Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 21 Apr 2002 21:27:16 EDT

In a message dated 4/21/02 3:35:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, from@darkeye.net
writes:


> And yes, yes...he CAN appoint more. But how will he explain to the fifth
> regional praefectus that he won't get any century points/Civil Service
> Index for his service, while they will? Is this a way to motivate the
> fifth, and maybe sixth and seventh, regional administrators to render
> service to Nova Roma?
>
Salvete
Ah you hit the nail on the head, there. Why indeed? The whole system is
pointless.
We should give CPs to Censors, Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes, Quaestors only.
If a privitus wishes points, then let them contribute to Nova Roma by
monetary contributions
Award them for what they give to the treasury, not what empty office they
fill in a region.
You in the provinces, consider you are in training for your service to the
central government. You help move us along in our goals and in return you
gain valuable experience. And if that is not enough reward for you, then you
are here for the wrong reason. A man is rewarded by the praise of his peers
for a job well done, not a few points on a chart.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:30:20 +0200

qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com wrote:
> We should give CPs to Censors, Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes, Quaestors only.
> If a privitus wishes points, then let them contribute to Nova Roma by
> monetary contributions
> Award them for what they give to the treasury, not what empty office they
> fill in a region.
> You in the provinces, consider you are in training for your service to the
> central government. You help move us along in our goals and in return you
> gain valuable experience. And if that is not enough reward for you, then you
> are here for the wrong reason. A man is rewarded by the praise of his peers
> for a job well done, not a few points on a chart.

Salve, Quinte Fabi Maxime.

I thought we all agreed that wealth/monetary contributions weren't
something we wanted to affect a person's influence within Nova Roma. The
idea of putting century points/voting power up for sale somewhat offends
me. What next, a pricelist for our various offices? Consul - $1000,
Censor - $750...

Now, then...I sense more than a little condescension from you for the
provinciae. This is a little odd, considering the fact that you're
holding the office of proconsul for california province. But I guess
that is between you and the citizens there. However, calling all
provincial offices "empty" is not doing justice to many of the hard
workers out there. Please do not use such terms without having any kind
of idea what goes on outside of your own province. And please refrain
from using the phrase, "you in the provincia", as we ALL live in various
provincia. A "true" Nova Roman place to live doesn't exist, at least not
yet.

Not all citizens have any desire to participate in the political
struggles, some (most?) are quite content with doing what they can on a
local level, read what ideas are presented for the comitia, and vote
according to their beliefs. However, as a provincia develops and
expands, Nova Roma will profit as well. Thus, the work of the provincial
offices is important and serving to Nova Roma, and should be rewarded in
the same way we reward other people who work for us, i.e. increased
influence in the comitia. If you are content with "the praise of your
peers", I promise to clap my hands real loudly if you are stripped of
your (was it 113?) century points, as they are meaningless to you,
anyhow.

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

--

"Qui desiderat bellum, praeparet bellum." - Vetinari

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis Fabius' reply...
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 06:28:52 EDT

In a message dated 4/22/02 1:34:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, from@darkeye.net
writes:
Salvete

> I thought we all agreed that wealth/monetary contributions weren't
> something we wanted to affect a person's influence within Nova Roma. The
> idea of putting century points/voting power up for sale somewhat offends
> me. What next, a pricelist for our various offices? Consul - $1000,
> Censor - $750...
>

What I said was if a privitus wants to move up in class he can contribute
needed money to Rome (we are non profit after all) and be rewarded by points.
Or he can enter the cursus honorum and be rewarded that way.

> Now, then...I sense more than a little condescension from you for the
> provinciae. This is a little odd, considering the fact that you're
> holding the office of proconsul for california province. But I guess
> that is between you and the citizens there. However, calling all
> provincial offices "empty" is not doing justice to many of the hard
> workers out there. Please do not use such terms without having any kind
> of idea what goes on outside of your own province. And please refrain
> from using the phrase, "you in the provincia", as we ALL live in various
> provincia. A "true" Nova Roman place to live doesn't exist, at least not
> yet.
>

Well I see it different. So be it. When we are all speaking on the internet
we are "in Rome."
When we are not, dealing with provincial things, then we are not "in Rome"
For us Nova Roma exists in cyber space. That is our Enternal City.


> Not all citizens have any desire to participate in the political
> struggles, some (most?) are quite content with doing what they can on a
> local level, read what ideas are presented for the comitia, and vote
> according to their beliefs. However, as a provincia develops and
> expands, If you are content with "the praise of your
> peers", I promise to clap my hands real loudly if you are stripped of
> your (was it 113?) century points, as they are meaningless to you,
> anyhow.
>

Hilarious! Here I have spent four years in service of this Republic. You T.
Octavius Pius have been here since Ides Martilus of last year? You Sir, have
reaped the benefits of my hard work, so now who is being condescending?

"Thus, the work of the provincial offices is important and serving to Nova
Roma, and should be rewarded in the same way we reward other people who work
for us, i.e. increased influence in the comitia."

Why? Because you work harder then the Praetor or the Consul? You say your
work is important. Provincial Praetors are the most important thing in the
province, as a scribe, you could be replaced tomorrow, and I do not believe
the province would fall apart.
What I am trying to get you to see, Octavius, is you work for Rome, because
you want her to succeed. If you want influence in the assemblies, then enter
the cursus honorum, and earn it!
Don't expect because you are a provincial scribe that you should gain greater
influence in the assemblies. If you do expect such, then you do not
understand our spiritual ancestors' motivation at all.


Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus






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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:01:26 +0100 (BST)

Salvete quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> > Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.
> >
> > I have a couple of questions about your latest legislative
> proposal,
> > if
> > you don't mind.
> >
> > --- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > <<snipped>>
> >
> > > Censor:
> > > 60 CSI (first year of service)
> > > 120 CSI (second year of service)
> > >
> > > Past Service: 30 CSI Per year of service.
> >
> > What does it exactly mean "past service" in this context? How are
> > these
> > points exactly awarded?
> >
>
> Past service would mean that I have been a Censor for two years, thus
> I would get 60 Points, because of holding office for two years.
> Caius Marius Merullus, was censor for 1 year. Thus he would get 30
> Points.
> I hope this clears that up.

Does that mean that a censor would receive 60 points during his first
year of service but would loose those 60 points after his term of
office?

> > <<snipped>>
> >
> > > Scriba of a Censor, Praetor, Aedile or Vigintisexviri: (Maximum
> of 4
> >
> > > scribes)
> > > 25 CSI
> > >
> > > This does not prevent magistrates from appointing additional
> > scribes,
> > > however if this is done, it is the responsibility of the
> magistrate
> > > to notify the Censors, which scribes are to be awarded the points
> by
> >
> > > the end of October.
> >
> > I am not sure why this proposal tries to establish a limit of the
> > official assistants of a magistrate. Surely, you will understand
> that
> > the number of assistants a certain magistrate might need can vary
> > wildly, depending on particular circumstances and on the actual
> > workload a specific magistrate wants to undertake.
> >
>
> To prevent abuse.
>
> >
> > I understand that you want to avoid free giving of these points. No
> > one
> > wants to see how points are awarded to people that are not doing
> > anything. However, limiting the number of assitants of a magistrate
> is
> >
> > not a good solution, because a magistrate can need *many*
> assitants.
> >
>
> Yes, that is exactly why I am inputting this in. And there is an
> appeal clause that magistrates, can draft a petition to the Senate to
> exempt them from the limitations contained therein.

In my opinion, that solution would be too complex, and too time
consuming. Months can be spent before the Senate approves such an
exemption. Why not simply allow the check and balance system work?
Things would be far more simple in that way.

> > My solution would be this: let each magistrate decide how many
> > assistants he needs. If a magistrate commited abuse on this issue,
> > well, that can be publicly denounced. A magistrate that does not
> > behave
> > properly will find himself short of votes in the next election.
> And,
> > if
> > the abuse were flagrant, the Consules or the Tribuni can always
> veto
> > his appointments.
> >
>
> That hasn't been done. And, I think most magistrates would be very
> cautious to publicly denounce another magistrate acting in such a
> way.

What does it mean with "That hasn't been done"? Are you implying that
some magistrate has already abused of his powers? If that is the case,
why don't you, as a consul, have done something about it?

> > Let's not fall in the mistake of making laws that are too rigid to
> be
> > of any good. Laws should be as lax and flexible as possible,
> because
> > laws, unlike computer programs or building structures, have to deal
> > with the complexity of human minds and human relationships.
> >
>
> Its not rigid at all. Because there is an appeal mechanism inplace.
> I would completely agree with you if there was not such a method
built
> in. Let the magistrate send a petition to the Senate justifying an
> increase of staff. I see nothing wrong with that.

It could be reasonable, but in different circumstances. Both you and I
know that the Senate can take a looong time to make a decision :-).
Besides, we have to *encourage* participation, not punish it. I see it
as an unnecessary meddling with the prerogatives of each magistrate.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Subject:	[novaroma] RE: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	tiberius.ann@bluemail.ch
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:12:23 +0200

Salve,

Seems quite fair and good to me except for some smaller detail points.

What about provinces like Germania, which is divided into 4 regions. There
is only one legate allowed to receive credits per province, but each region
has its own legate. Which legate will receive the credits? Are they all
going to receive credits? What about the scribes of these legati?

What about the positions of the soon to be elected translators? This is
a very demanding and time consuming position, which I have not found on
the list for credits. Where do they come in? How many points do they receive?

And last of all, I could not find the lictors. I know that they did not
have much to do yet, but it is an official position, which would merit credits.
How many?

