Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Provincia America Medioccidentalis Superior Website
From:	PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@-------->
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:43:00 -0700 (PDT)

Ave Secunda Cornelia,

Congratulations on a wonderful site. Your hard work
is reflected in your impressive site and I am sure it
it is very appreciated by all.

Vale,

Pompeia Antonia Caesar


--- VMoeller@-------- wrote:
> Ave Omnes:
>
> It is my pleasure as Provincial Propraetrix of
> the Great Province, America Medioccidentalis
> Superior, to officially unveil the official website
> of the Province. For a view please go to
> www.geocities.com/drususcygnus/ams
>
> The website was constructed by the incomparable
> Drusus Aeneas Apollonius Cygnus. He has performed a
> great service to the Province and to Nova Roma.
> Please honor his service to the Res Publica.
>
> The province has been split into three
> administrative regions because of the immense size
> of the province. Regio Silvestri is in the north
> representing the states of Minnesota, Iowa, and
> North and South Dakota. The Regio Campus, named
> after the plains states comprises Missouri, Kansas,
> and Nebraska. Regio Montanus contains the Mountain
> states of Wyoming and Montana.
>
> Each Regio is headed by a Legate Major whose
> tasks are to organize Nova Roma in that Region. He
> or she has the duty of coordinating gatherings
> between members of the states within their regions,
> as well as recruitment. They in turn may appoint
> state wide Legates Minore. It is the Legate Minore
> who coordinates gatherings and activites in the
> states housed within the Regios.
>
> Thank you
>
> Vale,
>
> ---Secunda Cornelia Valeria, Propraetrix Provincia
> America Medioccidentalis Superior.
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Er, PAX anyone?
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:46:22 -0700 (PDT)

--- "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilius Plebeius omnibus
> Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> I wish to make my postion in Nova Roma clear. I
> have, as Draco
> correctly pointed out, a concern with the injustice
> of two pieces of
> legislation in Nova Roma: (1) The portion of the Lex
> Cornelia et Maria
> de Mutandis Nominibus which makes it unnecessarily
> difficult for a
> person changing his social gender to change the
> grammatical gender of
> his name, thus making life gratuitously more
> difficult for this
> minority,

If you recall I also opposed that lex. Not just
because of it's effect on the Transgendered, because
bluntly it's unlikely there will be another person it
affects for a long time. I don't care for the
Precedent it created on asking for documentation, a
precedent that can lead to invasions of privacy that
affect more than just one group. I Do consider that
law the "Lex Cornelia et Maria et Apollia de Mutandis
Nominibus" because your tactics in opposing it
alienated so many citizens that they insured it's
passage.

>(2) the portions of the Lex de
> Cornelia et Maria de
> Civitate Eiuranda which penalise guiltless persons
> who wish to return to
> Nova Roma after resignation through imposing
> punitive-seeming waiting
> periods and a loss of important civil rights. I am
> also concerned about
> the policy of enforced English translations in the
> Main List, which I
> believe shows disrespect for other languages and
> those who prefer them
> by giving English a enforced superiority in addition
> to its natural
> advantages for communication.
>
> I take my duties as a civis seriously, and I
> have done my best, and
> as long as I treat Nova Roma seriously shall
> continue to do my best, to
> get these policies changed by any and all legal
> means. I would like a
> Nova Roma that we can all be proud of, and to me
> that means we cannot
> have legislation or policies on the bools which
> discriminate unfairly
> against individuals or whole segments of our
> community.

Define "unfairly" A Law by it's very nature affects
some individual or group. Just because it affect them
doesn't mean it discriminates against them. There are
times when the Mos Maiorum calls for a sacrifice of a
pig. If we do this it affects Jews and Muslims who
follow the dietary laws of their faiths, along with
Vegans. They are left out of the feast that follows
the sacrifice. Is this unfair discrimination? I would
say no, for they are left out by their own choice of a
belief system. If it is discrimination, then why isn't
it discrimination to NOT to have the sacrifice,
depriving those who feel it's proper from celebrating
this part of the Religio.

>
> In the course of working towards this end I have
> been made vividly
> aware that there is a small and tight circle of
> persons in Nova Roma who
> tend to regard anything one of their number does as
> prima facie right,
> and which is very disinclined to listen to moral
> protest by those not in
> that circle. I have used the term "oligarchic" to
> describe that
> situation, with an eye more to the Greek than the
> American usage. It
> means simply a political system where effective
> power is in the hands of
> a few rather than in the hands of one person or of
> people in general. I
> consider this descriptively accurate. If anyone
> finds it offensive, then
> I suggest he try to act in a way that will open up
> real and effective
> control to the many. Then the term will not be
> applicable to that person
> or, eventually, to the whole system.

Oh, come on. I can claim the word "Nigger" only refers
to a person of African heritage, and ignore the strong
emotions that the use of that offensive term stirs up,
but that would be dishonest.

"oligarchic" has strong negative connotations, and
ignoring them is sticking your head in the sand.
>
> Many words have been bandied about on the topic
> of "left" and
> "right". Let me make it clear: my orientation is
> towards "Democracy" in
> its generic sense, the tradition of such varied
> figures as Cleisthenes,
> the Gracchi, Thomas Jefferson, and Marin Luther
> King. It is *not* in the
> tradition of Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao.

Democracy is NOT a God to be blindly worshiped. The
system has severe problems. Jefferson did NOT beleave
in an unlimited Democracy. King was actually fighting
Democracy, the unjust laws he fought were supported by
a majority of Southerners.

I grew up in the Southern US during the Civil rights
struggle. I have seen the vile ways a Democratically
elected Government can trample on the rights of a
minority first hand. I Remind you that the US Courts,
the least Democratic part of the US Government played
a key role in striking down the democraticly passed
racist laws of that time.

>
> There are people here who are against Democracy,
> however. If we
> could separate their motives, we might find that one
> is really being
> interested in following the ancient political
> tradition of Rome and
> seeing what happens if we do. To these (if the group
> exists in a pure
> form) I would say: fine, but do not forget the
> Plebeian institutions
> that were real and powerful, just as was the Senate
> was real and
> powerful. Let us see the Plebeian Assembly in full
> and normal function
> passing plebiscita, and let us see the powers of the
> Tribunes of the
> People restored to their historical proportions. And
> let us have the
> laws of the ancients that would restrict individuals
> from holding office
> too often, so that new blood could have its chance,
> and specifically new
> blood with new and varied points of view. Under
> those conditions, I
> would not protest against the Senate's appropriate
> priviledges. But as
> the proponents of this point of view have very
> selectively drawn from
> history in a way that heavily overemphasises the
> rôle of the Senate and
> upper classes, there is a democratic deficit that is
> not really
> historically authentic, and is especially
> inappropriate for a
> present-day micronation.

