us remember that many people can leave for many
> > reasons: loss of
> > easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or
> > family pressures,
> > legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme
> > sickness, normal
> > fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of
> > these involves
> > hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our
> > real human lives
> > - let us, then, treat them so.
> >
> > Quirites, we need to give up on punitive laws and
> > remember that we
> > exist because we can attract people to come here -
> > and back to here -
> > and to stay and participate. We need more of a will
> > to please and to
> > serve our cives, and less of an inclination to rule
> > them or hold them
> > in awe to a state that they can leave at any time -
> > as many notable
> > and active persons here rcently did. Nova Roma *is*
> > its cives, and it
> > behooves us to treat each other decently and well,
> > and as fellow
> > human beings - not as potential objections of
> > regulation, humiliation
> > and punishment.
> >
> > Valete!
>
> =====
> Bene Valete!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Protocivis romanus.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
> Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:31:59 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Exiled is not the same as renouncing one's citizenship. Exile would be
a punishment given from a trial. I do not believe that Camillius's
citizenship was renounced or revoked, I could be mistaken, but upon
search of my Oxford Classical Companion I found no documentation that
his citizenship was renounced. The point I am trying to make is that
they voluntarily gave up their citizenship, it was not forcibly taken.
And, as Senator Lucius Sergius noted earlier, they were under Oath at
the time as magistrates at the time.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> Salvete, romani quirites.
>
> --- Lucius Mauricius Procopious <procopious@-------->
> escribió: > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > M. Apollonius wrote:
> > This is a right in the world civil society that we
> > live in.
> > And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of
> > that person to
> > Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are
> > sane and humane,
> > we will welcome back all who choose to return, as
> > any other normal
> > organization would.
> > And:
> > If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other
> > normal membership
> > organization, one can join and leave according to
> > one's own needs and
> > desires, and the worst that might happen is that one
> > must wait for
> > the applications for rejoining to be processed each
> > time and perhaps
> > one might have to pay a year's dues over again if
> > unlucky. That
> > commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
> >
> > Respondeo: I'm not interested in being sane and
> > humane or following a
> > commonsensical state of affairs unless that is the
> > model of Roma Antiqua.
> > WWRD?
> > As a reconstructor in a reconstructionist group I am
> > most fortunate to have
> > these decisions made for me by the culture and
> > people I wish to emulate.
> >
> > Next year in the Forum!
> >
> > Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> > Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
>
> Well, let me say that common sense, humanity and
> sanity all were pretty traditional Roman virtues :-).
>
> Besides, are you sure THAT was the way of Roma
> Antiqua?
> As long as I can recall from my History lessons, many
> times an exiled citizen would return to Rome and be
> readmitted as a citizen without further discussion.
> The first example was Camillus' return to fight the
> Gauls in 363 a.u.c. (390 BCE), but many more examples
> of immediate reacquirement of citizenship were
> recorded all throughout Roman history.
>
> =====
> Bene Valete!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Protocivis romanus.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
> Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
gcassiusnerva@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:44:06 EDT |
|
Gnaeus Salix Astur says of the 'Resignation Edict':
<<I know that this Edictum was a response to a certain ill-feeling due to
several resignations in the last month.>>
Wrong. The edict in question came out last August, and therefore has
absolutely nothing to do with last month's resignations.
<<I don't think an act of resignation should be considered a crime.>>
It is not considered a crime in the edict.
<<And I remember having read in the Annals of Nova Roma about a certain
resignation of particularly catastrophic implications which was later revoked
to the relief of every Novoroman.>>
Irrelevant. That resignation occured months before the edict came out, and
in fact was not 'catastrophic' at all, though it was sad. As the Praetor
Urbanus of the time said, "We have a system in place to take care of things
like this." And if you read the end of the section of the annals, you will
see that "Nova Roma weathered it's first crisis intact. The Republiuc would
live on."
<<As long as I can recall from my History lessons, many times an exiled
citizen would return to Rome and be readmitted as a citizen without further
discussion.>>
Irrelevant. Resigned ex-citizens are NOT exiles. They are resignees, who
made a free choice.
Gaius Cassius Nerva
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Taxes and Financial Support |
| From: |
V_Praetoria@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:26:17 -0000 |
|
Salvette,
First off let me say that I am in favor of proposing financial
standards for the society. As the founder of the RHS (Roman
Historical Society), I have implemented a $25.00 annual membership
fee, which people gladly pay to be a member. I have worked out with
Flavius Germanicus that if a person joins the RHS and Nova Roma,
$12.00 of the $25.00 will go to NR once the taxation is approved.
How else can you grow without financial support. I know first hand
about how hard it can be.
When I first started the RHS, we required no membership fee, but
you had to supply your own kit. Now, thanks to financial sponsors,
for a small fee of $25.00, we will "loan" a full kit to the members.
This approach has worked wonders for us. I hope all of you can
appreciate what the consuls are trying to do by applying taxation to
the society. I personally will pay the $12.00 to stay a member.
Pontius Sejanus Marius
Propraetor, America Austroccidentalis
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Taxes and Financial Support |
| From: |
Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:36:22 +1000 |
|
Salve Pontius Sejanus Marius
I agree totally - I really do not know how Nova has thus far survived -
mostly I would suspect of the founding citizens and current Senate paying
for things themselves .... taxation will be a new form of Growth for Nova -
it will be a new beginning - of developing into something bigger and more
financially solid...
Also Pontius, I would like to become a member of RHS - can you please send
me details of membership for overseas members - email me at
markbird@--------
Vale
Marcus Sentius Claudius
-----Original Message-----
From: V_Praetoria@-------- [mailto:V_Praetoria@--------]
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2001 12:26 Pm
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Taxes and Financial Support
Salvette,
First off let me say that I am in favor of proposing financial
standards for the society. As the founder of the RHS (Roman
Historical Society), I have implemented a $25.00 annual membership
fee, which people gladly pay to be a member. I have worked out with
Flavius Germanicus that if a person joins the RHS and Nova Roma,
$12.00 of the $25.00 will go to NR once the taxation is approved.
How else can you grow without financial support. I know first hand
about how hard it can be.
When I first started the RHS, we required no membership fee, but
you had to supply your own kit. Now, thanks to financial sponsors,
for a small fee of $25.00, we will "loan" a full kit to the members.
This approach has worked wonders for us. I hope all of you can
appreciate what the consuls are trying to do by applying taxation to
the society. I personally will pay the $12.00 to stay a member.
Pontius Sejanus Marius
Propraetor, America Austroccidentalis
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Calling OZ Romans |
| From: |
Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:13:42 +1000 |
|
Salvette
Is anyone from Nova from Melbourne or Victoria (Australia) - just wanted to
touch base as I am a new Citizen....
Marcus Sentius Claudius
Pleb
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
QFabiusMax@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:18:01 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/8/2001 3:06:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bvm3@--------
writes:
<< I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue of the
Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as infamous as the
Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally ill-considered, unfair, and
punitive nature.
The principal problems with it are two:
1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles and de facto
punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma, based simply on
their having been members in good standing before, and having chosen
to leave. Discouraging persons from leaving would be a natural desire
(if improper and impossible), but causing problems for those wishing
to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps changes in their
life conditions is targetting a group that deserves rather to be
welcomed home.
2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons who have
committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental principle of
justice. Neither leaving Nova Roma nor choosing to return are crimes,
but normal affairs of life. And yet the provisions dripping with icy
unwelcome and punitive intent treat returners as though they were
criminals and suspect characters, instead of persons sufficiently in
love with Nova Roma to take the trouble to return after for one
reason or another leaving for a time.
We are here not here talking about people who have been exiled - our
nearest approach to capital punishment - but about persons who simply
becasue of personal (or possibly moral or political) reasons decided
to leave. This is a right in the world civil society that we live in.
And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of that person to
Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are sane and humane,
we will welcome back all who choose to return, as any other normal
organisation would.
In the previous debate there was too much emphasis on the
micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic extent, and in
comparing ourselves with macronations we got involved with a model
not truly relevant to us, and one apparently touching off excessive
emotions in some. We are a micronation, but not a macronation. No one
depends on us for his passport and his right to live in a place,
travel internationally, and hold down a job. Our citizenship is
always a second citizenship, and carries fewer natural benefits: it
must therefore carry fewer responsibilities if it is to be taken
seriously, and no amount of pomposity in the phrasing of our laws can
change that basic fact.
If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other normal membership
organisation, one can join and leave according to one's own needs and
desires, and the worst that might happen is that one must wait for
the applications for rejoining to be processed each time and perhaps
one might have to pay a year's dues over again if unlucky. That
commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that might actually
deserve to be addressed: "revolving door" membership, in which a
member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing an unreasonable
amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding this, however,
could be effected with one simple rule:
"Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
once in any twelve-month period."
With this simple rule, the censors would not be bothered
unreasonably, and returning persons would not be treated with
suspicion or de facto punishments for non-crimes. It would do its job
and not infringe on the natural rights of the person to freedom of
association.
The provisions for senators and gens membership are no problem. But
let us remember that many people can leave for many reasons: loss of
easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or family pressures,
legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme sickness, normal
fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of these involves
hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our real human lives
- let us, then, treat them so.
Quirites, we need to give up on punitive laws and remember that we
exist because we can attract people to come here - and back to here -
and to stay and participate. We need more of a will to please and to
serve our cives, and less of an inclination to rule them or hold them
in awe to a state that they can leave at any time - as many notable
and active persons here rcently did. Nova Roma *is* its cives, and it
behooves us to treat each other decently and well, and as fellow
human beings - not as potential objections of regulation, humiliation
and punishment. >>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Keeping citizens interested (was Re: Conflict of Interest) |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:33:38 -0500 |
|
Salve Gai Cassi Nerva
> <<? And Nerva accuses me of being for social engineering!>>
>
> I do not recall mentioning your name.
My apologies. The comment came from a misremembered comment of yours
directed to Draco. You have, indeed, not accused me of such a thing.
Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach
conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant."
-Helen Keller
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict |
| From: |
gcassiusnerva@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:12:50 EDT |
|
In the Constitution drafted by Consul
Fl. Vedius Germancius, there is a concept included that is called a dual
citizenship doctrine. In that, it establishes the concept that we are
citizens of our macronational countries as well as Nova Roma. As a
result of that doctrine, and because of the fact that we are a
micronation with the aspirations of having land. And, given the fact
that we do not have the funds, time or resources to conduct our own
through investigations of various issues, such as in this case a name
issue, both Censors felt this would be the best way to set guidelines
for naming. Basically, what this means is that *whatever gender you are
recognized in your macronation you will be considered the same gender in
Nova Roma.* There are no differences.
If your drivers license, tax return or any other governmental document
has a gender identification then that is the gender that WILL be
recognized in Nova Roma. This is simple. No jumping through hoops required.
In my honest opinion, Nova Roma is a nation. I do not see any reason
why Nova Roma should be any different than any other nation in the
World. If a citizen is willing to go through the time and effort to
change their gender in Nova Roma, but not the United States or any other
country I would ask why? Because I see no difference between the goals
and aspirations of what Nova Roma is trying to become and what the
United States or any other country is.
The edict is fine as it is. Too liberal even.
Gaius Cassius Nerva
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:35:07 -0700 |
|
Salvete Formosane et Quiritibus;
-----Original Message-----
From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:04 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue of the
Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as infamous as the
Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally ill-considered, unfair, and
punitive nature.
OFS: Welcome back to the fray Formosane. Since your
infamous main list 'moderated status,' it must have been
a long and difficult wait until these edicts could come
up for discussion. I see your comments and line of
reasoning are running pretty much the same as they do in
all discussions of things that you don't personally
like. Oh well, so be it. Comments below.
The principal problems with it are two:
1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles and de facto
punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma, based simply on
their having been members in good standing before, and having chosen
to leave.
OFS: A very broad assumption Formosane. How do you
arrive at the assumption that members renouncing their
citizenship and turning their backs on that which so
many of us labour so hard to build are automatically
in 'good standing' when they leave?
I will grant you that those that choose to leave this
or any organization *do* have the fundamental 'right'
to do so, but any departure from anything in life has
some sort of consequences attached to the act. You would
do well to remember that many (if not most of us,) look
at Nova Roma as much more than a plain 'organization.'
Many of us look at as our second home, a dream to be
achieved, a place to share camaraderie, goals dreams and
achievements and interests. Am not sure how you view your
own home, but I take mine very seriously and if I choose to
call something thusly, then it is a serious affair indeed
when someone chooses to turn their back on a common
relationship and run for the hills.
Like analogies? I can give you a direct one. Say one has
a friend; a good friend. This friend is one with whom
one shares all of the things outlined above as if they
were part of one home. All of a sudden, one day this
metaphorical friend decides they don't want anything
more to do with you. They just say 'heck with this
friendship, I'm outta here.' -Blithely walking out
of your life. So this friend marches out, leaving you
speechless perhaps saying some nasty things on the way
out and -poof! Friend is gone.
So, this metaphorical friend goes off on their way
after shattering your trust and common bond, then decides
to show up again on your doorstep out of the blue
and wish to reinstate the friendship. Then, let's say,
the cycle repeats itself. What do you do in this situation?
Give the friend a hug, warm milk and cookies, hold hands
and sing songs with them?
As I say, just a metaphorical question and not one I
expect you to answer. I know how I and many of my friends
and fellow Romans would answer the question, but am sure
that you will come up with some surprising answer to it.
Formosane writes:
Discouraging persons from leaving would be a natural desire
(if improper and impossible), but causing problems for those wishing
to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps changes in their
life conditions is targetting a group that deserves rather to be
welcomed home.
OFS: No, it's not causing problems. It's clarifying
an already tough and emotional situation for both the
civis that left and for those to whom the civis wishes
to return. As I said when the text of the edict was
first published, I actually think it's *beyond* fair.
In fact, if it were me, such a civis would have to be
voted back in by a 2/3 majority in the Comitia Centuriata.
Again I ask you Formosane, why are those that storm out
of NR to be welcomed home at the drop of a hat? Are you
saying that 9 days isn't long enough for someone to cool
one's heels and rethink a decision? Frankly, anyone
that can't make up their mind about the nature of their
citizenship in 9 days, is likely to be unstable anyway.
But, remembering that they can still come back in six months.
Formosane writes:
2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons who have
committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental principle of
justice.
OFS: We are a Respublica here Formosane, not
a principle-based ultra liberal think tank. I see
nowhere that states this is a criminal code. It
simply states a procedure for dealing with a certain
chain of events. As has been aptly noted by a variety
of cives, some of us take our Respublica much
more seriously in terms of obligation than others.
For those that do, others that are overtly casual
with our trust and friendship (not to mention in antiqua,
no self-respecting Roman would EVER actually resign
their hard-earned citizenship.) Think about it perhaps-
how many of us haven't' in frustration at some particular
issue or imagined slight? Yes, I know there was a time
in the early days of NR where things were different, MUCH
different and people may have said this or that
on a list, or resigned in for a few hours in a severely
physically weakened state, but we're talking about
the Roma of NOW. The Roma of 800+ cives. We can no longer
be rogue and casual in all manner of things; we need
competent legislation to address a wide variety of
issues.