Curate ut valeatis, Tiberius Annaeus Otho

Lictor curiatus
Scriba legata Germaniae Superioris
paterfamilias gentis Annaearum

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 06:51:23 -0700

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:

> Salvete quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.
>

<Snip>

> > > What does it exactly mean "past service" in this context? How are
> > > these
> > > points exactly awarded?
> > >
> >
> > Past service would mean that I have been a Censor for two years,
> thus
> > I would get 60 Points, because of holding office for two years.
> > Caius Marius Merullus, was censor for 1 year. Thus he would get 30
> > Points.
> > I hope this clears that up.
>
> Does that mean that a censor would receive 60 points during his first
> year of service but would loose those 60 points after his term of
> office?
>

Basically, a Censor will not lose their points til there service is
completed. Once the service is completed that is when the past service
will kick in. So, I served 2 years, and I would receive 120 CSI in my
second year. After that year, it would drop down to 60 CSI since I am
no longer Censor.

>
> > > <<snipped>>
> > >
> > > > Scriba of a Censor, Praetor, Aedile or Vigintisexviri: (Maximum
> > of 4
> > >
> > > > scribes)
> > > > 25 CSI
> > > >
> > > > This does not prevent magistrates from appointing additional
> > > scribes,
> > > > however if this is done, it is the responsibility of the
> > magistrate
> > > > to notify the Censors, which scribes are to be awarded the
> points
> > by
> > >
> > > > the end of October.
> > >
> > > I am not sure why this proposal tries to establish a limit of the
> > > official assistants of a magistrate. Surely, you will understand
> > that
> > > the number of assistants a certain magistrate might need can vary
> > > wildly, depending on particular circumstances and on the actual
> > > workload a specific magistrate wants to undertake.
> > >
> >
> > To prevent abuse.
> >
> > >
> > > I understand that you want to avoid free giving of these points.
> No
> > > one
> > > wants to see how points are awarded to people that are not doing
> > > anything. However, limiting the number of assitants of a
> magistrate
> > is
> > >
> > > not a good solution, because a magistrate can need *many*
> > assitants.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that is exactly why I am inputting this in. And there is an
> > appeal clause that magistrates, can draft a petition to the Senate
> to
> > exempt them from the limitations contained therein.
>
> In my opinion, that solution would be too complex, and too time
> consuming. Months can be spent before the Senate approves such an
> exemption. Why not simply allow the check and balance system work?
> Things would be far more simple in that way.
>

How is sending an email to petition the Senate too complex? If a
governor cannot draft a petition explaining why he/she needs additional
staff, then there really isnt a need for it. The Senate, on the other
hand is summoned about monthly. I do not believe the internal structure
of the Senate would prohibit the provincia structure. Besides, if a
governor was planning their provincia, they would know about their extra
needs in advance and would plan for it accordingly.

>
> > > My solution would be this: let each magistrate decide how many
> > > assistants he needs. If a magistrate commited abuse on this issue,
>
> > > well, that can be publicly denounced. A magistrate that does not
> > > behave
> > > properly will find himself short of votes in the next election.
> > And,
> > > if
> > > the abuse were flagrant, the Consules or the Tribuni can always
> > veto
> > > his appointments.
> > >
> >
> > That hasn't been done. And, I think most magistrates would be very
> > cautious to publicly denounce another magistrate acting in such a
> > way.
>
> What does it mean with "That hasn't been done"? Are you implying that
> some magistrate has already abused of his powers? If that is the case,
>
> why don't you, as a consul, have done something about it?
>

The issue is having it done "publicly."

>
> > > Let's not fall in the mistake of making laws that are too rigid to
>
> > be
> > > of any good. Laws should be as lax and flexible as possible,
> > because
> > > laws, unlike computer programs or building structures, have to
> deal
> > > with the complexity of human minds and human relationships.
> > >
> >
> > Its not rigid at all. Because there is an appeal mechanism inplace.
>
> > I would completely agree with you if there was not such a method
> built
> > in. Let the magistrate send a petition to the Senate justifying an
> > increase of staff. I see nothing wrong with that.
>
> It could be reasonable, but in different circumstances. Both you and I
>
> know that the Senate can take a looong time to make a decision :-).
> Besides, we have to *encourage* participation, not punish it. I see it
>
> as an unnecessary meddling with the prerogatives of each magistrate.
>

I do not see it that way. I believe the Senate is imminately capable of
expanding the limits of provincia staff on a case by case basis. The
Senate is full of individuals who have been governors at one time or
another. I believe this is an excellent appeal, when a governor feels
that they must exceed the limit and want those individuals rewarded.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

>
> =====
> Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Tribunus Plebis
> Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
> Triumvir Academiae Thules
> Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
> Lictor Curiatus.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
> 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]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] RE: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 06:56:50 -0700

tiberius.ann@bluemail.ch wrote:

> Salve,
>
> Seems quite fair and good to me except for some smaller detail points.
>
>

Ave

>
> What about provinces like Germania, which is divided into 4 regions.
> There
> is only one legate allowed to receive credits per province, but each
> region
> has its own legate. Which legate will receive the credits? Are they
> all
> going to receive credits? What about the scribes of these legati?
>

Legates for Regions would be called Praefectus. So, yes they would
receive credits. If the number of scribes do not exceed the total on
the law, yes the scribes will also receive credits.

>
> What about the positions of the soon to be elected translators? This
> is
> a very demanding and time consuming position, which I have not found
> on
> the list for credits. Where do they come in? How many points do they
> receive?
>

I was thinking of including it as a scribe of the Vigintisexviri, and in
that case they would get 25 CSI. Thank you for mentioning that.

>
> And last of all, I could not find the lictors. I know that they did
> not
> have much to do yet, but it is an official position, which would merit
> credits.
> How many?
>

Lictors Curiata, which are the Lictors we have in NR, would get 3 CSI.
Thank you for mentioning that.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


>
> Curate ut valeatis, Tiberius Annaeus Otho
>
> Lictor curiatus
> Scriba legata Germaniae Superioris
> paterfamilias gentis Annaearum
>
>
>
>
> 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] Digest Number 1917
From:	"william wheeler" <holyconelia@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:36:59 +0000

Salve Pater et all

and my office of Sacerdos Primus America Boreoccidentalis?
would it get any?
Vale



Marcus Cornelius Felix Pontitff Legate America Boreoccidentalis Minore
Sacerdos Primus America Boreoccidentalis Gens Sacerdos Cornelia

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Subject:	[novaroma] Praetoral Comment: Proposed Century Point/Civil Service Index Lex
From:	"Susan Brett" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:50:41 -0400

POMPEIA CORNELIA STRABO PRAETOR SENATUS POPULESQUE ET AMICII NOVA ROMA
S.P.D.


With the greatest of respect to all parties concerned, and what I will deem
are good intentions for those who are in support of this text, I must, in
equally good faith, voice my weighted concerns with this proposal,
particularily the area which limits the number of provincial assistants any
given governor may appoint.


I understand that from time to time, one or two persons could conceivably
get 'carried away' in a Governor's office, and 'over appoint' personnel...I
guess I can even see that one or two some where along the path of Nova
Roma's life are in the chair for themselves, their own agenda and nothing
more.

If I wanted to be a collector of century points, I would not take on a
governor's job...too much time, effort, emotional commitment and money goes
into the job. Not everyone can be assumed to be a self-serving collector of
century points and clients...for those who do not understand the
client/patron relationship, it would amount to my appointing you as a
provincial official, so you could have points, in return for political
favours from you. I am saddened that the whole lot of us are assumed to be
playing this sort of game.

However, if this 'phobia' persists and cannot be dispelled, there are other,
more consitutional ways of setting parameters with respect to gubernatorial
appointments.

I suggest the following amendments:

I. Remove the limits assigned to the Praetors in the current text, and
insert a clause stating "Propraetoral Imperium is subject to Senatorial
scrutiny, and Propraetors must be willing and able to satisfactority account
to the Senate for the numbers of their appointees and their work within the
provincia.

Any propraetor can be yanked for any reason by the Senate...that is who
gives them their imperium.

I do not believe the Propraetors should have to 'apply' to the Censors for
more help...to wit, for an increase in imperium granted to them by the
Senate..something that was suggested as a built-in safeguard in this
proposal. Besides, we have two Censors...they have too much to do as it
is...as if they need more.

II. We could delete the limits of appointees in the proposal and work on
this as a separate issue. We can do up a separate index. The manner in
which it is currently being handled, I feel, is insensitive, and somewhat
discriminatory, in that it doesn't take the needs of individual provinciae
into account, and therefore does not lend itself to equal representation of
each citizen. And we are in the tax paying business...if I am going to pay
taxes I am entitled to equal representation and equal opportunity, nonne?

Not every provincia in Nova Roma is exactly the same...we cannot throw a
template over each one and call it a fair appraisal. Some Provincia are
geographically much larger than others, with whole countries inside them,
with several languages . Do you not think that such a provincia could use
more assistance, staffwise, than a much smaller provincia, with say, only
one main language?

We can set some safeguards...but it has to be done on a provincia by
provincia basis, taking the individual needs into account...Thule needs 10
legate, Canada Orientalis needs 4, Nova Britannia, ???. Who would be the
best people to help with this...well, by Pheobus, the governors! :)
If we are going to do this, we have to do it fairly, or I feel it is not
within the spirit or the letter of the consitution. It also chokes our
global growth over the theoretical suspicions of one or two. People who are
egocentric and selfserving usually show their true colours all by
themselves...they are easy to spot. Most of us are astute, reasonably
educated persons who have been around the block once or twice and can
usually spot a one-man show.

Caution? Yes! Political paranoia? No, no.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Lets not pour boiling salt and water over the whole garden because of a
couple of dandelions.