It is NOT a matter of being against Democracy. It's
limiting the abuses of an unfettered Democracy. That
is why we need a balance between the three elements in
our government. You are correct in your assessment
that the current weakness of the Tribunes has caused
the Democratic element of our nation to be weaker than
it should be. The solution to this problem is
strengthing the office of Tribune, Not weakening the
other sections of our Government. My Proposals to
redress this problem are a matter of public record.
All I hear from you are vague complaints. Where are
your proposals for an amendment? Where is your support
for concrete proposals that others have made?

I Am actively supporting a proposal to increase the
number of Tribunes to 5. A historicly accurate number
for the early Republic, I have provided historic
support for Intercessios decided by a majority of the
Tribunes, which avoids the problem of an obstructive
or inactive Tribune. I have proposed the un historic
idea of allowing the Tribunes to promulgate in The
more Democratic People's assembly where ALL citizens
can vote on them.

Once we acquire a larger talent pool, I assure you
that I will also support the historic limits on
holding offices. These are you may NOT seek a second
term as Consul until 10 years have passed since your
last term, and that no citizen can serve as Censor
more than once. If you are interested in phasing these
in, I am open to your ideas.

Do not question my role in supporting the Democratic
element in our Government. I have been far more active
in increasing it, in it's proper place than you have
been.
>
> Then there are those who want to keep their
> hands on power as a
> small group because they have been here a long time
> and have contributed
> much, so they feel that Nova Roma is "theirs". That
> is a natural human
> feeling. But if they want Nova Roma to prosper, they
> have to let new
> people make their contributions too, and come to
> feel that this place is
> theirs as well. And that contribution will not just
> be in making it
> bigger, but also in providing some new moral
> insights and sensitivity,
> and non-American points of view that the veterans
> might feel are a
> little strange to them.
>
> We can compare it to some partners who found a
> business that is so
> successful that the only sensible thing to do is to
> "go public". That is
> something many successful entrepreneurs find it
> difficult to do, since
> it means giving up the kind of control they once
> had. But it opens the
> way for the public company to grow in a way that it
> otherwise could not,
> and to serve more people better and realise its full
> potential. And
> there is nothing stopping the old partners from
> continuing to
> participate in the company in an honoured and
> worthwhile way. That is
> what I am asking the veterans here to do. If they
> really love Nova Roma
> more than their own control, they will do so.

Strange. These same people have welcomed my ideas,
they have no problem with me joining the "team". New
people are becoming more prominent in our nation.
>
> I regret that so many wish to make of this
> essential movement
> towards openning up and democratisation - which is a
> natural and
> inevitable part of our maturing, our
> internationalisation, and our
> growth into diversity - a matter for personal
> vendetta and ill will. I
> am not by character a hater of people, and I hate no
> one in Nova Roma,
> specifically including Censor Sulla and Octavius. I
> may be angered at
> times, but that does not constitute a settled hate.
> I do hate injustice,
> however, and unnecessary curtailments of human
> freedom, such as the
> legislation and policy mentioned at the beginning of
> this post, and that
> is most definitely a settled and permanent attitude.

You are wrong on this point, but that is something I
will discuss in a private post. I have no desire to
reopen wounds that haven't healed yet.
>
> I previously invited Octavius to resume our
> earlier private
> dialogues with an eye to reconciliation. He has not
> done so, yet, but I
> hope he will. I now would like to invite Censor
> Sulla, Praetor Fabius,
> Consul Vedius, L. Sicinius Drusus, and anyone else
> who feels he or she
> has gotten into an unproductively conflictual
> relationship with me, and
> would like to open up channels of communication for
> the future. In
> private, where no one would have to posture for the
> audience, we might
> do better at this. If you want to...
>
> The real change that is absolutely needed here
> could better be made
> in an atmosphere of less animosity, and I am
> perfectly willing and even
> eager to assist in bringing that about, if I find
> real partners in
> serious dialogue. I am extending a hand of
> friendship - will anyone on
> "the other side" reach out to take it?
>
Yes I will take you up on your offer. I have never
felt any personal dislike towards you, and hopefully
we shall find areas where we can work together for a
better Nova Roma, and in other areas we can at least
be gentlemen, and agree to disagree.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Online Dictionary
From:	Charlie Collins <cotta@-------->
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:49:43 -0500

Salve,
I don't know if anyone else has run accross this site but, there is
a online dictionary which will translate Latin/English and English/
Latin. Here's the addy:

http://www.histopia.nl/onldict/lat.html

Vale,

Sextus Cornelius Cotta
Legate Major, Regio Campus(KS,NE,MO)
America Medioccendentalis Superior

--
http://www.novaroma.org
ICQ# 29580250
AIM: LegateMajor

Subject:	[novaroma] Great Link for Art Prints
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 02:57:35 +0000

Salvete Omnes:

Oh, perhaps many of you know about this site, but for those who don't, I
encourage you to check out www.allposters.com

I just stumbled on it.

Lots of neat prints of stuff from antiquity, and famous masterpieces with
themes from antiquity. Check out the categories "Gods and Heros" "Julius
Caesar" and "Antiquity".

I'm going to purchase a few........"ya can't take it with ya!"

In addition, you can use the prints as ecards.

Keep well,
Pompeia Cornelia



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The proposed lex on Century Points
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:06:26 -0400

Salve Caeso Fabius,

>Caeso Fabius Quintilianus at tjalens.h@-------- wrote:
>
>
> I have named your collegue in Provincia Thule, Honorable Titus Octavius
> Pius, Praeco Anarei Thules which I have decided to count as a scriba rank
> position (see my Regula), therefore giving century points.

I have discussed a similar matter with my provincial superior Pompeia
Cornelia. The only thing I don't like about your idea is that it lacks
uniformity and individuality. Seeing that our nation was born through the
internet, and this method is still the main way we present our res publica I
feel as if webmasters deserve an officially recognised position. The job of
a scribe is similar to retarius, yet different in many various aspects.

Although, I doubt my wish will ever become reality. We webmasters are a
small politically powerless appointed position that is a small minority in
this organisation. In the end you are probably right about taking up the
title of a scribe. It will most likely be the only way I and my peers shall
ever receive any political recognition for our services.

My thanks Caeso Fabius for your comment.


"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
Canada Orientalis Provincia

Canada Orientalis Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/
--

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Online Dictionary
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:28:45 -0400

Salve,

>Sextus Cornelius Cotta at cotta@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve,
> I don't know if anyone else has run accross this site but, there is
> a online dictionary which will translate Latin/English and English/
> Latin. Here's the addy:
>
> http://www.histopia.nl/onldict/lat.html

There are many more such useful latin resources on the web. A few others
are:

EuroDicAutom
http://eurodic.ip.lu:8086/cgi-bin/edicbin/EuroDicWWW.pl?page=expert

Euterpe
http://muwa.trados.com/ie/asp/QueryPage.asp?DBName=Euterpe&SrcLang=English&T
rgLang=German&StyleSheet=Full-Layout&

TEOS
http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/slovnik/slovnik.cgi?db=lat-en

RIH Latin
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/

Perseus
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=Latin

I think the best of all of these is RIH Latin. Having more then one
translator is great though, if you are having trouble finding a translation
chances are you will find it in another.

