| Subject: |
[novaroma] Corrections in the Centurias |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:09:10 -0300 (ART) |
|
Salvete Quirites
>From all the suggestions that i read, i prefer that
one of Lucius Sicinius:
--- "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
escreveu: >
[..]
> Most of the 87 Centuries that returned no vote did
> so
> for one simple reason. They had NO citizens assigned
> to them, all they had was names of former citizens
> who
> left without bothering to resign. There wasn't
> anybody
> to vote.
[..]
> We just have to admit that we don't have enough
> active
> citizens to man 193 Centuries, and we need to reduce
> the number of Centuries until we have far more
> active
> citizens than we do now.
>
> I Would suggest that we have 1 Century for each 5
> Taxpaying citizens, with the number rounded off to
> the
> nearest odd number to lessen the chance of a tie.
> Then
> the number of Centuries can gradualy raise until we
> reach the historic number of 193.
>
> Valete,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
> Propraetor America Austrorientalis
We need a correction to the law that says that we need
the majority of the active centurias. However, in my
opinion, there can be a minimum of 3 citizens per
centuria in the Class I, 5 cives in Class II, until
the Class V (perhaps more, perhaps less, this is a
problem to the Censores to solve)
And an extra suggestion, with certain historical
background: to reserve the Centuria 193 exclusively
for the capiti censi; apparently, in the way that the
laws are formulated, the assidui of Class V can be
mixed with the capiti censi in this century.
M Arminius
Aedilis et Propraetor
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Idea to fix CC rules |
| From: |
trog99@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 00:38:31 -0000 |
|
--Salve Honoured Consul:
In the case of the "drawing of lots" or its equivalence; could a
provision be fashioned so that if and when we are in future
predicaments like this, that the Senate would make the final decision?
After all, they are not an elected body, but they are a conscript body
of advisors, mostly past magistrates, whose mandate is to render us
counsel to benefit the res publica.
There are also both Pats and plebs in the senate, providing,
theoretically a well rounded, objective decision.
Just a thought......
Pompeia Cornelia
Propraetrix Canada Orientalis
Nova Roma...who is not a constitutional "wiz" either.....just looking
at options to present
- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:30 PM
> >
> > However, I do think that Germanicus' proposal has some value.
However,
> > I would not like a "lottery". If those 46 centuries are not
voting, let
> > us make 23 "for" and 23 "against" the proposal. In that way, just
the
> > voting centuries would have the possibility of effectively
approving or
> > disapproving a proposal.
>
> The laws of probability state that the final result would most
likely be
> exactly that, or close to it. However, I tend to favor the
choice-by-lot
> system simply because it has historical roots. It is also, I might
point
> out, the method by which tied centuries are decided when voting on
> candidates in an election.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] To Clarify My Last Post |
| From: |
trog99@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 00:52:40 -0000 |
|
Salve Honoured Consul:
I'm afraid I wasn't specific enough in my last post; I meant the
Senate would make the actual "lot drawing" decision, as opposed to
just issuing a consultum delegating such responsibility to another
body.
Bene vale and apologies,
Pompeia Cornelia
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results |
| From: |
StarVVreck@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:06:09 EDT |
|
In a message dated 10/24/01 6:09:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
salixastur@-------- writes:
<< The way I understand it, there is only *one* interpretation of this
paragraph: if an option receives over one half of the votes, it is
approved. The rogatores have no say in that. >>
What my statement concerned was what constituted a majority. Under current
laws it needs a Majority of the Citizens to vote for an item for it to pass,
not as you say as a Majority of the Votes.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 05:15:04 EDT |
|
In a message dated 10/24/01 4:53:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
haase@-------- writes:
> That's a possibility, but the Senatus Consultum Ultimum is by nature
> a last resort, to be used for the defense of the state... I'd vote for
> it only if the Comitia Centuriata had first failed to fix the situation
> itself.
>
Salvete.
I'm against any use of Senatus Consultum Ultimum except for when the state is
in extreme danger. We are not in extreme danger, since the Censors can fix
this problem with several edicts.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
[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] Comitia Centuriata Vote Results |
| From: |
Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 05:00:52 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete Quirites.
--- StarVVreck@-------- wrote:
> In a message dated 10/24/01 6:09:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> salixastur@-------- writes:
>
> << The way I understand it, there is only *one* interpretation of
> this
> paragraph: if an option receives over one half of the votes, it is
> approved. The rogatores have no say in that. >>
>
> What my statement concerned was what constituted a majority. Under
> current
> laws it needs a Majority of the Citizens to vote for an item for it
> to pass,
> not as you say as a Majority of the Votes.
In fact, it is neither. It is a majority of centuriae.
=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Novae Romae in Thule
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Novae Romae in Thule.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] A fictional scenario to occupy our thoughts |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Craig=20Stevenson?= <gaiussentius@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:30:29 +1000 (EST) |
|
Salvete omnes,
I have a theoretical question I'd like to put to you,
as this has plagued my thoughts for a while now.
Imagine the following scenario:
* Two countries lie opposite each other.
* One is Roman, with a military of the standards of
the 2nd century. The other is a Germanic country with
a military of the standards of the armies of William
the Conqueror.
* They both have armies, about the same size (the
Roman army is slightly numerically disadvantaged) in
infantry, archers, cavalry, navy etc.
* The Germanic country is slightly larger than the
Romans, but the Germanic country is laden with hills
in its majority. The Roman country also has many hills
covering it's smaller expanses.
* The Roman country is covered with scattered villages
and towns, with a few major cities. The Germanic
country consists of groups of small villages, but is
mostly scattered towns and larger cities.
* Both countries back onto an ocean (remember, this is
theoretical), but a largish river wends through the
middle of the Roman country right up to the border and
a minute distance into the Germanic countries. The
Germanic country is divided by small creeks and
rivers.
* The Roman country, while being under the princeps,
still looks to the senate as an advisory and
legislative body. The Germanic country lies under the
autocratic power of a single ruler with no such
governing institutions.
* A diplomatic crisis arises after (yes, I know it's a
real-life occurance, but bear with me) a diplomatic
deputation to the Germanic people results in those
diplomats being drowned. The inevitable is that war is
declared between the two countries.
Given all of these details, who do you think would
come out as the victor?
Just thought it might be a good distraction from
current events for anyone who might like to put their
thoughts to the test. Any thoughts would be
appreciated!
Valete bene omnes,
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase
- Manage your files online.
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] A fictional scenario to occupy our thoughts |
| From: |
"C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:10:02 -0400 |
|
Salve!
You should post this on the Soldalitas Miliatrium list as well - I suspect
it's right up many of the list's subscribers' alley!
Vale,
C. Minucius Hadrianus
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Stevenson [mailto:gaiussentius@--------]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 8:30 AM
To: main list
Subject: [novaroma] A fictional scenario to occupy our thoughts
Salvete omnes,
I have a theoretical question I'd like to put to you,
as this has plagued my thoughts for a while now.
Imagine the following scenario:
* Two countries lie opposite each other.
* One is Roman, with a military of the standards of
the 2nd century. The other is a Germanic country with
a military of the standards of the armies of William
the Conqueror.
* They both have armies, about the same size (the
Roman army is slightly numerically disadvantaged) in
infantry, archers, cavalry, navy etc.
* The Germanic country is slightly larger than the
Romans, but the Germanic country is laden with hills
in its majority. The Roman country also has many hills
covering it's smaller expanses.
* The Roman country is covered with scattered villages
and towns, with a few major cities. The Germanic
country consists of groups of small villages, but is
mostly scattered towns and larger cities.
* Both countries back onto an ocean (remember, this is
theoretical), but a largish river wends through the
middle of the Roman country right up to the border and
a minute distance into the Germanic countries. The
Germanic country is divided by small creeks and
rivers.
* The Roman country, while being under the princeps,
still looks to the senate as an advisory and
legislative body. The Germanic country lies under the
autocratic power of a single ruler with no such
governing institutions.
* A diplomatic crisis arises after (yes, I know it's a
real-life occurance, but bear with me) a diplomatic
deputation to the Germanic people results in those
diplomats being drowned. The inevitable is that war is
declared between the two countries.
Given all of these details, who do you think would
come out as the victor?
Just thought it might be a good distraction from
current events for anyone who might like to put their
thoughts to the test. Any thoughts would be
appreciated!
Valete bene omnes,
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase
- Manage your files online.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] A fictional scenario to occupy our thoughts |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2001 10:43:51 -0200 |
|
On Thu, 2001-10-25 at 10:30, Craig Stevenson wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I have a theoretical question I'd like to put to you,
> as this has plagued my thoughts for a while now.
>
> Imagine the following scenario:
>
> * Two countries lie opposite each other.
> * One is Roman, with a military of the standards of
> the 2nd century. The other is a Germanic country with
> a military of the standards of the armies of William
> the Conqueror.
> * They both have armies, about the same size (the
> Roman army is slightly numerically disadvantaged) in
> infantry, archers, cavalry, navy etc.
> * The Germanic country is slightly larger than the
> Romans, but the Germanic country is laden with hills
> in its majority. The Roman country also has many hills
> covering it's smaller expanses.
> * The Roman country is covered with scattered villages
> and towns, with a few major cities. The Germanic
> country consists of groups of small villages, but is
> mostly scattered towns and larger cities.
> * Both countries back onto an ocean (remember, this is
> theoretical), but a largish river wends through the
> middle of the Roman country right up to the border and
> a minute distance into the Germanic countries. The
> Germanic country is divided by small creeks and
> rivers.
> * The Roman country, while being under the princeps,
> still looks to the senate as an advisory and
> legislative body. The Germanic country lies under the
> autocratic power of a single ruler with no such
> governing institutions.
> * A diplomatic crisis arises after (yes, I know it's a
> real-life occurance, but bear with me) a diplomatic
> deputation to the Germanic people results in those
> diplomats being drowned. The inevitable is that war is
> declared between the two countries.
>
> Given all of these details, who do you think would
> come out as the victor?
>
The Germanic country. Military advances were huge between 2th cent AD
and 11th century AD.
Specially in cavalry strength due to the invention of stribes.
But also in metallurgy: broken gladii would be legions when facing 10th
century swords.
The Romans would have a good chance against Edward infantry, none
against Willhelm.
That s on the battle field. Now would 2th century Rome be able to resist
an Hannibal (loosing all battles but gaining the war) I doubt it,
because poliorcetic too advanced a lot, sieges would be swift (no 2
years resistance of the Tarentine citadel for instance).