Formosane writes:
Neither leaving Nova Roma nor choosing to return are crimes,
but normal affairs of life. And yet the provisions dripping with icy
unwelcome
OFS: I'll give you this Formosane, you do have a way
with words and can create quite a melodramatic picture.
'Dripping with icy unwelcome...' that is priceless!
Yes, indeed leaving one's home, failing to reconsider
same within 9 days and wishing to return again is
indeed a somber affair. This scenario is aptly provided
for in the proposed Lex. Perhaps if you look at this
a little more in terms of benefiting those that stay
instead of trying to make every possible concession
to those that have given up on us and our dream anyways,
you might see the true reasoning behind the legislation.
Formosane writes:
and punitive intent treat returners as though they were
criminals and suspect characters,
OFS: I think you're starting to repeat yourself.
Very similar to what was written previously in
the post.
Formosane writes:
instead of persons sufficiently in
love with Nova Roma to take the trouble to return after for one
reason or another leaving for a time.
OFS: LOL! Priceless! Yes, 'sufficiently in love.' So
much so, that said civis slaps everyone in the face,
storms out, refuses to reconsider pleas from his/her
comrades for return but just 'loves' us so much that
they want to come back on the 10th day.
Formosane writes:
We are here not here talking about people who have been exiled
OFS: Uhm...exiled? What does a citizenship edict have to
do with the formal punishment of exile? Resignation is
*self exile' Formosane, not state-sanctioned exile.
Formosane writes:
- our
nearest approach to capital punishment
OFS: Oh please, must we go here?
- but about persons who simply
becasue of personal (or possibly moral or political) reasons decided
to leave. This is a right in the world civil society that we live in.
OFS: Yes, as could be universally agreed, people are gifted
with choice, and leaving this or any nation or organization
may be an inherent right in the grand scheme of the cosmos,
but let's not forget those that choose to stay and build
Roma. Yes Formosane, what about us? Do we not have rights?
Do we not have rights to say how we want to deal with
those that desert us? How about the needless headaches imposed
on administrators and pater/materfamilias on dealing
with such individuals?
Formosane writes:
And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of that person to
Nova Roma for which we should be grateful.
OFS: Those that break bonds of trust are bestowing
us with a gift? No thanks.
Formosane writes:
If we are sane and humane,
we will welcome back all who choose to return, as any other normal
organisation would.
OFS: We are not a 'normal' organization. We are a micronation.
We have goals of sovereignty. We have goals of building real
and physical community. Any nation at some point needs to
get down to business and codify itself so that it can have
some structure, order and basis for growth. We are not the
'Sierra Club,' or 'Green Peace' here. We are a nation.
Those of us that have come to terms with that are ready
for the next steps.
Formosane writes;
In the previous debate there was too much emphasis on the
micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic extent, and in
comparing ourselves with macronations we got involved with a model
not truly relevant to us,
OFS: It is true that it is a stretch to come up with
an adequate and universally applicable model for our
nation. This does not mean that we shouldn't try. We
have the benefit of learning from all the many macronations
within which portions of our own nation exists. We also
have the models of Roma Mater; personally in my mind the
best models and those which we should follow as closely
as possible. Though I may not personally envision quite
the cuddly wuddly rainbow that you seem to be seeking,
I do want a functioning nation that has the structure
on which to grow itself and realize its potential and
the goals which it has established for itself.
<snipped>
Formosane writes:
If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other normal membership
organisation, one can join and leave according to one's own needs and
desires, and the worst that might happen is that one must wait for
the applications for rejoining to be processed each time and perhaps
one might have to pay a year's dues over again if unlucky. That
commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
OFS: Yes, I wonder just what your 'approved' list
of 'model' organisations looks like. But heck, since
we're being so silly and unrealistic, why not model
ourselves on a stamp collection society, or perhaps
an insect gathering society, or a united federation
of needlepoint craft persons? (Not intending to offend
anyone associated with such interests here, am just
using an extreme example of 'organization' to match
Formosane's.)
Formosane writes:
Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that might actually
deserve to be addressed: "revolving door" membership, in which a
member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing an unreasonable
amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding this, however,
could be effected with one simple rule:
"Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
once in any twelve-month period."
OFS: Hmmm...how many times do you think this actually
happens? Again, I can but ask you why you feel such
persons warrant so many extra chances and opportunity
to burden our already busy officials?
<snipped>
Formosane writes:
The provisions for senators and gens membership are no problem. But
let us remember that many people can leave for many reasons: loss of
easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or family pressures,
legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme sickness, normal
fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of these involves
hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our real human lives
- let us, then, treat them so.
OFS: It could *also* be argued that one need not leave
in the first place. If one is sick or severely ill (as has
happened in many famous instances here in our history,)
than one need not leave. One can contact the pater/mater;
or in the case that said individual is already the pater/
mater, then that individual can notify *someone* in NR
of their status which can in turn be relayed to the appropriate
people in NR. This might be a Legatus, Propraetor, Senator,
Sodale or with whomever the individual most closely associates.
In the case of 'normal fluctuation of interest and priorities,'
or protest, I would argue that an individual in this
circumstance deserves no special consideration. All
the consideration they need is contained in the Lex.
If one needs to 'protest' something, they 'protest'
it on the main list, make their opinions known and go
about their business. If they feel that they need to
go off and find their own sandbox somewhere -so be it,
but said individual can just deal with the terms
stipulated in the Lex.
<snipped>
Nova Roma *is* its cives, and it
OFS: On this one small point, I do agree with you
as I think we all would. Yes, NR *IS* its cives.
*CIVES* being the key term here. Not lurkers.
Not trolls. Not deserters. *CIVES.*
Bene valete,
-Oppius
<snipped>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:38:39 EDT |
|
On 4/8/01 5:32 PM Gnaeus Salix Astur (salixastur@--------) wrote:
SNIP
>I know that this Edictum was a response to a certain
>ill-feeling due to several resignations in the last
>month. ...
That's the problem with being a complete newcomer and telling us that you
"know" what's going on here - you *don't* know! The proposed law on
resignations predates, and has nothing to do with, the desertions of the
Ides of March.
>
>Thank you, M. Apollonius Formosanus, for your wise
>words....
And neither do you know M. Apollonius Formosanus.
Perhaps it would be more seemly for you to spend a little time doing more
listening than speaking, before you start telling us how we should handle
all these issues about which you know little or nothing.
Please do not misunderstand this as an attempt to upbraid or rebuke you.
I am glad you are joining us and I'm sure that you will be able to make a
contribution once you've gotten your bearings. But it does seem
remarkable that you jump right in with the assumption that you already
know what is happening here and already have opinions to share about it.
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust.
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:38:42 EDT |
|
On 4/8/01 5:03 PM M. Apollonius Formosanus (bvm3@--------) wrote:
[SNIPPED a lot of the usual elaborate verbiage, to get to the heart of
the matter]
>
> If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other normal membership
>organisation, one can join and leave according to one's own needs and
>desires, and the worst that might happen is that one must wait for
>the applications for rejoining to be processed each time and perhaps
>one might have to pay a year's dues over again if unlucky. That
>commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
That would be very appropo *IF* this were the Sierra Club or a chapter of
ToastMasters International, Formosanus. However it is nothing like that.
It is a struggling fledgling Republic that is seriously undermined by
people coming in, getting involved, and leaving suddenly in a snit when
some little thing is not to their liking. People who come here *must*
understand that some minimum level of serious committment is required
here. One way to do this is to punish those who insist on treating their
citizenship as if it were a matter of joining a club or "other normal
membership organization."
It would be shocking that you would view it this way, except that those
of us who know you are accustomed by now to hearing this kind of thing
from you.
>
> Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that might actually
>deserve to be addressed: "revolving door" membership, in which a
>member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing an unreasonable
>amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding this, however,
>could be effected with one simple rule:
>
>"Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
>once in any twelve-month period."
AS IF the only issue were the extra paperwork for the Censores, to be
alleviated by this simple-minded rule!
>
>With this simple rule, the censors would not be bothered
>unreasonably, and returning persons would not be treated with
>suspicion or de facto punishments for non-crimes. It would do its job
>and not infringe on the natural rights of the person to freedom of
>association.
>
> The provisions for senators and gens membership are no problem. But
>let us remember that many people can leave for many reasons: loss of
>easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or family pressures,
>legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme sickness, normal
>fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of these involves
>hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our real human lives
>- let us, then, treat them so.
>
> Quirites, we need to give up on punitive laws and remember that we
>exist because we can attract people to come here - and back to here -
>and to stay and participate. We need more of a will to please and to
>serve our cives, and less of an inclination to rule them or hold them
>in awe to a state that they can leave at any time - as many notable
>and active persons here rcently did. Nova Roma *is* its cives, and it
>behooves us to treat each other decently and well, and as fellow
>human beings - not as potential objections of regulation, humiliation
>and punishment.
>
I think you meant to say "objects" and not "objections." But then
citizens of *any state in the known universe* are by definitions "objects
of regulation" wherever regulation is necessary for the well being of the
whole. You simply cannot bear the notion of government, can you?
It IS a crime to commit to serve the Republic and then run out on her. It
IS a crime to swear a sacred oath before the gods and then simply
abrogate that oath as if it were nothing. We need a law, not to punish
people for committing these despicable acts, but to discourage them from
doing so, so that they won't have to be punished. It's a deterrent, not a
punishment UNLESS they are not deterred and go on to do these things.
Then they deserve to be inconvenienced (if not stoned).
>
>Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
>____________________________________________________
>Memento Idus Martias - non omnino bene Respublica se habet.
>(Remember the Ides of March - it is not all well with the Republic.)
Indeed. On the Ides of March, a great Roman was murdered by men like you,
who were driven by muddle-headed notions that they knew how things should
be run and who would stop at nothing to force others to see it their way.
Oh, and on another Ides of March, a small group of sworn magistrates and
officials conspired to desert their duty posts and run out on the
Republic to which they had supposedly committed themselves.
>____________________________________________________
>
>All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
>enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Yes, I believe that is the most appropriate point you have made in a long
while.
Vale,
Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Old Business I: Name Change Edict |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:38:47 EDT |
|
Salvete Citizens
I urge you to vote AGAINST this lex if it is ever presented for a vote,
unless and until section XX is deleted. It is unthinkable and disgusting
that we would pass a law requiring people to present evidence of the
particulars of their genital organs to our magistrates in order to obtain
permission to use a name of their choosing.
A law with such a provision would shame our Republic before the whole
world.
OUR GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN OUR PANTS.
Valete,
Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
>-----
>
>Edictum Censoriale de Mutandis Nominibus
>
>
>CENSORIAL EDICT ON
>
>CHANGING OF ROMAN NAMES
>
>June 29, 2000
>
>A Latin Translation of this Edict follows the English Version.
>
>STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
>I. - This edict is set forth to define the procedures by which a citizen may
>apply to add, alter, or substitute any portion of his or her Roman name,
>and to state the guidelines by which such an application may be judged.
>This is
>done in order to attain a measure of conformity with ancient Roman naming
>conventions and tradition. Note that this edictum, and its procedures and
>guidelines, apply to changes sought by citizens after the publication of
>this edictum, and do not apply to citizens' existing names.
>
>II. - This edict has no impact on chatroom handles, signatures to private or
>casual e-mail messages, or any other alias that any citizen may choose to
>use. Rather, 'Roman name' for the purposes of this edict refers to the name
>used by the citizen in public oaths, applications to sodalitates and in
>other official contexts; this Roman name is the one recorded in the
>censorial album civium.
>
>III. - Note that the use of the male gender throughout this document is done
>solely for clarity, and is not meant to imply any disparity between the
>sexes before the law.
>
>IV. - Also note that this document uses the word sex to describe the
>physical sex of a person and the word gender to refer to linguistic gender
>only.
>
>V. - It is not the intent of this edictum to discriminate against or to make
>any judgment about homosexuality, transgenderedness, or any other sexual
>identity. No such discrimination should be inferred from any part of this
>document. Nor should it be used as a precedent for any law, magisterial act,
>edictum, or other action that interferes with the rights of any citizen on
>the basis of that citizen's sexual identity.
>
>
>REITERATION OF THE DEFINITION OF A ROMAN NAME
>VI. As has been stated elsewhere, a Roman name consists of a praenomen,
>nomen, cognomen, and possibly an agnomen, and, in rare cases, several
>agnomina.
>
>VII. - The praenomen is a citizen's given name, and is used to distinguish
>between members of a particular gens. Since there are very few historical
>praenomina, and since the praenomen's role is almost entirely secondary, a
>citizen is almost never referred to by praenomen alone.
>
>VIII. - The nomen identifies a citizen's gens. Since a change in the stem of
>a citizen's nomen would necessitate a change in gens-- a case of either
>adoptio or the founding of a new gens-- it is beyond the scope of this
>edictum.
>
>IX. - The cognomen was originally a nickname. It is used to further
>identify members within a gens, who could easily be identically named due to
>the paucity of praenomina. Over time, the cognomen became inherited, and
>was
>used to identify specific family lines within a single gens. Changes to
>adopt certain names as cognomina are restricted, as set forth in paragraphs
>X and XI below. Note that these restrictions do not apply whatsoever to
>cognomina under which citizens have already received citizenship.
>
>X. - An agnomen is an additional form of nickname that is commonly bestowed
>upon a citizen by others, often to commemorate significant accomplishments
>or important events in the citizen's life. While it is possible for a
>citizen to add a new agnomen or change an existing one by request, agnomina
>of distinction must be awarded by a senator, curule magistrate, or pontifex
>in recognition of service to Nova Roma. Official recognition of such
>awarded agnomina of distinction is completed by the censors' entering the
>agnomina in the album civium. Following each such entry by the censores, the
>latter will provide the curator araneae with the full Roman name of the
>distinguished citizen and an explanation of the circumstances and reasons
>surrounding the award of the agnomen, that the curator araneae may publish
>this information to the Nova Roma website as he sees fit.
>
>XI. - Agnomina of distinction include, but are not limited to, the
>following: Augur, Augustus, Felix, Invictus, Magnus, Maximus,
>Optimus, Pius, Superbus, Victor. Note that these restrictions do not
>apply whatsoever to agnomina under which citizens have already received
>citizenship.
>
>XII. - As an example, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos would be Quintus of
>the Metellus branch of gens Caecilia. His family would be referred to as the
>Caecilii Metelli, in order to distinguish them from the other families
>within gens Caecilia. His agnomen, Nepos, distinguishes him from any
>other Quintus of the Caecilii Metelli. As nepos means grandson, it also
>most likely distinguishes him as the third in a line of like-named people.
>
>
>PROCEDURES
>
>XIII. - A citizen wishing to change his name shall first contact his
>paterfamilias and present his reasons for desiring a name change, as well
>as the desired name. The paterfamilias will in turn contact the censores
>should he approve of the name change, or should he find that he requires
>help in determining whether or not to approve the change.
>
>XIV. - Patresfamiliae are instructed to work cooperatively with members of
>their gens who desire to change their names in order to help them conform to
>the letter and spirit of this document.
