Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	22 Apr 2002 21:02:53 -0300

Em Seg, 2002-04-22 às 20:33, L. Cornelius Sulla escreveu:
> Ave Manius Villius,
>
> Thank you for your effort, but I think the changes that my colleague suggested would be easier to implement.
>

Sure, but the law will still be retroactive:
rewarding citizens now for acts that were done while
the law did not reward them is just as bad as punishing for a delict
that was not a delict when it was commited.

Retroactivity must be kept out of our laws just like it must be kept out
of the laws everywhere.
If this law is retroactive I will have to go with my colleague and veto
it.

Manius Villius Limitanus

> 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]
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:04:16 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> 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.

O.K. Now I fully understand. Thank you.

> > 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.

All that is true. But then, how it comes that so many propraetores are
publicly expressing their dislike of this particular point of your
proposal?

> > > 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."

I am afraid to say that you are not answering my question. I will put
it in different words. Has this "abuse" ever happened? If so, was it
stopped? If it was stopped, how was it done?

And finally, if you have managed to solve this issues "privately" in
the past, why is this law needed?

> > 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.

What about encouraging participation? As I see it, provincial
governments are a wonderful means to encourage citizen participation.
By limiting provincial governments, you are disencouraging participation.

=====
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:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:34:00 -0700

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.
>
> --- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > 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.
>
> O.K. Now I fully understand. Thank you.

Sure no problem.

> > 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.
>
> All that is true. But then, how it comes that so many propraetores are
>
> publicly expressing their dislike of this particular point of your
> proposal?
>

Not many have actually. And those that have either want no limits at
all, or want a separate lex, or do not understand that there is no
removal of Imperium. Remember, Tribune, I was once a governor myself,
so I have that experience as well. :)

>
> > > > 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."
>
> I am afraid to say that you are not answering my question. I will put
> it in different words. Has this "abuse" ever happened? If so, was it
> stopped? If it was stopped, how was it done?
>

Not really, but why wait for someone to exercise this obvious loophole?

>
> And finally, if you have managed to solve this issues "privately" in
> the past, why is this law needed?
>

To prevent it from happening in the future, is that not a good enough
reason? Or are you saying we need to have a governor abuse the
loopholes in the system before we take action to fix it?

>
> > > 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.
>
> What about encouraging participation? As I see it, provincial
> governments are a wonderful means to encourage citizen participation.
> By limiting provincial governments, you are disencouraging
> participation.
>

Are you saying that people must be rewarded to be compelled to
participate? If that is the case then I must agree with the respected
Senator Q. Fabius Maximus in saying that the Century points are taking
away from Nova Roma. However, let me reiterate my response to Senator
Pompeia Cornelia, there is no "limiting" provincial governments. What
we are limiting is the pay in the form of Century Points. Your logic
taken to an extreme would abuse the system, by rewarding everyone
century points. That IMHO is an abuse and bloats the Comitia Centuriata
and is one of the main reasons I have initiated some limits.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:47:51 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites.

--- quintuscassiuscalvus <richmal@attbi.com> 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

The more I read about this proposal, the less I like it.
This paragraph seems to be specially drafted for the "head" of the gens
Cornelia. I thought that the whole issue behind this system was to
reward public work. Now I see, however, that by merely accepting new
members into one's gens one can get more of these points.

How does this fit in the "public work" scheme? Is it supposed to reward
recruitment of new citizens? Well, it has been badly spelled out, then.


Just as an example (I am sure there are many others there), my friend
and colleague Davianus has convinced a couple of citizens to join Nova
Roma. As he is not the "head" of the gens Salicia, he will not be
rewarded for this, while my other friend Vigilius, who has not
convinced those people, will get the credit.

Not to mention the natural impulse to join a populous gens... but wait!
It is the "head" of the most populous gens in Nova Roma who is
proposing this draft! If I didn't know him, I would say that I had
discovered *who* wants to accumulate these points, after all :-).

=====
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:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:58:28 -0700

Avete Tribune et al,

I expected this, I really did. But it doesn't mean I have to like
perception of bloating my standing in the Centuries. What conceivable
purpose would I gain? I am already in the first class. It is
interesting, that I am in the process of writing my colleague about
removing this clause specifically from the Law. And, then I see this
email.

Now, you can obviously find a way to justify saying Lucius Cornelius
Sulla Felix is trying to bloat the Centuries or you can see the many
times I have discussed this on the ML and look at my reasons to
including this, it would hopefully get paters more active by recruiting,
responding and accepting new members into their gens. Remember, this
issus has been discussed many many times before on the ML.

However, that is probably not going to be the case, so this clause will
be removed from consideration into the law. I am more than willing to
allow the Pater/Mater Registration and hopefully the Census law to
promote more activity on this necessary aspect of Nova Roma.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:

> Salvete Quirites.
>
> --- quintuscassiuscalvus <richmal@attbi.com> 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
>
> The more I read about this proposal, the less I like it.
> This paragraph seems to be specially drafted for the "head" of the
> gens
> Cornelia. I thought that the whole issue behind this system was to
> reward public work. Now I see, however, that by merely accepting new
> members into one's gens one can get more of these points.
>
> How does this fit in the "public work" scheme? Is it supposed to
> reward
> recruitment of new citizens? Well, it has been badly spelled out,
> then.
>
>
> Just as an example (I am sure there are many others there), my friend
> and colleague Davianus has convinced a couple of citizens to join Nova
>
> Roma. As he is not the "head" of the gens Salicia, he will not be
> rewarded for this, while my other friend Vigilius, who has not
> convinced those people, will get the credit.
>
> Not to mention the natural impulse to join a populous gens... but
> wait!
> It is the "head" of the most populous gens in Nova Roma who is
> proposing this draft! If I didn't know him, I would say that I had
> discovered *who* wants to accumulate these points, after all :-).
>
> =====
> 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
[Click Here!]