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro sum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
Canada Orientalis Provincia

Canada Orientalis Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/
--

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Provincia America Medioccidentalis Superior Website
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:38:52 -0400

Salve,

>Secunda Cornelia Valeria at VMoeller@-------- wrote:
>
> It is my pleasure as Provincial Propraetrix of the Great Province, America
> Medioccidentalis Superior, to officially unveil the official website of the
> Province. For a view please go to www.geocities.com/drususcygnus/ams

Wonderful site! It looks tidy and user friendly. The graphic of the province
adds a nice touch. My congratulations to fellow webmaster Drusus Aeneas
Apollonius Cygnus. Websites like yours do our nation proud. Provincia
America Medioccidentalis Superior is fortunate to have you with them.

Vale,

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
Canada Orientalis Provincia

Canada Orientalis Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/
--

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Er, PAX anyone?
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:28:32 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus M. Octavio Germanico et omnibus Quiritibus
S.P.D.

Marcus Octavius Germanicus scripsit:

Salve Marce Apolloni,

In your latest message, most of the points you make are similar to
what you have said before. Similarly, my response would be essentially
the same arguments I have made several times before. We are not
likely to agree anytime soon, and any further argument will be
disruptive to this list.

RESPONDEO:
Many points are similar because, fortunately, a great many things about
Nova Roma are right and good, needing no comment or action to change,
and unfortunately because some problems will not go away after
mentioning them just once, but only persistence offers any hope. I did
say some new things, however, if you read carefully. I especially think
that the fact that I am after bad policy rather than after individuals
was clarified, and that it might be an important point for you.


Therefore, I am calling for a truce. I do not intend to post
a rebuttal to your latest message, for it would be redundant.
It's been well-established that the message that began the
current debate was based upon a misinterpretation; since then,
we've just been arguing about motives, revenge, fanaticism,
and political labels. Continuing that is pointless, and I don't
plan to do so.

RESPONDEO:
I completely agree with your analysis. And I welcome your truce.

I might also add that with respect to the idea that you might run for
censor, I am delighted. You are an extremely capable person with
information systems, and I very much admire what you have up to now been
able to provide Nova Roma with in this regard. I am also willing to give
you the benefit of the doubt that when it comes to making your own
decions as censors, you will probably do so with more fairness than when
loyalty to friends is involved. You therefore have my preliminary
endoresement for your candidacy in advance, and I have little doubt
that after seeing your platform (should you indeed choose to run) I
shall be in a position give you my final endorsement as well. And I wish
you good fortune in your candidacy!

Valete!

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Er, PAX anyone?
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:44:38 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius
L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Censori Seniori et omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Sulla scripsit:
Avete,

In your recent message, (Pax) M. Apollonius, you have asked for a
dialogue between the individuals who you see are your opponents,
including me, and yourself. I have to publically respond to this by
asking, why?

RESPONDEO:

First of all, not exactly those whom I see as opponents, but those who
see themselves as involved with me and my concerns in a way that is
unproductive to me, themselves, and Nova Roma. You may decide for
yourself if you see our relationship that way. I certainly do.

Now, your question is fair. It is because I am a probably foolishly
optimistic person, who would like to think that people learn over time,
and that what was not possible in the past may become possible. I was
very struck by the way Octavius overreacted and misreacted to the
legitimate concerns I had based on my misunderstanding of his earlier
post. It is difficult to engage in normal communications if any
well-intentioned word is taken not to mean what it means but as trigger
for the release of negative emotions grounded in the past rather than in
the matter at hand. It is hard to see that this is good for us or for
Nova Roma. I therefore decided that it might be time to forge some less
hostile bonds in the hope of enable us to make progress together. I
think some of your hostility must be self-protective, as you expect the
worst from me. I would like to think that a gesture of reconciliation
might enable a resolution to my concerns and your concerns so that it
will be a victory for everyone. And I think that a lot of people here
would welcome that between us.
__________________________

In the past year and a half I have asked a number of respected
individuals to try to mediate with the eventual goal of trying to
settle the differences between you and I. Those individuals
include: Senator T. Labienus, Secunda Cornelia and probably other
individuals who I cannot recall at present. None of them were
successful.

I find this statement very strange. How were they unsuccessful? I indeed
had a number of very pleasant exchanges with your delightful and
good-hearted Gens Cornelia representative Secunda Cornelia Valeria, and
I was also "unofficially" contacted by your charming and brilliant filia
Lucilla Cornelia Cinna with the same message. And to both of them I
responded unequivocally that there was no "vendetta" against you on my
part or that of my Gens Apollonia. And when the *issue* that you were
involved with at that point in time faded away, you can observe that you
have not been under any kind of systematic or concerted attack. I think
you should commend your filiae, who both acted candidly, fearlessly and
with your interests at heart.
_______________

So I ask you, why do you want to speak to me via email
when you and I could not reach any truce with mediators?

RESPONDEO:
We had an issue to work through then. (The illegal readmission of
Festus/Nerva, if you will remember.) That came to an end and there was
peace. Peace, but not a relationship in which we could make any progress
in reducing tensions, since the concept of "concord" that was being
talked of did not offer any path forward on the matters that concern me.
Or such was the feeling I had.
______________

What has changed between those times and now to cause this change in
you?

I have not changed, I have just decided to give you and others a chance
to try a new and more pleasant and productive approach with me by making
the first move. I think it would be good for you, good for me and good
for Nova Roma.

But I think that this is a process that should be conducted very slowly
and delicately and in private, not in the flood lights of the Main List.
I do not know if either of us is good enough at conflict resolution to
carry out the process successfully. But we could try. Perhaps mediators
or facilitators could help?

Valete!

Subject:	[novaroma] A (friendly) challenge to the Aediles
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:22:35 -0400

Salvete;

Our Aediles, both Curule and Plebeian, have few duties at present within our
Republic. Our Constitution defines their primary duties and powers as being
"To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to see to the conduct of public
games and other festivals and gatherings, to ensure order at public
religious events, to see to the maintenance of any real public facilities
that the State should acquire, and to administer the law" (para. IV.A.4.b et
IV.A.5.b).

We haven't had many public religious events that needed order to be kept,
and we don't have any real public facilities (yet). Our legal system is
still embryonic, with no real role for the Aediles to fill. That leaves
public games and other festivals and gatherings.