>
>XV. - Should a paterfamilias disapprove of a citizens desired name change,
>refusing to present it to the censores, said citizen may appeal to the
>censores within ninety (90) days of the refusal.
>
>XVI. - A paterfamilias who wishes to change his name shall apply to the
>censores directly.
>
>XVII. - Should an applicant fail to obtain a name change from the censores,
>he may, within ninety (90) days of the refusal, appeal to a consul or
>praetor to bring the matter before the people through a vote in the Comitia
>Populi
>Tributa.
>i) - Note that such an action requires the citizen who desires the change
>to temporarily waive his rights of confidentiality as defined in Lex
>Cornelia de Privatis Rebus, in order that evidence for and against the
>application
>may be presented to the populace.
>ii) - Also note that the decision to convene the Comitia Populi Tributa,
>along with the schedule for doing so, is the purview of the consules and
>praetores, and is therefore beyond the scope of this edict.
>
>
>GUIDELINES
>
>XVIII. - An application for a name change is confidential. The requested
>name, along with any and all evidence presented with it, is considered
>confidential information as covered by the Lex Cornelia de Privatis Rebus.
>Censores, patresfamiliae, and anyone called to provide testimony by any
>party in the procedure are not to divulge any information applicable to the
>name change to anyone without the applicants written permission, except as
>directed by this edict. Such exceptions include the following:
>i) - A paterfamilias providing relevant information upon referring a
>request for a new name to the censores.
>ii) - A paterfamilias or other citizen providing relevant information upon
>a censor, consul, or praetors request, as in the case of an appeal of
>a denied application.
>iii) - A citizen presenting evidence before the Comitia Populi Tributa in
>the case of an appeal to those comitia.
>
>XIX. - The guiding principle in considering name changes is to be conformity
>with ancient Roman tradition.
>i) - New praenomina should be historically attested ones.
>ii) - As previously stated, agnomina of distinction (Maximus, Felix, et
>cetera) are not to be granted to citizens on request, but can be awarded to
>any citizen by any senator, curule magistrate, or pontifex in recognition of
>any special service to the Republic. It is up to the patresfamiliae and
>censores to determine what is and is not an agnomen of distinction on a
>case-by-case basis.
>iii) - Cognomina and agnomina can be new coinages, but must be conducive to
>Latin declension, and must have a clear meaningboth semantically and in
>specific relation to the citizen requesting the added or changed name.
>iv) - The gender of the name is to be consistent. Each part is to agree
>with all others in gender, and with the sex of the citizen requesting the
>name change.
>
>XX. - A citizen who wishes to change the gender of his name counter to that
>dictated by his sex must present, in support of his application, proof of
>acceptance of the contrary sex by an authority of a macronation, state, or
>municipality. In other words, if the applicant is physically a man and has
>a form of macronational or municipal identification listing his sex as
>female, or is officially recognized as a woman in his country of
>macronational citizenship, then he may use a feminine name in Nova Roma.
>i) - An exception to this rule is allowed in the case of transsexual
>citizens who are discussing surgical sex alteration with a health care
>provider or undergoing other medical and psychological treatment in
>preparation for such an operation. In these instances, documentation
>pertaining to health care provider(s) may be required of the applicant.
>ii) - Post-operative transsexual citizens shall be named according to their
>current sex.
>iii) - Hermaphrodites shall be named according to the sex in which they are
>recognized by their country of macronational citizenship.
>
>-----
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re:Patroni et clientes -Another perspective |
| From: |
"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:44:27 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
<<Mani Villi writes:
The mafia patronage is patronage and its the direct descendant of
Roman patronage, eventually (2 millenaries in this case) it will end
up like that.
OFS: How so?>>
I too have read this. It was put most understandably in "The Private Lives
of Romans" (sic). Granted, the Mafia is at best a bastardized form, but the
social structure has an unbroken line in Sicily going all the way back to
classical Rome. It is definitely based on Client/Patron. Dons are actually
addressed as "patroni" (spelling?).
This of course says nothing about the merits of the patronage system, since
any social system can be abused. The Mafia evolved from bandits who were
the descendants of Romans dispossessed by the invading Germanic tribes in
the 5th century. That, rather than patronage, determined their choice of
lawlessness or illicit activity. Their career as bandits lasted longer than
their previous history as civilized Romans :-)
Valete,
Helena Galeria
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:47:09 +1000 |
|
Don't stress Gnaeus
I am also new..
Is it possible that fellow Citizens could be a little more forgiving to us
"new comers". All the comments below achieve is to alienate and frighten
new citizens from making comments about anything - I mean the comments may
have been misguided from my fellow citizen, but gee - kick a Fellow Citizen
in the guts why don't you
You all say "how do we get Citizens involved" or how do we make provinces
grow - hey the comments below will not and do not do that ...>>>>
I await for the obligatory rebuke from all or sundry for hoping out of my
marble box again...
PAX ROMANA !!!
Marcus Sentius Claudius
-----Original Message-----
From: LSergAust@-------- [mailto:LSergAust@--------]
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2001 3:39 Pm
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict
On 4/8/01 5:32 PM Gnaeus Salix Astur (salixastur@--------) wrote:
SNIP
>I know that this Edictum was a response to a certain
>ill-feeling due to several resignations in the last
>month. ...
That's the problem with being a complete newcomer and telling us that you
"know" what's going on here - you *don't* know! The proposed law on
resignations predates, and has nothing to do with, the desertions of the
Ides of March.
>
>Thank you, M. Apollonius Formosanus, for your wise
>words....
And neither do you know M. Apollonius Formosanus.
Perhaps it would be more seemly for you to spend a little time doing more
listening than speaking, before you start telling us how we should handle
all these issues about which you know little or nothing.
Please do not misunderstand this as an attempt to upbraid or rebuke you.
I am glad you are joining us and I'm sure that you will be able to make a
contribution once you've gotten your bearings. But it does seem
remarkable that you jump right in with the assumption that you already
know what is happening here and already have opinions to share about it.
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust.
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:09:58 -0700 |
|
Salvete Marce Senti et Gnae Salix;
Please let me take a moment and echo your
words to 'not stress' about it. Indeed, this
is a very, *very,* open forum here and many
opinions are shared; sometimes quite heatedly.
As far as being new, we have *all* made mistakes,
offended this or that person at one time or
another, or felt unhappy at the result of a certain
post or posts.
Our history, like the history of any other budding
nation has its ups and downs and aspects that take
time to understand. I would ask you to indulge us
though on some of these issues, such as the Resignation
and Name change edicts which as has been stated -are
not new at all, rather they are retooled pieces of
legislation that have been around for a little while
and were originally drafted in response to issues
that predate you and I. (I joined Nova Roma on
11/28/2000.)
Also, please understand that there are certain
individuals, such as L. Sergius was referring
to, that never show *any* flexibility of
opinion or ever change the nature of their arguments.
For those of us who have seen all this first hand,
so many, MANY times before, it can be quite grating
for someone new to come along out of the blue and state
that one of these cives is speaking with 'wise words,'
and so forth.
My personal suggestion, would be to spend some time
reading through the archives (going back at least
a year, especially focusing on election periods,) and
you'll begin to get a feel for some of these issues.
I'll be the first to say that neither myself, nor anyone else
here can or should tell you who to 'side' or 'align'
with or what opinions to have, echo and share.
This is the choice of the individual. However,
before making these choices, it is helpful to read
back at least a few months, see who says what, then
make your decisions from there. Just a humble
suggestion.
Though most disagreements here actually tend to be
fairly civil (especially, when compared to Roma
Mater,) individuals do stray off course at times
(myself included,) when discussing highly emotional
issues. This is to be expected and quite honestly,
one must be a little thick-skinned at times to
deal with those that may espouse their opinions
in more heated terms.
That being said though, you should *never* be bashful,
timid or shy about sharing your opinions on this list.
It is public, it is open and it is by nature a noisy and
active place. As you've undoubtedly seen, no one here
is too bashful about sharing their opinions here so
please don't feel that way either. We welcome your
input!
Bene valete,
Oppius Flaccus Severus, Legatus America Boreoccidentalis Major
Sacerdos Neptunus
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark A Bird [mailto:mark_a_bird@--------]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:47 PM
To: 'novaroma@--------'
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict
Don't stress Gnaeus
I am also new..
Is it possible that fellow Citizens could be a little more forgiving to us
"new comers". All the comments below achieve is to alienate and frighten
new citizens from making comments about anything - I mean the comments may
have been misguided from my fellow citizen, but gee - kick a Fellow Citizen
in the guts why don't you
<snipped>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 02:30:21 -0400 |
|
Salvete,
<<Formosanus scripsit:
But let us remember that many people can leave for many reasons: loss of
easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or family pressures,
legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme sickness, normal
fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of these involves
hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our real human lives
- let us, then, treat them so.>>
There is certainly no reason to actively resign just because your real life
causes a period of inactivity. Resigning from Nova Roma requires the
Citizen to actually request that they be removed from the roles, so to
speak. Why would any Citizen ask to have his/her citizenship revoked
because of any of the above reasons? A person who holds a position
certainly might step down from it due to these reasons. Still, inactivity
does not affect citizenship, nor does citizenship require any activity.
If someone resigns, therefore, they do so to make a point. For whatever
reason, they don't want to have anything more to do with Nova Roma - which
is quite different from not having the time, or Internet access, or
whatever. That is why I agree with the idea that a time penalty be
instituted against those who actively resign.
Now, if we vote in a tax law that is attached to citizenship, then I'd have
to reverse my opinion. If paying taxes (dues, whatever) is required to
remain a Citizen, then having no money becomes a good reason to lose one's
citizenship (of course, that's a big reason why I don't think this should
happen :-)
Valete,
Helena Galeria
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Old Business I: Name Change Edict |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 08 Apr 2001 23:29:34 -0700 |
|
Ave,
I have to disagree with Lucius Sergius. Given the fact that this issue
has come up more than once, by Lucia Maria. During the Censorship of
Flavius Vedius and Decius Iunius...and when she wasnt successful she
petitioned again when I was sole Censor. Given the fact that this issue
has come up multiple times some standard must be adopted. And, it seems
perfectly reasonable to me that we should adopt the same standards used
in our macronations of residence. If we are supposed to be a Nation,
then I do not see any reason to deviate. All we need is a photo copy of
a drivers license. How difficult is it to photo copy a drivers license
and mail it to one of the Censors. That is 5 cents for a photocopy and
33 cents for a stamp.
But I must take execption to Lucius Sergius's accusation we are not in
anyone's pants...that is quite illustrative, Lucius Sergius. However,
what we are is trying to establish administrative standards. And using
the Dual citizenship policy as it is adopted in the Constitution of Nova
Roma is a very feasible and I think honest policy in Nova Roma. I must
echo the remarks of G. Cassius Nerva. If one wants to be of a different
gender in Nova Roma, but unwilling to do the same for their macronation,
I would ask why? Because I view Nova Roma in the same standard as any
other macronation.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
LSergAust@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete Citizens
<Snip>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Oath of Office |
| From: |
Mikko =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sillanp=E4=E4?= <mikko.sillanpaa@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:36:09 +0300 |
|
I, Caius Curius Saturninus (Mikko Sillanpää) do hereby solemnly swear
to uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.
As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Caius Curius Saturninus (Mikko
Sillanpää) swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public
dealings, and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private
life.
I, Caius Curius Saturninus (Mikko Sillanpää) swear to uphold and
defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and
swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as the
State Religion.
I, Caius Curius Saturninus (Mikko Sillanpää) swear to protect and
defend the Constitution of Nova Roma.
I, Caius Curius Saturninus (Mikko Sillanpää) further swear to fulfill
the obligations and responsibilities of the office of Legatus
Regionis Finnicae to the best of my abilities.
On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the
Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor,
do I accept the position of Legatus Regionis Finnicae and all the
rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities attendant
thereto.
Vale
Caius Curius Saturninus
Mikko Sillanpää
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re:Codex |
| From: |
QFabiusMax@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:16:16 EDT |
|
>> One question; who would be in charge of maintaining and updating such a
Codex? The praetores, aediles, their scribes, or a new magistracy under the
vigintisexviri? Where did such codici come from in Roma Antiqua?<<
Salvete.
Point of Information. I presume you are referring to the Theodosius Codex.
A Codex is a book with a spine. Unlike a scroll, which is a book that you
roll
up.
Laws in the late empire were complied in a codex presumably because they
could be easily referenced.
Since we have already had several decisions handed down by the office of the
Praetors, I would not object to starting a digest keeping a written record of
decisions on Law interpretation.
Then future Praetors could refer to them, although Roman Law usually didn't
use precedent in making a decision, our modern version seems doomed to use
it, simply
because we all are so used to it.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] On Clientelism and Gens Recruiting |
| From: |
QFabiusMax@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:20:15 EDT |
|
>> If Draco and the long forgotten person who was dead-set against gens
recruiting are in fact advocating such regulating of our own social lives,
then I really hope these guys are the minority.<<
Salvete
I have had many a discussion with young Draco, (I say young because he is,
not to imply he is immature. He is far from that.) about this subject. He
sees most things as having potential of being abused. I agree. But let's
put this in prospective.
Part of any reconstruction is getting the basics right. One of these of
ancient Rome was the practice of patron/client system. Are there problems
with the system? Sure. Is there a chance of abuse? Of course anything can
be abused. Should we force people to accept this system? No. Should we
forbid this
system? No. We should leave it up to the people to work things out.
About Gens. I recruit for my Gens. Is this wrong? I don't think so. I
tell people up front what is expected of them in my Gens. Some don't join,
while others do. I don't put a gun to their head, nor do I trick them into
joining.
My point is this. A large extended family helps Nova Roma. A devoted and
involved
Paterfamilias helps maintain an extended family. Both are good for Nova Roma.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:00:46 +0200 |
|
Salve Marce Claudi,
((snipped))
> The quotation "but who is to guard the guards themselves?" is offensive
and
> shows an attitude of distrust on the whole concept - we must trust those
who
> have been elected - how else can NOVA operate but through Trust and
loyalty
> ...
Iuvenalis would be honoured to receive the comment above from you.
I don't know in what country you live, but where I live, the government is
filled with corrupt officials. Belgium is called "Italy of the North" for a
reason, and by nature I distrust politicans, and °certainly° financial
politicians, even those that control the actual financial magistrates. Trust
and loyalty does not equal naivity.
Vale bene,
Draco
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Taxes and Financial Support |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:05:10 +0200 |
|
Salve Ponti Seiane,
> Salvete,
> First off let me say that I am in favor of proposing financial
> standards for the society. As the founder of the RHS (Roman
> Historical Society), I have implemented a $25.00 annual membership
> fee, which people gladly pay to be a member. I have worked out with
> Flavius Germanicus that if a person joins the RHS and Nova Roma,
> $12.00 of the $25.00 will go to NR once the taxation is approved.
> How else can you grow without financial support. I know first hand
> about how hard it can be.
> When I first started the RHS, we required no membership fee, but
> you had to supply your own kit. Now, thanks to financial sponsors,
> for a small fee of $25.00, we will "loan" a full kit to the members.
> This approach has worked wonders for us. I hope all of you can
> appreciate what the consuls are trying to do by applying taxation to
> the society. I personally will pay the $12.00 to stay a member.