>
> 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:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 02:16:07 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> > All that is true. But then, how it comes that so many propraetores
> > are publicly expressing their dislike of this particular point of
> > your proposal?
> >
>
> Not many have actually.

Do you mean that their concerns are not worth considering because they
are "not that many"?

> And those that have either want no limits at all, or want a separate
> lex, or do not understand that there is no removal of Imperium.

I see nothing wrong about having no limits at all, except those
established by our current constitution; that is, intercessio from
those magistrates empowered to do so, and removal of propraetorship by
the Senate. I personally feel pretty comfortable with those two
"security measures", and remember that I am *not* a propraetor.

As for there not being a removal of imperium, you are wrong. There is
no removal of imperium in your proposal, at least as the Romans
understood it. There is removal of potestas, something *every*
magistrate has.

> Remember, Tribune, I was once a governor myself, so I have that
> experience as well. :)

Would you have liked this kind of proposal then? A proposal that
curtailed *your* potestas? You don't seem to have liked to give up any
piece of that in other, more recent aspects of your private and public
life here in Nova Roma.

> > > > 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."
> >
> > I am afraid to say that you are not answering my question. I will
> put
> > it in different words. Has this "abuse" ever happened? If so, was
> it
> > stopped? If it was stopped, how was it done?
> >
>
> Not really, but why wait for someone to exercise this obvious
> loophole?

So we are legislating on something hypothetical here.

> > And finally, if you have managed to solve this issues "privately"
> > in the past, why is this law needed?
>
> To prevent it from happening in the future, is that not a good enough
> reason? Or are you saying we need to have a governor abuse the
> loopholes in the system before we take action to fix it?

What I am saying is "let our current system work"! Our propraetores are
not strange aliens from other planet that need to be under
surveillance. They have been appointed by the Senate; they are invested
with imperium by the Senate, and they are supposed to count with the
confidence of the Senate. Otherwise, why did the Senate appoint them?

> > > 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.

In a previous response to Pompeia Cornelia Strabo, you said that the
Senate would need too much time to investigate a hypothetical case of
abuse. Now you say that the Senate will be able to immediately respond
to *several* claims of a higher number of provincial assistants.

The two possibilities I can infer from these assumptions are these:

1.- The Senate will *always* concede additional appointments, since to
investigate the actual need or convenience of those appointments would
take a long time. That means that that point in your proposal will not
actually be enforced; it will just result in a waste of time for
everyone, while the propraetors wait for the Senate to stamp its sure
approval.

2.- The Senate will *never* concede additional appointments, since to
investigare the actual need or convenience of those appointments would
take a long time. This will surely be not of the like of many
propraetors, but that's their bad luck. Nothing to do about it.

> > What about encouraging participation? As I see it, provincial
> > governments are a wonderful means to encourage citizen
> > participation.
> > By limiting provincial governments, you are disencouraging
> > participation.
> >
>
> Are you saying that people must be rewarded to be compelled to
> participate? If that is the case then I must agree with the
> respected Senator Q. Fabius Maximus in saying that the Century points
> are taking away from Nova Roma.

Were do you see "compelling to participate" in allowing each propraetor
to decide, in his good conscience and under the scrutiny of the Senate
and other NR magistrates, how many assitants he needs?

> However, let me reiterate my response to Senator Pompeia Cornelia,
> there is no "limiting" provincial governments.
> What we are limiting is the pay in the form of Century Points.

Or, as we could say, you are limiting the way in which we *reward* the
work that some people do for Nova Roma.

> Your logic taken to an extreme would abuse the system, by rewarding
> everyone century points. That IMHO is an abuse and bloats the
Comitia
> Centuriata and is one of the main reasons I have initiated some
> limits.

*Everyone* is awarded century points! You just have to apply for
citizenship and wait. Every year, you get your century points just for
being there! Unless you are the "head" of a gens, of course. In that
way, if you have chosen a good name, you can have many more century
points for doing nothing!

=====
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:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 02:20:12 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Avete Tribune et al,
>
> I expected this, I really did. But it doesn't mean I have to like
> perception of bloating my standing in the Centuries. What
> conceivable purpose would I gain? I am already in the first class.
> It is interesting, that I am in the process of writing my colleague
> about removing this clause specifically from the Law. And, then I
> see this email.
>
> Now, you can obviously find a way to justify saying Lucius Cornelius
> Sulla Felix is trying to bloat the Centuries or you can see the many
> times I have discussed this on the ML and look at my reasons to
> including this, it would hopefully get paters more active by
> recruiting, responding and accepting new members into their gens.
> Remember, this issus has been discussed many many times before on the
> ML.
>
> However, that is probably not going to be the case, so this clause
> will be removed from consideration into the law. I am more than
> willing to allow the Pater/Mater Registration and hopefully the
> Census law to promote more activity on this necessary aspect of Nova
> Roma.

Removing this clause seems an excellent idea to me, dear consul. Sorry
to have anticipated to your own line of thought :-).