Let's not stop eating altogether, for fear of getting food poisoning. Let us
just take reasonable precautions, and carry on, with some small semblence of
faith.

If Nova Roma is meant to continue into a long life, and I certainly wish her
the best :), one or two potential self-serving people here and there, are
not going to stop it...they will not have the power, regardless of how many
Century points they have in their bank. Of that we can be sure.

Magna Cum Reverentia
Pompeia




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1917
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 07:53:42 -0700

Yes it would. However, I am at work, and I do not have the proposed law in front of me. But, I specifically remember adding that position into the lex.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul
----- Original Message -----
From: william wheeler
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1917


Salve Pater et all

and my office of Sacerdos Primus America Boreoccidentalis?
would it get any?
Vale



Marcus Cornelius Felix Pontitff Legate America Boreoccidentalis Minore
Sacerdos Primus America Boreoccidentalis Gens Sacerdos Cornelia

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Subject:	[novaroma] Moderation Proposal
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:03:17 -0500 (CDT)

Salvete Quirites,

Here is a revised version of the list moderation proposal that I had
put forth earlier this month.


I. Definitions

a. "public fora" is defined as any system of communications where
contributions from persons other than its maintainer are distributed
or made available to other subscribers, including but not limited
to mailing lists, real-time chat systems, web-based bulletin boards.

b. "moderation" refers to exercise of powers provided by the
software used to implement public fora to approve, reject,
pre-screen, or delete messages, approve or reject pending
subscribers, and perform other administrative duties.

c. a "moderator" is a person with moderation authority with
regard to a particular public forum.

II. The office of Curator Sermonis (also called Curator Sermonem) is
hereby abolished.

III. The Praetores are hereby given the powers and duties of moderators
for all public fora sponsored by the central government of Nova Roma,
save for those exceptions listed below. They are empowered to use
all moderation features provided, subject to Constitutional free
speech guarantees, Tribunician intercessio, and any leges explicitly
setting list policies. They may delegate such authority to their
appointed scribae.

The Praetores are empowered to create and enforce policies of
acceptable behavior in the public fora.

IV. Scope

a. Public fora under the jurisdiction of the Praetores shall
include the general discussion mailing list (currently
"novaroma@yahoogroups.com"), the announcements mailing list
(currently "novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com"), the web-based
message board linked to from www.novaroma.org, and any chat
system in use on www.novaroma.org, and any other means of
communications designated as "public fora" by the Senate,
except as detailed below.

b. The web site www.novaroma.org and all sites maintained by elected
or appointed magistrates as part of their duties are not considered
public fora, except for any features of the site where users other
than the maintainers of those sites may submit content for public
consumption, such as "message boards".

c. The newsletter, including any part thereof where contributions
are accepted from the public, is exempt and shall remain under the
control of the Curator Differium.

d. The communications channels of sodalitates and provinciae are
under the jurisdiction of those organizations and therefore exempt.

e. Fora administered by the Tribunes for the purpose of Plebeian
discussion are exempt.


---
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Response to Pomepia Cornelia: Re: [novaroma] Proposed Century Point/Civil Service Index Lex
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:17:36 -0700

Avete Omnes,

As I am not on some of these lists, I would appreciate someone forwarding my words to those lists.
----- Original Message -----
From: Susan Brett
To: NovaRomaVizantia@yahoogroups.com ; SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com ; NovaRomaProv@yahoogroups.com ; NovaRoma@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Pompeia_Cornelia@yahoo.ca
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:50 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Praetoral Comment: Proposed Century Point/Civil Service Index Lex


POMPEIA CORNELIA STRABO PRAETOR SENATUS POPULESQUE ET AMICII NOVA ROMA
S.P.D.


With the greatest of respect to all parties concerned, and what I will deem
are good intentions for those who are in support of this text, I must, in
equally good faith, voice my weighted concerns with this proposal,
particularily the area which limits the number of provincial assistants any
given governor may appoint.

Sulla: I understand your concerns, as you have voiced them within my staff list, informally to me on a one-to-one basis, and now on 5 email lists. :)

I understand that from time to time, one or two persons could conceivably
get 'carried away' in a Governor's office, and 'over appoint' personnel...I
guess I can even see that one or two some where along the path of Nova
Roma's life are in the chair for themselves, their own agenda and nothing
more.

Sulla: Yes, and it is to prevent this from continuing that it has been recommended to add such controls into the law. The Lex Vedia contained no controls at all. That is a serious loophole that must be prevented before abuse takes place? I seriously hope you are not saying we should not stop up this loophole before abuse is taken to further degrees?

If I wanted to be a collector of century points, I would not take on a
governor's job...too much time, effort, emotional commitment and money goes
into the job. Not everyone can be assumed to be a self-serving collector of
century points and clients...for those who do not understand the
client/patron relationship, it would amount to my appointing you as a
provincial official, so you could have points, in return for political
favours from you. I am saddened that the whole lot of us are assumed to be
playing this sort of game.

Sulla: Praetor, I am not speaking of a governor appointing themselves as a scribe, Praefectus et al to boost THEIR Century Points. I am speaking of overinflating the staff of a provincia. Praetor Pompeia Cornelia, I dont see how the Patron/Client relationship is even involved in this issue? Or are you saying that those members of your staff are your clients? And you are admitting that fact before us?
However, if this 'phobia' persists and cannot be dispelled, there are other,
more consitutional ways of setting parameters with respect to gubernatorial
appointments.

I suggest the following amendments:

I. Remove the limits assigned to the Praetors in the current text, and
insert a clause stating "Propraetoral Imperium is subject to Senatorial
scrutiny, and Propraetors must be willing and able to satisfactority account
to the Senate for the numbers of their appointees and their work within the
provincia.

Sulla: I dont think that would be sufficient, the loophole will still exist. To have the Senate "investigate" anything takes substantial time and in the past when we have "investigated" anything leaks have developed. Nor would I see the Senates precious resources spread out in a distasteful and well...for lack of a better word, star chamberish investigation. Instead it would be much more efficient for any governor to petition the Senate on the need to expand the limit for his/her provincia. Look at it this way. How long will an "invesigation of abuse" would take place? Probably many many months, and that is a conservative estimate, given on past investigations. However, a petition to increase the staff of a provincia can be resolved quickly and easily in as little time as the very next Senate call (which on average has been monthly).

Any propraetor can be yanked for any reason by the Senate...that is who
gives them their imperium.

Sulla: Yes, but again, this has never been done. And we have had governors who have simply disappeared once put into office. The standing tradition on this is that we just simply not prorouge them.

I do not believe the Propraetors should have to 'apply' to the Censors for
more help...to wit, for an increase in imperium granted to them by the
Senate..something that was suggested as a built-in safeguard in this
proposal. Besides, we have two Censors...they have too much to do as it
is...as if they need more.

Sulla: Praetor, please read the proposed law, they do not apply to the Censores, they apply to the Senate to increase the limits. This is a very very big difference.

II. We could delete the limits of appointees in the proposal and work on
this as a separate issue. We can do up a separate index. The manner in
which it is currently being handled, I feel, is insensitive, and somewhat
discriminatory, in that it doesn't take the needs of individual provinciae
into account, and therefore does not lend itself to equal representation of
each citizen. And we are in the tax paying business...if I am going to pay
taxes I am entitled to equal representation and equal opportunity, nonne?

Sulla: I have already discussed this with you, I see no need to break this up into a separate issue. While many people might view I tend to go overboard in laws, I do strive to be efficient. The proposed law has very reasonable appeals to very knowledgable Senate if the time is needed that a provinicia needs additional personnel.

Not every provincia in Nova Roma is exactly the same...we cannot throw a
template over each one and call it a fair appraisal. Some Provincia are
geographically much larger than others, with whole countries inside them,
with several languages . Do you not think that such a provincia could use
more assistance, staffwise, than a much smaller provincia, with say, only
one main language?

Sulla: It is for this precise reason that the appeal to reward additional staff has been inputted into the law. And also, it is for this very reason that Propraetor Caeso Fabius, who has the most bureaucratic province in Nova Roma, and I communicated in the past two weeks to create a more flexible framework.

We can set some safeguards...but it has to be done on a provincia by
provincia basis, taking the individual needs into account...Thule needs 10
legate, Canada Orientalis needs 4, Nova Britannia, ???. Who would be the
best people to help with this...well, by Pheobus, the governors! :)
If we are going to do this, we have to do it fairly, or I feel it is not
within the spirit or the letter of the consitution. It also chokes our
global growth over the theoretical suspicions of one or two. People who are
egocentric and selfserving usually show their true colours all by
themselves...they are easy to spot. Most of us are astute, reasonably
educated persons who have been around the block once or twice and can
usually spot a one-man show.

Sulla: Praetor Pompeia Cornelia, please get your facts correct, according to Caeso Fabius, the Provincia of Thule has 5 Legates, if we are going to overdramatize this law, lets at least try to keep it down to earth. I understand you dont like the limits and will probably be voting against it, but there is no reason for such dramatics.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


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] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@telia.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:51:21 +0200

Salve Illustrus Junior Consul!

from your answer to Illustrus Pompeia Cornelia Strabo, your daughter:

At 08.17 -0700 2-04-22, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>Sulla: It is for this precise reason that the appeal to reward
>additional staff has been inputted into the law. And also, it is
>for this very reason that Propraetor Caeso Fabius, who has the most
>bureaucratic province in Nova Roma, and I communicated in the past
>two weeks to create a more flexible framework.

Over and over You call Thule a bureaucratic province.

I am tired of it, look below and You will see that You are plainly
wrong. Please get your numbers right! I have one Legatus per
macro-nation (5), one Senior Legatus, one "PR Procurator" and one
Academia Web-mistress. Two more officials more then the Legati, I
don't find that bureaucratic!