The problem is that NR isn't "loaning" me anything for the money I would
pay. A set of togae anyone?
Vale bene,
Draco
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Absentia |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:17:59 +0200 |
|
Salvete Quirites Novae Romae,
For a while I won't talk on the main list. I need some time to think about my citizenship here.
Valete bene,
S. Apollonius Draco
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:12:09 +0200 |
|
Salve Nerva,
((snipped))
> In my honest opinion, Nova Roma is a nation. I do not see any reason
> why Nova Roma should be any different than any other nation in the
> World.
If it would not be different, why should people join in the first place?
> If a citizen is willing to go through the time and effort to
> change their gender in Nova Roma, but not the United States or any other
> country I would ask why? Because I see no difference between the goals
> and aspirations of what Nova Roma is trying to become and what the
> United States or any other country is.
>
> The edict is fine as it is. Too liberal even.
Some have expressed their viewpoints in the past that NR is not a
neo-liberal utopia. But I'd like to add: nor is it a neo-conservative
utopia. The comparison between the US and NR is quite farfetched: NR does
not own any land, has no millions of citizens, has no police corps, has no
army (unless you count our legionnaries as soldiers), is not 210 years old,
etc etc. NR is a °°micro°°nation, US is a °°macro°°nation. Therefore,
different methods apply.
And if this edictum is too liberal for you (who was so against regulation of
social life), what alternative do you suggest?
Vale bene,
Draco
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Digest No 1314 |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:10:06 -0400 |
|
Salvete, Quirites
On the subject of taxes, in the past I have made a suggestion that each year
all Gens register and pay a 'fee' and in addition each gens member is
registered as well. I have tried to come up with
solutions for the proliferation of Gens with but a single member. My
favorite Idea is that each year Gens would be required to register and pay a
Tax in the amount set by the Senate (~$20 per Gens, with an additional $1-2
per Gens member) I believe that this *one* simple measure would serve
in different ways. Raise monies, discourage frivolous applications, and
encourage participation by those who have 'invested' in Nova Roma. The so
called 'penalty' would be that those Gens that fail to register are simply
made 'inactive', their members lose voting rights and the Gens cannot accept
new members.
Perhaps another idea suggested to me by the relatively new citizen Julilla
Sempronia can be implemented as a prerequisite for the formation of New Gens
as well as postings to other positions.
Julilla Sempronia inquit:
> Salve, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus!
>
> As one who has been on the receiving process of becoming a cititzen, I
applaud the edictum, and as a former administrator of AncientSites, with
many similar challenges (i.e., moribund and dormant familiae and discussion
groups) may I offer a suggestion?
>
> Many times cives would approach me or one of my fellow administrators
complaining of applications not being attended to. When we found
applications stacking up, we contacted the group leaders and gave them a set
time to reactivate their group before leadership was reassigned.
>
> We also required those group members who wanted to step forward and lead
the group to give us a brief statement (25-50 words) outlining their plan to
activate the group. Those who were able to give us a statement generally
made good leaders, those who found that requirement too much trouble
generally did NOT make good leaders!
>
> I hope this suggestion is helpful, and I thank you once again for all the
customer service extended to me.
>
> cura et valeas,
>
> ---
> @____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
--------------------------------------
I have read with interest the thread concerning 'Patronage'. I believe that
Lucius Sicinius Drusus has "hit the nail on the head".
I would like to add that today we miss much of the 'spiritual' aspect of
life in ancient time. If we take time to consider the Roman 'virtues' (
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html many of which have deified
aspects) we will see that there are reciprocal . To have Auctoritas, one
must also cultivate Pietas, Gravitas and Industria. Action followed by
consequence.
Perhaps if we would try to see the positive not only in the ideas and
suggestions of others, but in their motives as well, we will have a much
better chance of building a nation of which we all will can be proud.
Bene omnibus nobis, Venus Victrix nos protegas!
Vale, Censor Lucius Euqitius Cincinnatus
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:43:47 -0000
From: lsicinius@--------
Subject: Patroni et clientes
Salvete,
The "corruption" that existed in Roma Antiquita would have been there
if the Patron/Client relationship hadn't existed. The modern notion
that it's wrong to profit from public office has only existed for the
last 200 years or so. What you are calling "corruption" was the norm,
and existed before Rome was founded, and continued long after Rome
fell from power.
The problem wasn't the Patron/Client relationship, it was an entirely
different outlook on public affairs, One in which the dishonarable act
wasn't profiting from public office, but in going too far in
profiting. It was a time when it wasn't considered dishonorable to
accept a bribe, but rather dishonorable to take a bribe and fail to
deliver the promised actions.
Patrons didn't just seek Clients to increase thier Auctoritas, but
also to enhance thier Dignitas. A Patron who cheated a Client was
considered to be a despicable person who couldn't be trusted, He
suffered an enormous loss in his Dignitas. Vergil cosigned these
Patrons to the lowest level of the underworld, a region that much like
that of the Christian Hell.
Trying to discredit the Patron/Client relationship will do little more
than encourage secrect deals, while encougaging it will will bring the
actions of Patrons under public scuritiny, where those who abuse the
system will first lose thier Dignitas, then thier Auctoritas, leaving
them despised and powerless.
Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Digest No 1314 |
| From: |
Craig Stevenson <dougies@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 22:53:37 +0930 |
|
Ave all,
What a brilliant idea! I like this idea, simple as it is, and yet it enables
those who cannot pay amounts such as those listed for reasons beyond their
control to afford being a Nova Roman, and yet it encompasses an amount that I
think would see Nova Roma generate enough of a profit to work well towards its
goal. I'll say this much, that if this plan was adopted, I would not only pay
the fee, but would gladly be willing to see my way to giving donations to Nova
Roma. I favor this because I know how hard it is for some people to keep money
at important times, as it has been a long time since I have last held AUS$20 for
more than three days, due to University costs, and other expenses, registrations
and fees.
I'd like to finish off my message, by shouting out a resounding "BRAVO"!
Valete bene,
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
Lucius Equitius wrote:
> Salvete, Quirites
>
> On the subject of taxes, in the past I have made a suggestion that each year
> all Gens register and pay a 'fee' and in addition each gens member is
> registered as well. I have tried to come up with
> solutions for the proliferation of Gens with but a single member. My
> favorite Idea is that each year Gens would be required to register and pay a
> Tax in the amount set by the Senate (~$20 per Gens, with an additional $1-2
> per Gens member) I believe that this *one* simple measure would serve
> in different ways. Raise monies, discourage frivolous applications, and
> encourage participation by those who have 'invested' in Nova Roma. The so
> called 'penalty' would be that those Gens that fail to register are simply
> made 'inactive', their members lose voting rights and the Gens cannot accept
> new members.
>
> Perhaps another idea suggested to me by the relatively new citizen Julilla
> Sempronia can be implemented as a prerequisite for the formation of New Gens
> as well as postings to other positions.
>
> Julilla Sempronia inquit:
> > Salve, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus!
> >
> > As one who has been on the receiving process of becoming a cititzen, I
> applaud the edictum, and as a former administrator of AncientSites, with
> many similar challenges (i.e., moribund and dormant familiae and discussion
> groups) may I offer a suggestion?
> >
> > Many times cives would approach me or one of my fellow administrators
> complaining of applications not being attended to. When we found
> applications stacking up, we contacted the group leaders and gave them a set
> time to reactivate their group before leadership was reassigned.
> >
> > We also required those group members who wanted to step forward and lead
> the group to give us a brief statement (25-50 words) outlining their plan to
> activate the group. Those who were able to give us a statement generally
> made good leaders, those who found that requirement too much trouble
> generally did NOT make good leaders!
> >
> > I hope this suggestion is helpful, and I thank you once again for all the
> customer service extended to me.
> >
> > cura et valeas,
> >
> > ---
> > @____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
> --------------------------------------
>
> I have read with interest the thread concerning 'Patronage'. I believe that
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus has "hit the nail on the head".
> I would like to add that today we miss much of the 'spiritual' aspect of
> life in ancient time. If we take time to consider the Roman 'virtues' (
> http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html many of which have deified
> aspects) we will see that there are reciprocal . To have Auctoritas, one
> must also cultivate Pietas, Gravitas and Industria. Action followed by
> consequence.
> Perhaps if we would try to see the positive not only in the ideas and
> suggestions of others, but in their motives as well, we will have a much
> better chance of building a nation of which we all will can be proud.
>
> Bene omnibus nobis, Venus Victrix nos protegas!
> Vale, Censor Lucius Euqitius Cincinnatus
>
> Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:43:47 -0000
> From: lsicinius@--------
> Subject: Patroni et clientes
>
> Salvete,
>
> The "corruption" that existed in Roma Antiquita would have been there
> if the Patron/Client relationship hadn't existed. The modern notion
> that it's wrong to profit from public office has only existed for the
> last 200 years or so. What you are calling "corruption" was the norm,
> and existed before Rome was founded, and continued long after Rome
> fell from power.
>
> The problem wasn't the Patron/Client relationship, it was an entirely
> different outlook on public affairs, One in which the dishonarable act
> wasn't profiting from public office, but in going too far in
> profiting. It was a time when it wasn't considered dishonorable to
> accept a bribe, but rather dishonorable to take a bribe and fail to
> deliver the promised actions.
>
> Patrons didn't just seek Clients to increase thier Auctoritas, but
> also to enhance thier Dignitas. A Patron who cheated a Client was
> considered to be a despicable person who couldn't be trusted, He
> suffered an enormous loss in his Dignitas. Vergil cosigned these
> Patrons to the lowest level of the underworld, a region that much like
> that of the Christian Hell.
>
> Trying to discredit the Patron/Client relationship will do little more
> than encourage secrect deals, while encougaging it will will bring the
> actions of Patrons under public scuritiny, where those who abuse the
> system will first lose thier Dignitas, then thier Auctoritas, leaving
> them despised and powerless.
>
> Valete,
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:15:03 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Cornelie Sulla
Felix.
--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
<alexious@--------> escribió: > Ave,
>
> Just a correction to you Gn. Salix, you might want
> to go back to the
> Archives on the NR main list. For this resignation
> edict was
> promulgated last year (about 8 months ago), during
> the Censorship of C.
> Marius Merullus and myself.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor
>
Thank you very much for your correction. So this edict
was promulgated for different reasons. Could anyone
tell me which were they?
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:30:32 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Cornelie.
--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
<alexious@--------> escribió: > Ave,
>
> Exiled is not the same as renouncing one's
> citizenship. Exile would be
> a punishment given from a trial. I do not believe
> that Camillius's
> citizenship was renounced or revoked, I could be
> mistaken, but upon
> search of my Oxford Classical Companion I found no
> documentation that
> his citizenship was renounced. The point I am
> trying to make is that
> they voluntarily gave up their citizenship, it was
> not forcibly taken.
> And, as Senator Lucius Sergius noted earlier, they
> were under Oath at
> the time as magistrates at the time.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
When I used the term "exile", I referred to those
Roman citizens who left Roma Antiqua VOLUNTARILY
(albeit most did so to avoid a major punishment).
I think "exile" was not a punishment recorded in Roman
law. During the Empire, exile was more or less
"imposed" to some citizens as a way to avoid applying
a tougher punishment (this happened to my loved
Seneca, as a matter of fact). But it was not a "legal"
exile; it was a "voluntary" one.
At the time of Camillus, I don't think revoking a
Roman citizenship was even considered under Roman law.
I don't think it was recorded later, either. If one
was a Roman citizen, one stayed a Roman citizen for
his whole life. Even Coriolanus, who left Rome to
command an enemy Samnite army against her, was
considered a Roman; a Roman traitor, but a Roman
citizen. If he had returned to Rome, he'd have been
judged by his treason; but under Roman law, he'd had
had the rights of any Roman citizen during the trial.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Digest No 1314 |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:48:10 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
What a great idea! Tax collection, which we have been discussing, would be
greatly simplified. The Provincial "Publicani" (or whatever title the tax
man gets) would only have to keep track of the Gens in the area rather than
every cive. As for another hot topic, clientage, this is indirectly
addressed as well. A novus homo would be encouraged to join an existing Gen
rather than form a new one. This would provide a "family" to show newcomers
"the ropes". Perhaps this would alleviate the need for a clientage system.
Or maybe new cives forming a new Gens should be *required* to be the client
of another Paterfamilias. New Gens would be temporarily (For how long? Talk
amongst yourselves.) linked with an existing Gens. After this probationary
period this clientage could be voluntarily continued or terminated when a
new Gens gains independant status.
This would also be a great boon to we Propraetors. I'd rather spread the
"word" to a handful of Pater/Materfamilias than have to contact every
individual cives.
Bring your slings and arrows, I stand ready! :)
Next year in the Forum!
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
To: "Nova Roma" <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 6:10 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Digest No 1314
> Salvete, Quirites
>
> On the subject of taxes, in the past I have made a suggestion that each
year
> all Gens register and pay a 'fee' and in addition each gens member is
> registered as well. I have tried to come up with
> solutions for the proliferation of Gens with but a single member. My
> favorite Idea is that each year Gens would be required to register and pay
a
> Tax in the amount set by the Senate (~$20 per Gens, with an additional
$1-2
> per Gens member) I believe that this *one* simple measure would serve
> in different ways. Raise monies, discourage frivolous applications, and
> encourage participation by those who have 'invested' in Nova Roma. The so
> called 'penalty' would be that those Gens that fail to register are simply
> made 'inactive', their members lose voting rights and the Gens cannot
accept
> new members.
>
> Perhaps another idea suggested to me by the relatively new citizen
Julilla
> Sempronia can be implemented as a prerequisite for the formation of New
Gens
> as well as postings to other positions.
>
> Julilla Sempronia inquit:
> > Salve, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus!
> >
> > As one who has been on the receiving process of becoming a cititzen, I
> applaud the edictum, and as a former administrator of AncientSites, with
> many similar challenges (i.e., moribund and dormant familiae and
discussion
> groups) may I offer a suggestion?
> >
> > Many times cives would approach me or one of my fellow administrators
> complaining of applications not being attended to. When we found
> applications stacking up, we contacted the group leaders and gave them a
set
> time to reactivate their group before leadership was reassigned.
> >
> > We also required those group members who wanted to step forward and lead
> the group to give us a brief statement (25-50 words) outlining their plan
to
> activate the group. Those who were able to give us a statement generally
> made good leaders, those who found that requirement too much trouble
> generally did NOT make good leaders!
> >
> > I hope this suggestion is helpful, and I thank you once again for all
the
> customer service extended to me.
> >
> > cura et valeas,
> >
> > ---
> > @____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
> --------------------------------------
>
> I have read with interest the thread concerning 'Patronage'. I believe
that
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus has "hit the nail on the head".
> I would like to add that today we miss much of the 'spiritual' aspect of
> life in ancient time. If we take time to consider the Roman 'virtues' (
> http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html many of which have deified
> aspects) we will see that there are reciprocal . To have Auctoritas, one
> must also cultivate Pietas, Gravitas and Industria. Action followed by
> consequence.
> Perhaps if we would try to see the positive not only in the ideas and
> suggestions of others, but in their motives as well, we will have a much
> better chance of building a nation of which we all will can be proud.