=====
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:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:40:49 -0700

Avete Tribune,

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.
>
> --- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > > All that is true. But then, how it comes that so many propraetores
>
> > > are publicly expressing their dislike of this particular point of
> > > your proposal?
> > >
> >
> > Not many have actually.
>
> Do you mean that their concerns are not worth considering because they
>
> are "not that many"?
>

Oh so we are playing word games now, I see. Lets see if I can recall
the criticisms, Pompeia Cornelia has spoken against it, she wants it to
be handled separately. Q. Fabius wants a monetary based, Caeso Fabius,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus and I worked out a feasible plan that kept limits
and allowed an appeal mechanism for additional staff. The rest of the
criticism has come from Legates like yourself and others.

>
> > And those that have either want no limits at all, or want a separate
>
> > lex, or do not understand that there is no removal of Imperium.
>
> I see nothing wrong about having no limits at all, except those
> established by our current constitution; that is, intercessio from
> those magistrates empowered to do so, and removal of propraetorship by
>
> the Senate. I personally feel pretty comfortable with those two
> "security measures", and remember that I am *not* a propraetor.
>
> As for there not being a removal of imperium, you are wrong. There is
> no removal of imperium in your proposal, at least as the Romans
> understood it. There is removal of potestas, something *every*
> magistrate has.
>

Then one day if you become Consul you can author a law to change it.
However, I am trying to be proactive in preventing the possibility of
abuse.

>
> > Remember, Tribune, I was once a governor myself, so I have that
> > experience as well. :)
>
> Would you have liked this kind of proposal then? A proposal that
> curtailed *your* potestas? You don't seem to have liked to give up any
>
> piece of that in other, more recent aspects of your private and public
>
> life here in Nova Roma.
>

Yes I would have no problem with this proposal if it was submitted when
I was governor, especially when there was a way I could request to
increase my staff if I needed it. And, if I am Proconsul of California
next year I would abide by the limits set by law.

>
> > > > > 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."
> > >
> > > I am afraid to say that you are not answering my question. I will
> > put
> > > it in different words. Has this "abuse" ever happened? If so, was
> > it
> > > stopped? If it was stopped, how was it done?
> > >
> >
> > Not really, but why wait for someone to exercise this obvious
> > loophole?
>
> So we are legislating on something hypothetical here.
>

No, we are closing a very open loophole to prevent the possibility of
corruption of the Comitia Centuriata.

>
> > > And finally, if you have managed to solve this issues "privately"
> > > in the past, why is this law needed?
> >
> > To prevent it from happening in the future, is that not a good
> enough
> > reason? Or are you saying we need to have a governor abuse the
> > loopholes in the system before we take action to fix it?
>
> What I am saying is "let our current system work"! Our propraetores
> are
> not strange aliens from other planet that need to be under
> surveillance. They have been appointed by the Senate; they are
> invested
> with imperium by the Senate, and they are supposed to count with the
> confidence of the Senate. Otherwise, why did the Senate appoint them?
>

The system is working. There is nothing in this law that takes away
from them, there is nothing to prevent them from appointing their entire
staff as Legates, the only difference is that after a certain number of
appointments there will be a cap. Why are you so adamant about letting
this loophole continue to exist?


> > What about encouraging participation? As I see it, provincial

> > > governments are a wonderful means to encourage citizen
> > > participation.
> > > By limiting provincial governments, you are disencouraging
> > > participation.
> > >
> >
> > Are you saying that people must be rewarded to be compelled to
> > participate? If that is the case then I must agree with the
> > respected Senator Q. Fabius Maximus in saying that the Century
> points
> > are taking away from Nova Roma.
>
> Were do you see "compelling to participate" in allowing each
> propraetor
> to decide, in his good conscience and under the scrutiny of the Senate
>
> and other NR magistrates, how many assitants he needs?
>

What I am getting from what you are saying that if we do not reward
however many people points to participate they simply wont. I am saying
if that is the case then maybe we should adopt the proposal of Senator
Q. Fabius. Nova Roma is not just about getting reward to participate.
Though I am trying to make it easier for our citizens to increase their
standing in the Comitia Centuriata outside of the two standard paths
(Politics and Religion)

>
> > However, let me reiterate my response to Senator Pompeia Cornelia,
> > there is no "limiting" provincial governments.
> > What we are limiting is the pay in the form of Century Points.
>
> Or, as we could say, you are limiting the way in which we *reward* the
>
> work that some people do for Nova Roma.
>

And restructuring it so that more avenues are available outside of just
the Religious and Political track as a means of increasing your standing
in the Comitia Centuriata.

<SNIP>

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:17:49 -0300 (ART)

Salvete
(commentary intersped)

--- quintuscassiuscalvus <richmal@attbi.com>
escreveu: > Salve,
>
> I have a question:
>
> --- In novaroma@y..., Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
[..]
> > 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)
[..]
>
> 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?

MAIOR: In my interpretation, a paterfamilias will
receive CPs only for new gens members. This is to
stimulate the pater et mater familiares to be more
active, perhaps even "hunting" more citizens. :)
But the wording seems a bit ambiguous. Perhaps a bit
rewording can help.