A few of our magistrates have complained that there is little for them to do
other than to have the title and get the Century points (no accusation there
at all; it's a fact that some offices just don't have much to do right now).
To help alleviate that situation, and in the process get a little enthusiasm
and national spirit going, I hereby issue a challenge to our four Aediles:

* Marius Cornelius Scipio (California)
* Titus Sertorius Albinus (Britannia)
* Marcus Arminius Maior (Brasilia)
* Marcus Apollonius Formosanus (Venedia)

Before the end of your term in December, I challenge each of you to put
together a real-life gathering of Nova Roman cives in your respective areas
(no copping out with calling an on-line chat a "gathering"! <grin>). Perhaps
a public celebration of Fontinalia in October. Perhaps the Ludii Plebeii in
November, complete with games! Perhaps a full-blown Saturnalia in December.
Maybe a reenactment event with one of our sponsored Legions. Even if it's
just a "Let's get together because we're all Romanophiles"-alia, I would ask
all four of you to put together a public and publicized event and try to get
as many of your fellow Cives to attend as you can. Get your local provincial
governors into the act. Put out the word among non-Citizens, too; maybe it
can become a good recruiting opportunity. Turn it into a real Event!

I, and I am sure the many others who have put together such events in the
past, will be more than happy to give you whatever assistance or advice we
can. I will also ask the Senate to release some of the discretionary funds
in the budget to help offset some of the cost of putting on such official
events (it will also be a way for your assigned Quaestors to get into the
act, too). That's what it's there for, after all; to help Nova Roma grow and
prosper. I can think of no better way to do that than to encourage the
growth of Community through real-world get-togethers.

(Please note this is in no way a dispairagement against any of our good
Aediles, but merely a good-hearted attempt to get some activity going.)

Next year in the Forum!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Er, PAX anyone?
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 12:26:01 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Marce Apolloni,

> I was
> very struck by the way Octavius overreacted and misreacted to the
> legitimate concerns I had based on my misunderstanding of his earlier
> post. It is difficult to engage in normal communications if any
> well-intentioned word is taken not to mean what it means but as trigger
> for the release of negative emotions grounded in the past rather than in
> the matter at hand.

I thought we had "PAX" - why are you still misrepresenting recent
events?

I did not "overreact" or "misreact" to anything. I believe my
response was quite appropriate for a response to a false accusation.
In it, I speculated that you were motivated by vendetta, and I
do not believe that to be at all inappropriate. After that, you
were as guilty of escalating the conflict as I.

I'm willing to drop the matter, in the interest of peace, but I'm
not going to sit idly by and let you continue to refer to the
incident using the same biased interpretation as you did in
the heat of battle.

If you can refrain from making such statements about me, then
we shall have pax.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator

"... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs." -- Robert Firth

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Er, PAX anyone?
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:20:58 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus L. Sicinio Druso et omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Comments interspersed below.

From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Subject: Re: Er, PAX anyone?

--- "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilius Plebeius omnibus
> Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> I wish to make my postion in Nova Roma clear. I
> have, as Draco
> correctly pointed out, a concern with the injustice
> of two pieces of
> legislation in Nova Roma: (1) The portion of the Lex
> Cornelia et Maria
> de Mutandis Nominibus which makes it unnecessarily
> difficult for a
> person changing his social gender to change the
> grammatical gender of
> his name, thus making life gratuitously more
> difficult for this
> minority,

If you recall I also opposed that lex. Not just
because of it's effect on the Transgendered, because
bluntly it's unlikely there will be another person it
affects for a long time. I don't care for the
Precedent it created on asking for documentation, a
precedent that can lead to invasions of privacy that
affect more than just one group. I Do consider that
law the "Lex Cornelia et Maria et Apollia de Mutandis
Nominibus" because your tactics in opposing it
alienated so many citizens that they insured it's
passage.

REPONDEO:

That should be "et Apollonia"! :-)

I stated that I thought that it was unjust, discriminatory, and
therefore immoral, and that it was a typical example of an unwholesome
and extreme political orientation. That is the sum of my tactics. I do
not agree with your attribution of its passage to me.
__________________________

>(2) the portions of the Lex de
> Cornelia et Maria de
> Civitate Eiuranda which penalise guiltless persons
> who wish to return to
> Nova Roma after resignation through imposing
> punitive-seeming waiting
> periods and a loss of important civil rights. I am
> also concerned about
> the policy of enforced English translations in the
> Main List, which I
> believe shows disrespect for other languages and
> those who prefer them
> by giving English a enforced superiority in addition
> to its natural
> advantages for communication.
>
> I take my duties as a civis seriously, and I
> have done my best, and
> as long as I treat Nova Roma seriously shall
> continue to do my best, to
> get these policies changed by any and all legal
> means. I would like a
> Nova Roma that we can all be proud of, and to me
> that means we cannot
> have legislation or policies on the bools which
> discriminate unfairly
> against individuals or whole segments of our
> community.

Define "unfairly" A Law by it's very nature affects
some individual or group. Just because it affect them
doesn't mean it discriminates against them.

REPONDEO:

A law that affects criminals individually or as a group is one thing. A
law that singles out a *non-criminal group*, such as a racial group,
women, non-surgically transgendering individuals or returning cives, and
causes problems for them just because the lawmaker doen't like them is
quite a different matter. That is what we call discrimination. It is
"unfair" because it defines an effective disadvantage or de facto
punishment for non-criminals, and one aspect of legal fairness is in not
punishing the those innocent of crime.

I say that if a legislator believes something is evil, he should make it
illegal before he makes provisions to deliberately cause problems for
those who do it.

______________________
<snip>

>
> In the course of working towards this end I have
> been made vividly
> aware that there is a small and tight circle of
> persons in Nova Roma who
> tend to regard anything one of their number does as
> prima facie right,
> and which is very disinclined to listen to moral
> protest by those not in
> that circle. I have used the term "oligarchic" to
> describe that
> situation, with an eye more to the Greek than the
> American usage. It
> means simply a political system where effective
> power is in the hands of
> a few rather than in the hands of one person or of
> people in general. I
> consider this descriptively accurate. If anyone
> finds it offensive, then
> I suggest he try to act in a way that will open up
> real and effective
> control to the many. Then the term will not be
> applicable to that person
> or, eventually, to the whole system.

Oh, come on. I can claim the word "Nigger" only refers
to a person of African heritage, and ignore the strong
emotions that the use of that offensive term stirs up,
but that would be dishonest.

"oligarchic" has strong negative connotations, and
ignoring them is sticking your head in the sand.

REPONDEO:

Come on yourself, Druse! Whether I say "oligarchy", "old-boy network",
"dominant clique", "ruling cabal" or some equivalent, it is going to
sound bad, simply because most of us feel the *reality* of it is bad.
"Nigger" is not the same, because it is a term that is no more
descriptive than "black", but is distinguished by having the additional
meaning of contempt. Precisely how would you suggest I denominate a
system or group in which a minority of the membership or population has
the dominant power? I say that "oligarchy" is neutral, and that anyone
who likes such a system good use it in a positive sense. Now, the
insulting term that would correspond to "oligarchy" might be something
like "self-designated group of little tin gods". Now, that would be
offensive if I used it (and I am *not* using it, everyone note, I am
simply making a linguisitic point). "Oligarchy" is "not" an expression
in that class. You might note that at some points in history "democracy"
was treated as meaning "mob rule" and was descriptive of something most
people did not like or approve of. Today, in democratic societies, it is
treated as being positive in connotation.