>
> Bene omnibus nobis, Venus Victrix nos protegas!
> Vale, Censor Lucius Euqitius Cincinnatus
>
> Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:43:47 -0000
> From: lsicinius@--------
> Subject: Patroni et clientes
>
> Salvete,
>
> The "corruption" that existed in Roma Antiquita would have been there
> if the Patron/Client relationship hadn't existed. The modern notion
> that it's wrong to profit from public office has only existed for the
> last 200 years or so. What you are calling "corruption" was the norm,
> and existed before Rome was founded, and continued long after Rome
> fell from power.
>
> The problem wasn't the Patron/Client relationship, it was an entirely
> different outlook on public affairs, One in which the dishonarable act
> wasn't profiting from public office, but in going too far in
> profiting. It was a time when it wasn't considered dishonorable to
> accept a bribe, but rather dishonorable to take a bribe and fail to
> deliver the promised actions.
>
> Patrons didn't just seek Clients to increase thier Auctoritas, but
> also to enhance thier Dignitas. A Patron who cheated a Client was
> considered to be a despicable person who couldn't be trusted, He
> suffered an enormous loss in his Dignitas. Vergil cosigned these
> Patrons to the lowest level of the underworld, a region that much like
> that of the Christian Hell.
>
> Trying to discredit the Patron/Client relationship will do little more
> than encourage secrect deals, while encougaging it will will bring the
> actions of Patrons under public scuritiny, where those who abuse the
> system will first lose thier Dignitas, then thier Auctoritas, leaving
> them despised and powerless.
>
> Valete,
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:58:31 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salve, Flacce Severe.
Thank you too for your kind words. I'll try to know
more about things before expressing my enthusiasm; but
don't you bet I won't make some other mistake :-).
--- Oppius Flaccus Severus <oppiusflaccus@-------->
escribió: > Salvete Marce Senti et Gnae Salix;
>
> Please let me take a moment and echo your
> words to 'not stress' about it. Indeed, this
> is a very, *very,* open forum here and many
> opinions are shared; sometimes quite heatedly.
>
> As far as being new, we have *all* made mistakes,
> offended this or that person at one time or
> another, or felt unhappy at the result of a certain
> post or posts.
>
> Our history, like the history of any other budding
> nation has its ups and downs and aspects that take
> time to understand. I would ask you to indulge us
> though on some of these issues, such as the
> Resignation
> and Name change edicts which as has been stated -are
> not new at all, rather they are retooled pieces of
> legislation that have been around for a little while
> and were originally drafted in response to issues
> that predate you and I. (I joined Nova Roma on
> 11/28/2000.)
>
> Also, please understand that there are certain
> individuals, such as L. Sergius was referring
> to, that never show *any* flexibility of
> opinion or ever change the nature of their
> arguments.
> For those of us who have seen all this first hand,
> so many, MANY times before, it can be quite grating
> for someone new to come along out of the blue and
> state
> that one of these cives is speaking with 'wise
> words,'
> and so forth.
>
> My personal suggestion, would be to spend some time
> reading through the archives (going back at least
> a year, especially focusing on election periods,)
> and
> you'll begin to get a feel for some of these issues.
> I'll be the first to say that neither myself, nor
> anyone else
> here can or should tell you who to 'side' or 'align'
> with or what opinions to have, echo and share.
> This is the choice of the individual. However,
> before making these choices, it is helpful to read
> back at least a few months, see who says what, then
> make your decisions from there. Just a humble
> suggestion.
>
> Though most disagreements here actually tend to be
> fairly civil (especially, when compared to Roma
> Mater,) individuals do stray off course at times
> (myself included,) when discussing highly emotional
> issues. This is to be expected and quite honestly,
> one must be a little thick-skinned at times to
> deal with those that may espouse their opinions
> in more heated terms.
>
> That being said though, you should *never* be
> bashful,
> timid or shy about sharing your opinions on this
> list.
> It is public, it is open and it is by nature a noisy
> and
> active place. As you've undoubtedly seen, no one
> here
> is too bashful about sharing their opinions here so
> please don't feel that way either. We welcome your
> input!
>
> Bene valete,
> Oppius Flaccus Severus, Legatus America
> Boreoccidentalis Major
> Sacerdos Neptunus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark A Bird
> [mailto:mark_a_bird@--------]
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:47 PM
> To: 'novaroma@--------'
> Subject: RE: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II:
> Resignation Edict
>
>
> Don't stress Gnaeus
>
> I am also new..
>
> Is it possible that fellow Citizens could be a
> little more forgiving to us
> "new comers". All the comments below achieve is to
> alienate and frighten
> new citizens from making comments about anything - I
> mean the comments may
> have been misguided from my fellow citizen, but gee
> - kick a Fellow Citizen
> in the guts why don't you
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] On M. Apollonius Formosanus comments on the Resignation Edict |
| From: |
QFabiusMax@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:05:05 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/8/2001 3:06:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bvm3@--------
writes:
<< I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue of the
Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as infamous as the
Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally ill-considered, unfair, and
punitive nature.<<
Of course you wouldn't put him up to it would you M. Apollonius Formosanus?
LOL!
>> 1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles and de facto
punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma, based simply on
their having been members in good standing before, and having chosen
to leave. Discouraging persons from leaving would be a natural desire
(if improper and impossible), but causing problems for those wishing
to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps changes in their
life conditions is targeting a group that deserves rather to be
welcomed home.<<
Well, of course. Why would we want slackers back? Oh yeah, I am sure some
returnees would have good reasons for leaving and returning. But consider.
One who leaves and is going to be welcomed back with open arms, is likely to
leave again knowing they will be welcomed back once again. We have seen
proof of that.
<<2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons who have
committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental principle of
justice.<<
I think being abandoned by your friends when you need them most is the worst
thing one can do to someone. I have much on this list about concordia, yet
the Romans were not magnanimous when it came to desertion in the face of
extreme odds. Choosing to preserve oneself before the needs of the Republic
was not tolerated.
>> In the previous debate there was too much emphasis on the
micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic extent, and in
comparing ourselves with macronations we got involved with a model
not truly relevant to us, and one apparently touching off excessive
emotions in some. We are a micronation, but not a macronation. No one
depends on us for his passport and his right to live in a place,
travel internationally, and hold down a job. Our citizenship is
always a second citizenship, and carries fewer natural benefits: it
must therefore carry fewer responsibilities if it is to be taken
seriously, and no amount of pomposity in the phrasing of our laws can
change that basic fact.<<
A fine piece of writing M. Apollonius Formosanus, which proves the contempt
that you hold the Nova Roman republic in your estimation. We are not as
important or vital as a macronation?
That is true right now, I presume, but how are we to achieve that
macronational
status if we let our citizens come and go as they please? Very hard to build
an
infrastructure of lasting value.
>> If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other normal membership
organization, one can join and leave according to one's own needs and
desires, and the worst that might happen is that one must wait for
the applications for rejoining to be processed each time and perhaps
one might have to pay a year's dues over again if unlucky. That
commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.<<
I cannot believe you are comparing the republic to club. We hold clubs within
the Republic. Not the reverse.
>>Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that might actually
deserve to be addressed: "revolving door" membership, in which a
member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing an unreasonable
amount of work and bother for the censors. <<
Again you believe that this rule is only being considered to try and save
our Censors' paper work? I cannot believe that you misread the law intent
that badly.
>>The provisions for senators and gens membership are no problem. But
let us remember that many people can leave for many reasons: loss of
easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or family pressures,
legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme sickness, normal
fluctuation in interest and priorities... None of these involves
hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our real human lives
- let us, then, treat them so.<<
Good to know, M. Apollonius Formosanus.
Salvete good Citizens, so I ask, you wouldn't have minded if I left last year
while I was Senior Consul? After all, my business partner had a heart
attack, I had to reject two movies that would have made me money, my sister
nearly died in an auto accident that forced me to spend almost two months at
her side, my father died in October, causing me to spend a month overseeing
the disbursement of his estate. I had good cause to leave wouldn't you say
so?
But I did not!
The Law will be in place for the simple reason that it will make leaving Nova
Roma
a major decision. You have outside problems that make participation in the
Republic impossible? Go inactive. Pay your yearly "taxes" and keep your
citizenship. We will still be here when you can again devote time to us.
Leave us, and expect it to be hard to rejoin us.
Once again the Plebeian Aedile raises questions that in return makes me ask
this one:
If you feel this way, why are you still among us?
Valete
Q Fabius Maximus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:50:35 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Sergie.
--- LSergAust@-------- escribió: >
>
> On 4/8/01 5:32 PM Gnaeus Salix Astur
> (salixastur@--------) wrote:
>
> SNIP
> >I know that this Edictum was a response to a
> certain
> >ill-feeling due to several resignations in the last
> >month. ...
>
> That's the problem with being a complete newcomer
> and telling us that you
> "know" what's going on here - you *don't* know! The
> proposed law on
> resignations predates, and has nothing to do with,
> the desertions of the
> Ides of March.
Thank you for the information. You're right, I AM a
complete newcomer. I have a lot to learn. But
sometimes (just sometimes) we complete newcomers have
a different point of view, a general vision of things,
that some could find valuable. Like children who
always speak the truth, we also could have something
to say.
> >
> >Thank you, M. Apollonius Formosanus, for your wise
> >words....
>
> And neither do you know M. Apollonius Formosanus.
>
> Perhaps it would be more seemly for you to spend a
> little time doing more
> listening than speaking, before you start telling us
> how we should handle
> all these issues about which you know little or
> nothing.
>
I think I've always expressed myself in the most
respectful terms. I don't intend to tell anyone what
to do. My sole intention is to express my own opinion
about things. I know my enthusiasm may look invasive
sometimes, but enthusiasm is sometimes good, too.
Please be patient, and don't get angry ;-).
> Please do not misunderstand this as an attempt to
> upbraid or rebuke you.
> I am glad you are joining us and I'm sure that you
> will be able to make a
> contribution once you've gotten your bearings. But
> it does seem
> remarkable that you jump right in with the
> assumption that you already
> know what is happening here and already have
> opinions to share about it.
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust.
>
>
Thank you for your final kind words, Sergie. Besides,
may I say I LOVE your agnomen "Obstinatus" :-).
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Absentia |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:05:35 +0200 (CEST) |
|
--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
escribió: > Salvete Quirites Novae Romae,
>
> For a while I won't talk on the main list. I need
> some time to think about my citizenship here.
>
> Valete bene,
> S. Apollonius Draco
>
>
Please, Draco, don't leave us without your fighting
spirit! Who else will I flatter in the future? ;-).
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:55:03 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Sentie Claudie.
--- Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@-------->
escribió: > Don't stress Gnaeus
>
> I am also new..
>
> Is it possible that fellow Citizens could be a
> little more forgiving to us
> "new comers". All the comments below achieve is to
> alienate and frighten
> new citizens from making comments about anything - I
> mean the comments may
> have been misguided from my fellow citizen, but gee
> - kick a Fellow Citizen
> in the guts why don't you
>
> You all say "how do we get Citizens involved" or how
> do we make provinces
> grow - hey the comments below will not and do not do
> that ...>>>>
>
> I await for the obligatory rebuke from all or sundry
> for hoping out of my
> marble box again...
>
> PAX ROMANA !!!
>
> Marcus Sentius Claudius
>
>
Thanks for your words, Marce (if I can use your
praenomen ;-) ). I don't feel too stressed. I'm of the
relaxed kind :-).
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Excuse me... |
| From: |
"Marius Peregrinus" <peregrinus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:41:43 -0000 |
|
Salvete omnes...
I shall have a little to say about the 'dual-citizenship' defense of
the present name-change edict in a later post. However, as much as I
hope to keep debate on the edict focussed on its merits (and those of
my alternative proposal, if any), I do not think I can venture much
further into said debate until our senior Censor and I get something
cleared up:
Sulla scripsit:
> I have to disagree with Lucius Sergius. Given the fact that this
> issue has come up more than once, by Lucia Maria.
Censor Sulla:
According to both the wording of the edict and your own (very many)
reassurances to me last spring and summer, the terms of the edict do
not affect any alias, chat handle, or e-mail handle a Citizen cares
to adopt. I have been told repeatedly that, whatever my name might
be on the records, I have the right to be addressed in day-to-day
transactions however I please. It is only in an official context--
such as my Governor's appointment of me to the Legateship of my
Regio--that my officially-recorded Roman name *must* be used.
That being said (over and over)...I object to your referring to me by
the feminine version of my name. It is both patently offensive to me
(as you have been aware for years) and completely unnecessary (as no
'official business' or oath is involved).
I am willing to debate any aspect of the name-change edict with you
or anyone else on its merits--but not if you fail to show myself and
other Citizens the bit of respect we expect, and demand, from our
Magistrates. This goes double if a tax measure is enacted; and the
most highly-placed Magistrates ought to be leading the way for all
the rest.
I appreciate your time and attention to this issue in future.
In fides,
-- L Marius Peregrinus
Legatus, Provinciae America Austroccidentalis
Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, Historical Re-Creationist
and Citizen of Rome
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Old Business I: Name Change Edict |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:49:03 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus wrote:
OUR GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN OUR PANTS.
Respondeo: What about Veritas? Am I to understand those who dislike the
gender edict don't think they need to be honest with their Micronational
government. In that case would the Censors please change my address to 1400
Pennsylvania Ave. :) That's where I want to live, intend to live some day.
It's not where I really live, but reality doesn't seem to matter if it
infringes on my personal right to free speech. Wait a minute! Isn't that
right to free speech something American. Now don't get me wrong, I care for
my Macronation. But it's not perfect. In my opinion free speech is a red
herring. We here in the U.S. and some other countries may be able to say
what ever we wish. However, our women are in jeopardy of losing the right to
decide what happens to their own bodies, police departments "profile" racial
minorities and have often violently attacked them, we have (I think) the
highest rate of incarceration per capita in the industrial world, the world
laughed at us when our current Presidents brother stole the election for
him, and you can give your life in protection of your country as long as you
keep your sexuality to yourself if it is different than the norm.
In Nova Roma our lawmakers have few tools and little enough time. Therefore,
they have decided to allow a cives macronation to determine gender. In other
words they have decided to stay out of it. So legally you get the same
protection here as in your macronation. What is not written down is how you
will be treated as an individual choosing to live an alternative lifestyle.
In my Province you may have to register under the gender our macronation
sees you as being, but know this; you are protected. If your Gens and your
amici can't protect you, your Propraetor will do so. Let it be known that
while the name change edictum will be honored in America Boreoccidentalis,
discrimination of any stripe will be dealt with harshly and immediately by
my administration as long as it lasts. This isn't an us versus them issue.
It's merely a question of HOW we choose to support the rights and lifestyle
choices of our cives.
Next year in the Forum!
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: <LSergAust@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Old Business I: Name Change Edict
> Salvete Citizens
>
> I urge you to vote AGAINST this lex if it is ever presented for a vote,
> unless and until section XX is deleted. It is unthinkable and disgusting
> that we would pass a law requiring people to present evidence of the
> particulars of their genital organs to our magistrates in order to obtain
> permission to use a name of their choosing.