> Pax,
> Quintus Cassius Calvus

Vale
Marcus Arminius

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Empregos
O trabalho dos seus sonhos pode estar aqui. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo no Yahoo! Empregos e tenha acesso a milhares de vagas abertas!
http://br.empregos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Data from the past
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:24:00 -0300 (ART)

Salvete, et salve Venator

Since i joined Nova Roma, i saved the Album Civium in
my computer every month, since july 2000. Perhaps an
demographic/statistic study can be made. If you (or
everybody else) has older data, please send to me, if
it isnt too difficult.
I remember how was the NR album civium two years ago,
with only 400 cives. So many differences, seems to be
centuries... :)

Vale
Marcus Arminius

--- Piparskeggr - Venator
<catamount_grange@inwave.com> escreveu: > Ave,
> 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


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Empregos
O trabalho dos seus sonhos pode estar aqui. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo no Yahoo! Empregos e tenha acesso a milhares de vagas abertas!
http://br.empregos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[SenatusRomanus] Fwd: Response to Pomepia Cornelia: Re: [novaroma] Proposed Century Point/Civil Service Index Lex
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 02:32:33 -0000

--- In novaroma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Avete Omnes,

Salvete from Pompeia: My Comments to this particular post are under
POMPEIA RESPONDEO II:

I have snipped this for brevity... the immediately following
statement is that of myself:
>
> 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.

POMPEIA RESPONDEO II: No, my imperium isn't being 'removed', I will
give you that. It is just being "diluted"...Either way, Consul, it is
being deviated by what the Senate currently intrusts us with, and is
less effective.
>
> 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 wrote:
>
> 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.

Pompeia: Either way, the system has to take the individual needs of
each provincia into account, as they are not all the same; otherwise
it is unfair and inequitable, does not afford equal opportunity and
representation to each provincia and each citizen. That, honoured
consul, is unconstitutional, as I view it.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.

POMPEIA RESPONDEO II: Honoured Consul...that is what this lex is
doing...policing the governors.....we do not have the good sense to
decide in good faith, by our oath to the Senate Populace of Rome, in
the presence of the Roman Pantheon, to decide what numbers of
assistants we need...so you need to do it for us? With great
respect, many of your governors are in the 35-65 year range...and
past the point of delving into pursuits for petty reasons...please
give us some credit.

(snip)
>
>
> >
> > I do not believe the Propraetors should have to 'apply' to
the Censores
> e
> > 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.

POMPEIA RESPONDEO II: What I was apologizing for was presenting you
with misunderstanding. However, I did write, as you may read above
with respect to my comments on the censores, "something that was
suggested as a built-in safeguard"....that clearly implies that I did
not state it was part of the proposal.
>
Snip....
> >
> > . 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.

POMPEIA RESPONDEO II: No, honoured Consul, I did not. I wrote this
as an offering of two amendments...the inclusion of which, would, in
my view, make this lex less stangulating. If you read my words in
proper context, my numbers were presented theoretically, and not as
carved in stone infallability. This was my intent, this was how it is
presented. I am not lying to you, Pater...this in itself would be
inexcuseable.

I wish you would address my concerns with respect to fairness for
each provincia. Instead, I feel you are playing with my words,
saying that it would take too long to investigate individual
provincia needs (heck it could have been done by now, had I known
this was going to be part of this proposal), and that, basically, the
Senate couldn't be bothered inputting on the potential abuses of a
given Governor at any time. I can site precedents to the contrary,
well atleast one, and I know you can too. So it is not an alien
concept.
>
> 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.

POMPEIA RESPONDEO II: Ahh, let's not go there, ok? :) We have
troubles enough with this !! Pater, I applauded the lex with full
force until this last ditch change, which presents with what I feel
are unfair limitations on governors, based on a stereotypical view of
each province...they are not all alike. In addition, some fear and
distrust of the gubernatorial commitment to Nova Roma.

Magna cum reverentia,
Pompeia Cornelia
Praetor
> 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 ---
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: SenatusRomanus@o...
> Subscribe: SenatusRomanus-subscribe@o...
> Unsubscribe: SenatusRomanus-unsubscribe@o...
> List owner: SenatusRomanus-owner@o...
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/SenatusRomanus
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis More comments to the people
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 02:23:20 EDT

In a message dated 4/22/02 6:19:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
salixastur@yahoo.es writes:


> *Everyone* is awarded century points! You just have to apply for
> citizenship and wait. Every year, you get your century points just for
> being there! Unless you are the "head" of a gens, of course. In that
> way, if you have chosen a good name, you can have many more century
> points for doing nothing!
>
>
Salvete
Hence my comment "points for scatching their noses." Surely by now Romans,
you can see nothing but disagreement will come out this lex. And worse we
have seen this crop up before. Even the illustrious Marcus Minucius Audens
once complained that according to his calculations his points were incorrect!
Instead of worrying about Nova Roma he's worrying about his century points!
I do not even know how many points I have accumulated, it weighs that heavily
on me. Octavius, says 116, so I suppose that's correct. However I do not
know. Nor do I care. I want my auctoritas in my century based on my
service to and knowledge of things of Rome. Not because I have a certain
number of points. Again thank you for listening.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	"cfdflaviusdio" <3s@hsk-net.de>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:42:37 -0000

Salvete Quirites.

My special greetings to the honorable Consul Lucius Cornelius Sulla
and the honorable Tribunus Plebis Cl. Sl. Davianus.

With all respect, mi Consul, I must concur our Tribunus Plebis in this
issue. Retroactive laws are very problematic.

Normally, "negative laws", which cut rights, setting punishments and
fines, are prohibited to be retroactive. "Positive" laws, which grants
rights, or granting benefits, can be retroactive.

The re-calculation of CP´s due to the current law draft, could be
retroactive as far as more CP´s then before are granted for a specific
position or office, but I see no real reason for this. We all earned
our current amount of CP´s, and we will earn more due to the various
reasons for earning CP´s.

I suggest to drop the paragraph about the retroactivity of the law
from the draft.