Manius Villius Limitanus
> Just thought it might be a good distraction from
> current events for anyone who might like to put their
> thoughts to the test. Any thoughts would be
> appreciated!
>
> Valete bene omnes,
>
> Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
>
> http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase
> - Manage your files online.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Digest No 1677 Idea to fix CC rules |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:26:09 -0400 |
|
Censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Quiritibus SPD
I wish to post my opinion on matter of Censorial 'edicta'. With over two
thousand years of hindsight we should hope to avoid as many pitfalls of
history as possible. While I believe that magistrates should have power
(imperium) to act, they also should not have access to excessive power. In
the matter of internal gens structure and citizenship the Censores should be
guided by law as much a possible.
In the following example I disagree with Consul Germanicus; however, we do
agree in what should be done, we only disagree in the manner or path that
should be taken to arrive at the condition that people who apply to become
citizens of Nova Roma will actually become *CITIZENS!* This means to me that
they will be involved, they will participate, vote, run for and hold office
or contribute in whatever manner that they are personally best able. I think
that Consul Germanicus has shown that he wants the same thing. He is
involved, he also involves or tries to involve all citizens in the process
of shaping Nova Roma.
The problem is how do we arrive at the condition where the list of
'citizens' is actually reflective of who are actually Quirites?
If as a result of the December elections voting we are unable to invest new
magistrates with imperium because of insufficient voter turnout, I would
vote to give the Consules the 'consultum ultimum ***, and even this may not
be sufficient. However, before this is done the Censores will consider a
realignment of the Centuries in accordance with established guidelines and
past voter turnout in the hope that there will be sufficient votes to elect
magistrates.
***
"The Senate shall have the power to issue the Senatus consultum ultimum (the
ultimate decree of the Senate). When in effect, this decree will supercede
all other governmental bodies and authorities (with the exception of the
dictator) and allow the Senate to invest the consuls with absolute powers to
deal with a specific situation, subject only to their collegial veto and
review by the Senate. Even under the authority of the Senatus consultum
ultimum, the consuls may only temporarily suspend this Constitution; they
may not enact any permanent changes hereto."
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:12:02 -0400
From: "alexious@--------" <alexious@-------->
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Idea to fix CC rules
Ave,
Thanks for your question. But, unfortunately we could not promulgate an
edict because those citizens who have essentially disappeared and are not in
any way shape or form interested in Nova Roma would need their citizenship
removed.
Censor Cincinnatus: True, and the Tribune can and should Veto any 'edict'
that interferes with internal gens structure. We have issued an edictum that
has at least started in the direction of holding gens spokespersons
accountable, even if only to a very small degree. Also, anything having to
do with termination of citizenship will require law (see bottom).
Sulla:
This is the one sticking point that would prevent the issuance of a
Censorial Edict. This part, IMHO, is an essential piece of the legislation,
because it would give us a much more accurate outlook of our total number of
citizens, regardless if they are politically motiviated or not. But it
would rid the roles of essentially dead wood people who are just on the
roles as a Roman name and in no other way responsive to Nova Roma.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Original Message:
-----------------
From: JusticeCMO justicecmo@--------
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:04:08 -0400
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: Re: [novaroma] Idea to fix CC rules
<html><body>
<tt>
Salve,<BR>
<BR>
Just out of curiosity, why is a lex required? Could you not accomplish
your<BR>
goal through a Censorial Edict?
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:31:59 -0400
From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Subject: RE: Re: Idea to fix CC rules
Salve;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alexious@-------- [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:58 PM
>
> That still wont solve any issue. I proposed a Census Lex that
> would clean up the roles,...
Actually, the Consuls this year have seen the need for such a lex for ten
months now. Despite repeated requests for the Censors to provide us with a
draft of suitable legislation, none has been forthcoming.
Cincinnatus: Censores are not legislators, we actually have many other
things to do. There are other office holders who can call comitiae.
In a similar vein, the problem of inactive patresfamilia has been one that
has dogged us for some time, and also one which the Censores have been
repeatedly asked to promulgate an edictum to correct (no lex being required
to remove a sitting paterfamilias since the Constitution allows for
registration of such with the Censores, and the necessary mechanism could be
managed through that avenue). May I ask if such a solution is similarly in
the works, unbeknownst to the rest of us?
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
Censor Cincinnatus: We do not have the authority to dictate the internal
workings of any Gens. This is specifically addressed in the Constitution,
which you wrote;
"Gentes. Families and clans being the backbone of Roman society, the
prerogatives and responsibilities of the family are of primary importance to
Nova Roma. Except where specifically dealt with in this constitution and the
law, each gens shall have the right to determine its own course of
action,..." Also,
"Each gens shall, through whatever means it may determine appropriate, have
a paterfamilias (fem. materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of the gens
and speak for it when necessary. The holder of this position must be
registered as such with the censors."
Every Gens does have a registered spokesperson; however, these clauses in no
way give Cenores the authority to remove, or change the status of, any gens
member relating to internal gens structure. Neither can we remove anyone's
citizenship because they refuse to answer questions or reply to requests.
We cannot simply issue an edictum that allows us to barge into a home and
tell someone, "You're not the father, or mother, anymore."
Until we have some *laws* or constitutional amendments we cannot legally do
anything except issue a *nota*, and that would only remove their vote
something they likely don't use anyway.
Certainly we can hold a census that will tell us who will answer. Sulla has
done this more than once, and we've used the data to 'close down' those gens
that do not respond. However, when those gens are 'closed down' applicants
who want to have a name that includes the nomen cannot be approved. They are
forced to find a different gens. Also, those gens members who remain active
are left without their 'spokesperson'.
We need a law or laws that allow us to determine when a gens 'spokesperson'
is deceased, resigned, missing, etc. Also, what will we do about those who
refuse, by omission or commission, to reply to a census? We need a law or
laws that allow us to act on the situation.
"II. Citizens and Gentes A. Citizenship 4. Citizenship may be involuntarily
revoked by those means that shall be established by law, or may be
voluntarily relinquished by notification of the censors or by public
statement before three or more witnesses."
We need law, and we'll need the votes to pass it too!
Mars Nos Protegas!
Taliban delenda est!
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:33:38 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Honored Consul, Magistrates and Citizens;
I have stayed out of this discussion about "fixing the laws" simply
because like others on this list, I do not understand much of the detail
being discussed in this matter. I am not much of a politician, my
interests lie in other directions, and I am not famous either for wit or
for concise thinking, nor am I an expert on the laws, as they are
presently promulgated.
One thing is abundantly clear, however, from the ideas floating around,
that this problem is not a "quick fix item."
I stand with my colleagues who have indicated that they will oppose any
retroactive legislation, the appointment of a Dictator, or the use of a
Senate Consulta for this problem. We are not in danger as a nation and
we have gotten ourselves into this problem, now we must simply back out,
and try again. I fault no-one for this situation as it is, but since it
is not an easy one to solve, I do not approve of any "quick fix" to the
situation.
If the Lex's are sound that were defeated because of a lack of voting
participation, then by all means place them again on the ballot
regardless of the extra trouble to do so.
Apparently the current situation of having many people "on the books"
but inactive, is crippling the micronation. I have spoken previously on
the necessity of including some way of dealing with the people who are
no longer interested in NR, and I now bring it up again.
Perhaps the notation by the Censors / Rogators of no vote from an
individual for three consecutive votes, without a notification to the
Censors of an individual taking a leave of absence, would be worthy to
be considered as a way to reduce some of those who are no longer
interested, for whatever reason. Whatever the final determination is,
we must have some way of trimming this "deadwood" from our micronation,
just as every other organization that I belong to has within thier
operating rules. Otherwise, we face the distinct possibility of
drowning our micronation in those who are no longer interested.
As it presently is in many of our provinces we count success in
attracting 5-10 people to face- to-face attractions when there are from
4-6 times that number registered. Today's world is filled with those
people who choose to make verbal contracts and break them for flippent
and childish reasons, justifiable only by thier own particular view, and
move on, without notification, to some other momentary attraction,
niether realizing nor caring what problems they leave behind. In my
view we must protect ourselves from such, particularly in the light of
the ease of rejoining Nova Roma, should an individual change of heart
occur. Our open-handed history of accepting almost any reason for a
leave of absence and our liberality in allowing people who have resigned
to rejoin, is simply another facet of the reasons why we should
seriously consider such legislation.
Very Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:36:08 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salvete,
Our immediate task is to find a way to fix the Comitia Centuriata, such
that 97 affirmative votes will no longer be required to enact a lex.
Of course, that change itself must be done by the Comitia Centuriata,
but I think we can find a way to do that.
There were less than 150 votes cast in the recent election, out of
193 centuries. We should assure that as many of these votes as possible
will be counted, and this can be done by distributing the active voters
across as many centuries as possible.
If the Rogatores will provide to the Censores a list of voter codes that
were used during this recent election, and the Censores then give me
authorization to do so, I can reallocate the centuries such that each
century will contain one active voter and several non-voters. (There
may need to be some "doubling up" in fourth and fifth classes, but the
Censores could give these classes additional centuries, decreasing
the strength of the second and third).
With this optimal distribution, we will easily have much more than
the 97 required to enact change; there would almost certainly be almost
150 voting centuries. Additionally, we could send out a mass-mailing
to all citizens asking them to vote.
With a simple reallocation of centuries - that won't take more than an
hour to perform - we can fix the Comitia, give the two recent failed leges
a second chance, and also vote in any other new proposals that the Consuls
can put before us in the next few days (such as the one redefining
century points).
Valete, Octavius.
---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
|
| Subject: |
AW: [novaroma] A fictional scenario to occupy our thoughts |
| From: |
"solinvictus" <caiustarquitius@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:34:23 +0200 |
|
I cannot reach the sodalitas militarium list.
Caius Tarquitius Saturninus
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: C. Minucius Hadrianus [mailto:shinjikun@--------]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2001 16:10
An: novaroma@--------
Betreff: RE: [novaroma] A fictional scenario to occupy our thoughts
Salve!
You should post this on the Soldalitas Miliatrium list as well - I suspect
it's right up many of the list's subscribers' alley!
Vale,
C. Minucius Hadrianus
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Stevenson [mailto:gaiussentius@--------]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 8:30 AM
To: main list
Subject: [novaroma] A fictional scenario to occupy our thoughts
Salvete omnes,
I have a theoretical question I'd like to put to you,
as this has plagued my thoughts for a while now.