But you are coming too close to notions of political correctness here. I
do not subscribe to any theory analogous to the situation in which a
murderer complains about being called a murderer just because it is an
unpleasant term!
_________________

>
> Many words have been bandied about on the topic
> of "left" and
> "right". Let me make it clear: my orientation is
> towards "Democracy" in
> its generic sense, the tradition of such varied
> figures as Cleisthenes,
> the Gracchi, Thomas Jefferson, and Marin Luther
> King. It is *not* in the
> tradition of Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao.

Democracy is NOT a God to be blindly worshiped. The
system has severe problems. Jefferson did NOT beleave
in an unlimited Democracy. King was actually fighting
Democracy, the unjust laws he fought were supported by
a majority of Southerners.

I grew up in the Southern US during the Civil rights
struggle. I have seen the vile ways a Democratically
elected Government can trample on the rights of a
minority first hand. I Remind you that the US Courts,
the least Democratic part of the US Government played
a key role in striking down the democraticly passed
racist laws of that time.

RESPONDEO:

LOL :-) If you would remember that I have just been opposing two leges
"democratically" passed by the People, you would immediately see that I
understood that lesson! And yet, and yet... do I really have to repeat
Churchill's famous dictum on this issue of democracy?

"Democracy" in Amereican civics books tends to have somewhere between 5
and 15 characteristics - not just rule by the majority. It includes
protection of individual rights and minority rights. Freedom of speech
and association. A free press. Etc. In speaking of "Democracy" I am
talking about the whole of these things, not just majority rule. I
completely agree with your analysis above, although I might quibble with
how it is expressed.

I would like to remind you, that in Nova Roma we do not have numerous,
clear and famous cases in which the Senate protected individuals or
minorities from a prejudiced democratic rable. In the case of Marius we
saw the exact reverse, in fact. I rather think that in Roman history the
situation was similar. The equivalent of courts in the sense of
preserving human rights was more in the tribunate - something part of an
institutionalised lower-class revolution.


>
> There are people here who are against Democracy,
> however. If we
> could separate their motives, we might find that one
> is really being
> interested in following the ancient political
> tradition of Rome and
> seeing what happens if we do. To these (if the group
> exists in a pure
> form) I would say: fine, but do not forget the
> Plebeian institutions
> that were real and powerful, just as was the Senate
> was real and
> powerful. Let us see the Plebeian Assembly in full
> and normal function
> passing plebiscita, and let us see the powers of the
> Tribunes of the
> People restored to their historical proportions. And
> let us have the
> laws of the ancients that would restrict individuals
> from holding office
> too often, so that new blood could have its chance,
> and specifically new
> blood with new and varied points of view. Under
> those conditions, I
> would not protest against the Senate's appropriate
> priviledges. But as
> the proponents of this point of view have very
> selectively drawn from
> history in a way that heavily overemphasises the
> rôle of the Senate and
> upper classes, there is a democratic deficit that is
> not really
> historically authentic, and is especially
> inappropriate for a
> present-day micronation.

It is NOT a matter of being against Democracy. It's
limiting the abuses of an unfettered Democracy. That
is why we need a balance between the three elements in
our government. You are correct in your assessment
that the current weakness of the Tribunes has caused
the Democratic element of our nation to be weaker than
it should be. The solution to this problem is
strengthing the office of Tribune, Not weakening the
other sections of our Government. My Proposals to
redress this problem are a matter of public record.
All I hear from you are vague complaints. Where are
your proposals for an amendment? Where is your support
for concrete proposals that others have made?

REPONDEO:

Since you are echoing my own ideas, I naturally agree with you, support
you and encourage you. But will the Oligarchy (by whatever supposedly
inoffensive name you may have for them) let you do it?


I Am actively supporting a proposal to increase the
number of Tribunes to 5. A historicly accurate number
for the early Republic, I have provided historic
support for Intercessios decided by a majority of the
Tribunes, which avoids the problem of an obstructive
or inactive Tribune. I have proposed the un historic
idea of allowing the Tribunes to promulgate in The
more Democratic People's assembly where ALL citizens
can vote on them.

REPONDEO:

To the two historic ideas I give my enthusiastic support. The unhistoric
one is more controversial and problematic, although obviously it has its
good points,

_______
Once we acquire a larger talent pool, I assure you
that I will also support the historic limits on
holding offices. These are you may NOT seek a second
term as Consul until 10 years have passed since your
last term, and that no citizen can serve as Censor
more than once. If you are interested in phasing these
in, I am open to your ideas.

REPONDEO:

I completely agree. Although I am not at all sure that the talent pool
is not big enough now.

__________________

Do not question my role in supporting the Democratic
element in our Government. I have been far more active
in increasing it, in it's proper place than you have
been.

REPONDEO:

These things are not done yet, and I have at one time or another
publicly supported all these ideas too. I have been working mostly on
individual rights, however. But I certainly would not wish to belittle
your work for these things.
__________
>
> Then there are those who want to keep their
> hands on power as a
> small group because they have been here a long time
> and have contributed
> much, so they feel that Nova Roma is "theirs". That
> is a natural human
> feeling. But if they want Nova Roma to prosper, they
> have to let new
> people make their contributions too, and come to
> feel that this place is
> theirs as well. And that contribution will not just
> be in making it
> bigger, but also in providing some new moral
> insights and sensitivity,
> and non-American points of view that the veterans
> might feel are a
> little strange to them.
>
> We can compare it to some partners who found a
> business that is so
> successful that the only sensible thing to do is to
> "go public". That is
> something many successful entrepreneurs find it
> difficult to do, since
> it means giving up the kind of control they once
> had. But it opens the
> way for the public company to grow in a way that it
> otherwise could not,
> and to serve more people better and realise its full
> potential. And
> there is nothing stopping the old partners from
> continuing to
> participate in the company in an honoured and
> worthwhile way. That is
> what I am asking the veterans here to do. If they
> really love Nova Roma
> more than their own control, they will do so.

Strange. These same people have welcomed my ideas,
they have no problem with me joining the "team". New
people are becoming more prominent in our nation.

REPONDEO:

Good for you - maybe. :-) I do not agree with your optimism, so far, on
this score. Of the four highest offices, where most of the executive and
legislative-initiative power lies, every one is now filled by someone
who has had one of those four positions before.

_____________________

<snip>
>
> I previously invited Octavius to resume our
> earlier private
> dialogues with an eye to reconciliation. He has not
> done so, yet, but I
> hope he will. I now would like to invite Censor
> Sulla, Praetor Fabius,
> Consul Vedius, L. Sicinius Drusus, and anyone else
> who feels he or she
> has gotten into an unproductively conflictual
> relationship with me, and
> would like to open up channels of communication for
> the future. In
> private, where no one would have to posture for the
> audience, we might
> do better at this. If you want to...
>
> The real change that is absolutely needed here
> could better be made
> in an atmosphere of less animosity, and I am
> perfectly willing and even
> eager to assist in bringing that about, if I find
> real partners in
> serious dialogue. I am extending a hand of
> friendship - will anyone on
> "the other side" reach out to take it?
>
Yes I will take you up on your offer. I have never
felt any personal dislike towards you, and hopefully
we shall find areas where we can work together for a
better Nova Roma, and in other areas we can at least
be gentlemen, and agree to disagree.