Practical reasons are speaking in favour to this, too. There will be a
great amount of work for the Censors and their assistants to
recalculate CP´s for all current and previous office holders.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Censor, Senator


--- In novaroma@y..., "Cl. Sl. Davianus" <davius_sanctex@t...> 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.
>
>
> Cl. Sl. Davianus
> ==========
> Tribunus Plebis

Subject:	[novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis: Final considerations
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:51:36 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites.

With your permission, I would like to make a comment on the
considerations I have come out after much discussion on this proposal:

1.- The "leader" of the gentes should not be awarded with century
points for each new citizen that enters their gens. This measure would
not be fair, for it would not necessarily reward work for the Republic.
In some cases it would, and in other cases it wouldn't. We could as
well grant century points to the propraetor of each provincia for each
citizen that enlists in it. This, in fact, could be closer to the truth
in many cases.

Consul Sulla has stated that he will retire this measure from his
proposal. If that is the case, I am done with it, and I will not
comment it any further.

2.- The current proposal includes awards for provincial assistants for
the propraetores. That is a darned good thing; many people have been
working for Nova Roma (and sometimes working very hard) without a
reward in century points. However, that same proposal limits this
reward to a limited number of assitants per propraetor, and that is a
darned bad idea.

Obviously, a propraetor would have a pretty hard time to explain to
poor Gaius why he is not getting any reward in century points for his
provincial work, while his fellow Marcus does get those century points
for roughly the same work. It is not a question of Gaius wanting to
accumulate century points; it is a question of personal relationships,
management and leadership. Anyone who has tried to actually do
*something* at a provincial level understands that such a policy would
not be of great help in keeping the interest of those mistreated
provincial officials.

Besides that, the sole reason for this limit is to avoid abuse. But how
can the propraetores, whose position comes from the Senate, commit
abuse? If a propraetor became crazy and started appointing provincial
officials without justification, he could be easily stopped. Because
both the consules and the tribuni plebis can veto the actions of a
propraetor. And the Senate could retire its appointment *at any time*.

Consul Sulla says that such a measure from the Senate would take too
much time, because a serious investigation would be necessary. However,
consul Sulla assures that the Senate will *not* need much time to
investigate the necessity to expand the limit for a given situation.
This seems pretty strange to me; either the Senate needs time to
investigate provincial affairs, or it doesn't.

In conclusion, I think that this proposal should reward provincial
officials with century points, but should not establish a limit on the
number of provincial officials that can receive those points. Will
there be limits to these appointments? Of course; the consules and/or
the tribuni will establish those limits under specific situations and
as common sense may dictate.

3.- The calculation of century points can *not* be done retroactively.
Let me explain this with an example.

Under the Vedian law, both the consules and the censores are awarded
with the same number of century points, both for current service and
for past service. Under the Sullan proposal, the censores are awarded
more century points. That measure could be open to discussion, but it
would not be unconstitutional all by itself.

Now we come to the retroactive part. Under the Sullan proposal, all
points will be immediately lost, and they will be recalculated under
the new system. That means that a past consul, that currently has
received the same number of century points that a past censor for his
or her service, will see his century points relatively *diminished* in
front of those of a past censor. That is a retroactive law; it is
anticonstitutional.

Let's see it with another example: imagine that, in Spain, a new
monetary system was implemented (that has happened recently). Imagine
that this monetary change is coupled with a change in salaries (that
has, to a lesser extent, happened as well). And now imagine that a
politician came and said to the Spanish people: "We have a new system
now. So we are going to recalculate everything under the new system.
Your bank accounts will disappear, and you will have a new bank account
that will have in it the money calculated in the new system, and
considering your past work *under the new salarial conditions*." That,
obviously, has not happened. It would be a retroactive law, it would be
unconstitutional in Spain, and it would ignite dire protests.

Please consider that what happens to consules and censores is just an
example. You can extend this reasoning to *all* the ways in which,
under the Vedian law, one could receive century points.

So, what can we do to avoid retroactivity? It is very simple. We have
to establish a fixed ratio between new and old century points (some
have suggested 4.8 new century points=1 old century point). And then we
have to exchange current century points to the new system, *without*
recalculating those points. *Future* century points can be calculated
normally, as per the Sullan proposal.

This would allow this new proposal to avoid retroactivity. Only under
those circumstances can this proposal be considered constitutional.

=====
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:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 07:43:16 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Censor,

> The re-calculation of CP´s due to the current law draft, could be
> retroactive as far as more CP´s then before are granted for a specific
> position or office, but I see no real reason for this. We all earned
> our current amount of CP´s, and we will earn more due to the various
> reasons for earning CP´s.

I had asked that this provision be included in the current proposal, for
it is much more difficult to calculate the other way. For ease of
calculation, each office should have one value associated with it - having
multiple values, depending on when the office is held, considerably
increases the difficulty of calculating the point awards.

This is also true of the plans to award points for all gens members
gained, regardless of when they started. My colleague did not want that
to be part of the proposal, but I asked him to put it in, as it greatly
simplifies the calculations - paterfamilias points would be a simple
multiplication operation, one line of code; versus an additional
database query and series of date comparision operations that would have
to be done for each gens member.

> I suggest to drop the paragraph about the retroactivity of the law
> from the draft.

It must remain. I don't have time to code for such a bizarre and
complicated system as would result from a law where the same events
have different values, depending on when they took place.

> Practical reasons are speaking in favour to this, too. There will be a
> great amount of work for the Censors and their assistants to
> recalculate CP´s for all current and previous office holders.