Imagine the following scenario:
* Two countries lie opposite each other.
* One is Roman, with a military of the standards of
the 2nd century. The other is a Germanic country with
a military of the standards of the armies of William
the Conqueror.
* They both have armies, about the same size (the
Roman army is slightly numerically disadvantaged) in
infantry, archers, cavalry, navy etc.
* The Germanic country is slightly larger than the
Romans, but the Germanic country is laden with hills
in its majority. The Roman country also has many hills
covering it's smaller expanses.
* The Roman country is covered with scattered villages
and towns, with a few major cities. The Germanic
country consists of groups of small villages, but is
mostly scattered towns and larger cities.
* Both countries back onto an ocean (remember, this is
theoretical), but a largish river wends through the
middle of the Roman country right up to the border and
a minute distance into the Germanic countries. The
Germanic country is divided by small creeks and
rivers.
* The Roman country, while being under the princeps,
still looks to the senate as an advisory and
legislative body. The Germanic country lies under the
autocratic power of a single ruler with no such
governing institutions.
* A diplomatic crisis arises after (yes, I know it's a
real-life occurance, but bear with me) a diplomatic
deputation to the Germanic people results in those
diplomats being drowned. The inevitable is that war is
declared between the two countries.
Given all of these details, who do you think would
come out as the victor?
Just thought it might be a good distraction from
current events for anyone who might like to put their
thoughts to the test. Any thoughts would be
appreciated!
Valete bene omnes,
Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase
- Manage your files online.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A fictional scenario to occupy our thoughts |
| From: |
"Javier Augusto Gil-Ruiz Gil-Esparza" <javier_gil_ruiz@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:39:31 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Craig Stevenson <gaiussentius@--------> wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I have a theoretical question I'd like to put to you,
> as this has plagued my thoughts for a while now.
Salvete omnes et salve Gaius.
An interesting food for thought. Here are some random musings.
There is normally no such thing as a "who would win" situation in
war. Victory depends on many factors, and sheer luck is not the
smallest one.
My first impression is that the medievals would win, as their warfare
system is the result of the appliance of superior technology, honed
by experience. Both systems made the best of what they had at hand,
only normans had more (not only the obvious stirrups, better horses
and cheaper and better steel). After all, historical normans did
defeat pure infantry armies whereas romans were defeated by cavalry
heavy armies (parthians and goths).
Hey, I think I remember that the normans did actually defeat the
byzantinian army consistently. It is not the same case, but
nevertheless..
But there are many more factors to the "equation", and without these
there is no possibility of guessing.
The mere losing of battles may not be decisive, as for example
Hannibal did win as many as he could but was eventualy defeated
because of the lack of cooperation of Italy's population. Such would
not be the case in a feudal society.
Then again the normans would be better prepared for siege warfare, at
least on a small scale. And the norman country would be ridden with
castles
As a smartass I would answer with more questions. As to the
individual ability of each countries general's and military (much
more important than mere terrain, IMHO), for instance. Or as to each
population's support for its government.
And even if a war was won, that may imply much either. Even if the
normans won, they may eventually be "culturally conquered" by the
romans (depends on each culture's vigor, although I'd say the romans
get a head start). Or their occupation would eventually be ended by
uprisings and social unrest.
It is also improbable that both countries did not influence each
other inmensely, not only in the cultural but also in the military
aspects. It is platitudinous, but the military often tend to ask
themselves whether their armies could beat their neighbours. Thus a
roman army that found out that they had the normans as neighbours
would perhaps begin to discard the pilum for the pike, as well as
copy armor designs and possibly change their approach towards cavalry.
Well, now it is time for someone who is really knowledgeable to write
here and make some really intelligent comments.
Valete
Marcus Salix Saverius
> Imagine the following scenario:
>
> * Two countries lie opposite each other.
> * One is Roman, with a military of the standards of
> the 2nd century. The other is a Germanic country with
> a military of the standards of the armies of William
> the Conqueror.
> * They both have armies, about the same size (the
> Roman army is slightly numerically disadvantaged) in
> infantry, archers, cavalry, navy etc.
> * The Germanic country is slightly larger than the
> Romans, but the Germanic country is laden with hills
> in its majority. The Roman country also has many hills
> covering it's smaller expanses.
> * The Roman country is covered with scattered villages
> and towns, with a few major cities. The Germanic
> country consists of groups of small villages, but is
> mostly scattered towns and larger cities.
> * Both countries back onto an ocean (remember, this is
> theoretical), but a largish river wends through the
> middle of the Roman country right up to the border and
> a minute distance into the Germanic countries. The
> Germanic country is divided by small creeks and
> rivers.
> * The Roman country, while being under the princeps,
> still looks to the senate as an advisory and
> legislative body. The Germanic country lies under the
> autocratic power of a single ruler with no such
> governing institutions.
> * A diplomatic crisis arises after (yes, I know it's a
> real-life occurance, but bear with me) a diplomatic
> deputation to the Germanic people results in those
> diplomats being drowned. The inevitable is that war is
> declared between the two countries.
>
> Given all of these details, who do you think would
> come out as the victor?
>
> Just thought it might be a good distraction from
> current events for anyone who might like to put their
> thoughts to the test. Any thoughts would be
> appreciated!
>
> Valete bene omnes,
>
> Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
>
> http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase
> - Manage your files online.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully |
| From: |
amg@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:15:30 -0000 |
|
Salvete omnes
I'm in total agreement with Senator Marcus Minucius Audens.
The 'deceased' must be removed from the records. I believe that in
Roma Antiqua a Census was the right way to do it.
But as M. M. Audens says, this is not enough. I think that part of
the problem resides in the fact that in order to become a citizen of
Nova Roma, one has just to fill an electronic form and press the
button. This allows people with little or even no serious interest to
become a citizen. We should make things more difficult. In order to
become a citizen, one should be required to send the filled form by
snail-mail. Only then notification of acceptance would be received by
email and/or a phone call provided in the form. This would accomplish
two things:
1) Only those with bothered to print the form, fill it with a pen,
enclose it in an envelope and spend money in a stamp would be
accepted as citizens. These were likely to be more interested.
2) The Censores would have their burden decreased as the really
interested citizens would be fewer.
The disadvantages:
- NR won some reputation due to her huge size... The growth rate and
current number of citizens would of course decrease... And we all
know that numbers attract numbers...
But I still think that to know the truth is better. And if the truth
is that there are few romans in Nova Roma, I don't care. At least I
will know that I can trust my few fellow citizens.
Valete bene
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully |
| From: |
"C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:32:44 -0400 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
I also agree with Senator Audens and Antonius Gryllus Graecus on this issue.
While I think we're all very pleased to see our population rise above 1000
civies, I think it's become obvious the number of actual practicing civies
is far less. My own provincia is a good example - Nova Britannia has 45
civies on the rolls. As Legatus of the Massachusetts Regio and a member of
Proconsul Audens's staff I have done my best to drum up some activity in the
Provincia, but my best guess is that out of the 45 civies, only about a 1/2
dozen are active in any way. That works out to a hair over 13%. Not exactly
encouraging numbers, and it is now affecting the viability of our political
system. I think a Census may be just what we need to ascertain exactly how
many active civies we really have. In the same vein as Antonius Gryllus
Graecus's proposal, I think a census should be conducted via snail mail.
Mail a form out to every citizen and have them mail back a reply. Slow and
cumbersome? Yes - but the people who took the time to go out of their way to
complete it would almost certainly be the same people who are active in NR
and truly care about it's future. To alleviate some of the complexities of
international mail, the census could be conducted at a provincial level,
then the results could be sent via email from the provincia to the censors.
Just a thought!
Valete,
C. Minucius Hadrianus
Legatus of Massachusetts
Nova Britannia Provincia
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius
-----Original Message-----
From: amg@-------- [mailto:amg@--------]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:16 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully
Salvete omnes
I'm in total agreement with Senator Marcus Minucius Audens.
The 'deceased' must be removed from the records. I believe that in
Roma Antiqua a Census was the right way to do it.
But as M. M. Audens says, this is not enough. I think that part of
the problem resides in the fact that in order to become a citizen of
Nova Roma, one has just to fill an electronic form and press the
button. This allows people with little or even no serious interest to
become a citizen. We should make things more difficult. In order to
become a citizen, one should be required to send the filled form by
snail-mail. Only then notification of acceptance would be received by
email and/or a phone call provided in the form. This would accomplish
two things:
1) Only those with bothered to print the form, fill it with a pen,
enclose it in an envelope and spend money in a stamp would be
accepted as citizens. These were likely to be more interested.
2) The Censores would have their burden decreased as the really
interested citizens would be fewer.
The disadvantages:
- NR won some reputation due to her huge size... The growth rate and
current number of citizens would of course decrease... And we all
know that numbers attract numbers...
But I still think that to know the truth is better. And if the truth
is that there are few romans in Nova Roma, I don't care. At least I
will know that I can trust my few fellow citizens.
Valete bene
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully |
| From: |
Terry Wilson <twilson@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:39:21 -0500 |
|
I too am new to this discussion, and to Nova Roma, and I enter the
exchange with some trepidation. Perhaps it would be useful to institute
an annual or a semi-annual census of the citizens of NR, in the same way
subjects of the early empire were counted. Citizens would be required
to make actual contact with their provincial governors (who would pass
the final results on to the censors) with current mailing and e-mail
addresses, etc. No contact after one or two cycles would result in the
name of the citizen being stricken from the rolls of Nova Roma. I
should think that such minimal participation is the least that can be
expected of citizens. Those who will not respond should be removed.
This, of course, is only the broad outline of what would have to be a
carefully constructed practice. My familiarity with existing law is
rudimentary at best, so perhaps such a census is out of the question.
But it does seem to me that a more accurate picture of the actual
composition of NR society must be available to our leaders.
Most respectfully,
G. Cornelius Pudens
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata |
| From: |
"Caius Puteus Germanicus" <puteus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:37:43 +0200 |
|
Salvete omnes,
I think this is indeed the best solution to this problem. As I speak for myself, finally approved as a citizen, I will be glad to participate in the voting process and to apply for a public office when the time comes.
Valete,
C. Puteus Germanicus
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:36 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata
Salvete,
Our immediate task is to find a way to fix the Comitia Centuriata, such
that 97 affirmative votes will no longer be required to enact a lex.
Of course, that change itself must be done by the Comitia Centuriata,
but I think we can find a way to do that.