REPONDEO:

For the benefit of the public, let me say that he has done so, and we
have begun a dialogue. I do note that many of his comments about me on
the Back Alley list certainly do not strike me as indicating a lack of
personal dislike or a gentlemanly attitude.
Nevertheless, we two have made a start, and shall pursue it quietly to
see where it may lead. Hopefully to something better for Nova Roma.

Valete!

Subject:	[novaroma] Coinage for the Roman Day
From:	Centurion M Bianchius Antonius <imperialreign@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:50:09 -0700 (PDT)

I was wondering about a money changer for the Roman
Day in Columbus, Ohio. What would I have to do or who
would I talk to about getting coinage for the event.

Would I have to "buy" so much worth of coinage or do
we have a some type of "sign out" document to get the
coins, then return the unused portion with the money
collected.

I understand there is quite a bit of trust and
respondsibility with the ladder option.

Any help in this matter would be great.

Thanks

Marcus Bianchius Antonius

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN [Religio Romana] ante diem X Kalendas Septembres (August 23)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:11:48 +0100

Salvete omnes

This is a dies nefastus publicus (NP), a day for special religious
observance on which no legal action or public business can take place.

Today is the Volcanalia, festival in honour of Volcanus, the god of
destructive fire. His temple (the Volcanal) stays at the 'Area Volcani'
above the Comitium. The Volcanalia is specially marked by a rite of
appeasement. Small living fishes are thrown to the fire 'pro se' (i.e. for
oneself) replacing human lives. These fishes are bought at the 'Area
Volcani'.
Together with Volcanus, other deities receive sacrifice today: Maia, the
Nymphs, Ops Opifera and Hora. Most likely it is the Flamen Volcanalis who
presides the official sacrifices.

The month Sextilis is sacred to Ceres. It's name was later changed to
Augustus in honour of Emperor
Octavius Caesar Augustus.


Valete bene in pace deorum,
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex

Subject:	[novaroma] If that's his idea of pax...
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:47:00 -0400

Salve

I must, reluctantly, step in here to point out once again how Formosanus
distorts the issues to try to pursuade people that he's right.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:21 PM
>
> I stated that I thought that it was unjust, discriminatory, and
> therefore immoral, and that it was a typical example of an unwholesome
> and extreme political orientation. That is the sum of my tactics. I do
> not agree with your attribution of its passage to me.

That is not "tactics", that is "opinion". Others shared that opinion, and
yet managed to do so without resorting to your choice of tactics. And what
were those tactics? To distort the truth of the matter at hand, to send a
constant stream of lengthy diatribes covering the same ground over and over
and over (seemingly hoping to wear everyone down to the point where they
would give in simply to shut you up), to hide behind the facade of being
some sort of self-appointed People's Champion (regardless of what the People
want), and to resort to name-calling and innuendo (the frequent attributions
of "right-wing authoritarian" and similar epithets) against those who
disagreed with _either_ your opinion or your tactics.

Had you simply not engaged in the tactics you chose, your opinion may very
well have carried the day. But you apparently are unable to do so for more
than a brief period; even your recent attempt at behaving politely and
reasonably these last few days has already come to nought.

> A law that affects criminals individually or as a group is one thing. A
> law that singles out a *non-criminal group*, such as a racial group,
> women, non-surgically transgendering individuals or returning cives,

How smoothly you try to equate someone who is discriminated against because
of their _condition_ (race, gender, etc.) with someone who engages in a
particular _activity_. In this case, you attempt to say that a law banning,
say, Amerindians from holding office is morally equivalent to a law saying
that people who CHOOSE to resign their Citizenship should be held to a
different standard than those who do not. The former is certainly an example
of bigotry; the latter is simply an attempt to discourage behavior that our
society finds undesireable.

> Since you are echoing my own ideas, I naturally agree with you, support
> you and encourage you. But will the Oligarchy (by whatever supposedly
> inoffensive name you may have for them) let you do it?

You seem to have missed the quite lengthy discussions regarding proposed
amendments to the Constitution to do exactly that, both here and on the
Vedian Baths email list. Indeed, the Senate is even as we speak giving the
final draft of the Tribunate amendment a last once-over before it is
presented to the Comitia Centuriata for a vote. So much for the "oligarchs"
(and despite your linguistic legerdemain I still find the application of
that term to myself and my fellow Senators and magistrates offensive)
oppressing the people...

> These things are not done yet, and I have at one time or another
> publicly supported all these ideas too. I have been working mostly on
> individual rights, however. But I certainly would not wish to belittle
> your work for these things.

lol! You are "working mostly" on the same two or three pet issues you've
been harping on for nearly two years, and which seem to have transformed
into nice safe grudges for you; things you can rail against, comfortable in
the fact that they'll never change and thus you'll never be caught without
something to complain about.

Dare I ask what "individual rights" you are "working" on at the moment,
other than the right to pretend to a gender in Nova Roma different from the
one you live as elsewhere? (A moot point in any case, but one you insist on
bringing up ad nauseum.) The right _not_ to be understood in a forum
specifically designed to promote communication? The right to resign your
Citizenship on a whim (or worse, to do so deliberately to disrupt our
community), and then on another whim return without penalty, and to repeat
the process ad infinitum? Such rights we do not need, and thusfar the People
have agreed with that assessment. You seem to think your own sensibilities
should somehow override theirs. THAT is authoritarian.

I must repeat the question I've asked you several times, and never received
a reply. If you are in such anguish about individual rights, why are you
fighting your battle here, where your efforts will impact almost no one? Why
don't you spend your energies in Iceland (which requires names to match
gender), or Quebec (which requires everything to have a French translation),
or Israel (where you can't even BECOME a citizen unless you're Jewish, let
alone renounce your citizenship and reclaim it automatically). You would
help tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people that way. But no, you
choose to rant and rail here. A voluntary association. Where people who feel
their rights are being denied can simply leave. Where NOBODY IS HURT unless
they choose to be. Why? Because you enjoy being a troublemaker, not for any
high-minded ideals.

> Good for you - maybe. :-) I do not agree with your optimism, so far, on
> this score. Of the four highest offices, where most of the executive and
> legislative-initiative power lies, every one is now filled by someone
> who has had one of those four positions before.

Perhaps you would prefer that we simply pick our leading magistrates at
random from the new Citizenship applications received in December? It would
certainly make the election process a lot less rancorous... I must say I do
not understand your seeming hostility towards the idea of filling the
important jobs with people who have the necessary experience to do them.
Were people kept out of the elections and I didn't hear about it? Perhaps my
memories of Nick Ford running for Consul were all just a dream...