I have been calculating the century points for the past two years. I
can therefore say that any system where past events and future events
have different values is much more difficult than that proposal which
is currently before us.

I will continue to provide this service, but not if a bizarre and
convoluted system is mandated.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[novaroma] A Means, not an end
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:37:20 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Quirites,

I Would like to remind you of Section II E 2 of our
Constitution.

"There shall exist one hundred and ninety-three
centuries, into which the censors shall divide all of
the citizens. The exact composition of these centuries
shall be determined by law passed by the comitia
centuriata, but shall be weighted in favor of those
citizens who have shown the greatest commitment to
Nova Roma."

These points are nothing more than the tool the
Censors use to assign civies to a Century, they are a
MEANS, not an end in themselves.

They aren't some kind of award like a civic crown,
they are just a damn tool for the Censors. They are
meaningless untill it's time to realign the Centuries,
and even then it dosen't nmatter if your total is off
by a few points unless you are right on the borderline
between classes.

The argument over "Retroactive" points is absurd. It's
not a matter of "retroactivatly awarding" points, it's
a matter of using the same standard for all citizens
when it's time to realign the centuries. Remember we
are trying to measure "commitment to Nova Roma" and
retaining the old lower numbers for service before
this lex passes ammounts to telling citizens that
thier commitment was less because they served last
year instead of this year. This ammounts to
discrimination based on time of service. Let's drop
this retroactive nonsense and call it a single
standard that applies to all former officeholders
without discrimanation based on time of service.

Valete
L. Sicinius Drusus



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A Means, not an end
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:58:22 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
Salve,

> The argument over "Retroactive" points is absurd. It's
> not a matter of "retroactivatly awarding" points, it's
> a matter of using the same standard for all citizens
> when it's time to realign the centuries.

Exactly. It's like saying that nothing that existed before 1799
should be measured in meters, because meters didn't exist then.

Vale, O.

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Century Points
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:38:15 -0700

Avete Omnes,

Citizens I hereby withdraw the attempt of promulgation of the Century Points law. The law would change the fact that provincial administrators, who currently do not get "paid" would now get century points. However, in an effort to prevent abuse a limit (cap) was added. This limit would not limit governors from going above and beyond....but it would limit the amount of rewards given to prevent inflating the Comitia Centuriata. As a result of all the criticism, I hereby withdraw the law from consideration. Provincial administration will still currently not be rewarded for work and effort given to the Respublica.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:16:33 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Octavi.

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> > I suggest to drop the paragraph about the retroactivity of the law
> > from the draft.
>
> It must remain. I don't have time to code for such a bizarre and
> complicated system as would result from a law where the same events
> have different values, depending on when they took place.

No bizarre or complicated system. A simple conversion, that must be
done just once and for all. If we simply change our current points for
the new points on a fixed ratio, there is no additional complexity. In
fact, it would be simpler than the current proposal.

=====
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:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@telia.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:27:03 +0200

Salve Illustrus Junior Consul et Quirites!

> >
>> Do you mean that their concerns are not worth considering because they
>>
>> are "not that many"?
>>
>
>Oh so we are playing word games now, I see. Lets see if I can recall
>the criticisms, Pompeia Cornelia has spoken against it, she wants it to
>be handled separately. Q. Fabius wants a monetary based, Caeso Fabius,
>Lucius Sicinius Drusus and I worked out a feasible plan that kept limits
>and allowed an appeal mechanism for additional staff. The rest of the
>criticism has come from Legates like yourself and others.

I am sorry dear Consul. When we started to discuss privately I got
the impression that "everyone" supported the "limits". Your daughter
Illustrus Pompeia Cornelia Strabo told the Governors before we (You
and me) had our discussion, not to worry as there maybe wouldn't be
anything controversial in the proposal. Now both Illustrus Pompeia
Cornelia Strabo and I have found out there are limit for both
Governors and Magistrati. I was and a´m against limits, but I tried
to get the lesser evil in our compromise. In principle I prefer to
let both Magistrati and Governors use their own judgement when they
appoint assistants.

As the basis for our compromise, that I was alone, seems to be wrong,
I have decided to ask You for the removal of all limits with the
proposed Lex, with the same arguments as Illustrus Pompeia Cornelia
Strabo and Illustrus Gnaeus Salix Astur.
--

Vale

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

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A Means, not an end
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:26:18 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Octavi.

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> Salve,
>
> > The argument over "Retroactive" points is absurd. It's
> > not a matter of "retroactivatly awarding" points, it's
> > a matter of using the same standard for all citizens
> > when it's time to realign the centuries.
>
> Exactly. It's like saying that nothing that existed before 1799
> should be measured in meters, because meters didn't exist then.

Not at all.

What the current proposal amounts to is to actually change *the initial
measurements*.

What I am proposing is to translate what was measured before this
proposal for a fixed rate. What I am proposing is to actually *make a
conversion*, instead of measuring again.

=====
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:	Re: [novaroma] RE: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	tiberius.ann@bluemail.ch
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:13:04 +0200

>Ave

Salve

>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.

OK, but there is no position within the heading PROVINCIAL MAGISTRATES which
designates scribes. They are only listed in the MAGISTRATES ORDINARII section.
Does that mean, that each procince has to add up all the scribes of each
region and then has a limit of 6, or is there the same limit of 6 scribes
for each region?

>> 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.

You're welcome!

>> 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.

Again, you're welcome. I like it like that, when close reading comes to
some benefit.

Curate ut valeatis, Tiberius Annaeus Otho

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:59:09 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis


Salve Illustrus Junior Consul et Quirites!