The "program" (I don't know the right word) governing the
nova.roma.org. site does what I see as a "mistake" (I didn't see it
as such until You started using it to give our citizens the wrong
information) when it lists 16 titles as there were 16 persons have
titles. But if You read closely You will see that there are only 8
persons excluding me (see my analyzes below). Then remember that my
six Legati, as all other Legati in Nova Roma have worked for no CPs
at all for months now and some even for a little more than a year!!!
Abuse? Wouldn't think so! So please, stop this talk about abuse and
concentrate on the criticism that your proposal is getting!

>Kristoffer From wrote:
> > That said, on to the second, and more important, point: I'm strongly
>> opposed to the limits on supportive/administrative staff. Well, not
>> actual limits, but limits on how many "approved" assistants one may
>> have. Nothing prevents a governor from appointing two legatii or five
>> praefectii, but only one legatus and four praefectii will receive any
>> recognition for their efforts. Why not leave the exact numbers of
>> assistants to the magistrate/governor, as it is now? A governor who
>> abuses the system will not be prorogued by the senate, and a
>> magistrate
>> who does will not receive a second mandate for office.
>>
>
>Because, it has been suggested that such methods are needed. As you
>are using your provincia as an example I shall also use it. Your
>provincia has 30 citizens total. 16 of them are titled. This means
>over 50% of your entire province has some kind of title. This is
>excessive. (Yes I am aware there are a couple of citizens who hold
>multiple titles) but given that situation it is overly bureaucratic. I
>have already spoken with Propraetor Caeso Fabius and together we
>compromised in trying to create a workable plan that wont lead the
>system to be abused, but currently there is no check in preventing a
>governor from appointing every citizen in his province to some position
>or another. This major loophole must be stopped before we have an
>incident.

Added before that I wrote the answer above:

Thule has 30 citizens,that is right. But I am sorry, You are wrong
about how many that are titled. You say 16, the correct number is 9
(including my self and the Academia web-mistress)!!!

That is 23% of the citizens in the administration of the Provincia
(excluding the Governor and the Academia web-mistress). I wondered
where You had got the number 16 from and when I looked at the
Provincia web-site I clearly saw 16 titles, but not 16 individuals,
but 16 titles held by 9 individuals, that is myself + the six I
mentioned (my six Legati) + my provincial "PR Procurator" + the
Academia web-mistress.

There it it is: 7 (23%) citizens working with the Provincia
administration, excluding me). Is that excessive?

As You see there isn't any abuse, in Thule at least. ;-)

Yes, we have discussed and I think that your current proposal is much
better than the first time I saw it. But as I have told You I have
critical points left yet. But, my time is short so I will be back
about that later.
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor of Thule
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:12:33 -0700

Ave Propraetor Caeso Fabius,
----- Original Message -----
From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis


Salve Illustrus Junior Consul!

from your answer to Illustrus Pompeia Cornelia Strabo, your daughter:

At 08.17 -0700 2-04-22, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>Sulla: It is for this precise reason that the appeal to reward
>additional staff has been inputted into the law. And also, it is
>for this very reason that Propraetor Caeso Fabius, who has the most
>bureaucratic province in Nova Roma, and I communicated in the past
>two weeks to create a more flexible framework.

Over and over You call Thule a bureaucratic province.

Sulla: I call it that because that is what it is. I do not use the word bureaucratic as an insult. Just as a statment of fact, you have a very active yet a very pronounced administrative procedure. Do I view this as a necessarily a bad thing? No. Please remember when I was Censor, Sextus Apollonius Draco called me bureaucratic and I readily took it as a compliment. Some bureaucracy is needed. Too much can be a bad thing. Please do not take it as an insult.
I am tired of it, look below and You will see that You are plainly
wrong. Please get your numbers right! I have one Legatus per
macro-nation (5), one Senior Legatus, one "PR Procurator" and one
Academia Web-mistress. Two more officials more then the Legati, I
don't find that bureaucratic!

Sulla: Propraetor, compared to all of the other provincia in Nova Roma at this time your province is the most bureaucratic. Also, compare it to the number of edicts you have published since you became a Propraetor (over 35? Edicts), your provincie is the most bureacratic, and finally with the ratio between number of citizens in your provnica per officers in your provincia (running about 50% ratio), your provincia is the most bureaucratic. My statements are just made in comparison to the rest of the provincas within Nova Roma, nothing more and nothing less. Please do not read into my statements.

The "program" (I don't know the right word) governing the
nova.roma.org. site does what I see as a "mistake" (I didn't see it
as such until You started using it to give our citizens the wrong
information) when it lists 16 titles as there were 16 persons have
titles. But if You read closely You will see that there are only 8
persons excluding me (see my analyzes below). Then remember that my
six Legati, as all other Legati in Nova Roma have worked for no CPs
at all for months now and some even for a little more than a year!!!
Abuse? Wouldn't think so! So please, stop this talk about abuse and
concentrate on the criticism that your proposal is getting!

Sulla: I stated in previous emails that I am aware that there are individuals who are appointed by you who have more than one title. That fact has not escaped me. However, there is nothing to prevent you at this time from appointing more and more individuals. Nor is there nothing to prevent you from appointing your entire provinica residents as scribes, legates, praefects. This, as I pointed out is a loophole that needs to be prevented from happening.
<Snip>

Yes, we have discussed and I think that your current proposal is much
better than the first time I saw it. But as I have told You I have
critical points left yet. But, my time is short so I will be back
about that later.

Sulla: I am glad that you like this proposal much better than the previous drafts.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	22 Apr 2002 12:29:19 -0300

Salvete,

>
> This Lex proposes to establish a method in which civil service is
> rewarded within Nova Roma. This method will be referred as the Civil
> Service Index. This Index will serve as the method in which
> participation; involvement and length of citizenship will be measured
> within Nova Roma. The Civil Service Index will be the new name for
> Century Points.
>
> I. MAGISTRATES ORDINARII (CURRENT/Past Service)
>
> Censor:
> 60 CSI (first year of service)
> 120 CSI (second year of service)
>
> Past Service: 30 CSI Per year of service.
>
> Consul:
> 100 CSI
>
> Past Service: 50 CSI.
>
> Praetor
> 80 CSI
>
> Past Service: 40 CSI.
>
> Aedilis Curule, Aedilis Plebis, Quaestor
> 50 CSI
>
> Past Service: 25 CSI.
>
> Tribunus Plebis
> 70 CSI
>
> Past Service: 35 CSI.
>
> Vigintisexviri (Curatores, Rogatores)
> 40 CSI
>
> Past Service: 20 CSI.
>
> Apparitores:
>
> Accensus, scriba of a Consul
> 25 CSI
> Scriba of a Censor, Praetor, Aedile or Vigintisexviri: (Maximum of 4
> scribes)
> 25 CSI
>
> This does not prevent magistrates from appointing additional scribes,
> however if this is done, it is the responsibility of the magistrate to
> notify the Censors, which scribes are to be awarded the points by the
> end of October.
>
> Past Service: 10 CSI.
>
> If a magistrate only serves part of his term as a suffectus or resigns
> his/her office while in office they will only be awarded partially.
> This will be based on increments of Quarters. However Past Service
> points will be awarded in full.
>
> The Senate shall have the authority to set limits on the number of
> Provincial officials who receive points. Until the Senate acts the
> limits shall be those limits stipulated in this law.
>
> II. MAGISTRATES EXTRAORDINARII
>
> Dictator:
> 100 CSI
>
> Past Service: 50 CSI.
>
> Interrex:
> 15 CSI
>
> Magister Equitum:
> 50 CSI
>
> Past Service 25 CSI.
>
> III. SACERDOTES
>
> Pontifex Maximus, Rex et Regina Sacrorum, Flamines Maiores (Flamen
> Dialis, Flamen Martialis, Flamen Quirinalis), Vestal Maxima:
> 100 CSI
>
> Pontifex, Flamines Minores (nine others from Carmentalis to
> Volturnalis), Augur, Vestal
> 75 CSI
>
> Other positons (Epulones, Arvales, Luperci, Salii, Fetiales, others of
> this nature):
> 50 CSI
>
> IV. PROVINCIAL POSITIONS
>
> Gubernator (Propraetor, Actively Serving Proconsul)
> 60 CSI
>
> Past Service: 25 CSI (Per year)
>
> Provincial Legate: (1 individual only)
> 30 CSI
>
> Past Service: 10 CSI
>
> Praefectus (Regional Administrators) (4 individuals only)
> 20 CSI
>
> Past Service: 5 CSI
>
> Provincia Scriba: (Up to 6 individuals)
> 15 CSI
>
> Past Service: 3 CSI
>
> Provincia Sarcerdos (1 individual)
> 20 CSI.
>
> Past Service: 5 CSI
>
> Viatores: (Up to 6 individuals)
> 7 CSI
>
> Past Service: 1 CSI
>
> This does not prevent magistrates from appointing additional scribes,
> however if this is done, it is the responsibility of the
> Propraetor/Proconsul to notify the Censors, which scribes are to be
> awarded the points by the end of October.

I feel too that there should be no limits, specially due to the various
nature of our provinces: some are small(relatively)
monolingual/cultural, mono-macronation others are pluri-lingual and/or
pluri-macronation and others (like Brasil) are very Huge (Larger then
the USA without Alaska) even if mono-cultarl and monomacronation.
Effective government of such disparate provinces needs local solutions.