>
> A law with such a provision would shame our Republic before the whole
> world.
>
> OUR GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN OUR PANTS.
>
> Valete,
>
> Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
>
>
> >-----
> >
> >Edictum Censoriale de Mutandis Nominibus
> >
> >
> >CENSORIAL EDICT ON
> >
> >CHANGING OF ROMAN NAMES
> >
> >June 29, 2000
> >
> >A Latin Translation of this Edict follows the English Version.
> >
> >STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
> >I. - This edict is set forth to define the procedures by which a citizen
may
> >apply to add, alter, or substitute any portion of his or her Roman
name,
> >and to state the guidelines by which such an application may be judged.
> >This is
> >done in order to attain a measure of conformity with ancient Roman naming
> >conventions and tradition. Note that this edictum, and its procedures
and
> >guidelines, apply to changes sought by citizens after the publication of
> >this edictum, and do not apply to citizens' existing names.
> >
> >II. - This edict has no impact on chatroom handles, signatures to private
or
> >casual e-mail messages, or any other alias that any citizen may choose to
> >use. Rather, 'Roman name' for the purposes of this edict refers to the
name
> >used by the citizen in public oaths, applications to sodalitates and in
> >other official contexts; this Roman name is the one recorded in the
> >censorial album civium.
> >
> >III. - Note that the use of the male gender throughout this document is
done
> >solely for clarity, and is not meant to imply any disparity between the
> >sexes before the law.
> >
> >IV. - Also note that this document uses the word sex to describe the
> >physical sex of a person and the word gender to refer to linguistic
gender
> >only.
> >
> >V. - It is not the intent of this edictum to discriminate against or to
make
> >any judgment about homosexuality, transgenderedness, or any other sexual
> >identity. No such discrimination should be inferred from any part of this
> >document. Nor should it be used as a precedent for any law, magisterial
act,
> >edictum, or other action that interferes with the rights of any citizen
on
> >the basis of that citizen's sexual identity.
> >
> >
> >REITERATION OF THE DEFINITION OF A ROMAN NAME
> >VI. As has been stated elsewhere, a Roman name consists of a praenomen,
> >nomen, cognomen, and possibly an agnomen, and, in rare cases, several
> >agnomina.
> >
> >VII. - The praenomen is a citizen's given name, and is used to
distinguish
> >between members of a particular gens. Since there are very few historical
> >praenomina, and since the praenomen's role is almost entirely secondary,
a
> >citizen is almost never referred to by praenomen alone.
> >
> >VIII. - The nomen identifies a citizen's gens. Since a change in the stem
of
> >a citizen's nomen would necessitate a change in gens-- a case of either
> >adoptio or the founding of a new gens-- it is beyond the scope of this
> >edictum.
> >
> >IX. - The cognomen was originally a nickname. It is used to further
> >identify members within a gens, who could easily be identically named due
to
> >the paucity of praenomina. Over time, the cognomen became inherited,
and
> >was
> >used to identify specific family lines within a single gens. Changes to
> >adopt certain names as cognomina are restricted, as set forth in
paragraphs
> >X and XI below. Note that these restrictions do not apply whatsoever to
> >cognomina under which citizens have already received citizenship.
> >
> >X. - An agnomen is an additional form of nickname that is commonly
bestowed
> >upon a citizen by others, often to commemorate significant
accomplishments
> >or important events in the citizen's life. While it is possible for a
> >citizen to add a new agnomen or change an existing one by request,
agnomina
> >of distinction must be awarded by a senator, curule magistrate, or
pontifex
> >in recognition of service to Nova Roma. Official recognition of such
> >awarded agnomina of distinction is completed by the censors' entering the
> >agnomina in the album civium. Following each such entry by the censores,
the
> >latter will provide the curator araneae with the full Roman name of the
> >distinguished citizen and an explanation of the circumstances and reasons
> >surrounding the award of the agnomen, that the curator araneae may
publish
> >this information to the Nova Roma website as he sees fit.
> >
> >XI. - Agnomina of distinction include, but are not limited to, the
> >following: Augur, Augustus, Felix, Invictus, Magnus, Maximus,
> >Optimus, Pius, Superbus, Victor. Note that these restrictions do not
> >apply whatsoever to agnomina under which citizens have already received
> >citizenship.
> >
> >XII. - As an example, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos would be Quintus
of
> >the Metellus branch of gens Caecilia. His family would be referred to as
the
> >Caecilii Metelli, in order to distinguish them from the other families
> >within gens Caecilia. His agnomen, Nepos, distinguishes him from any
> >other Quintus of the Caecilii Metelli. As nepos means grandson, it also
> >most likely distinguishes him as the third in a line of like-named
people.
> >
> >
> >PROCEDURES
> >
> >XIII. - A citizen wishing to change his name shall first contact his
> >paterfamilias and present his reasons for desiring a name change, as
well
> >as the desired name. The paterfamilias will in turn contact the
censores
> >should he approve of the name change, or should he find that he requires
> >help in determining whether or not to approve the change.
> >
> >XIV. - Patresfamiliae are instructed to work cooperatively with members
of
> >their gens who desire to change their names in order to help them conform
to
> >the letter and spirit of this document.
> >
> >XV. - Should a paterfamilias disapprove of a citizens desired name
change,
> >refusing to present it to the censores, said citizen may appeal to the
> >censores within ninety (90) days of the refusal.
> >
> >XVI. - A paterfamilias who wishes to change his name shall apply to the
> >censores directly.
> >
> >XVII. - Should an applicant fail to obtain a name change from the
censores,
> >he may, within ninety (90) days of the refusal, appeal to a consul or
> >praetor to bring the matter before the people through a vote in the
Comitia
> >Populi
> >Tributa.
> >i) - Note that such an action requires the citizen who desires the
change
> >to temporarily waive his rights of confidentiality as defined in Lex
> >Cornelia de Privatis Rebus, in order that evidence for and against the
> >application
> >may be presented to the populace.
> >ii) - Also note that the decision to convene the Comitia Populi Tributa,
> >along with the schedule for doing so, is the purview of the consules and
> >praetores, and is therefore beyond the scope of this edict.
> >
> >
> >GUIDELINES
> >
> >XVIII. - An application for a name change is confidential. The requested
> >name, along with any and all evidence presented with it, is considered
> >confidential information as covered by the Lex Cornelia de Privatis
Rebus.
> >Censores, patresfamiliae, and anyone called to provide testimony by any
> >party in the procedure are not to divulge any information applicable to
the
> >name change to anyone without the applicants written permission, except
as
> >directed by this edict. Such exceptions include the following:
> >i) - A paterfamilias providing relevant information upon referring a
> >request for a new name to the censores.
> >ii) - A paterfamilias or other citizen providing relevant information
upon
> >a censor, consul, or praetors request, as in the case of an appeal
of
> >a denied application.
> >iii) - A citizen presenting evidence before the Comitia Populi Tributa in
> >the case of an appeal to those comitia.
> >
> >XIX. - The guiding principle in considering name changes is to be
conformity
> >with ancient Roman tradition.
> >i) - New praenomina should be historically attested ones.
> >ii) - As previously stated, agnomina of distinction (Maximus, Felix, et
> >cetera) are not to be granted to citizens on request, but can be awarded
to
> >any citizen by any senator, curule magistrate, or pontifex in recognition
of
> >any special service to the Republic. It is up to the patresfamiliae and
> >censores to determine what is and is not an agnomen of distinction on a
> >case-by-case basis.
> >iii) - Cognomina and agnomina can be new coinages, but must be conducive
to
> >Latin declension, and must have a clear meaningboth semantically and in
> >specific relation to the citizen requesting the added or changed name.
> >iv) - The gender of the name is to be consistent. Each part is to agree
> >with all others in gender, and with the sex of the citizen requesting
the
> >name change.
> >
> >XX. - A citizen who wishes to change the gender of his name counter to
that
> >dictated by his sex must present, in support of his application, proof
of
> >acceptance of the contrary sex by an authority of a macronation, state,
or
> >municipality. In other words, if the applicant is physically a man and
has
> >a form of macronational or municipal identification listing his sex as
> >female, or is officially recognized as a woman in his country of
> >macronational citizenship, then he may use a feminine name in Nova Roma.
> >i) - An exception to this rule is allowed in the case of transsexual
> >citizens who are discussing surgical sex alteration with a health care
> >provider or undergoing other medical and psychological treatment in
> >preparation for such an operation. In these instances, documentation
> >pertaining to health care provider(s) may be required of the applicant.
> >ii) - Post-operative transsexual citizens shall be named according to
their
> >current sex.
> >iii) - Hermaphrodites shall be named according to the sex in which they
are
> >recognized by their country of macronational citizenship.
> >
> >-----
>
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:58:27 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes!
> Is it possible that fellow Citizens could be a
> > little more forgiving to us
> > "new comers".
Respondeo:
As young as Nova Roma is right now, the majority of us are new-comers. Don't
be insulted that you have been dragged into the debates in the Forum. If we
didn't like you, we wouldn't "beat" on you. Like a little brother. :) Hang
in there, it doesn't take long to develop a thick Roman skin.
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict
> Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Sentie Claudie.
>
> --- Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@-------->
> escribió: > Don't stress Gnaeus
> >
> > I am also new..
> >
> > Is it possible that fellow Citizens could be a
> > little more forgiving to us
> > "new comers". All the comments below achieve is to
> > alienate and frighten
> > new citizens from making comments about anything - I
> > mean the comments may
> > have been misguided from my fellow citizen, but gee
> > - kick a Fellow Citizen
> > in the guts why don't you
> >
> > You all say "how do we get Citizens involved" or how
> > do we make provinces
> > grow - hey the comments below will not and do not do
> > that ...>>>>
> >
> > I await for the obligatory rebuke from all or sundry
> > for hoping out of my
> > marble box again...
> >
> > PAX ROMANA !!!
> >
> > Marcus Sentius Claudius
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for your words, Marce (if I can use your
> praenomen ;-) ). I don't feel too stressed. I'm of the
> relaxed kind :-).
>
>
> =====
> Bene Valete!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Protocivis romanus.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
> Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] EDICTUM CURATORIS ARANEUM: SCRIBAE NOVAE |
| From: |
Matt Haase <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:42:33 -0500 (CDT) |
|
EX DOMO CURATORIS ARANEUM
I. Livia Mauricia Sabina, civis Americae Boreoccidentalis, is hereby
appointed Scriba to the Curator Araneum.
II. Titus Octavius Pius, civis Thulis, is hereby appointed
Scriba to the Curator Araneum.
M. Octavius Germanicus,
Curator.
ante diem VII Kalendis Aprilis, MMDCCLIV
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Old Business I: Name Change Edict |
| From: |
ksterne@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 18:46:37 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@h...>
wrote:
>> laughed at us when our current Presidents brother stole the
election for him<<
Salve Lucius Mauricius,
The above remark would be ceratin to generate much comment...perhaps
on another list ;-)
Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] EDICTUM CURATORIS ARANEUM: SCRIBAE NOVAE |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:19:46 -0700 |
|
Salvete and a hearty congratulations
to Livia Mauricia et Tite Octavi! I
know you will both do well in the service
of Roma.
Viva Roma!
Bene valete,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Haase [mailto:haase@--------]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:43 AM
To: novaromawebsites@--------; novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] EDICTUM CURATORIS ARANEUM: SCRIBAE NOVAE
EX DOMO CURATORIS ARANEUM
I. Livia Mauricia Sabina, civis Americae Boreoccidentalis, is hereby
appointed Scriba to the Curator Araneum.
II. Titus Octavius Pius, civis Thulis, is hereby appointed
Scriba to the Curator Araneum.
M. Octavius Germanicus,
Curator.
ante diem VII Kalendis Aprilis, MMDCCLIV
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] EDICTUM CURATORIS ARANEUM: SCRIBAE NOVAE |
| From: |
Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:32:56 +0200 |
|
Oppius Flaccus Severus wrote:
>
> Salvete and a hearty congratulations
> to Livia Mauricia et Tite Octavi! I
> know you will both do well in the service
> of Roma.
((snipped))
Salve, Oppi Flacce.
I thank you humbly for your kind words, and I wov not to let down the
trust of neither yourself nor that of my paterfamilias, Marcus Octavius
Germanicus, who chose to give me this opportunity to prove myself.
Vale,
Titus Octavius Pius,
cives Thuleus,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Consilarius Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum
AKA Kristoffer From
---
Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.
- Not-so-famous quotation
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] A Conquest! |
| From: |
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata <LucillaCornelia@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:17:23 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Ave, P. Gramatinice Albine,
All our most heartfelt congratulations to you in your
well-deserved victory! Your dedication to remembrance
of the Classical world continues to make us all very
proud.
May the Gods continue to bless your academic tenure;
may they ensure that your pathways to learning are
always open and you receptive to the lessons on your
journey. And may Vesta Magna hold you always in the
palm of Her hand. I will see that your votive
continues to burn in Her sanctuary.
Vale bene et Pace Deorum,
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
Virgo Maxima
"Si Vesta pro nobis, quis contra nos?"
=====
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
Virgo Maxima
ICQ: 112293226 AIM: LucillaCornelia
___________________________________
Ut Roma Cadit Ita Orbis Terrae
___________________________________
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Excuse me... |
| From: |
"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:29:19 -0000 |
|
Salvete Peregrinus!
Normally, I do not get into this type of discussion, but there's a
slight point of information - This happens to be an official list of
Nova Roma, and we ALL post here by our legal names within Nova Roma.
That being said - before diatribes are launched - please note how I
addressed you.
Cives, with all due respect, the debate on the edicta in this thread
has not changed one iota from last year. Let us agree to disagree on
this one, nonne? I, for one, am here for the historical aspects and
for the rebuilding of the political and religious instituions of the
Res Publica. I do not care one whit for political correctness or the
application of modern political and social thought to construct
utopic
versions of what we THINK is the correct version of the world.
The gender edicta issue is a dead horse. The resignation issue is a
live one, and here are my 2 sestercii on the subject:
1. We join Nova Roma VOLUNTARILY - we are not forced by Ius sole or
Ius sanguini to become citizens. We are a MICRONATION - not a club or
roleplaying game. When we become magistrates, we are COMMITTING
ourselves to do a job for the Res Publica and our fellow cives.
2. When we RESIGN our citizenship, we do so VOLUNTARILY. What is
being
said is clear - I do not want to be a part of this nation any longer.
If you no longer wish to have a part of us, why are the rest of
required to greet you with tears in our eyes, and entreaties for your
forgiveness when you decide to come back? You left - it is YOUR duty
to mend what you broke, not mine.
We all have lives (or so I hope). We may at times be forced to deal
with the intimate at the expense of the public lives we lead. As
others have pointed out, they have not left Nova Roma (and not
especially after launching insults at those who remain) in a snit. If
someone decides to leave simply because they do not agree with the
goals of the rest of us, why is it required of us to give back all
those things these folks cast away of their own free will? Why should
we trust them again with magistracies, when they have already proven
that they will not fulfill their jobs?
Feel free to disagree with me - but do not try to force your point of
view upon me. We can discuss this issue on or off the list, but if we
do not come to a consensus, let us agree to disagree like gentlemen
and continue on with building our Res Publica.