There were less than 150 votes cast in the recent election, out of
193 centuries. We should assure that as many of these votes as possible
will be counted, and this can be done by distributing the active voters
across as many centuries as possible.
If the Rogatores will provide to the Censores a list of voter codes that
were used during this recent election, and the Censores then give me
authorization to do so, I can reallocate the centuries such that each
century will contain one active voter and several non-voters. (There
may need to be some "doubling up" in fourth and fifth classes, but the
Censores could give these classes additional centuries, decreasing
the strength of the second and third).
With this optimal distribution, we will easily have much more than
the 97 required to enact change; there would almost certainly be almost
150 voting centuries. Additionally, we could send out a mass-mailing
to all citizens asking them to vote.
With a simple reallocation of centuries - that won't take more than an
hour to perform - we can fix the Comitia, give the two recent failed leges
a second chance, and also vote in any other new proposals that the Consuls
can put before us in the next few days (such as the one redefining
century points).
Valete, Octavius.
---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] New citizen |
| From: |
"Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa" <vipsaniusagrippa@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:24:37 -0600 |
|
Salvete
At this time I would like to welcome a new citizen to Nova Roma. Her name
is Maia Vipsania Serena. She is from Calgary, Alberta (but I won't hold
that against her - Go Oilers!!!!).
I sure she will find a warm reception and an invitation to get fully
involved with our res publicae.
C. Vipsanius Agrippa
Pater- Gens Vipsania
Cornicularius to Propraetor Q. Sertorius
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully |
| From: |
AntoniaCorneliaOctavia <europamoon7@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:56:21 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- amg@-------- wrote:
> Salvete omnes
>
> I'm in total agreement with Senator Marcus Minucius
> Audens.
> The 'deceased' must be removed from the records. I
> believe that in
> Roma Antiqua a Census was the right way to do it.
>
> But as M. M. Audens says, this is not enough. I
> think that part of
> the problem resides in the fact that in order to
> become a citizen of
> Nova Roma, one has just to fill an electronic form
> and press the
> button. This allows people with little or even no
> serious interest to
> become a citizen. We should make things more
> difficult. In order to
> become a citizen, one should be required to send the
> filled form by
> snail-mail. Only then notification of acceptance
> would be received by
> email and/or a phone call provided in the form. This
> would accomplish
> two things:
> 1) Only those with bothered to print the form, fill
> it with a pen,
> enclose it in an envelope and spend money in a stamp
> would be
> accepted as citizens. These were likely to be more
> interested.
> 2) The Censores would have their burden decreased as
> the really
> interested citizens would be fewer.
>
> The disadvantages:
> - NR won some reputation due to her huge size... The
> growth rate and
> current number of citizens would of course
> decrease... And we all
> know that numbers attract numbers...
>
> But I still think that to know the truth is better.
> And if the truth
> is that there are few romans in Nova Roma, I don't
> care. At least I
> will know that I can trust my few fellow citizens.
>
> Valete bene
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Salvete,
I have to agree with the above concensus that our
application process is too lenient. Most non-profits
require a membership fee up front in order to even be
considered a member. I think requiring a new member to
pay the $12.00 tax with an application that is mailed
in would help deter individuals who aren't serious
about participating in NR. Also, as far as a census
goes, wouldn't tax time take care of that? And
eliminate dead members? Personally though, I think
that if a citizen pays his membership fee each year
but doesn't vote he or she should not be removed from
the cives list. Not all members are interested in
politics initially. I know I wasn't. Or they may
have another area of focus such as the Sodalitas
Militarium or Religio Romano or whatever other avenues
Nova Roma offers. Perhaps there could be a separate
list for inactive paid members. Either way we need to
let potential cives know up front what is required of
them and the rules of being accepted as a civis as far
as voting goes if there is a chance they could be
removed as a civis if they don't vote. I personally
would like to see the standards of Nova Roma raised a
little with fewer members but more active ones. I find
it very curious that when I have an event and I mail
out 45 emails to a supposedly current list of cives in
my area, that I receive only 5 responses. It doesn't
take a brain surgeon to figure out that the list is
comprised of mostly inactive individuals.
Valete,
Antonia Cornelia Octavia
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:35:07 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salve,
> I think requiring a new member to pay the $12.00 tax with an
> application that is mailed in would help deter individuals
> who aren't serious about participating in NR.
Just putting a statement on the application page that there is a $12
membership fee can have this effect too!
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata |
| From: |
Daniel Dreesbach <stakor2000@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:37:59 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Why not include points for voting.
Caius Puteus Germanicus <puteus@--------> wrote: Salvete omnes,
I think this is indeed the best solution to this problem. As I speak for myself, finally approved as a citizen, I will be glad to participate in the voting process and to apply for a public office when the time comes.
Valete,
C. Puteus Germanicus
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:36 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata
Salvete,
Our immediate task is to find a way to fix the Comitia Centuriata, such
that 97 affirmative votes will no longer be required to enact a lex.
Of course, that change itself must be done by the Comitia Centuriata,
but I think we can find a way to do that.
There were less than 150 votes cast in the recent election, out of
193 centuries. We should assure that as many of these votes as possible
will be counted, and this can be done by distributing the active voters
across as many centuries as possible.
If the Rogatores will provide to the Censores a list of voter codes that
were used during this recent election, and the Censores then give me
authorization to do so, I can reallocate the centuries such that each
century will contain one active voter and several non-voters. (There
may need to be some "doubling up" in fourth and fifth classes, but the
Censores could give these classes additional centuries, decreasing
the strength of the second and third).
With this optimal distribution, we will easily have much more than
the 97 required to enact change; there would almost certainly be almost
150 voting centuries. Additionally, we could send out a mass-mailing
to all citizens asking them to vote.
With a simple reallocation of centuries - that won't take more than an
hour to perform - we can fix the Comitia, give the two recent failed leges
a second chance, and also vote in any other new proposals that the Consuls
can put before us in the next few days (such as the one redefining
century points).
Valete, Octavius.
---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:39:30 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Because voting is supposed to be anonymous. If something like this
creeps in there are potential negatives that might get in the system.
Respectfully,
L. Cornelius Sulla
Daniel Dreesbach wrote:
>
> Why not include points for voting.
>
> Caius Puteus Germanicus <puteus@--------> wrote: Salvete omnes,
>
> I think this is indeed the best solution to this problem. As I speak
> for myself, finally approved as a citizen, I will be glad to
> participate in the voting process and to apply for a public office
> when the time comes.
>
> Valete,
> C. Puteus Germanicus
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> To: novaroma@--------
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:36 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata
>
> Salvete,
>
> Our immediate task is to find a way to fix the Comitia Centuriata,
> such
> that 97 affirmative votes will no longer be required to enact a
> lex.
> Of course, that change itself must be done by the Comitia
> Centuriata,
> but I think we can find a way to do that.
>
> There were less than 150 votes cast in the recent election, out of
> 193 centuries. We should assure that as many of these votes as
> possible
> will be counted, and this can be done by distributing the active
> voters
> across as many centuries as possible.
>
> If the Rogatores will provide to the Censores a list of voter codes
> that
> were used during this recent election, and the Censores then give me
>
> authorization to do so, I can reallocate the centuries such that
> each
> century will contain one active voter and several non-voters.
> (There
> may need to be some "doubling up" in fourth and fifth classes, but
> the
> Censores could give these classes additional centuries, decreasing
> the strength of the second and third).
>
> With this optimal distribution, we will easily have much more than
> the 97 required to enact change; there would almost certainly be
> almost
> 150 voting centuries. Additionally, we could send out a
> mass-mailing
> to all citizens asking them to vote.
>
> With a simple reallocation of centuries - that won't take more than
> an
> hour to perform - we can fix the Comitia, give the two recent failed
> leges
> a second chance, and also vote in any other new proposals that the
> Consuls
> can put before us in the next few days (such as the one redefining
> century points).
>
> Valete, Octavius.
>
> ---
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:48:13 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salve,
> Because voting is supposed to be anonymous. If something like this
> creeps in there are potential negatives that might get in the system.
But it's already not completely anonymous; the tribes are allocated based
on who voted and who didn't. Last year's Rogatores sent us a list of those
voter codes that were used in December, and we assigned tribes accordingly.
Who voted and who didn't is a matter of public record.
Similar lists can be used to add one century point per election participated
in (if a law is passed specifying this point award). It doesn't violate
privacy, and is easy to do programmatically.
Vale, Octavius.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:12:23 -0700 |
|
Ave, here is a repost WITH modifications of the Census lex that I wrote
back in June. I hope this meets with the overall approval of the
citizens of Nova Roma. I have gone back and added in, and revised it
based on the comments I received back in June.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
____
Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,
With the discussion of a census the "hot topic" currently in Nova Roma,
I would like to make my opinion known on this matter. I have been
discussing this very issue with a couple of citizens, and now I think
its time I tried to formulate this so that everyone can get an idea of
just where I am on this issue. I speak for myself. My colleague, if
you will notice will also be getting a copy of this very email. I hope
he will add his opinion sometime soon on this topic.
I will fashion this as a proposed Lex. For this is something I would
like to have promulgated, eventually.
1. A Census of all citizens of Nova Roma should be done every 5 years.
This would be the responsibility of the Censors.
2. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, according to the
(IV.A.8. of the Constitution of Nova Roma), two new magisterial position
would be established. Their title would be, Duumviri census populi.
One of the main aspects of this position is that it would only be
available during a Census year. It will be the chief function of the
Duumviri census populi to facilitate and assist the Censors in this
work. The Censors and Duumviri census populi may work with the local
provincial governors to facilitate this project. [The reason I feel the
Censors need Duumviri census populi are two fold. One the People elect
them, secondly, they would be magistrates who would be able to work in
areas where there are no provincial governors.]
3. The Census of all citizen of Nova Roma must be done by the Ides of
September, in the year that the Census is due. This will give the
Censors enough time to clean the roles and make adjustments before the
alignment of century points and century placements must be completed.
[This must be done during November, according to the Constitution].
4. The Census will consist of the following:
A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be contacted
by the Censors to determine if they are apart of Nova Roma:
1. Those citizens who vote are considered "censi."
2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered "incensi".
5. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be contacted
by the National Census. The following will lay down some of the
procedures to make certain we get the best response in any National
Census:
A. Bulk email. At least two attempts should be done to contact citizen
via this avenue.