>
> The Senate shall have the authority to set limits on the number of
> Provincial officials who receive points. Until the Senate acts the
> limits shall be those limits stipulated in this law.
>
> V. OTHER POSITIONS
>
> Senator:
> 70 CSI
>
> Sodalitates Positions:
>
> Founders of an Officially Sanctioned Sodalitas (can be individuals or a
> committee)
> 20 CSI
>
> Persons of Authority in an Officially Sanctioned Sodalitas: (limit of 5
> individuals)
> 10 CSI
>
> It is the responsibility of the Head of the Sodalitas to notify the
> Censors, which individuals are to be awarded the points by the end of
> October.
>
> Members of an Officially Sanctioned Sodalitas:
> 2 CSI
>
> VI. ORDOS, MATER/PATERFAMILIAS, CANDIDATURE
>
> Ordos:
>
> Patricius:
> 20 CSI
> Plebis:
> 10 CSI
> Equites:
> 7 CSI (to be added to either of the above two)
>
> Length of Citizenship:
>
> Citizen for 0 to 5 months:
> 5 CSI total
> Citizen for 6 to 11 months:
> 10 CSI total
> Citizen for 12 to 23 months:
> 20 CSI total
> Every year after 2 years:
> 10 CSI each year

I really don't like this system,
some monthes ago I proposed to give CSI by participation in elections
This way a politically inactive citizen naturaly falls down in the
centuries without any need for an extra action from the censors.

Make this 2CSI/election and you will end up with nearly the same totals


>
> Unsuccessfully ran for office:
> 5 CSI (not applicable to candidates who are involved in run-off
> elections)
>
> Mater/Paterfamilias...points for approving new gens members:
>
> Each Patrician Mater/Paterfamilias who approves a new gens member
> 3 CSI per filius (filia)
> Each Plebian Mater/Paterfamilias who approves a new gens member
> 5 CSI per filius (filia)
>
> Cursus Honorum - (Quaestor- Praetor - Consul) (Tribune of the Plebs -
> Praetor - Consul)
> 10 CSI
>
> Pater Patriae -
> 25 CSI
>
> VII. Senatorial awards:
>
> The Senate with the approval of 2/3 vote may grant the award of extra
> century points to individual citizens for reward of the completion of
> tasks and special positions that are not covered in the above lex.
>
> VIII.
>
> This law will be retroactive. When the Censors recalculate the
> allocations for the Comitia Centuriata all prior civil services will be
> calculated based on the guidelines established by this lex. For
> example, individuals’ serving as Consul in 2000 earns the same points as
> being Consul in 2003.
> _______________


Please change the wording of this. A "retroactive" law would be an
horrible precedent in our jurisdiction.

And in fact the _law_ is not retroactive, it is the calculation that
considers the past.

Valete,

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Proposed Century Points
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:07:37 EDT

In a message dated 4/22/02 8:22:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:
> Sulla: Yes, and it is to prevent this from continuing that it has been
> recommended to add such controls into the law. The Lex Vedia contained no
> controls at all. That is a serious loophole that must be prevented before
> abuse takes place? I seriously hope you are not saying we should not stop
> up this loophole before abuse is taken to further degrees?
>
Salvete!
It is only abuse because your leges make it so. Again eliminate this index
and you eliminate the problem. I say again, only the cursus honorum offices
should receive points. You dump the idea of giving points to every person in
NR for scratching their nose, and a lot of this so-called abuse ceases! A
Provincial Praetor can make his whole citizenry Legatii and it won't matter.
Because it will be meaningless.
If citizens want to move up in class, without entering the cursus, let them
donate money to Rome, and let them be rewarded. Rome gets money, and the
citizen gets more influence in the comitia if that is what they desire. I'd
rather give increased influence to people aiding Rome in this way, than to a
bunch of people whining about how unappreciated they are because they weren't
given enough points!
The idea of points was to build auctoritas at the beginning of Nova Roma.
The reasoning here was as you did MAJOR service to the republic, you have a
greater say in how she operates. However that was '98, and it has gone
horribly wrong.
What has happened now, is the rewards tend to be like crumbs on a plate, for
each office taken no matter how menial, people expect nay demand, a reward.
Even our dignified Pontiffs worry about not getting enough points for
service.
People! What sort of message does this send? We labor for Rome for personal
achievement, that is what. Not for the good of the republic. Do you believe
that our spiritual ancestors defeated the Oscans, the Epriots, the
Carthaginians, the Macedonians with this base attitude? You are all XXI
century people, and you are buying into the personal empowerment myth that
the past and this century espouses. I counter with a quote from a great
politician of the XX century:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country."
So let me paraphrase, ask not what Nova Roma can give you, but what you can
give her.
We are a huge information resource. We are the bastion of the religious
revival of state Religion and its private worship. We are attempting to
reform peoples' attitudes that have been corrupted for over 1600 years. This
"index" continues to mock our efforts.
I have had my say, and I hope this makes you all think about a collective
whole, rather then
a bunch of well meaning individuals. If it does, then I am satisfied.
Romans! You will do what you want, I am but one voice. I implore you
though, to think about the consequences before you do it.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:33:07 -0700

<SNIP>



>
> Length of Citizenship:
>
> Citizen for 0 to 5 months:
> 5 CSI total
> Citizen for 6 to 11 months:
> 10 CSI total
> Citizen for 12 to 23 months:
> 20 CSI total
> Every year after 2 years:
> 10 CSI each year

I really don't like this system,
some monthes ago I proposed to give CSI by participation in elections
This way a politically inactive citizen naturaly falls down in the
centuries without any need for an extra action from the censors.

Make this 2CSI/election and you will end up with nearly the same totals

Sulla: I have explained to individuals before that we cannot go with that method as it compromises the election. Either everyone gets points for length of citizens or no one does. I prefer that everyone, no matter what their interest in Nova Roma might be would get points. Remember, Tribune there are many citizens who are not interested in politics, yet might vote once in a while. Should they be penalized because they do not have the interest in politics that you and I share? And, if someone is a citizen of Nova Roma for 70 years, I think they should get those points, especially compared to a newbie how has just joined Nova Roma. This is one of those items where I am seriously looking into the future.

<SNIP>

> VIII.
>
> This law will be retroactive. When the Censors recalculate the
> allocations for the Comitia Centuriata all prior civil services will be
> calculated based on the guidelines established by this lex. For
> example, individuals' serving as Consul in 2000 earns the same points as
> being Consul in 2003.
> _______________


Please change the wording of this. A "retroactive" law would be an
horrible precedent in our jurisdiction.

And in fact the _law_ is not retroactive, it is the calculation that
considers the past.

Please send me a private rewrite and I would be happy to include it into the law.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

Valete,

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Response to Pomepia Cornelia: Re: [novaroma] Proposed Century Point/Civil Service Index Lex
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:15:18 -0000

--- In novaroma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Avete Omnes,
>
> As I am not on some of these lists, I would appreciate someone
forwarding my words to those lists.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Susan Brett
> To: NovaRomaVizantia@y... ; SenatusRomanus@y... ;
NovaRomaProv@y... ; NovaRoma@y...
> Cc: Pompeia_Cornelia@y...
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:50 AM
> Subject: [novaroma] Praetoral Comment: Proposed Century
Point/Civil Service Index Lex
>
>
> POMPEIA CORNELIA STRABO PRAETOR SENATUS POPULESQUE ET AMICII NOVA
ROMA
> S.P.D.
>
>
> With the greatest of respect to all parties concerned, and what I
will deem
> are good intentions for those who are in support of this text, I
must, in
> equally good faith, voice my weighted concerns with this
proposal,
> particularily the area which limits the number of provincial
assistants any
> given governor may appoint.
>
> Sulla: I understand your concerns, as you have voiced them
within my staff list, informally to me on a one-to-one basis, and now
on 5 email lists. :)

POMPEIA RESPONDEO: I know. I think that is what a good Accencus and
Praetor should do. I'm afraid I am Praetor also, and when I see some
serious problems, I feel obliged to be vocal about them. I took an
oath to this effect.
>
> I understand that from time to time, one or two persons could
conceivably
> get 'carried away' in a Governor's office, and 'over appoint'
personnel...I
> guess I can even see that one or two some where along the path of
Nova
> Roma's life are in the chair for themselves, their own agenda and
nothing
> more.
>
> Sulla: Yes, and it is to prevent this from continuing that it
has been recommended to add such controls into the law. The Lex
Vedia contained no controls at all. That is a serious loophole that
must be prevented before abuse takes place? I seriously hope you are
not saying we should not stop up this loophole before abuse is taken
to further degrees?
>
> If I wanted to be a collector of century points, I would not take
on a
> governor's job...too much time, effort, emotional commitment and
money goes
> into the job. Not everyone can be assumed to be a self-serving
collector of
> century points and clients...for those who do not understand the
> client/patron relationship, it would amount to my appointing you
as a
> provincial official, so you could have points, in return for
political
> favours from you. I am saddened that the whole lot of us are
assumed to be
> playing this sort of game.
>
> Sulla: Praetor, I am not speaking of a governor appointing
themselves as a scribe, Praefectus et al to boost THEIR Century
Points. I am speaking of overinflating the staff of a provincia.
Praetor Pompeia Cornelia, I dont see how the Patron/Client
relationship is even involved in this issue? Or are you saying that
those members of your staff are your clients? And you are admitting
that fact before us?


POMPEIA RESPONDEO: I'll not comment on the last sentence of the
preceding paragraph....I know you are not happy with my opposition,
but it is not a suprise to you.

I am assuming by the theme of your above paragraph that what I am
saying,is in your estimation, nonsense. I am pedantically trying to
think of scenerios where this situation would present with abuse
without it being so painfully obvious to the Senate and Populace that
it would not be addressed. You are setting these guidelines to
prevent abuse. I described ways in which potentially it could be
abused, then followed with my comments on the likelihood of such
abuse occurring. We are removing Gubernatorial imperium on a
prophylactic basis......this 'might' happen. Is the likelihood of
abuse proportional to the limits this lex sets?