Bene vale,
Marius Cornelius Scipio
--- In novaroma@--------, "Marius Peregrinus" <peregrinus@s...> wrote:
> Salvete omnes...
>
> I shall have a little to say about the 'dual-citizenship' defense
of
> the present name-change edict in a later post. However, as much as
I
> hope to keep debate on the edict focussed on its merits (and those
of
> my alternative proposal, if any), I do not think I can venture much
> further into said debate until our senior Censor and I get
something
> cleared up:
>
> Sulla scripsit:
> > I have to disagree with Lucius Sergius. Given the fact that this
> > issue has come up more than once, by Lucia Maria.
>
> Censor Sulla:
> According to both the wording of the edict and your own (very many)
> reassurances to me last spring and summer, the terms of the edict
do
> not affect any alias, chat handle, or e-mail handle a Citizen cares
> to adopt. I have been told repeatedly that, whatever my name might
> be on the records, I have the right to be addressed in day-to-day
> transactions however I please. It is only in an official context--
> such as my Governor's appointment of me to the Legateship of my
> Regio--that my officially-recorded Roman name *must* be used.
>
> That being said (over and over)...I object to your referring to me
by
> the feminine version of my name. It is both patently offensive to
me
> (as you have been aware for years) and completely unnecessary (as
no
> 'official business' or oath is involved).
>
> I am willing to debate any aspect of the name-change edict with you
> or anyone else on its merits--but not if you fail to show myself
and
> other Citizens the bit of respect we expect, and demand, from our
> Magistrates. This goes double if a tax measure is enacted; and the
> most highly-placed Magistrates ought to be leading the way for all
> the rest.
>
> I appreciate your time and attention to this issue in future.
>
> In fides,
>
> -- L Marius Peregrinus
> Legatus, Provinciae America Austroccidentalis
> Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, Historical Re-Creationist
> and Citizen of Rome
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re:Codex |
| From: |
Matthias Stappert <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 22:20:49 +0200 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
Salve, honoured Collega.
During the last election campaign in december 2753 AUC I started the
idea of a law commentaries system. It´s comparable to your digest idea.
Indeed, it would be a great help for all magistrates who administer the
law - Praetors, Aediles, Consuls - and all other Quirites interested in
law.
I spoke with some experts in this matter, and earned the same answer:
It´s quite impossible to follow all dicussions about legal topics,
collecting all interesting essays and bring them into a managable and
accessible system. It´s an amount of work for a complete group, not for
one man.
I´m in favour to such a system. I know from my daily (real-life-)work,
how helpful such commentaries/digests can be. All we need are volunteers
with good editing and researching skills.
Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor, Senator
QFabiusMax@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete.
> Point of Information. I presume you are referring to the Theodosius Codex.
> A Codex is a book with a spine. Unlike a scroll, which is a book that you
> roll
> up.
> Laws in the late empire were complied in a codex presumably because they
> could be easily referenced.
>
> Since we have already had several decisions handed down by the office of the
> Praetors, I would not object to starting a digest keeping a written record of
> decisions on Law interpretation.
> Then future Praetors could refer to them, although Roman Law usually didn't
> use precedent in making a decision, our modern version seems doomed to use
> it, simply
> because we all are so used to it.
>
> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Temporary appointment |
| From: |
Christer Edling <tjalens.h@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:35:21 +0200 |
|
Ex Officio Propraetoris Thulae
Edictum Propraetoricium IV
about the appointment of a Procurator ad Res Internas Thules (Head of the
internal affairs of Thule)
It is a great pleasure for me, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, to appoint this
Honorable citizen to an temporary position within Provincia Thule and the
Cohors Propraetoris (The Propraetorian Staff)! I, as a Nova Roman citizen
within the Provincia Thule, am proud to see the Gravitas and Pietas this
citizen shows! My workload is heavy at this point and this protocives has
taken on him to ease some of the burden. To give him the possibility to act
officially, I give him the authority to act in my name in some tasks!
I. Honorable Vibius Minucius Falco is hereby temporary appointed as
Procurator ad Res Internas Thules (Head of the internal affairs of Thule)
to handle some important missions for me!
II. Above appointed official is asked to observe that he is bound by the
"Approved Regula (Charter) for the Administration of Thule" as it will be
published on the 15th of April 2001.
III. This edictum becomes effective immediately.
Given April 9th, in the year of the consulship of Flavius Vedius Germanicus
and Marcus Cassius Iulianus, 2754 AUC.
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Propraetor Thules
Vale
Christer Edling
alias
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus
The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
SHAMALI SALUKIS
************************************************
CAMELOT ROLEPLAYING WORKSHOP
Robert Andersson & Christer Edling
************************************************
IF GAMES - If reality was different!
Markus Sundbom & Christer Edling
************************************************
MAIN E-MAIL ADDRESS: tjalens.h@--------
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Provincia Thule website |
| From: |
Christer Edling <tjalens.h@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:06:32 +0200 |
|
Salve Omnes
Here is the Provincia Thule website! It is the beginning, later You will
find links to our four Regiones. I thank the Honorable Consilarius and
Praeco Aranei Thules Titus Octavius Pius for his good, fast and hard work.
Now the Praeco Aranei Thules can link to the Regio websites as soon as the
Legati Regiones Thules have created their own Regio websites. Expect to see
a few more things on the website within a couple of weeks!
Anyone who has ideas about what should be on our website is encouraged to
write to our Praeco Aranei Thules to make their suggetions known and even
better to help him do these good things. ;-)
The Thule website: http://www.acc.umu.se/~kerish/novaroma/index.html
Futher I want to thank the protocivis my amicus Honorable Vibius Minucius
Falco for his help with the map on the Thule website and his dedicated job
for me as his Propraetor.
Vale
Christer Edling
alias
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus
The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
SHAMALI SALUKIS
************************************************
CAMELOT ROLEPLAYING WORKSHOP
Robert Andersson & Christer Edling
************************************************
IF GAMES - If reality was different!
Markus Sundbom & Christer Edling
************************************************
MAIN E-MAIL ADDRESS: tjalens.h@--------
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Voting Ends Soon |
| From: |
"A. Cato" <a.cato@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:57:07 -0400 |
|
Salve: I would like to remind all Plebeians that voting ends at 1 P.M., official Nova Roman time, III ante diem, Idus Apriles, (April 11). I urge all eligible voters to exercise their franchise during this election. It only takes a few moments to go to the Cista and vote. The Cista is at http://www.novaroma.org/cursus_honorum/voting/index.html . Please take a moment to go and vote now.
Vale: ... Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato, ... Rogator
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:37:30 -0700 |
|
Salvete Luci Mari et Quiritibus;
-----Original Message-----
From: Marius the Wanderer [mailto:peregrinus@--------]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict
Ex papilio Luci Mari Peregrini omnes Quirites s.p.d.
Salvete omnes...
Luci Mari writes:
Well, there you have it: the text of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis,
the 'Name-change Edict', as posted by our senior Consul last week. It
is difficult to appreciate, to look at the present edict, that it was
the interim solution for *the* biggest controversy in Nova Roma last
year. And to think that it all started out with a simple Censor's
ruling that the grammatical gender of all Citizens' Roman names should
correspond to their biological sex...
OFS: True. It is amazing how much additional codification
was required to try and appease those directly affected by
the edict.
Luci Marci writes:
(If that sounds as invasive to any of you as it does to me, you may
begin to grasp just how strong the feelings were that were raised by
the original 'Gender Edict'.)
OFS: Honestly, a cohesive and well-documented legal
procedure for managing name changes does not at all
sound invasive. It sounds like sane codification
to me.
Luci Mari writes:
The present edict was a great improvement on its predecessor. I myself
was very much in favor of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis when it
first appeared. I called it a fine Edict that deserved to be made into
a fine Lex. The Roman-name sections with which it begins are still the
best guidance we've got going for how to properly construct an
authentic Roman name; and, with one great exception to be noted and
discussed, the means specified for changing or correcting one's Roman
name are not a particular burden to anyone involved.
OFS: I think you are commended for at least presenting
some alternative wording below (which will be addressed
in due course.) So many in the conduct of this discussion
have not done so.
Luci Mari writes:
But should a Citizen, for whatever reason, wish to change the
grammatical gender of his or her listed Roman name, that seems to be
the one direction the present edict won't flex.
OFS: I think this could also be seen as an interpretive
issue. (But hey, what isn't in NR eh? :-) The proposed
Lex will flex (sorry for any Suessian connotations here,)
in accordance with macronational law, on which it is
based. In short, we are a nation and need to start thinking
like one. Much of this has been made by myself and
others of late. In the macronational world, it's very
similar to a small company debating on being bought
out or going public. -The structure is about to
change, growth is being prepared for and with increased
growth comes the need for increased clarification.
As has also been said, there seems little overwhelming
evidence to reinvent wheels that run fine already. We
have the examples of all the fine macronations that exist
within our virtual borders. We also have Antiqua.
Now, admittedly, Antiqua may not be the best model to
look toward regarding this particular Lex, as such a
thing would have NEVER been considered in the terms
discussed here.
Luci Mari writes:
It does contain
'transgender provisions', yes; but these are unduly complicated and
have thus far been applied in all the most cumbersome ways possible.
OFS: Not necessarily cumbersome at all in and
of itself, but I also would state that any 'official'
dealings with bureaucratic issues such as names,
licensing and so forth require some level of 'hassle,'
or state of cumbersomeness to satisfy certain legal
requirements.
Take the macronational issue of changing one's name.
There are forms to fill out. One must provide any
proof required by a particular jurisdiction, previous
names and aliases may need to be listed, social security
numbers (as used in the states,) may either have to be
changed or matched to the new name, birth records require
indexing, etc. Now, please note -this is an example case
only for the purposes of discussion; I'm not implying
that all of these things have one-to-one legal mapping
in NR at this time.
Getting back to my premise of nationality, we are
citizens of a nation. I can't emphasize this enough, as
it is I believe at the crux of so many of the discussions
of late. There are those that see it as a nation requiring
sane codification, structure, financial support and
infrastructure and those that see it differently. What is
to happen say the next time this issue comes up with
a new civis? Are we to go through all of it again,
have months of endless debate and in the end have no
consistent procedures?
Luci Mari writes:
First of all, why would a Citizen want to change the gender of his
Roman name? I can think of three reasons:
-- the gender of the Citizen's name was originally entered in error
(as Nomenclator I saw a lot of this, male applicants choosing names
with feminine components and vice versa);
OFS: This scenario truly could happen. However, the censorial edicts,
in addition to the published naming conventions on the NR
main list eliminate most feasible chances of this happening.
Additionally, a pater/mater should be able to filter this as
well, for as you said above -the naming descriptions and outlines
for acceptability are very well documented.
To take two recent examples: Two new applicants applied for
membership in a gens. One member, a male had the wrong declension
stated for a cognomen. It was corrected and changed by the Censors
and the name became masculine consistent. The other instance, a
female applicant used the masculine form of a cognomen. In
this case, the change was caught by the paterfamilias, switched
to the feminine form and everything was settled. -There were
two factors at play here: 1-)The paterfamilias checking the Latin
usage of a particular name and 2-) the Censores by nature of
their job being able to catch the change and make it transparently.
Thus, two new cives with sex *and* gender-consistent names.
Luci Mari writes:
-- the Citizen is no longer living as the gender specified by his or
her Roman name (as, for example, transgendered individuals);
OFS: And this scenario is aptly provided for in the proposed
Lex.
Luci Mari:
-- the Citizen has had his or her sex physically changed (as for
transsexuals) or never had a clearly-defined physical sex to begin
with (as in the case of hermaphrodites).
OFS: This scenario is also well provided for in the proposed
Lex.
Luci Mari writes:
None of these reasons justify the kind of jumping-through-hoops and
sharing of sensitive info demanded by those sections of the Edict.
OFS: Again, I'll start beating on my (probably by now dead,)
proverbial horse here: This is a very structured, tight and
consistent piece of legislation. It requires no 'hoop jumping'
beyond the normal hassles and inconveniences of dealing with
major bureaucratic issues such as changing names.
As for sensitive information -yes, we are talking about some
information that might be considered sensitive. In fact, I'd
even go as far as to agree that gender and naming issues can
be *very* sensitive. But, since we're all discussing a situation
that started out as affecting only one person directly and
having that issue subsequently being made public, then the
discussion of what is sensitive and what is not should be had.
If one truly believes us to be a nation, then one also under-
stands that there are certain legal realities required of
same. If one views the Censores in their true and historic
capacity (and yes, surprisingly many of us do,) then sharing
required proof of something to satisfy a legal requirement
is perfectly acceptable.
To carry it one further; if one views one's own mater/paterfamilias
as the true head of one's family AND views such as structure as a
family and not some re-enactment plaything, then one should
have no trouble sharing such information with that father/mother
as is necessary.
Luci Mari writes:
In
the first case we are talking about a simple administrative error, a
correction of records.
OFS: And certainly, the case most easily corrected. Furthermore,
when two esteemed Censores hold an office and are running checks
and balances against themselves along *with* comprehensive laws
and documentation -it is highly unlikely that this situation
would arise frequently if at all.
Luci Mari writes:
In the last two cases, we are speaking of
matters of personal identity or sensitive medical nature that need as
little outside interference as possible, such decisions being difficult
enough for the people who have made them.
OFS: Difficult perhaps, but very public ones as in
this case. We have an issue where an individual made
an open choice to make a very public example and issue
out of a choice that they themselves decided to
make.
Public matters of one's personal identity are just
that -public. In most cases, I would *guess* that
a person in such a situation *would* want to keep
these choices as private as possible. However,
someone must know and procedures must be followed because
a name change *is* a major issue and not just
one of Censorial paperwork. It involves the potential
of changed relationships, nomens applied to official
titles and the like.
Furthermore, per my statements above, Censores and
maters/paters are keepers of sensitive information
anyway by nature of their function. This would be
analogous to say one's macronational father knowing
some of the same personal information as say a
county recorder's office.
Luci Mari writes:
What a Citizen chooses to be called should be between himself, his
Paterfamilias, and his gods if he has any.
OFS: Two things here. One, the proposed Lex specifically
excludes chat handles, e-mail addresses and 'aliases'
of all nature. Two, as for what a citizen chooses to be
called -that citizen must 'choose' within stated guidelines.
In the case where a civis never interacts with anyone
else, then said civis can indeed come up with any name
that they see fit to address themselves. However, this is
a nation and with a nation we all have 'addresses' if you
will, which are registered with the Censores. These
addresses affect many facets of life in Nova Roma and
should conform to the Leges et Edicta in effect in same,
not the other way around.
Luci Mari writes:
None of it, except for the
record-keeping, should be the purview of the Censores' Office.
OFS: Precisely the whole point behind the proposed
Lex. -The record-keeping *is* what's being addressed
here. Furthermore, as we move further toward actual
standards of revenue collection (in whatever form
said collection may ultimately take,) the Censores
will require even further records as they will likely
be in some way involved with this process. (Depending
on if we go along with Antiqua, or go with modernized
and cleansed approach.)