B. Phone calls. I know this can be costly. Maybe this is where we can
incorporate some cooperation between the local governors and the Censors
(coordinated by the Quaestors). Or done via the Internet. Discretion
lies with the Censors and the Censorial Quaestors. The attempts may
vary, in this avenue, but at least two attempts would be required.
[There has to be some kind of documentation either via email or snail
mail by the applicant to confirm the information gained via the phone,
this confirmation will need to go to the Censors]
C. Snail mail. Again, this might be an avenue that there can be some
cooperation between the Office of the Censor and local governments.
However, it must be imperative that any documentation received must be
forwarded to the Office of the Censors by the Ides of September.
6. By the Ides of August, the Censors should post a list to the
official email list of Nova Roma displaying the names of those citizens
who have failed to respond. [Hopefully, by this time, Paters and Maters
will receive notification on those in their gentes who failed to respond
and can get their gens members to contact the Censors by the Ides of
September, when the Census will be complete.]
7. If citizens fail to respond to the contact attempts. That person
will no longer be considered a citizen of Nova Roma, and they would be
ineligible to reapply for a period of six months. His name will be
stricken from the Album Civium and if he/she is a Pater/Mater, the
Censors will abide by the Constitution and any Censorial edict if the
appointment of a paterfamilias is necessary.
8. If any person who was once a citizen but was removed due to a
National Census, he will be stricken from the Album Civium. However,
the Censors have the discretion to waive this clause if both Censors
feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain
inncommunicado (homelessness, war, national disaster, etc).
____
Respectfully submitted,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully |
| From: |
"CJ Sitter" <otto_von_sitter@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:25:24 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> > I think requiring a new member to pay the $12.00 tax with an
> > application that is mailed in would help deter individuals
> > who aren't serious about participating in NR.
>
> Just putting a statement on the application page that there is a
$12
> membership fee can have this effect too!
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator
Yes, it would have an effect even if it wasn't a requirement to pay
right away. That might give new citizens a chance to get a feel for
Nova Roma and what it is about before having to pay the $12. Believe
it or not, I initially thought Nova Roma was your typical reinactment
group mixed with a historical society, not a micronation. But after
having been a citizen for a few months I've gotten quite an education
in what Nova Roma is about and though I still have much to learn, I
am full willing to pay when it comes time just for the fact I've had
time to learn.
Marcus Cornelius Tiberius
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Fixing the Comitia Centuriata |
| From: |
"CJ Sitter" <otto_von_sitter@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:30:00 -0000 |
|
Would it really be worth it to spend all the money on postage just to
encourage people to vote? A mass e-mail might be more just as
effective and it would save time and money. Also keep in mind normal
postage might not be as fast for those of us that live out in the
boonies. As per the other stuff you said, I am too uneducated in
this area to give an opinion.
Marcus Cornelius Tiberius
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: 3rd draft of Census Lex |
| From: |
"CJ Sitter" <otto_von_sitter@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:36:05 -0000 |
|
This definately sound like a good way to get rid of the rif-raf. I
just hope this can be pulled off. I know this seems small by
comparison, but I can relate to how inactive members can drag an
organization down. If you remember, I play an online game called
Earth:2025 and I formed an unofficial alliance for the game. The
alliance had over 20 members, but out of that there were only 5
active members, making what could have been a very powerful alliance
into a weak alliance.
Marcus Cornelius Tiberius
--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave, here is a repost WITH modifications of the Census lex that I
wrote
> back in June. I hope this meets with the overall approval of the
> citizens of Nova Roma. I have gone back and added in, and revised
it
> based on the comments I received back in June.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ____
>
> Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,
>
> With the discussion of a census the "hot topic" currently in Nova
Roma,
> I would like to make my opinion known on this matter. I have been
> discussing this very issue with a couple of citizens, and now I
think
> its time I tried to formulate this so that everyone can get an idea
of
> just where I am on this issue. I speak for myself. My colleague,
if
> you will notice will also be getting a copy of this very email. I
hope
> he will add his opinion sometime soon on this topic.
>
> I will fashion this as a proposed Lex. For this is something I
would
> like to have promulgated, eventually.
>
> 1. A Census of all citizens of Nova Roma should be done every 5
years.
> This would be the responsibility of the Censors.
>
> 2. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, according to the
> (IV.A.8. of the Constitution of Nova Roma), two new magisterial
position
> would be established. Their title would be, Duumviri census
populi.
> One of the main aspects of this position is that it would only be
> available during a Census year. It will be the chief function of
the
> Duumviri census populi to facilitate and assist the Censors in this
> work. The Censors and Duumviri census populi may work with the
local
> provincial governors to facilitate this project. [The reason I
feel the
> Censors need Duumviri census populi are two fold. One the People
elect
> them, secondly, they would be magistrates who would be able to work
in
> areas where there are no provincial governors.]
>
>
> 3. The Census of all citizen of Nova Roma must be done by the Ides
of
> September, in the year that the Census is due. This will give the
> Censors enough time to clean the roles and make adjustments before
the
> alignment of century points and century placements must be
completed.
> [This must be done during November, according to the Constitution].
>
> 4. The Census will consist of the following:
>
> A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be
contacted
> by the Censors to determine if they are apart of Nova Roma:
>
> 1. Those citizens who vote are considered "censi."
> 2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered "incensi".
>
> 5. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be
contacted
> by the National Census. The following will lay down some of the
> procedures to make certain we get the best response in any National
> Census:
>
> A. Bulk email. At least two attempts should be done to contact
citizen
> via this avenue.
>
> B. Phone calls. I know this can be costly. Maybe this is where
we can
> incorporate some cooperation between the local governors and the
Censors
> (coordinated by the Quaestors). Or done via the Internet.
Discretion
> lies with the Censors and the Censorial Quaestors. The attempts may
> vary, in this avenue, but at least two attempts would be required.
> [There has to be some kind of documentation either via email or
snail
> mail by the applicant to confirm the information gained via the
phone,
> this confirmation will need to go to the Censors]
>
> C. Snail mail. Again, this might be an avenue that there can be
some
> cooperation between the Office of the Censor and local governments.
> However, it must be imperative that any documentation received must
be
> forwarded to the Office of the Censors by the Ides of September.
>
> 6. By the Ides of August, the Censors should post a list to the
> official email list of Nova Roma displaying the names of those
citizens
> who have failed to respond. [Hopefully, by this time, Paters and
Maters
> will receive notification on those in their gentes who failed to
respond
> and can get their gens members to contact the Censors by the Ides of
> September, when the Census will be complete.]
>
> 7. If citizens fail to respond to the contact attempts. That
person
> will no longer be considered a citizen of Nova Roma, and they would
be
> ineligible to reapply for a period of six months. His name will be
> stricken from the Album Civium and if he/she is a Pater/Mater, the
> Censors will abide by the Constitution and any Censorial edict if
the
> appointment of a paterfamilias is necessary.
>
> 8. If any person who was once a citizen but was removed due to a
> National Census, he will be stricken from the Album Civium.
However,
> the Censors have the discretion to waive this clause if both Censors
> feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain
> inncommunicado (homelessness, war, national disaster, etc).
>
> ____
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor of Nova Roma
|
| Subject: |
CORRECTED: Re: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:47:52 -0700 |
|
Ave, here is a repost WITH modifications of the Census lex that I wrote
back in June. I hope this meets with the overall approval of the
citizens of Nova Roma. I have gone back and added in, and revised it
based on the comments I received back in June.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
____
Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,
With the discussion of a census the "hot topic" currently in Nova Roma,
I would like to make my opinion known on this matter. I have been
discussing this very issue with a couple of citizens, and now I think
its time I tried to formulate this so that everyone can get an idea of
just where I am on this issue. I speak for myself. My colleague, if
you will notice will also be getting a copy of this very email. I hope
he will add his opinion sometime soon on this topic.
I will fashion this as a proposed Lex. For this is something I would
like to have promulgated, eventually.
1. A Census of all citizens of Nova Roma should be done every 5 years.
This would be the responsibility of the Censors.
A. The First Census shall take place the year after this lex is
passed.
2. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, according to the
(IV.A.8. of the Constitution of Nova Roma), two new magisterial
(Vigintisexviri) position
would be established. Their title would be, Duumviri census populi.
One of the main aspects of this position is that it would only be
available during a Census year. It will be the chief function of the
Duumviri census populi to facilitate and assist the Censors in this
work. The Censors and Duumviri census populi may work with the local
provincial governors to facilitate this project. [The reason I feel the
Censors need Duumviri census populi are two fold. One the People elect
them, secondly, they would be magistrates who would be able to work in
areas where there are no provincial governors.]
3. The Census of all citizen of Nova Roma must be done by the Ides of
September, in the year that the Census is due. This will give the
Censors enough time to clean the roles and make adjustments before the
alignment of century points and century placements must be completed.
[This must be done during November, according to the Constitution].
4. The Census will consist of the following:
A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be contacted
by the Censors to determine if they are apart of Nova Roma:
1. Those citizens who vote are considered "censi."
2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered "incensi".
5. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be contacted
by the National Census. The following will lay down some of the
procedures to make certain we get the best response in any National
Census:
A. Bulk email. At least two attempts should be done to contact
citizen
via this avenue.
B. Phone calls. I know this can be costly. Maybe this is where we
can
incorporate some cooperation between the local governors and the Censors
(coordinated by the Duumviri census populi). Or done via the Internet.
Discretion
lies with the Censors and the Censorial Duumviri census populi. The
attempts may
vary, in this avenue, but at least two attempts would be required.
[There has to be some kind of documentation either via email or snail
mail by the applicant to confirm the information gained via the phone,
this confirmation will need to go to the Censors]
C. Snail mail. Again, this might be an avenue that there can be
some
cooperation between the Office of the Censor and local governments.
However, it must be imperative that any documentation received must be
forwarded to the Office of the Censors by the Ides of September.
6. By the Ides of August, the Censors should post a list to the
official email list of Nova Roma displaying the names of those citizens
who have failed to respond. [Hopefully, by this time, Paters and Maters
will receive notification on those in their gentes who failed to respond
and can get their gens members to contact the Censors by the Ides of
September, when the Census will be complete.]
7. If citizens fail to respond to the contact attempts. That person
will no longer be considered a citizen of Nova Roma, and they would be
ineligible to reapply for a period of six months. His name will be
stricken from the Album Civium and if he/she is a Pater/Mater, the
Censors will abide by the Constitution and any Censorial edict if the
appointment of a paterfamilias is necessary.