I have also indicated that if you feel parameters should be set, it
should be done in a more fair and equitable manner. With due
respect, I do not think I am completely void of logic. You do not
agree with me. That's fine. But I feel I must voice my concerns as
Praetor.
> However, if this 'phobia' persists and cannot be dispelled, there
are other,
> more consitutional ways of setting parameters with respect to
gubernatorial
> appointments.
>
> I suggest the following amendments:
>
> I. Remove the limits assigned to the Praetors in the current
text, and
> insert a clause stating "Propraetoral Imperium is subject to
Senatorial
> scrutiny, and Propraetors must be willing and able to
satisfactority account
> to the Senate for the numbers of their appointees and their work
within the
> provincia.
>
> Sulla: I dont think that would be sufficient, the loophole will
still exist. To have the Senate "investigate" anything takes
substantial time and in the past when we have "investigated" anything
leaks have developed. Nor would I see the Senates precious resources
spread out in a distasteful and well...for lack of a better word,
star chamberish investigation. Instead it would be much more
efficient for any governor to petition the Senate on the need to
expand the limit for his/her provincia. Look at it this way. How
long will an "invesigation of abuse" would take place? Probably many
many months, and that is a conservative estimate, given on past
investigations. However, a petition to increase the staff of a
provincia can be resolved quickly and easily in as little time as the
very next Senate call (which on average has been monthly).
>
> Any propraetor can be yanked for any reason by the Senate...that
is who
> gives them their imperium.
>
> Sulla: Yes, but again, this has never been done. And we have
had governors who have simply disappeared once put into office. The
standing tradition on this is that we just simply not prorouge them.

POMPEIA: The fact that it has never been done doesn't mean it
couldn't or wouldn't be done; as I believe another mentioned, this
could entail quite a wait for a governor who is planning some large
projects within his provincia.
>
> I do not believe the Propraetors should have to 'apply' to the
Censors for
> more help...to wit, for an increase in imperium granted to them
by the
> Senate..something that was suggested as a built-in safeguard in
this
> proposal. Besides, we have two Censors...they have too much to do
as it
> is...as if they need more.
>
> Sulla: Praetor, please read the proposed law, they do not apply
to the Censores, they apply to the Senate to increase the limits.
This is a very very big difference.

POMPEIA: I did, and I know the above is not in there, but the idea
has been brought forth...perhaps it was on a governor's list. I
apologize.
>
> II. We could delete the limits of appointees in the proposal and
work on
> this as a separate issue. We can do up a separate index. The
manner in
> which it is currently being handled, I feel, is insensitive, and
somewhat
> discriminatory, in that it doesn't take the needs of individual
provinciae
> into account, and therefore does not lend itself to equal
representation of
> each citizen. And we are in the tax paying business...if I am
going to pay
> taxes I am entitled to equal representation and equal
opportunity, nonne?
>
> Sulla: I have already discussed this with you, I see no need to
break this up into a separate issue. While many people might view I
tend to go overboard in laws, I do strive to be efficient. The
proposed law has very reasonable appeals to very knowledgable Senate
if the time is needed that a provinicia needs additional personnel.
>
> Not every provincia in Nova Roma is exactly the same...we cannot
throw a
> template over each one and call it a fair appraisal. Some
Provincia are
> geographically much larger than others, with whole countries
inside them,
> with several languages . Do you not think that such a provincia
could use
> more assistance, staffwise, than a much smaller provincia, with
say, only
> one main language?
>
> Sulla: It is for this precise reason that the appeal to reward
additional staff has been inputted into the law. And also, it is for
this very reason that Propraetor Caeso Fabius, who has the most
bureaucratic province in Nova Roma, and I communicated in the past
two weeks to create a more flexible framework.
>
> We can set some safeguards...but it has to be done on a provincia
by
> provincia basis, taking the individual needs into account...Thule
needs 10
> legate, Canada Orientalis needs 4, Nova Britannia, ???. Who
would be the
> best people to help with this...well, by Pheobus, the
governors! :)
> If we are going to do this, we have to do it fairly, or I feel it
is not
> within the spirit or the letter of the consitution. It also
chokes our
> global growth over the theoretical suspicions of one or two.
People who are
> egocentric and selfserving usually show their true colours all by
> themselves...they are easy to spot. Most of us are astute,
reasonably
> educated persons who have been around the block once or twice and
can
> usually spot a one-man show.
>
> Sulla: Praetor Pompeia Cornelia, please get your facts correct,
according to Caeso Fabius, the Provincia of Thule has 5 Legates, if
we are going to overdramatize this law, lets at least try to keep it
down to earth. I understand you dont like the limits and will
probably be voting against it, but there is no reason for such
dramatics.

POMPEIA: These are not 'facts' Honoured Consul...this was a
theorectical example. There are not facts to get in order.

I truly with we could do this another way, with the greatest respect
to you. You are a wonderful Pater Respublica, but I do feel this
aspect of an otherwise beautiful lex needs work.

Bene vale,
Pompeia
>
> Very Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul
>
>
> 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] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:39:56 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Tribune,

> > Length of Citizenship:
> >
> > Citizen for 0 to 5 months: > > 5 CSI total
> > Citizen for 6 to 11 months: > > 10 CSI total
> > Citizen for 12 to 23 months: > > 20 CSI total
> > Every year after 2 years: > > 10 CSI each year
>
> I really don't like this system,
> some monthes ago I proposed to give CSI by participation in elections
> This way a politically inactive citizen naturaly falls down in the
> centuries without any need for an extra action from the censors.
>
> Make this 2CSI/election and you will end up with nearly the same totals

...but with much more bookkeeping work involved. Calculating based on
length of citizenship is a very simple function -- subtract date1 from
date2, convert to months, and look up the points in a table.

Basing it upon elections would involving having to compile lists of
voter codes used; and needing to consult those lists if anyone
complained about missing points. Also, the data for past years is
mostly gone - I have a list of codes used in December (that will soon
be used to recalculate tribes), but mosts of the other lists have
probably vanished.

It's a lot of extra work for little benefit.

Vale, O.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Proposed Century Points
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:48:24 -0700

Avete Senator Q. Fabius et Omnes,

---- Original Message -----
From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] The Proposed Century Points


In a message dated 4/22/02 8:22:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:
> Sulla: Yes, and it is to prevent this from continuing that it has been
> recommended to add such controls into the law. The Lex Vedia contained no
> controls at all. That is a serious loophole that must be prevented before
> abuse takes place? I seriously hope you are not saying we should not stop
> up this loophole before abuse is taken to further degrees?
>
Salvete!
It is only abuse because your leges make it so.

Yes, but let me ask you this, if Scribes get points, and they do under the Current Lex Vedia. And tomorrow all the governors pass edicts that all of the citizens in their province become scribes....do you think that is abusing the system that is currently in place?

Again eliminate this index
and you eliminate the problem.

And replace it with a monetary based system. Hey, I am all for it, I paid for 9 citizen taxes, my colleague paid for 10. I would have no problem changing our system of centurys from a participation based to a monetary based system. Heck, it would be even easier to to draft.

I say again, only the cursus honorum offices
should receive points. You dump the idea of giving points to every person in
NR for scratching their nose, and a lot of this so-called abuse ceases! A
Provincial Praetor can make his whole citizenry Legatii and it won't matter.
Because it will be meaningless.
However, the very critcism I have gotten from limiting the Legatii is EXPANDED by not rewarding them at all. Here they would get some "pay," but under your suggestion they would get none at all. Citizens what plan is better?

If citizens want to move up in class, without entering the cursus, let them
donate money to Rome, and let them be rewarded. Rome gets money, and the
citizen gets more influence in the comitia if that is what they desire. I'd
rather give increased influence to people aiding Rome in this way, than to a
bunch of people whining about how unappreciated they are because they weren't
given enough points!

As I have stated before, I have no problem going to a monetary based Century system. However, what do our citizens think about this? I could easily draw up a plan that would be very simple to implement, paying the base tax places you in the Fifth Century, pay 10.00 more and go into the 4th class, pay another 10-15 dolloars etc etc etc. Much easier..but how many of our citzens would 1. Be willing to contribute to this? and Secondly how feasible is this for those many Nova Romanii?

The idea of points was to build auctoritas at the beginning of Nova Roma.
The reasoning here was as you did MAJOR service to the republic, you have a
greater say in how she operates. However that was '98, and it has gone
horribly wrong.

I dont see how it has gone horrible wrong. Nova Roma has grown dramaticially from 1999 (when Vedius published this when he was Dictator). We now have Sodalitae, a developing provincial adminstration, and other areas of growth that quite frankly were unforseen back in 1999.

What has happened now, is the rewards tend to be like crumbs on a plate, for
each office taken no matter how menial, people expect nay demand, a reward.

I guess you could look at it as a crumb...but I dont. I like at it as sort of pay...the more important a job you hold the more pay you get.

Even our dignified Pontiffs worry about not getting enough points for
service.

They are?
People! What sort of message does this send? We labor for Rome for personal
achievement, that is what. Not for the good of the republic. Do you believe
that our spiritual ancestors defeated the Oscans, the Epriots, the
Carthaginians, the Macedonians with this base attitude?

I think our noble ancestors were also concerned with Personal achievement as well. Look at Gaius Marius and his 7 Consulships, look at all the Monuments to the military and cultural achievements of the Emperors. Look at the Patron Clientage relationship of our Republican Forefathers....and tell me that our ancestors were NOT concerned with Personal achievement.