> >
>> Do you mean that their concerns are not worth considering because they
>>
>> are "not that many"?
>>
>
>Oh so we are playing word games now, I see. Lets see if I can recall
>the criticisms, Pompeia Cornelia has spoken against it, she wants it to
>be handled separately. Q. Fabius wants a monetary based, Caeso Fabius,
>Lucius Sicinius Drusus and I worked out a feasible plan that kept limits
>and allowed an appeal mechanism for additional staff. The rest of the
>criticism has come from Legates like yourself and others.

I am sorry dear Consul. When we started to discuss privately I got
the impression that "everyone" supported the "limits". Your daughter
Illustrus Pompeia Cornelia Strabo told the Governors before we (You
and me) had our discussion, not to worry as there maybe wouldn't be
anything controversial in the proposal.

Sulla: I still dont see it as controversial. This is how I am looking at it, currently provincial staff get very little to no pay, as well as various other modes of participation within Nova Roma. I wrote a plan that would:

1. Increase the field where citizens can get paid (by giving points to Sodalitas, provincial administration, etc)
2. Protect the Structure of the Comitia Centuriata by preventing the possibility of abuse.

There is ample give, and there is protection. What happens? Various governors feel I am taking away, diminishing or diluting their Imperium. Sorry, that is not the case. There is nothing in the law to prevent you or any other governor from appointing your entire staff NOW as Legates...nor is there anything in the proposed law, that has been withdrawn, from doing the exact same thing. If anything this law strengthens your ability to recruit more staff as they would now get Century Points. But, the law has been withdrawn, your staff and the staff of every other governor will still continue to serve without Century Points.

Now both Illustrus Pompeia
Cornelia Strabo and I have found out there are limit for both
Governors and Magistrati. I was and a´m against limits, but I tried
to get the lesser evil in our compromise. In principle I prefer to
let both Magistrati and Governors use their own judgement when they
appoint assistants.

Sulla: Of course your against limits, Propraetor, your provincia has utilized the most titles and stands the best chance of getting of bloating the Comitia Centuriata. Now, I am not saying that is what you intend to do. But that is a preception. So, without micromanaging the governors, it would be easiest to limit the "pay" that can be doled out. This way the structure of the Comitia Centurata can be easily maintained.
As the basis for our compromise, that I was alone, seems to be wrong,
I have decided to ask You for the removal of all limits with the
proposed Lex, with the same arguments as Illustrus Pompeia Cornelia
Strabo and Illustrus Gnaeus Salix Astur.

Sulla: I am sorry, I am not willing to remove the limits, I would rather remove the law from consideration than to open up the Comitia Centuriata to possible abuse.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

--

Vale

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

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A Means, not an end
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:19:39 -0700 (PDT)

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@yahoo.es> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Octavi.
>
> --- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > > The argument over "Retroactive" points is
> absurd. It's
> > > not a matter of "retroactivatly awarding"
> points, it's
> > > a matter of using the same standard for all
> citizens
> > > when it's time to realign the centuries.
> >
> > Exactly. It's like saying that nothing that
> existed before 1799
> > should be measured in meters, because meters
> didn't exist then.
>
> Not at all.
>
> What the current proposal amounts to is to actually
> change *the initial
> measurements*.
>
> What I am proposing is to translate what was
> measured before this
> proposal for a fixed rate. What I am proposing is to
> actually *make a
> conversion*, instead of measuring again.
>
> =====
> 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.
>
Some offices recieve zero points under the present
leges and would have recieved points under the new
lex.

Any conversion factor times the zero points results in
zero points. This means former office holders who now
get no credit would be treated doifferently than
people who hold the exact same office at a later date.

Is there a differance in their commitment to Nova Roma
different because they served before or after a given
date? The only purpose of the points is to measure
"commitment" in order to set up the centuries.

For offices that recieve points under both the new and
old leges there is no single number that will give
equal results for all offices, meaning that citizens
would be treated differently depending on the date of
service and the office held.

The Error was using the term retroactive rather than
simply repealling the old leges, abolishing the old
points and setting a new standard that applies equaly
to all citizens without discrimanation based on dates
of service.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de suffragiis tribuendis
From:	Matt Haase <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:10:49 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Tribune,

> No bizarre or complicated system. A simple conversion, that must be
> done just once and for all. If we simply change our current points for
> the new points on a fixed ratio, there is no additional complexity. In
> fact, it would be simpler than the current proposal.

It would not be simpler. The current century-point calculator always
recalculates from nothing; it begins at zero, then iterates through the
list of pointworthy events, past and present, until the total is arrived
at.

If there was an effort to preserve "old points" and have them different
than new points, this would require considerable changes. There would
have to be an "old points" field added to the citizen database. Some
method would have to be created to edit the "old points" to fix errors
(unless we are to assume that there are no errors in our records). The
feature that iterates through the list of events/offices to show how the
total was derived at would no longer be accurate (or, it would have to
be made to look in two different places to gather the information).

Having the same point values for an event/office, regardless of when
it happened, is much simpler. I would simply put different numbers
in the "present_value" and "past_value" columns in the magistracies
table, then issue the command "./edit all", and a few minutes later
everyone would have their points recalculated. The bizarre and
inequitable systems that have been demanded as an alternative would
require hours of work.

Vale, O.


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

Subject:	[novaroma] No Century Points
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@telia.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:57:00 +0200

Salve Illustrus Junior Consul!