8. If any person who was once a citizen but was removed due to a
National Census, he will be stricken from the Album Civium. However,
the Censors have the discretion to waive this clause if both Censors
feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain
inncommunicado (homelessness, war, national disaster, etc).
____
Respectfully submitted,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:06:54 US/Central |
|
Salvete
> 1. A Census of all citizens of Nova Roma should be done every 5 years.
> This would be the responsibility of the Censors.
It still seems to me that we could easily have a yearly census by requiring
patres matresque familias to contact the censores in order to register
themselves and their gentes. Such registration would also involve their
telling the censores of the current members of their gentes. In this way, the
censores would not need to do much extra work, the rolls could be kept up to
date on a yearly basis, and inactive patres et matres would automatically be
weeded out.
> 2. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, according to the
> (IV.A.8. of the Constitution of Nova Roma), two new magisterial position
> would be established. Their title would be, Duumviri census populi.
Even if we choose to perform a census along the lines proposed here, there's no
reason to have an extra pair of magistrati to perform the job. This is what
the position of censor was created for in the first place, after all.
> 4. The Census will consist of the following:
>
> A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be contacted
> by the Censors to determine if they are a part of Nova Roma:
>
> 1. Those citizens who vote are considered "censi."
> 2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered "incensi".
Am I correct in assuming that #2 means people who pay taxes, but do not vote?
Why this terminology? A person who is "incensus" has, by definition, not been
counted in the census. And yet, by this lex, the incensi would be counted in
the census. Perhaps "tacentes" (the silent) would be a better term?
> 5. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be contacted
> by the National Census.
This may be desirable during the first census, but it would be much more in the
spirit of Roma Antiqua to put the onus of contacting the censores on the cives.
> A. Bulk email. At least two attempts should be done to contact citizen
> via this avenue.
This should be fairly easy to automate using the censorial database.
> B. Phone calls. I know this can be costly. Maybe this is where we can
> incorporate some cooperation between the local governors and the Censors
> (coordinated by the Quaestors).
I still remain unconvinced that the quaestores need to be part of this process
at all. The governors and the censores ought to be able to work together on
this without involving the Republic's accountants.
Or, are you suggesting that the (consular?) quaestores are needed in order to
have the Republic's funds cover phone expenses? That would make sense. In
this case, the Senate would be needed to set a budget in the beginning, and to
approve or deny added expenses if needed. The quaestores would simply need to
keep track of how much money was spent by whom in order to properly reimburse
the appropriate people.
> Or done via the Internet. Discretion lies with the Censors and the Censorial
> Quaestors.
Censores are not provided with quaestores. The consules, praetores, and
aediles are the magistrati that quaestores serve (constitution IV.A.6).
> 7. If citizens fail to respond to the contact attempts. That person
> will no longer be considered a citizen of Nova Roma, and they would be
> ineligible to reapply for a period of six months. His name will be
> stricken from the Album Civium and if he/she is a Pater/Mater, the
> Censors will abide by the Constitution and any Censorial edict if the
> appointment of a paterfamilias is necessary.
The only case in which a new pater/materfamilias would be required would be
that in which there were still active members in their gens. In this case, the
remaining gentiles would need to appoint a new pater/materfamilias according to
the bylaws of their gens. Otherwise, the gens would simply cease to exist.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] New citizen |
| From: |
Lindsay Penner <lrpenner@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:31:42 MDT |
|
Salvete,
Thanks for the great welcome :) I figured I'd introduce myself and let you
all get to know me a bit.
I'm 19 years old, and a second year university student here in Calgary (I was
born in Winnipeg, though, and even if my team's long gone, I'll be a Jets fan
forever! *g*). I'm taking a double major in Psychology and Classics, and I
eventually plan on going into child psychiatry. I do a lot of volunteer work
with Scouts Canada, and I work part-time as a tutor. I've been Neopagan for
three years now, and I find it to be a very rewarding way of life. I'm
taking Intermediate Latin at the moment, so I'm not all that bad at reading
the language.
Nice to meet you all.
Valete,
Maia Vipsania Serena
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex |
| From: |
"Caius Puteus Germanicus" <puteus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:41:24 +0200 |
|
Ave !
I agree with this proposal, but I want to stress the effect a Pater or Mater Familias should have on his/her gens. Perhaps the duumviri mentionned below could start by contacting the Paters et Maters when the 2 email messages have remained unanswered.
A second possibility is to lay the responsability of citizenship with the cives themselves. Once a year every citizen has to confirm his or her active citizenship, e.g. between the Ides of July and the Ides of September. When nothing is heard of a citizen before the Ides of August, email messages can be send to private email addresses. When mentionned on the website that you need to confirm your citizenship every year, I think we will be able to gather more active Romans than via email alone (emailaddresses may change etc.).
Vale!
----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:12 PM
Subject: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex
Ave, here is a repost WITH modifications of the Census lex that I wrote
back in June. I hope this meets with the overall approval of the
citizens of Nova Roma. I have gone back and added in, and revised it
based on the comments I received back in June.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
____
Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,
With the discussion of a census the "hot topic" currently in Nova Roma,
I would like to make my opinion known on this matter. I have been
discussing this very issue with a couple of citizens, and now I think
its time I tried to formulate this so that everyone can get an idea of
just where I am on this issue. I speak for myself. My colleague, if
you will notice will also be getting a copy of this very email. I hope
he will add his opinion sometime soon on this topic.
I will fashion this as a proposed Lex. For this is something I would
like to have promulgated, eventually.
1. A Census of all citizens of Nova Roma should be done every 5 years.
This would be the responsibility of the Censors.
2. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, according to the
(IV.A.8. of the Constitution of Nova Roma), two new magisterial position
would be established. Their title would be, Duumviri census populi.
One of the main aspects of this position is that it would only be
available during a Census year. It will be the chief function of the
Duumviri census populi to facilitate and assist the Censors in this
work. The Censors and Duumviri census populi may work with the local
provincial governors to facilitate this project. [The reason I feel the
Censors need Duumviri census populi are two fold. One the People elect
them, secondly, they would be magistrates who would be able to work in
areas where there are no provincial governors.]
3. The Census of all citizen of Nova Roma must be done by the Ides of
September, in the year that the Census is due. This will give the
Censors enough time to clean the roles and make adjustments before the
alignment of century points and century placements must be completed.
[This must be done during November, according to the Constitution].
4. The Census will consist of the following:
A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be contacted
by the Censors to determine if they are apart of Nova Roma:
1. Those citizens who vote are considered "censi."
2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered "incensi".
5. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be contacted
by the National Census. The following will lay down some of the
procedures to make certain we get the best response in any National
Census:
A. Bulk email. At least two attempts should be done to contact citizen
via this avenue.
B. Phone calls. I know this can be costly. Maybe this is where we can
incorporate some cooperation between the local governors and the Censors
(coordinated by the Quaestors). Or done via the Internet. Discretion
lies with the Censors and the Censorial Quaestors. The attempts may
vary, in this avenue, but at least two attempts would be required.
[There has to be some kind of documentation either via email or snail
mail by the applicant to confirm the information gained via the phone,
this confirmation will need to go to the Censors]
C. Snail mail. Again, this might be an avenue that there can be some
cooperation between the Office of the Censor and local governments.
However, it must be imperative that any documentation received must be
forwarded to the Office of the Censors by the Ides of September.
6. By the Ides of August, the Censors should post a list to the
official email list of Nova Roma displaying the names of those citizens
who have failed to respond. [Hopefully, by this time, Paters and Maters
will receive notification on those in their gentes who failed to respond
and can get their gens members to contact the Censors by the Ides of
September, when the Census will be complete.]
7. If citizens fail to respond to the contact attempts. That person
will no longer be considered a citizen of Nova Roma, and they would be
ineligible to reapply for a period of six months. His name will be
stricken from the Album Civium and if he/she is a Pater/Mater, the
Censors will abide by the Constitution and any Censorial edict if the
appointment of a paterfamilias is necessary.
8. If any person who was once a citizen but was removed due to a
National Census, he will be stricken from the Album Civium. However,
the Censors have the discretion to waive this clause if both Censors
feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain
inncommunicado (homelessness, war, national disaster, etc).
____
Respectfully submitted,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@--------> |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2001 18:44:28 -0200 |
|
On Thu, 2001-10-25 at 17:39, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:
> Ave,
>
> Because voting is supposed to be anonymous. If something like this
> creeps in there are potential negatives that might get in the system.
>
What is anonymous is what you voted: against, in favour, abstention
not the fact that you voted which definitevely shuld be, and is public
in most nations around the world.
This need to be public if only in order to allow the general public to
check if their vote was really considered in the appuration.
Salve
Manius Villius Limitanus
> Respectfully,
>
> L. Cornelius Sulla
>
> Daniel Dreesbach wrote:
> >
> > Why not include points for voting.
> >
> > Caius Puteus Germanicus <puteus@--------> wrote: Salvete omnes,
> >
> > I think this is indeed the best solution to this problem. As I speak
> > for myself, finally approved as a citizen, I will be glad to
> > participate in the voting process and to apply for a public office
> > when the time comes.
> >
> > Valete,
> > C. Puteus Germanicus
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> > To: novaroma@--------
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:36 PM
> > Subject: [novaroma] Fixing the Comitia Centuriata
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > Our immediate task is to find a way to fix the Comitia Centuriata,
> > such
> > that 97 affirmative votes will no longer be required to enact a
> > lex.
> > Of course, that change itself must be done by the Comitia
> > Centuriata,
> > but I think we can find a way to do that.
> >
> > There were less than 150 votes cast in the recent election, out of
> > 193 centuries. We should assure that as many of these votes as
> > possible
> > will be counted, and this can be done by distributing the active
> > voters
> > across as many centuries as possible.
> >
> > If the Rogatores will provide to the Censores a list of voter codes
> > that
> > were used during this recent election, and the Censores then give me
> >
> > authorization to do so, I can reallocate the centuries such that
> > each
> > century will contain one active voter and several non-voters.
> > (There
> > may need to be some "doubling up" in fourth and fifth classes, but
> > the
> > Censores could give these classes additional centuries, decreasing
> > the strength of the second and third).
> >
> > With this optimal distribution, we will easily have much more than
> > the 97 required to enact change; there would almost certainly be
> > almost
> > 150 voting centuries. Additionally, we could send out a
> > mass-mailing
> > to all citizens asking them to vote.