You are all XXI
century people, and you are buying into the personal empowerment myth that
the past and this century espouses. I counter with a quote from a great
politician of the XX century:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country."
So let me paraphrase, ask not what Nova Roma can give you, but what you can
give her.

We give her our time, our money, our hardwork and dedication.

We are a huge information resource. We are the bastion of the religious
revival of state Religion and its private worship. We are attempting to
reform peoples' attitudes that have been corrupted for over 1600 years. This
"index" continues to mock our efforts.

I respectfully disagree. It allows our newer citizens to get a grounding of political, social and religious training as they climb up the Mos Maiorum.
Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


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

Subject:	Re: [SenatusRomanus] Fwd: Response to Pomepia Cornelia: Re: [novaroma] Proposed Century Point/Civil Service Index Lex
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:18:37 -0700

Avete Omnes,

<SNIP>
>
> With the greatest of respect to all parties concerned, and what I
will deem
> are good intentions for those who are in support of this text, I
must, in
> equally good faith, voice my weighted concerns with this
proposal,
> particularily the area which limits the number of provincial
assistants any
> given governor may appoint.
>
> Sulla: I understand your concerns, as you have voiced them
within my staff list, informally to me on a one-to-one basis, and now
on 5 email lists. :)

POMPEIA RESPONDEO: I know. I think that is what a good Accencus and
Praetor should do. I'm afraid I am Praetor also, and when I see some
serious problems, I feel obliged to be vocal about them. I took an
oath to this effect.
Sulla: I have never claimed that your not a good Accensus or Praetor. :) However, I do not see the problems that you do. I see a very workable plan that would at worst require governors to justify an increase of staff, beyond the limit stipulated by the proposed lex. When employers work for a company, and they need to increase their staffing they have to show justification, this is the same. Granted Nova Roma is not paying our magistrates in money...but instead we are by increasing their standing in the Comitia Centuriata, and in that sense alone I view it as payment for services rendered.

<SNIP>

>
> Sulla: Praetor, I am not speaking of a governor appointing
themselves as a scribe, Praefectus et al to boost THEIR Century
Points. I am speaking of overinflating the staff of a provincia.
Praetor Pompeia Cornelia, I dont see how the Patron/Client
relationship is even involved in this issue? Or are you saying that
those members of your staff are your clients? And you are admitting
that fact before us?


POMPEIA RESPONDEO: I'll not comment on the last sentence of the
preceding paragraph....I know you are not happy with my opposition,
but it is not a suprise to you.

Sulla: Yes I know its not a surprise.
I am assuming by the theme of your above paragraph that what I am
saying,is in your estimation, nonsense. I am pedantically trying to
think of scenerios where this situation would present with abuse
without it being so painfully obvious to the Senate and Populace that
it would not be addressed. You are setting these guidelines to
prevent abuse. I described ways in which potentially it could be
abused, then followed with my comments on the likelihood of such
abuse occurring. We are removing Gubernatorial imperium on a
prophylactic basis......this 'might' happen. Is the likelihood of
abuse proportional to the limits this lex sets?

Sulla: Appointing a client as a scribe is not an abuse as long as you, and the magistrate appointing the client is pleased with the work of said client. Besides there is no removing of gubernatorial Imperium.....because as a governor you can appoint whoever you want....just when you EXCEED the limit....those individuals cease to get points. Your IMPERIUM is not affected at all. If you decide to pay them out of your own pocket (ie, paying their tax, buying a book for them or however way you want too), I am certian other arrangements can be met.

I have also indicated that if you feel parameters should be set, it
should be done in a more fair and equitable manner. With due
respect, I do not think I am completely void of logic. You do not
agree with me. That's fine. But I feel I must voice my concerns as
Praetor.

Sulla: I just do not see the logic of what you are trying to say. The only standard I am setting is to prevent the abuse by inflating Century Points. If I wanted to write a full detailed lex micromanaging the Provincial system then yes....that would certainly require a separate law but that is not my intent, nor is it something I feel the need for at this time.

> However, if this 'phobia' persists and cannot be dispelled, there
are other,
> more consitutional ways of setting parameters with respect to
gubernatorial
> appointments.
>
> I suggest the following amendments:
>
> I. Remove the limits assigned to the Praetors in the current
text, and
> insert a clause stating "Propraetoral Imperium is subject to
Senatorial
> scrutiny, and Propraetors must be willing and able to
satisfactority account
> to the Senate for the numbers of their appointees and their work
within the
> provincia.
>
> Sulla: I dont think that would be sufficient, the loophole will
still exist. To have the Senate "investigate" anything takes
substantial time and in the past when we have "investigated" anything
leaks have developed. Nor would I see the Senates precious resources
spread out in a distasteful and well...for lack of a better word,
star chamberish investigation. Instead it would be much more
efficient for any governor to petition the Senate on the need to
expand the limit for his/her provincia. Look at it this way. How
long will an "invesigation of abuse" would take place? Probably many
many months, and that is a conservative estimate, given on past
investigations. However, a petition to increase the staff of a
provincia can be resolved quickly and easily in as little time as the
very next Senate call (which on average has been monthly).
>
> Any propraetor can be yanked for any reason by the Senate...that
is who
> gives them their imperium.
>
> Sulla: Yes, but again, this has never been done. And we have
had governors who have simply disappeared once put into office. The
standing tradition on this is that we just simply not prorouge them.

POMPEIA: The fact that it has never been done doesn't mean it
couldn't or wouldn't be done; as I believe another mentioned, this
could entail quite a wait for a governor who is planning some large
projects within his provincia.

Sulla: Po, IMHO, as someone who has been in the Senate a substantially long time I dont see it happening. What are we going to do start policing our governors? Once again, I state that the tradition of the Senate has been to wait the year of service and just simply not prorogue them. The times where our Senate has tried to be proactive has not been very successful to say the least. And, other investigations that have been done in the Senate have taken a substantially long period of time.


>
> I do not believe the Propraetors should have to 'apply' to the
Censors for
> more help...to wit, for an increase in imperium granted to them
by the
> Senate..something that was suggested as a built-in safeguard in
this
> proposal. Besides, we have two Censors...they have too much to do
as it
> is...as if they need more.
>
> Sulla: Praetor, please read the proposed law, they do not apply
to the Censores, they apply to the Senate to increase the limits.
This is a very very big difference.

POMPEIA: I did, and I know the above is not in there, but the idea
has been brought forth...perhaps it was on a governor's list. I
apologize.

Sulla: But this is bad because it is going to confuse the issue. Not only that but it undercuts your arguement as you are attacking items not even in the proposed law. Thank you for your apology.

>
> II. We could delete the limits of appointees in the proposal and
work on
> this as a separate issue. We can do up a separate index. The
manner in
> which it is currently being handled, I feel, is insensitive, and
somewhat
> discriminatory, in that it doesn't take the needs of individual
provinciae
> into account, and therefore does not lend itself to equal
representation of
> each citizen. And we are in the tax paying business...if I am
going to pay
> taxes I am entitled to equal representation and equal
opportunity, nonne?
>
> Sulla: I have already discussed this with you, I see no need to
break this up into a separate issue. While many people might view I
tend to go overboard in laws, I do strive to be efficient. The
proposed law has very reasonable appeals to very knowledgable Senate
if the time is needed that a provinicia needs additional personnel.
>
> Not every provincia in Nova Roma is exactly the same...we cannot
throw a
> template over each one and call it a fair appraisal. Some
Provincia are
> geographically much larger than others, with whole countries
inside them,
> with several languages . Do you not think that such a provincia
could use
> more assistance, staffwise, than a much smaller provincia, with
say, only
> one main language?
>
> Sulla: It is for this precise reason that the appeal to reward
additional staff has been inputted into the law. And also, it is for
this very reason that Propraetor Caeso Fabius, who has the most
bureaucratic province in Nova Roma, and I communicated in the past
two weeks to create a more flexible framework.
>
> We can set some safeguards...but it has to be done on a provincia
by
> provincia basis, taking the individual needs into account...Thule
needs 10
> legate, Canada Orientalis needs 4, Nova Britannia, ???. Who
would be the
> best people to help with this...well, by Pheobus, the
governors! :)
> If we are going to do this, we have to do it fairly, or I feel it
is not
> within the spirit or the letter of the consitution. It also
chokes our
> global growth over the theoretical suspicions of one or two.
People who are
> egocentric and selfserving usually show their true colours all by
> themselves...they are easy to spot. Most of us are astute,
reasonably
> educated persons who have been around the block once or twice and
can
> usually spot a one-man show.
>
> Sulla: Praetor Pompeia Cornelia, please get your facts correct,
according to Caeso Fabius, the Provincia of Thule has 5 Legates, if
we are going to overdramatize this law, lets at least try to keep it
down to earth. I understand you dont like the limits and will
probably be voting against it, but there is no reason for such
dramatics.

POMPEIA: These are not 'facts' Honoured Consul...this was a
theorectical example. There are not facts to get in order.

Sulla: You stated it as a fact. I corrected it based on my conversation with Propraetor Caeso Fabius as this was one of the issues him and I compromised and made the law more flexible for provincial government.

I truly with we could do this another way, with the greatest respect
to you. You are a wonderful Pater Respublica, but I do feel this
aspect of an otherwise beautiful lex needs work.

Sulla: I have been advised by many citizens way back when I was Censor that revision of the Centurys was needed. I dont see a reason why prevention of abuse of the awarding of century points by limiting them and establishing a system of appeal should not be included in this. Unless we want to go to a monetary based system as Senator Q. Fabius suggests.
Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

Bene vale,
Pompeia
>
> Very Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- End forwarded message ---

Subject:	[novaroma] Some thoughts about century points
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:42:14 +0200

Salvete;

I think CP's are basically a good idea; in a way, it's a benficial system.
You get what you put into Nova Roma.