Perhaps this is something else you feel the People aren't capable of
handling themselves. After all, if the People choose the same magistrates
over and over, it can't be because those magistrates are GOOD at their job,
can it? The People couldn't possibly want to choose experienced individuals
for important positions. Surely it is a flaw in the system, or perhaps even
a sinister consipiracy. The People must be protected from themselves! (And
I'll bet you have just the person in mind to do the protecting...)

And for the record, neither Marcus Cassius Julianus nor myself held any
elected magistracy last year (so much for the unbreakable stranglehold on
power we have); and I don't recall Caius Flavius Diocletianus being elected
to anything, either. (I can only guess you must be referring to the Praetors
and Consuls in your little rant; the Censors cannot initiate any
legislation, and their power to issue edicta is quite limited.)

My apologies to the list for posting this publically, but I simply will not
stand idly by and watch this shyster continue to spread his distortions
while hiding behind the mask of concordia and pax. Lies told politely are
lies nevertheless, and must be exposed root and branch at every turn.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	[novaroma] Democracy here? (was Re: Er, PAX anyone?)
From:	amg@--------
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:53:41 -0000

Salve Formosane

All your posts confirm my opinion that you are misplaced in Nova
Roma. Nova Roma is different from other nations. While the
macronations evolve naturally we must recover 1500 years and we have
precise ideas about the point where we want to start.
You should already know (and it is expressed in the website) that our
objective is to start this new nation recovering the
political/governmental system existent during the Roman Republic. I
don't know if the Roman Republic was democratic or not. I simply
don't care and 'Democracy' is simply not written among the goals of
Nova Roma. Nova Roma is to have a ROMAN SYSTEM SIMILAR TO THAT OF
ANTIQUITY, period. Do you say that the Roman system was Democracy?
Fine! Do you say that the Roman system was an oligarchy? Fine for me
as well.
Nevertheless I think that the most correct statement is to say that
the Roman system had (as has) features of a Democracy as well as
features of an Oligarchy. And for you to comply with the goals of
Nova Roma you will have to accept both sets of features. In medio
virtus, Formosane!

But even if the restoration of the Roman Republic was not a main
goal, the other main goals do not allow its complete implementation.
For example the official religion of Nova Roma is the Religio Romana.
Would you accept the decision of a majority of citizens voting
otherwise? I would not. Personally, I would support any Dictator (or
even Emperor!!) able to override the decision of the people and save
the Religio Romana.

In summary, like it or not, and no matter how politically incorrect
it may seem, Nova Roma will only be a Democracy for those who comply
with its main goals, which constitute the main reasons for its
foundation: to restore the political/governmental system of the Roman
Republic and guarantee the status of the Religio Romana as the
religion of the state. And in my humble opinion, those who do not
agree with the main goals of Nova Roma should look for another place
to develop their own goals as was already done in the past by several
of the Amici Dignitatis (your previous companions, who in my opinion
were wise in their decision to leave).

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Democracy here? (was Re: Er, PAX anyone?)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:08:24 -0400

Salvete

Normally I abhor "me, too" posts, but I need to say "Bravo!" to Graecus.
You've hit the nail right on the head with this excellent analysis.

Valete

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: amg@-------- [mailto:amg@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 3:54 PM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Democracy here? (was Re: Er, PAX anyone?)
>
>
> Salve Formosane
>
> All your posts confirm my opinion that you are misplaced in Nova
> Roma. Nova Roma is different from other nations. While the
> macronations evolve naturally we must recover 1500 years and we have
> precise ideas about the point where we want to start.
> You should already know (and it is expressed in the website) that our
> objective is to start this new nation recovering the
> political/governmental system existent during the Roman Republic. I
> don't know if the Roman Republic was democratic or not. I simply
> don't care and 'Democracy' is simply not written among the goals of
> Nova Roma. Nova Roma is to have a ROMAN SYSTEM SIMILAR TO THAT OF
> ANTIQUITY, period. Do you say that the Roman system was Democracy?
> Fine! Do you say that the Roman system was an oligarchy? Fine for me
> as well.
> Nevertheless I think that the most correct statement is to say that
> the Roman system had (as has) features of a Democracy as well as
> features of an Oligarchy. And for you to comply with the goals of
> Nova Roma you will have to accept both sets of features. In medio
> virtus, Formosane!
>
> But even if the restoration of the Roman Republic was not a main
> goal, the other main goals do not allow its complete implementation.
> For example the official religion of Nova Roma is the Religio Romana.
> Would you accept the decision of a majority of citizens voting
> otherwise? I would not. Personally, I would support any Dictator (or
> even Emperor!!) able to override the decision of the people and save
> the Religio Romana.
>
> In summary, like it or not, and no matter how politically incorrect
> it may seem, Nova Roma will only be a Democracy for those who comply
> with its main goals, which constitute the main reasons for its
> foundation: to restore the political/governmental system of the Roman
> Republic and guarantee the status of the Religio Romana as the
> religion of the state. And in my humble opinion, those who do not
> agree with the main goals of Nova Roma should look for another place
> to develop their own goals as was already done in the past by several
> of the Amici Dignitatis (your previous companions, who in my opinion
> were wise in their decision to leave).
>
> Vale
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus

Subject:	[novaroma] An alternative to century points (was Re: The proposed lex on Century Points)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:00:17 -0400

Salvete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: labienus@-------- [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:04 PM
>
> A. Censor - 40
> B. Consul - 40
> C. Praetor - 30
> ...And so on through the ordinarii, extraordinarii, Vigintisexviri
> and provincial governors
> N. Assistant to a magistrate or provincial governor (including, but
> not limited to, apparitores and legati) - 5 points
> O. Special Senatorial appointment - ?
>
> A. Senator - 30
> B. Pontifiex Maximus and the 3 Major Flamens (Dialis, Quirinus and
> Martialis) and Rex (Regina) C. Sacorum - 40 Pts
> ...And so on through the priesthoods and other "lifetime" positions,
> including pater/mater familias
> N. Sodalitas officials might go here, or they might go in section I.
> O. Member in good standing in a sodalitas - 1
>
> A. A Plebian Pater/Mater shall receive 3 points each time he or she
> adopts a new gentilis
> B. A Patrician Pater/Mater shall receive 1 point each time he or she
> adopts a new gentilis
> C. Unsuccessfully running for office - 2
> D. Special Senatorial award - ?
> ...Anything else we can think of

It's that last one ("Anything else we can think of") that still poses the
greatest problem, in my opinion. It also points up the flaw in my original
"century points" idea in the first place; only certain activities will be
officially recognized, and invariably people will feel slighted (and rightly
so) because their particular contribution to Nova Roma's well-being and
prosperity is not included. The current revision being discussed covers
politics and priesthoods, and gives a little reward to activities in the
sodalitates and gentes. But what of other activities? What about someone who
hosts a live event? Puts up a website? Puts out a newsletter? Hands out
10,000 flyers? Starts a college chapter? Gets his entire Latin class to
become Citizens? Does a radio or television interview? There are simply too
many activities that _should_ be rewarded, but which aren't listed.