> >
> > With a simple reallocation of centuries - that won't take more than
> > an
> > hour to perform - we can fix the Comitia, give the two recent failed
> > leges
> > a second chance, and also vote in any other new proposals that the
> > Consuls
> > can put before us in the next few days (such as the one redefining
> > century points).
> >
> > Valete, Octavius.
> >
> > ---
> > M. Octavius Germanicus
> > Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> > Curator Araneum et Senator
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully |
| From: |
Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:13:27 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, Graece.
--- amg@-------- wrote:
> Salvete omnes
>
> I'm in total agreement with Senator Marcus Minucius Audens.
> The 'deceased' must be removed from the records. I believe that in
> Roma Antiqua a Census was the right way to do it.
>
> But as M. M. Audens says, this is not enough. I think that part of
> the problem resides in the fact that in order to become a citizen of
> Nova Roma, one has just to fill an electronic form and press the
> button. This allows people with little or even no serious interest to
>
> become a citizen. We should make things more difficult. In order to
> become a citizen, one should be required to send the filled form by
> snail-mail. Only then notification of acceptance would be received by
>
> email and/or a phone call provided in the form. This would accomplish
>
> two things:
> 1) Only those with bothered to print the form, fill it with a pen,
> enclose it in an envelope and spend money in a stamp would be
> accepted as citizens. These were likely to be more interested.
> 2) The Censores would have their burden decreased as the really
> interested citizens would be fewer.
>
> The disadvantages:
> - NR won some reputation due to her huge size... The growth rate and
> current number of citizens would of course decrease... And we all
> know that numbers attract numbers...
>
> But I still think that to know the truth is better. And if the truth
> is that there are few romans in Nova Roma, I don't care. At least I
> will know that I can trust my few fellow citizens.
>
> Valete bene
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
There are many additional disadvantages implicit on a snail mail
application system:
ˇIt would be far more difficult to citizens from outside the U.S.A. to
send their applications (being a European yourself, you should have
taken account of this one).
ˇMany people are reluctant to use snail mail. I am one of those. If I
had had to send my application through snail mail, I would never have
joined (and I guess you all will agree that I am a pretty active
example of the success of internet application ;-> ). Not because of
lack of interest, but because of my uneasyness with such a clumsy and
backwarded system.
ˇThere is no damage done by those "ghost" citizens. No money spent, no
resources lost. If we reform the Comitia Centuriata (and we can take
the opportunity to plan a reform of greater extent), those inactive
citizens are not harming us in any way.
ˇBesides, those inactive citizens can be our pool to obtain more
*active* citizens. We need better information about our sodalitates,
our legal system, our provinciae. If we improve the ways of access to
that information, and if we improve the level of involvement a citizen
can actually have, I would forecast a rise in the number of active
citizens, both new and old.
To add up, I would not be contrary to a reform in our application
system. I would like to see the information we offer to new citizens
increase. I would also like to see an improvement in our level of
activity outside mailing lists (I understand that not everyone has the
inclination to endlessly discuss with you, gentlemen ;-) ). But I do
not think that a snail mail system would improve things.
=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Novae Romae in Thule
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Novae Romae in Thule.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Slowly, Cautiously, and Carefully |
| From: |
Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:25:37 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete Quirites.
--- CJ Sitter <otto_von_sitter@--------> wrote:
<<snipped>>
> Yes, it would have an effect even if it wasn't a requirement to pay
> right away. That might give new citizens a chance to get a feel for
> Nova Roma and what it is about before having to pay the $12. Believe
>
> it or not, I initially thought Nova Roma was your typical reinactment
>
> group mixed with a historical society, not a micronation. But after
> having been a citizen for a few months I've gotten quite an education
>
> in what Nova Roma is about and though I still have much to learn, I
> am full willing to pay when it comes time just for the fact I've had
> time to learn.
>
> Marcus Cornelius Tiberius
That was what I was talking about. When I joined, my idea of what Nova
Roma really was was clumsy at best. I had to ask, pester older citizens
and dedicate much time to get a feeling. It was not easy. If I had not
been stubborn enough, or if I had been more shy, I coul very well lost
interest and abandoned. We need to improve our information systems, and
not make Nova Roma an elitist club. If new citizens do not get
involved, it is not their fault for not being "good Romans". It is our
fault for not providing enough information on how they could find what
they wanted in Nova Roma (or if what they wanted was there at all).
=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Novae Romae in Thule
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Novae Romae in Thule.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:36:42 -0700 |
|
Ave,
First off, this is not the Corrected version of the 3rd draft. Therefore part of this has been corrected. I will not that below:
----- Original Message -----
From: labienus@--------
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex
Salvete
> 1. A Census of all citizens of Nova Roma should be done every 5 years.
> This would be the responsibility of the Censors.
It still seems to me that we could easily have a yearly census by requiring
patres matresque familias to contact the censores in order to register
themselves and their gentes. Such registration would also involve their
telling the censores of the current members of their gentes. In this way, the
censores would not need to do much extra work, the rolls could be kept up to
date on a yearly basis, and inactive patres et matres would automatically be
weeded out.
Sulla: This is being worked out on another piece of Legislation. Specifically an Edict that will be published by the Censors shortly. I am just correcting the input that my colleague noted. However, let me know that that this will be an entirely separate issue.
> 2. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, according to the
> (IV.A.8. of the Constitution of Nova Roma), two new magisterial position
> would be established. Their title would be, Duumviri census populi.
Even if we choose to perform a census along the lines proposed here, there's no
reason to have an extra pair of magistrati to perform the job. This is what
the position of censor was created for in the first place, after all.
Sulla: Senator, you have not been a Censor. Therefore you do not see the need for this. Let me assure you that once the Censor handbook is published you will see the true ramifications of the office of Censor and you will see the need to employ two assistants.
> 4. The Census will consist of the following:
>
> A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be contacted
> by the Censors to determine if they are a part of Nova Roma:
>
> 1. Those citizens who vote are considered "censi."
> 2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered "incensi".
Am I correct in assuming that #2 means people who pay taxes, but do not vote?
Sulla: Yes.
Why this terminology? A person who is "incensus" has, by definition, not been
counted in the census. And yet, by this lex, the incensi would be counted in
the census. Perhaps "tacentes" (the silent) would be a better term?
Sulla: To limit the potential field of citizens who will need to be contacted by the Censors (or their assistants). So that duplicate work will not be done. Why try to contact a citizen of Nova Roma to see if they are active, IF they have paid their taxes? Or Voted? Its simply not necessary. Therefore those citizens will already be considered Active.
> 5. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be contacted
> by the National Census.
This may be desirable during the first census, but it would be much more in the
spirit of Roma Antiqua to put the onus of contacting the censores on the cives.
Sulla: In the future this might be something that can be added, however, at this juncture, it is not likely. Consdering the fact of the magnitude of the task currently facing the Censors in this endeavor and that NR has only been in existence for 4 years, it seems that by conducting a Census every 5 years we will face a similar situation.
> A. Bulk email. At least two attempts should be done to contact citizen
> via this avenue.
This should be fairly easy to automate using the censorial database.
> B. Phone calls. I know this can be costly. Maybe this is where we can
> incorporate some cooperation between the local governors and the Censors
> (coordinated by the Quaestors).
I still remain unconvinced that the quaestores need to be part of this process
at all. The governors and the censores ought to be able to work together on
this without involving the Republic's accountants.
Or, are you suggesting that the (consular?) quaestores are needed in order to
have the Republic's funds cover phone expenses? That would make sense. In
this case, the Senate would be needed to set a budget in the beginning, and to
approve or deny added expenses if needed. The quaestores would simply need to
keep track of how much money was spent by whom in order to properly reimburse
the appropriate people.
Sulla: This part has been CORRECTED. Please see the corrected post.
> Or done via the Internet. Discretion lies with the Censors and the Censorial
> Quaestors.
Censores are not provided with quaestores. The consules, praetores, and
aediles are the magistrati that quaestores serve (constitution IV.A.6).
Sulla: This part has been CORRECTED. Please see the corrected post
<SNIP>
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:38:34 -0700 |
|
Ave,
I am very pleased that you agre with the proposal (hopefully the corrected one, as well).
The orginal draft required a yearly and biyearly census however, there was opposition to it from many respected citizens. Therefore I have changed this draft to a more historically accurate 5 year Census.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Puteus Germanicus
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex
Ave !
I agree with this proposal, but I want to stress the effect a Pater or Mater Familias should have on his/her gens. Perhaps the duumviri mentionned below could start by contacting the Paters et Maters when the 2 email messages have remained unanswered.
A second possibility is to lay the responsability of citizenship with the cives themselves. Once a year every citizen has to confirm his or her active citizenship, e.g. between the Ides of July and the Ides of September. When nothing is heard of a citizen before the Ides of August, email messages can be send to private email addresses. When mentionned on the website that you need to confirm your citizenship every year, I think we will be able to gather more active Romans than via email alone (emailaddresses may change etc.).
Vale!
----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:12 PM
Subject: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex
Ave, here is a repost WITH modifications of the Census lex that I wrote
back in June. I hope this meets with the overall approval of the
citizens of Nova Roma. I have gone back and added in, and revised it
based on the comments I received back in June.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
____
Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,
With the discussion of a census the "hot topic" currently in Nova Roma,
I would like to make my opinion known on this matter. I have been
discussing this very issue with a couple of citizens, and now I think
its time I tried to formulate this so that everyone can get an idea of
just where I am on this issue. I speak for myself. My colleague, if
you will notice will also be getting a copy of this very email. I hope
he will add his opinion sometime soon on this topic.
I will fashion this as a proposed Lex. For this is something I would
like to have promulgated, eventually.
1. A Census of all citizens of Nova Roma should be done every 5 years.
This would be the responsibility of the Censors.
2. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, according to the
(IV.A.8. of the Constitution of Nova Roma), two new magisterial position
would be established. Their title would be, Duumviri census populi.
One of the main aspects of this position is that it would only be
available during a Census year. It will be the chief function of the
Duumviri census populi to facilitate and assist the Censors in this
work. The Censors and Duumviri census populi may work with the local
provincial governors to facilitate this project. [The reason I feel the
Censors need Duumviri census populi are two fold. One the People elect
them, secondly, they would be magistrates who would be able to work in
areas where there are no provincial governors.]
3. The Census of all citizen of Nova Roma must be done by the Ides of
September, in the year that the Census is due. This will give the
Censors enough time to clean the roles and make adjustments before the
alignment of century points and century placements must be completed.