Luci Mari writes:
So, just for grins, a few months ago I came up with an alternate
drafting for the transgender provisions that would not be so heavy on
the paperwork, and would put the thing even more squarely in the hands
of the Paterfamilias. All article, section and clause numberings are
as in the original; anything not specifically changed remains the
same...and of course any feedback is welcome!
OFS: Gratias multas Luci Mari; feedback follows.
<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
From: Marius the Wanderer <peregrinus@-------->
Subject: Re: Alternative to Edictum d.M.N.
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:18:41 -0600 (CST)
Our revisions below; my suggestions in [brackets].
Luci Mari writes:
XIX.
iv) The [grammatical] gender of the name is to be consistent. Each
part is to agree with all others in [grammatical] gender.
I know it is stated at the beginning of the Edictum that the term
"gender" shall refer to linguistic gender only; but that was, what,
sixteen articles ago?, and I think the authors got a little confused on
that point themselves by the time they wrote the 'offending articles'
in question.
OFS: Not entirely. The point of the Lex (which also like
any of our Leges, has a letter and 'spirit' of the law, as mentioned
in our Constitution,) is that masculine names have to be consistently
masculine. Female names, must be consistently feminine *and*
conform to the rules of proper Latin.
Luci Mari writes:
The basic problem is that, while the Edictum sets forth specific terms
for (a) physical sex and (b) grammatical gender, there is no
corresponding term for *social* gender
OFS: Yes, this is where the disagreement would likely
start getting intense. There is no reason or precedent
for a 'social' gender. One is something, or one isn't something.
In the case of ambiguity, this is addressed well in article
XX.
Luci Mari writes:
(id est, the gender role a
Citizen fulfills in daily life) even though there is a fairly lengthy
article treating of same.
OFS: Guess I must have missed the lengthy article
on 'social' gender. Which article would that be
and could you point me to the mention?
Luci Mari writes:
I would suggest modifying Article IV to
read:
[IV. Also note that this document uses the term 'sex' to describe the
physical sex of a person, the term 'social gender' to refer to the
gender role a person fulfills in daily life, and the term 'grammatical
gender' to refer to linguistic gender only.]
OFS: An interesting suggestion, but hard to see any
valid basis for it.
<snipped>
Luci Mari writes:
[XX.
A Citizen who wishes to change the sex he or she previously
registered or the gender of the name initially registered shall
inform his or her Mater-/Paterfamilias.
OFS: So far so good...
Luci Mari writes:
The citizen and the
Paterfamilias shall be required to appear jointly before the
Censores, and to swear or affirm before the Censores that the change
is being made to
(a) correct an original inaccuracy,
OFS: Not a problem provided that an actual and physical
inaccuracy exists and with of course, the appropriate documentation.
Luci Mari writes:
(b) accommodate a change of the Citizen's physical sex (as for
example by surgical means),
OFS: Again so far so good, but missing one critical piece;
the letter from the medical professional. The Lex specifically
states though that proof *may* be required. This amounts to
a brief statement from some sort of clinic saying 'yes, this
individual is talking to us about a surgical change.' Such
documentation would likely exist anyways if one was seeing
a medical professional in this instance.
Luci Mari writes:
or
(c) conform to a change in the social gender lived out by the
Citizen in everyday life in his or her place of physical residence.]
OFS: Nope, lost me here. No reason to address any issue
of 'social' gender. The social aspect can be easily addressed
with a chat room handle, e-mail address or some sort of mail
signature after the name such as "I wish I were a man," or
"I wish I were a woman," or something to that effect.
<snipped>
OFS: In summation Luci Mari, there is one unfortunate
piece of this proposed Legislation. It is designed
to try and satisfy an extremely small yet vocal minority
of our citizenry. NOT that I'm saying that we don't need
Leges that address this scenario, but as with any
legislation that tries to please a small special interest
group, invariably the group still finds exception.
Bene vale,
Oppius
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] In answer to Lucius Marius comments to the Name-change Edict. |
| From: |
QFabiusMax@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:16:37 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/9/2001 7:41:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
procopious@-------- writes:
<< Marius wrote:
What a Citizen chooses to be called should be between himself, his
Paterfamilias, and his gods if he has any. None of it, except for the
record-keeping, should be the purview of the Censors Office
>>
Salvete.
And I maintain this. If there is a certain name you wish the populace to
address you by, you are welcome to use it. If you wish to use a certain
handle in the chat room that is NOT an other citizen's, do so. However if
you swear an oath, or are charged with a crime, your legal Roman name will be
used. And that is that.
The name change edictum was issued under my authority by the sole Censor.
The reason? There had been an unofficial "rule" utilized under the last 4
Censors of the Republic that citizens' "real" gender would be reflected in
their name. However, like most "unwritten" rules, people were disregarding
it. That is why the edictum was issued. To give legitimacy the issue. The
Censor admits himself it was badly phrased, so as soon as a new Censor was
appointed, the two Censors labored over the language, until they arrived at
what you read today.
Why did we do this? Simple. We wanted the person and gender to be the same,
as the nation they dwelled in. We felt it added to our credibility as a
reconstruction, rather then a RPG like SPQR.
As for lying to the censors about your gender, go ahead. But consider before
you do.
NR is starting to have more and more face to face meetings. And by doing so,
they will
cut you off from all contact except on line. But if isolation satisfies you,
then as Lucius Marius says "Only his gods, if he has any, shall know the
truth."
I do hope that is the last I hear on this subject.
Valete.
Q. Fabius Maximus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] 10 dollar taxes |
| From: |
=?US-ASCII?Q?Hampus_Rade?= <hampus.rade@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:16:28 +0200 |
|
Salve all
I think it?s a good idea with taxes. But I dont think we should call it
taxes. I think that everybody (including students and retired) in Nova Roma
can pay 10 daollars per year. Nova Roma could be even better if we payed
this.
With respect and friendship
Vibius Minucius Falco
Procurator ad Res Internas of Thule
***************************
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Thanks |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hampus_R=E5de?= <hampus.rade@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:49:45 +0200 |
|
Salve all
I jst wnt to thank Caeso Fabius Quintilianus for his good words about me.
It´s wery honorful for me to read that and i want to say to everybody in
Nova Rona that Caeso Fabius Quintilianus have wery much to do just now,
trust me, and i hope you dont think that he is gooing to do so muvh this
week for Nova Roma.
With respect and friendship
Vibius Minucius Falco
Procurator ad Res Internas Thules
***************************
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Voting Ends Soon |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Marcos=20Boehme?= <marminius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:25:13 -0300 (ART) |
|
Salve
Just a question...
How many plebeians voted so far?
Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis
--- "A. Cato" <a.cato@--------> escreveu: >
Salve: I would like to remind all
> Plebeians that voting ends at 1 P.M., official Nova
> Roman time, III ante diem, Idus Apriles, (April 11).
> I urge all eligible voters to exercise their
> franchise during this election. It only takes a few
> moments to go to the Cista and vote. The Cista is at
>
>
http://www.novaroma.org/cursus_honorum/voting/index.html
> . Please take a moment to go and vote now.
> Vale: ... Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato, ...
> Rogator
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
O YAHOO! GEOCITIES CHEGOU AO BRASIL!
Crie sua home page com tudo em português - http://br.geocities.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re:Codex |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:45:22 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete romani quirites; et salve Flavie Diocletiane
Fabie Maximeque.
My original idea of the Codex was closer to what you
call "law commentaries system". An additional point I
suggested was that not all laws should be commented;
sometimes, laws are changed, revised or outright
revoked by newer laws. My idea was to write down in
the Codex just the laws that were vigent at the moment
of publication. If changes were made later, it'd be
simple to make the necessary adjustements to the
Codex.
I also thought about putting the laws and explanations
under general titles like "Of the Rights and Duties of
Citizens". When a specific law was referred to, that
law's Tabularium name could be included, also with the
date of approval, the Comitia that voted it, the
magistrates that proposed it, etc...
Edicta, of course, should be included as well.
Probably, what Fabius Maximus calls "a digest of law
interpretations" could also be included in the Codex.
But that is his own idea (which I fully support).
I just wanted to make clear what I was thinking about
when I proposed the Codex. I don't want to tell others
what to do. I'm just expressing my ideas. If you like
them, then please make them your own. Use them, change
them, or throw them away. I just wanted to make my
contribution.
Speaking of other things, I'd like to present myself
for the compilation group Flavie Domitiane mentioned.
I know my inexperience might be a burden, but I'm not
scared of hard work, and I'd love to contribute to
this Codex, so maybe the next group of new citizens
will have it easier to overcome their initial
inexperience with Novoroman law.
--- Matthias Stappert <3s@--------> escribió: >
Salvete Quirites,
> Salve, honoured Collega.
>
>
> During the last election campaign in december 2753
> AUC I started the
> idea of a law commentaries system. It´s comparable
> to your digest idea.
>
> Indeed, it would be a great help for all magistrates
> who administer the
> law - Praetors, Aediles, Consuls - and all other
> Quirites interested in
> law.
>
> I spoke with some experts in this matter, and earned
> the same answer:
> It´s quite impossible to follow all dicussions about
> legal topics,
> collecting all interesting essays and bring them
> into a managable and
> accessible system. It´s an amount of work for a
> complete group, not for
> one man.
>
> I´m in favour to such a system. I know from my daily
> (real-life-)work,
> how helpful such commentaries/digests can be. All we
> need are volunteers
> with good editing and researching skills.
>
> Valete
> Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> Praetor, Senator
>
>
> QFabiusMax@-------- wrote:
> >
> > Salvete.
> > Point of Information. I presume you are referring
> to the Theodosius Codex.
> > A Codex is a book with a spine. Unlike a scroll,
> which is a book that you
> > roll
> > up.
> > Laws in the late empire were complied in a codex
> presumably because they
> > could be easily referenced.
> >
> > Since we have already had several decisions handed
> down by the office of the
> > Praetors, I would not object to starting a digest
> keeping a written record of
> > decisions on Law interpretation.
> > Then future Praetors could refer to them, although
> Roman Law usually didn't
> > use precedent in making a decision, our modern
> version seems doomed to use
> > it, simply
> > because we all are so used to it.
> >
> > Valete
> > Q. Fabius Maximus
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
"Mark A Bird" <mark_a_bird@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:05:23 +1000 |
|
I live in Australia, and having a Political system and Public Service
based on the Westminster System, our Giovernment is free of corruption.
Marcus Claudius Sentius
-----Original Message-----
From: S. Apollonius Draco [mailto:hendrik.meuleman@--------]
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2001 9:01 Pm
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited
Salve Marce Claudi,
((snipped))
> The quotation "but who is to guard the guards themselves?" is
offensive
and
> shows an attitude of distrust on the whole concept - we must trust
those
who
> have been elected - how else can NOVA operate but through Trust and
loyalty
> ...
Iuvenalis would be honoured to receive the comment above from you.
I don't know in what country you live, but where I live, the government
is
filled with corrupt officials. Belgium is called "Italy of the North"
for a
reason, and by nature I distrust politicans, and °certainly° financial
politicians, even those that control the actual financial magistrates.
Trust
and loyalty does not equal naivity.
Vale bene,
Draco
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Comentarii (was Re:Codex) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:05:51 -0400 |
|
Salvete
One idea that has been floating around for a while has been the idea of
"handbooks" for the various magistracies. Something that would spell out in
plain terms what each job entails, when and how certain things have to be
done, etc. The rogatores already have such a thing, and I know the censores
are working on one.
I think this is a great idea, and would like to add that a running
commentary from each magistrate in the office wouldn't be a bad idea. That
way, we'd have some sort of "institutional memory" which we currently lack.
That is, right now nobody except provincial governors is really held over
from one year to another, and thus each new crop of magistrates has to
re-invent the wheel. If, upon assuming office, they were able to consult the
comentarii for that office (with the collective suggestions and wisdom of
previous office-holders), I can't help but think that that would help.
Any thoughts?
Next year in the Forum!
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comentarii (was Re:Codex) |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:29:43 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Vedie Germanice,
Pater Patriae.
--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> escribió: > Salvete
>
> One idea that has been floating around for a while
> has been the idea of
> "handbooks" for the various magistracies. Something
> that would spell out in
> plain terms what each job entails, when and how
> certain things have to be
> done, etc. The rogatores already have such a thing,
> and I know the censores
> are working on one.
>
As usual, I think it is a wonderful idea. Even if I'm
a newcomer, I'm becoming accustomed to this kind of
ideas coming from our Pater Patriae.
Gratias multae, Germanice!
> I think this is a great idea, and would like to add
> that a running
> commentary from each magistrate in the office
> wouldn't be a bad idea. That
> way, we'd have some sort of "institutional memory"
> which we currently lack.
> That is, right now nobody except provincial
> governors is really held over
> from one year to another, and thus each new crop of
> magistrates has to
> re-invent the wheel. If, upon assuming office, they
> were able to consult the
> comentarii for that office (with the collective
> suggestions and wisdom of
> previous office-holders), I can't help but think
> that that would help.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
I agree. I think the Codex could be seen as a general
introduction in Novoroman politics, while these
magisterial "handbooks" would be a great aid to those
attaining specific magistratures.
I'd like to suggest that those "handbooks" (may I coin
the term "Fasti Consulares/Censoriales/Praetoriales/
Quaestoriales/Aediliares"?) were open to public
inspection, so that those citizens wishing to present
candidatures to the various magistratures could see
what each magistrature really entails.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Comentarii (was Re:Codex) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:43:13 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 7:30 PM
>
> I'd like to suggest that those "handbooks" (may I coin
> the term "Fasti Consulares/Censoriales/Praetoriales/
> Quaestoriales/Aediliares"?) were open to public
> inspection, so that those citizens wishing to present
> candidatures to the various magistratures could see
> what each magistrature really entails.
I making them public would be a great idea; you are quite right that it
would give prospective candidates a good idea of what they were getting
into. However, as far as a name, I rather thought "Commentarii
Consulares/Censoriales/etc." would be most appropriate; as in those penned
by Sulla, Cicero, and Caesar... According to the OCD (p. 373) "They
apparently recorded decisions and other material relevant for future
consultation: this could amount to a manual of protocol."
Next year in the Forum!
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comentarii (was Re:Codex) |
| From: |
"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:36:02 -0500 |
|
I planned to do this for the Quaestor office! I thought I should started an
egroups for the Quaestors first, for all Quaestors in NR, past and present.
Comments.
QS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 6:05 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Comentarii (was Re:Codex)
> Salvete
>
> One idea that has been floating around for a while has been the idea of
> "handbooks" for the various magistracies. Something that would spell out
in
> plain terms what each job entails, when and how certain things have to be
> done, etc. The rogatores already have such a thing, and I know the
censores
> are working on one.
>
> I think this is a great idea, and would like to add that a running
> commentary from each magistrate in the office wouldn't be a bad idea. That
> way, we'd have some sort of "institutional memory" which we currently
lack.
> That is, right now nobody except provincial governors is really held over
> from one year to another, and thus each new crop of magistrates has to
> re-invent the wheel. If, upon assuming office, they were able to consult
the
> comentarii for that office (with the collective suggestions and wisdom of
> previous office-holders), I can't help but think that that would help.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> ICQ: 106199729
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