But in reality, this is not always the case. Consul Sulla made a good remark
there about provincial Legati: a lot of them do nothing. But there are
inactive Propraetores, too. And inactive Senatores. And inactive
Magistratus. Well, not always all the time, but certainly so in the past,
and likely in the future. Therefore, either we do away with all those
century points, or we keep the system as it is. Justice for all.

By the way, the argument that a Praetor could theoretically appoint 1000
legates is rather far-fetched. My own divination would be more likely :o).

Valete bene,
M. Octavius Solaris

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	"Cl. Sl. Davianus" <davius_sanctex@terra.es>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:01:23 -0500

Salve, honorabilis Consul, L. Corneli Sulla,

>[Consul Sulla Stated] VIII.
This law will be retroactive. When the Censors recalculate the allocations
for the Comitia Centuriata all prior civil services will be calculated based
on the guidelines established by this lex. For example, individuals'
serving as Consul in 2000 earns the same points as being Consul in 2003.<<

Retroactiveness in laws jurisdictionally seems to me an abomination. If you
try to aprove this law with retroactiveness I WILL STUDY THE POSSIBILITY OF
A VETO TO THE LAW.


Cl. Sl. Davianus
==========
Tribunus Plebis

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	22 Apr 2002 17:10:30 -0300

On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 00:01, Cl. Sl. Davianus wrote:
>
> Salve, honorabilis Consul, L. Corneli Sulla,
>
> >[Consul Sulla Stated] VIII.
> This law will be retroactive. When the Censors recalculate the allocations
> for the Comitia Centuriata all prior civil services will be calculated based
> on the guidelines established by this lex. For example, individuals'
> serving as Consul in 2000 earns the same points as being Consul in 2003.<<
>
> Retroactiveness in laws jurisdictionally seems to me an abomination. If you
> try to aprove this law with retroactiveness I WILL STUDY THE POSSIBILITY OF
> A VETO TO THE LAW.

After thinking about it, yes perhaps the law as written is retroactive:

Consider this analogy:

Introduction of new currency:
retroactive system: recalculate all earnings and expenses of all
citizens using the new currency.
Non retroactive system: trade the old currency for the new one
establishing a conversion rate.

I think we need to establish a conversion rate from old CPs to new CSIs
and just convert the actual CPs to CSIs using this rate.

I will try to come out with a mean conversion rate later.

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:10:45 -0500 (CDT)

> >[Consul Sulla Stated] VIII.
> This law will be retroactive. When the Censors recalculate the allocations
> for the Comitia Centuriata all prior civil services will be calculated based
> on the guidelines established by this lex. For example, individuals'
> serving as Consul in 2000 earns the same points as being Consul in 2003.<<
>
> Retroactiveness in laws jurisdictionally seems to me an abomination. If you
> try to aprove this law with retroactiveness I WILL STUDY THE POSSIBILITY OF
> A VETO TO THE LAW.

"Retroactive" isn't the best word for it; what we're trying for here is
consistency. The points will be calculated based upon all events/offices
that are relevant, and the levels will be the same regardless of when
the event/office-holding occurred. If it were not for this, then
this year's Consuls would get more points than last year's Consuls; next
year's Praetores get more points than 1999's Praetores; and last year's
Legates would get nothing.

I suggest that the sentence containing the word "retroactive" be removed;
the next sentence works well enough.

Vale, O.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:13:18 -0000

Salve,

I have a question:

--- In novaroma@y..., Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
wrote:
<snipped>
> VI. ORDOS, MATER/PATERFAMILIAS, CANDIDATURE
> Mater/Paterfamilias...points for approving new gens members:
>
> Each Patrician Mater/Paterfamilias who approves a new gens member
> 3 CSI per filius (filia)
> Each Plebian Mater/Paterfamilias who approves a new gens member
> 5 CSI per filius (filia)

<snipped>

> This law will be retroactive. When the Censors recalculate the
> allocations for the Comitia Centuriata all prior civil services
will be
> calculated based on the guidelines established by this lex. For
> example, individuals' serving as Consul in 2000 earns the same
points as
> being Consul in 2003.

Does the recalculation of the retroactive portion of the law mean
that, for the sake of example, that as Paterfamilias with 80 cives in
your gens, that you, Lucius Cornelius Sula Felix, would receive at
least a minimum of 240 CP (not counting those that have
resigned/dropped out and are not currently listed in gens Cornelia),
or would this not be included in the retroactive calculation and be
reserved for future approvals only?

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:46:42 -0000

---Salve Cassius:

Good observation. I didn't notice this myself, but in the drafts I
typed and submitted couple of weeks ago, and I just checked the words
(not retroactive) were in parentheses beside the points awarded to
maters/paters for approving new citizens.

I imagine it is still not meant to be retroactive, just an
oversight; but if this is still the case, this current text should
be amended to make this clear, so that future misinterpretation of
the intent here, is avoided.

Again, you have made an important observation.

Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia


In novaroma@y..., "quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@a...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> I have a question:
>
> --- In novaroma@y..., Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> <snipped>
> > VI. ORDOS, MATER/PATERFAMILIAS, CANDIDATURE
> > Mater/Paterfamilias...points for approving new gens members:
> >
> > Each Patrician Mater/Paterfamilias who approves a new gens member
> > 3 CSI per filius (filia)
> > Each Plebian Mater/Paterfamilias who approves a new gens member
> > 5 CSI per filius (filia)
>
> <snipped>
>
> > This law will be retroactive. When the Censors recalculate the
> > allocations for the Comitia Centuriata all prior civil services
> will be
> > calculated based on the guidelines established by this lex. For
> > example, individuals' serving as Consul in 2000 earns the same
> points as
> > being Consul in 2003.
>
> Does the recalculation of the retroactive portion of the law mean
> that, for the sake of example, that as Paterfamilias with 80 cives
in
> your gens, that you, Lucius Cornelius Sula Felix, would receive at
> least a minimum of 240 CP (not counting those that have
> resigned/dropped out and are not currently listed in gens
Cornelia),
> or would this not be included in the retroactive calculation and be
> reserved for future approvals only?
>
> Pax,
>
> Quintus Cassius Calvus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Some thoughts about century points
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:12:16 EDT

In a message dated 4/22/02 12:57:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hendrik.meuleman@pi.be writes:


> By the way, the argument that a Praetor could theoretically appoint 1000
> legates is rather far-fetched. My own divination would be more likely :o).
>

Salve Octavi,
And for that you would get how many points? LOL!

Fabius


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis -
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	22 Apr 2002 20:24:38 -0300

> VIII.
>
> This law will be retroactive. When the Censors recalculate the
> allocations for the Comitia Centuriata all prior civil services will be
> calculated based on the guidelines established by this lex. For
> example, individuals’ serving as Consul in 2000 earns the same points as
> being Consul in 2003.

Proposed Version:

In order to actualize the CP in the newly created CSI. The following
will be done for each citizen:
1) CPs for currently hold charges and civil status will be deducted from
their actual total CPs
2) The remaining CPs (due to past charges, running for elections etc.)
will be multiplied by 4.8 and rounded up to the nearest integer giving
CSIs for past charges.
3) CSIs for currently hold charges and civil status will be added to
this result given the current CSIs

Remarks:
4.8 is the mean value for the ratio CSI/CP for past events for which the
Lex Vedia gave CPs.
This way the law is no more tainted with retroactivity and becomes
acceptable.
Off course my awful english needs to be rewritten


Valete

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis -non-retroactive
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:33:52 -0700

Ave Manius Villius,

Thank you for your effort, but I think the changes that my colleague suggested would be easier to implement.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul
----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Loos
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis -non-retroactive



> VIII.
>
> This law will be retroactive. When the Censors recalculate the
> allocations for the Comitia Centuriata all prior civil services will be
> calculated based on the guidelines established by this lex. For
> example, individuals' serving as Consul in 2000 earns the same points as
> being Consul in 2003.

Proposed Version:

In order to actualize the CP in the newly created CSI. The following
will be done for each citizen:
1) CPs for currently hold charges and civil status will be deducted from
their actual total CPs
2) The remaining CPs (due to past charges, running for elections etc.)
will be multiplied by 4.8 and rounded up to the nearest integer giving
CSIs for past charges.
3) CSIs for currently hold charges and civil status will be added to
this result given the current CSIs

Remarks:
4.8 is the mean value for the ratio CSI/CP for past events for which the
Lex Vedia gave CPs.
This way the law is no more tainted with retroactivity and becomes
acceptable.
Off course my awful english needs to be rewritten


Valete

Manius Villius Limitanus




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Subject:	[novaroma] Data from the past, was Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Piparskeggr - Venator <catamount_grange@inwave.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:41:33 -0500

Ave,

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salve Tribune,
>
> <excision>
>
> Basing it upon elections would involving having to compile lists of
> voter codes used; and needing to consult those lists if anyone
> complained about missing points. Also, the data for past years is
> mostly gone - I have a list of codes used in December (that will soon
> be used to recalculate tribes), but mosts of the other lists have
> probably vanished.
>
> It's a lot of extra work for little benefit.
>
> Vale, O.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>

I have hard copy of the list of Cives from late 1998 and early 1999 if that might be of us? I also
have a complete hard copy of the website from the end of July 1998.

I can scan the relevant information and send as text files.

--
=========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Civis Nova Romana et Paterfamilias
Legatus Occidentalis pro Magna Lacus

Domus Familias
http://www.geocities.com/gens_ulleria/index.html

Dominus Sodalis
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/

Quis fuit ille personatus?
(Who was that masked man?)