We are thus faced with the prospect of continually updating the list of
rewarded activities, and invariably there will be some battles over how much
a particular thing is worth in relation to another. And, as I pointed out
before, it could also lead to individuals actually putting off a particular
project until that particular activity is included in the century point
list.

I believe the whole Century Point system is unweildy and flawed, and should
be replaced. That, of course, brings up the question of what should replace
it.

Our Constitution requries that the Centuries "shall be weighted in favor of
those citizens who have shown the greatest commitment to Nova Roma" (para.
II.E.2.). Commitment in this context means allegiance, loyalty, and
dedication. In this way, we form our classes of centuries in a way analogous
to the way it was done in Roma Antiqua; in their case commitment to the
Republic meant military service, and one's class reflected what sort of arms
and armor one could provide for that service. Those who were asked to give
up more of their wealth for the good of the Republic were thus rewarded with
a proportionally greater voice in the centuries.

While some of us do indeed spend money on behalf of the Republic, it is
certainly not on a scale comparable with the outlay required twenty-five
hundred years ago for a full suit of armor. What we do, however, spend quite
a great deal of on behalf of our beloved Republic is...

Time.

Time spent reading and answering email. Time spent on the telephone. Time
spent doing research, and developing websites, and making armor, and writing
dramas and poetry, and setting up gatherings, and attending gatherings, and
writing flyers, and distributing flyers, and making budgets, and a thousand
other things that we do, all related to Nova Roma, and for the benefit of
our Republic. THAT is what our Centuries should be based on; the amount of
time each of us spends in activities that are directly tied to our
involvement in Nova Roma.

To take one example; Marcus Cassius and I are both serving as Consul this
year. Meaning no disrespect to him in the slightest as I think he's done a
wonderful job, I think it would be agreed by all that I have put in more
time and effort in the last 8 months than he has. And yet right now we get
the same number of CPs, and will both get the same at the end of our terms.
Similarly, there are governors who are very active, and others who are not
so active, yet all receive the same number of CPs. I submit that if we were
to somehow track how much time cives spent in NR-related activities, and
base the classes on that, we would have a much fairer and flexible system.

That, naturally, brings up yet another question. How to track time?

I believe the answer is relatively simple, and is based on a suggestion made
in relation to the CPs themselves. What if a simple form were set up on the
website, similar to a timesheet that is often used in the corporate world to
track employee's hours? Once a week, citizens would be expected to log into
the website and record their time. The most common activities could be
pre-listed (email, magisterial duties, website design, etc.) and plenty of
space provided for "other" (with an explanation required, of course). The
Censors (or more likely one or more scribes delegated for that specific
purpose) would have the responsibility for going through the inputted time
and investigating any anomalous entries.

It would, admittedly, rely on the honor system to a large degree, but
serious abuses would hopefully be caught by the Censors. Too, requiring
input on a weekly basis will act to discourage most but the most determined
cheats (and you could say that demonstrating such a determination to rise in
century class is in and of itself an indicator of dedication-- of a kind--
to the Republic).

Perhaps it's not a perfect solution, and it definitely needs some more work,
but I think with work it could be a better solution than the one we've got
now. Comments?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] An alternative to century points (was Re: The proposed lex on ...
From:	Valerian75@--------
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:24:43 EDT

Salvete,

As far as time keeping goes, the hoster of the event could have a sign-in
sheet at the event. I know it sounds high schoolish, but I've been following
the discussion of century points and it may be helpful. In a large event any
Nova Romans could sign in to this sheet and state what their activity or duty
is. In turn this could be sent to provincial governors and such. It's an
idea that could help with fraudulant forms, besides investigating which could
take days depending on how it's done.

Vale,
Lucia Ambrosia Valeria
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----
In a message dated 8/23/2001 5:02:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
germanicus@-------- writes:


> That, naturally, brings up yet another question. How to track time?
>
> I believe the answer is relatively simple, and is based on a suggestion made
> in relation to the CPs themselves. What if a simple form were set up on the
> website, similar to a timesheet that is often used in the corporate world to
> track employee's hours? Once a week, citizens would be expected to log into
> the website and record their time. The most common activities could be
> pre-listed (email, magisterial duties, website design, etc.) and plenty of
> space provided for "other" (with an explanation required, of course). The
> Censors (or more likely one or more scribes delegated for that specific
> purpose) would have the responsibility for going through the inputted time
> and investigating any anomalous entries.
>
> It would, admittedly, rely on the honor system to a large degree, but
> serious abuses would hopefully be caught by the Censors. Too, requiring
> input on a weekly basis will act to discourage most but the most determined
> cheats (and you could say that demonstrating such a determination to rise in
> century class is in and of itself an indicator of dedication-- of a kind--
> to the Republic).
>
> Perhaps it's not a perfect solution, and it definitely needs some more work,
> but I think with work it could be a better solution than the one we've got
> now. Comments?
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
>
>
>




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

Subject:	[novaroma] New provincia gallia website .... gallia.novaroma.org
From:	hoefkens_kul@--------
Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:47:38 -0000

Salve,

I have completed the basic gallia website with information about our
developing provincia.

Could the Nova Roma webmaster refer http://gallia.novaroma.org to
http://www.geocities.com/sangdrax0/ plz ?

Is it possible to create a new e-mailadress for me
webmaster@-------- or retiarus@-------- as to
unload some of the load on my hotmailaccount ? If so plz mail me the
details needed for logging in et cetera.

I am also wondering if the censors have an up to date citizen list of
the provincia Gallia so I can put it online ...

That's all for now ;)

Vale !,
Gaius Apollonius Corvus
Retiarus Gallus

Subject:	[novaroma] Slashing and bashing
From:	"Sokarus Apollonius Callias" <hadescallias@-------->
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:20:22 +0200

Salve
I know that i don't respond much on the mainlist but more on the gens list, Nova Roma Europe and the Religio Romano but i received this e-mail and i had to respond to this thread.

>*He attacked first. This is readily apparent to anyone who has read

>the current thread. If he had not made a baseless and false accusation,
>then none of my responses to him would have ever been made.
>
>Please go back and read the beginning of the current debate. To paint
>Formosanus as the victim is absurd.

You know what i'm thinking Octavius, that you are acting like a child whose position has been compromised. I know Marcus Apollonius Formusanus well enough to know that he doesn't make false accusations and that Draco is right of sending a email to the list. Octavius abvious has to learn the difference between responding in an adult kind of way than in a childless kind of way because that is what you are doing. I have read the other email from the other person who is involved in here and he seems more reseanable than you are. Are we childeren or are we adults. If we are adults, we should start to behave in such manner.
Vale
Sokarus Apollonius Callias



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