[This must be done during November, according to the Constitution].
4. The Census will consist of the following:
A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be contacted
by the Censors to determine if they are apart of Nova Roma:
1. Those citizens who vote are considered "censi."
2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered "incensi".
5. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be contacted
by the National Census. The following will lay down some of the
procedures to make certain we get the best response in any National
Census:
A. Bulk email. At least two attempts should be done to contact citizen
via this avenue.
B. Phone calls. I know this can be costly. Maybe this is where we can
incorporate some cooperation between the local governors and the Censors
(coordinated by the Quaestors). Or done via the Internet. Discretion
lies with the Censors and the Censorial Quaestors. The attempts may
vary, in this avenue, but at least two attempts would be required.
[There has to be some kind of documentation either via email or snail
mail by the applicant to confirm the information gained via the phone,
this confirmation will need to go to the Censors]
C. Snail mail. Again, this might be an avenue that there can be some
cooperation between the Office of the Censor and local governments.
However, it must be imperative that any documentation received must be
forwarded to the Office of the Censors by the Ides of September.
6. By the Ides of August, the Censors should post a list to the
official email list of Nova Roma displaying the names of those citizens
who have failed to respond. [Hopefully, by this time, Paters and Maters
will receive notification on those in their gentes who failed to respond
and can get their gens members to contact the Censors by the Ides of
September, when the Census will be complete.]
7. If citizens fail to respond to the contact attempts. That person
will no longer be considered a citizen of Nova Roma, and they would be
ineligible to reapply for a period of six months. His name will be
stricken from the Album Civium and if he/she is a Pater/Mater, the
Censors will abide by the Constitution and any Censorial edict if the
appointment of a paterfamilias is necessary.
8. If any person who was once a citizen but was removed due to a
National Census, he will be stricken from the Album Civium. However,
the Censors have the discretion to waive this clause if both Censors
feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain
inncommunicado (homelessness, war, national disaster, etc).
____
Respectfully submitted,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma
|
| Subject: |
RE: CORRECTED: Re: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:37:51 -0400 |
|
Salvete;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:48 PM
>
> Ave, here is a repost WITH modifications of the Census lex that I wrote
> back in June. I hope this meets with the overall approval of the
> citizens of Nova Roma. I have gone back and added in, and revised it
> based on the comments I received back in June.
This is just a list of ideas, right; not the actual draft legislation to be
presented for a vote? I'll make what comments I can based on your rough
outline, short of seeing the actual text of your proposed lex. The devil is,
of course, in the details.
> 1. A Census of all citizens of Nova Roma should be done every 5 years.
> This would be the responsibility of the Censors.
Considering the fact that Nova Roma has not yet been existence for five
years, and we are already experiencing problems (indeed, that's the whole
point of the current discussion), this seems odd. If doing a Census every
five years is adequate, we shouldn't even be considering such a thing until
2003. Obviously that is not going to do.
Historically, the Census was theoretically held every five years, true. But
let us not forget that the Censors were only elected every five years as
well, and then only for a period of five months. I don't think it makes
sense to incorporate the one without the other.
> A. The First Census shall take place the year after this lex is
> passed.
This is not necessary. If the lex is passed after the deadline for that
year's Census, then of course it will be held for the first time the
following year. If it is passed prior to the deadline, then why wait
(potentially 18 months, if the lex is passed in March)?
> 2. To help facilitate the Censors in this work, according to the
> (IV.A.8. of the Constitution of Nova Roma), two new magisterial
> (Vigintisexviri) position
> would be established. Their title would be, Duumviri census populi.
I wonder why we need to add a new elected position to handle the Census.
Fortunatus is correct; that is, of course, the primary job of the Censors.
Specifically, it is an aspect of the Constitutional mandate to "maintain the
Album Civium", and thus I feel that to delegate that responsibility to some
other magistrate might even be considered unconstitutional. Now, if the
Censors feel the need to appoint scriba to assist with that job function,
that is certainly within their purview. But creating a new magistracy
specifically to help with an aspect of the job of another? I'm agin' it.
> One of the main aspects of this position is that it would only be
> available during a Census year. It will be the chief function of the
> Duumviri census populi to facilitate and assist the Censors in this
> work.
"Chief function" makes it sound like there are other, ancilliary functions.
What would they be?
> The Censors and Duumviri census populi may work with the local
> provincial governors to facilitate this project.
I wonder if you want to use such soft language like "may". That gives the
discretion, it seems to me, for a governor to tell the Censors to stuff it.
If you want the provincial governors to have a role (and I personally think
that's an excellent idea; they should probably be the primary on-the-ground
agents for the Census), spell it out explicitly.
> [The reason I feel the
> Censors need Duumviri census populi are two fold. One the People elect
> them, secondly, they would be magistrates who would be able to work in
> areas where there are no provincial governors.]
Why is having them elected particularly necessary? How is it superior to
simply having the (elected) Censors appoint scriba through
already-established procedures?
> 3. The Census of all citizen of Nova Roma must be done by the Ides of
> September, in the year that the Census is due. This will give the
> Censors enough time to clean the roles and make adjustments before the
> alignment of century points and century placements must be completed.
> [This must be done during November, according to the Constitution].
The timing, at least, is a good idea. It fits in nicely with the rest of the
civil calendar. Personally, however, I see no reason not to make the Census
an annual event.
> 4. The Census will consist of the following:
>
> A. Active citizens are those citizens that do not need to be contacted
> by the Censors to determine if they are apart of Nova Roma:
>
> 1. Those citizens who vote are considered "censi."
> 2. Those citizens who pay taxes are considered "incensi".
Two things. First, you need to specify when a Citizen has to have voted in
order to be considered active. After all, if someone votes in the December
elections, but then drops out, it could conceivably be two years before
their absense is officially discovered and corrected. (Of course, with your
once-every-five-year scheme, that isn't really a worry, but I've already
covered that ground.)
Second, I don't believe merely having voted or paid taxes a year or six
months before is prima face evidence that someone is currently an active
Citizen. Surely someone who is truely interested in maintaining their
Citizenship won't look sideways at having to check in every once in a while.
Let everyone be counted.
> 5. Inactive citizens are those citizens who will need to be contacted
> by the National Census. The following will lay down some of the
> procedures to make certain we get the best response in any National
> Census:
You sure you want to put the impetus for contact on the Censors? Wouldn't it
make more sense to put the onus on the individual Citizens, and then set up
procedures for trying to contact those who don't check in on their own?
Seems to me it would make more sense to at least let folks have the chance
to check in.
> A. Bulk email. At least two attempts should be done to contact
> citizen
> via this avenue.
Just a nitpick; why "bulk" email, rather than just "email"?
> B. Phone calls. I know this can be costly. Maybe this is where we
> can
> incorporate some cooperation between the local governors and the Censors
> (coordinated by the Duumviri census populi).
Here is where I think the role of governors as point men comes into its own.
If it's a local call for the governor of Germania to check on someone in
Munich, why not give him the responsibility to do so?
Also, I note that you don't give any guidelines for when one form of
communication should be used in preference to another. Is it email first,
and then phone, and then regular mail? Or some other order. You'll want to
specify that.
> Or done via the Internet.
Ummm... what does this mean?
> Discretion
> lies with the Censors and the Censorial Duumviri census populi. The
> attempts may
> vary, in this avenue, but at least two attempts would be required.
> [There has to be some kind of documentation either via email or snail
> mail by the applicant to confirm the information gained via the phone,
> this confirmation will need to go to the Censors]
How do you confirm a local call?
> C. Snail mail. Again, this might be an avenue that there can be
> some
> cooperation between the Office of the Censor and local governments.
> However, it must be imperative that any documentation received must be
> forwarded to the Office of the Censors by the Ides of September.
Again, you need to establish when each method of communication would be
employed. And specify just whose job it is (and where the money will come
from) to send out the letters/postcards/whatever.
> 6. By the Ides of August, the Censors should post a list to the
> official email list of Nova Roma displaying the names of those citizens
> who have failed to respond.
What is the "official email list"? And don't you think that if someone is
inactive, the chances that they're subscribed to the email list are rather
slim? Just what is the purpose of posting the list of not-heard-from
Citizens; to goad them into getting in touch, or to see if any other Citizen
knows what's happened to them? If the latter, why not leave the venue up to
the discretion of the Censors; they could post the list on the website, or
on a mailing list, or wherever they thought was appropriate.
> [Hopefully, by this time, Paters and Maters
> will receive notification on those in their gentes who failed to respond
> and can get their gens members to contact the Censors by the Ides of
> September, when the Census will be complete.]
Not sure what relevance this has. Are you saying now that the patresfamiliae
will have a role in the Census? If so, what is it, and why isn't it spelled
out?
> 7. If citizens fail to respond to the contact attempts. That person
> will no longer be considered a citizen of Nova Roma, and they would be
> ineligible to reapply for a period of six months. His name will be
> stricken from the Album Civium and if he/she is a Pater/Mater, the
> Censors will abide by the Constitution and any Censorial edict if the
> appointment of a paterfamilias is necessary.
As I believe Fortunatus pointed out, the Censors don't appoint
patresfamiliae; they simply record the choice of the gens members. Now, what
you might want to specify is that, if the Citizen who is removed is the last
remaining member of the gens, that gens is declared extinct.
> 8. If any person who was once a citizen but was removed due to a
> National Census, he will be stricken from the Album Civium.
This sentence makes no sense. If someone was "once a citizen" (i.e., not
currently a citizen) they wouldn't be in the Album Civium to begin with...
> However,
> the Censors have the discretion to waive this clause if both Censors
> feel there are legitimate reasons for the citizen to remain
> inncommunicado (homelessness, war, national disaster, etc).
Fair enough. Although do you want to leave this to the Censors' discretion,
or perhaps the Senate could make such a determination, such as it does with
taxes?
All in all, your ideas are a start, but I think they do need quite a bit of
work yet. I look forward to seeing the actual draft of the lex. If it can be
kneaded into an acceptable form, I would be happy to include it in this
year's legislative agenda.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
|
| Subject: |
RE: CORRECTED: Re: [novaroma] 3rd draft of Census Lex |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:53:21 -0400 |
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 7:38 PM
>
> But
> let us not forget that the Censors were only elected every five years as
> well, and then only for a period of five months.
Obviously, I meant 18 months. Sorry, had 5 on the brain for some reason.
Vale,
FVG
|