I am sad that this happened. As I was taught to work with politics it
consists of a lot of compromise, struggle and maneuvering. I think
that You may have had to give up the limits and maybe the Mater/Mater
points, but not the whole proposal. I think that You and your
assistants had done a good job, even thought I never really
understood why we had to have a totally new system. You could have
got through at least 85% of the proposal, I am surprised that You
gave up. I am also disappointed that You gave me the impression that
I was alone in my criticism.

Still that is part of the game that is called politics. This was a
game that our forefathers were especially skilled in playing. They
could play this game hard, but they sometimes also could remain
friends. You lost this time and our compromise didn't hold, still I
would give it a try over and over again. You loose some and You win
some! From my side there are no hard feelings!

I will surely support other of your proposals all the way if they are
presented to me with no hidden cards. Good luck in the reminding part
of your term!

>Avete Omnes,
>
>Citizens I hereby withdraw the attempt of promulgation of the
>Century Points law. The law would change the fact that provincial
>administrators, who currently do not get "paid" would now get
>century points. However, in an effort to prevent abuse a limit
>(cap) was added. This limit would not limit governors from going
>above and beyond....but it would limit the amount of rewards given
>to prevent inflating the Comitia Centuriata. As a result of all the
>criticism, I hereby withdraw the law from consideration. Provincial
>administration will still currently not be rewarded for work and
>effort given to the Respublica.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>Consul
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


--
Vale

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

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] No Century Points
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:13:10 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: [novaroma] No Century Points


Salve Illustrus Junior Consul!

Avete Propraetor,

I am sad that this happened. As I was taught to work with politics it
consists of a lot of compromise, struggle and maneuvering.

Yes, that is very true, you and I have gone through that in this endeavor.


I think
that You may have had to give up the limits and maybe the Mater/Mater
points, but not the whole proposal.

I had no problem removing the points for Mater/Pater points. There are other methods in place to at least promote activity (gens/pater registration, and hopefully the Census law), this would just be additional incentive.

I think that You and your
assistants had done a good job, even thought I never really
understood why we had to have a totally new system.

I explained that in my introductory post. The Lex Vedia is outdated. And, with the suggestion I got with Marcus Arminius, him and I prepared a total revamp given the proliferation of new positions that are available to our citizens. It was also recommended that we increase the "scale" by which Century points are given. And, also in the past couple of years there have been complaints about calling it century points. I tried to fix that as well by calling it Civil Service, since this is what we are all doing.

You could have
got through at least 85% of the proposal, I am surprised that You
gave up.

Sure, I could have gone through about 85% of the proposal, but that still leaves 15% that still needs to be completed. But I wont promulgate an incomplete law. No, I wont promulgate an incomplete law, as I stated before, I am already in the first class, this law does not benefit those of us in higher classes, this law benefits those in the lower classes. You governors and Legates who felt this law was unfair, have prevented it from being promulgated. Those newer citizens, those members of sodalitas, those members of provincal governments who will have to continue getting 0 points for service will need to fix the blame at the Tribunes, Governors and others who felt their power was being diminished by implementing moderate protections for the Comitia Centuriata.

I am also disappointed that You gave me the impression that
I was alone in my criticism.

I have never given you the impression that you are alone with your criticism. I have stated that limits have been recommended by a number of citizens to me privately. Just as I have gotten a number of emails from citizens expressing displeasure at the removal of the law from consideration.

Still that is part of the game that is called politics. This was a
game that our forefathers were especially skilled in playing. They
could play this game hard, but they sometimes also could remain
friends. You lost this time and our compromise didn't hold, still I
would give it a try over and over again. You loose some and You win
some! From my side there are no hard feelings!

Its not a matter of winning or losing. I would receive no additional benefit from the passage of this law. This law would have allowed more opportunity for citizens to climb up the Comitia Centurata. You and I had a compromise and you backed out of it. It happens, but remember the losers of this law being pulled are not myself, it is your staff, members of Sodalitas, and many other positions that would have been rewarded but now will not.

I will surely support other of your proposals all the way if they are
presented to me with no hidden cards. Good luck in the reminding part
of your term!

All of my proposals have been upfront with nothing hidden.
Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


>Avete Omnes,
>
>Citizens I hereby withdraw the attempt of promulgation of the
>Century Points law. The law would change the fact that provincial
>administrators, who currently do not get "paid" would now get
>century points. However, in an effort to prevent abuse a limit
>(cap) was added. This limit would not limit governors from going
>above and beyond....but it would limit the amount of rewards given
>to prevent inflating the Comitia Centuriata. As a result of all the
>criticism, I hereby withdraw the law from consideration. Provincial
>administration will still currently not be rewarded for work and
>effort given to the Respublica.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>Consul
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


--
Vale

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

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Century Points lex.
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:04:41 EDT

In a message dated 4/23/02 9:01:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:


> Citizens I hereby withdraw the attempt of promulgation of the Century Points
> law. The law would change the fact that provincial administrators, who
> currently do not get "paid" would now get century points.
Salvete
I want to thank publically the consul for his sensitivity to the peoples'
wishes.
To all those citizens who wrote me privately to express their support, while
I do appreciate it,
I would prefer next time if you addressed the main list as well.
While I have sympathy with those provincial praetors who claim they can't get
good help without the CP rewards, I have to disagree with your methodology,
you are not trying hard enough. People will work for a cause they believe
in, it is up to you to motivate them.
Look at Thule and my kinsman Fabius. He has a large staff, and they get very
few CPs.
Why? Because he motivates them to carry out their tasks without it.
I'd like to see our class system based on monetary contributions to the
Republic, as well as work within the cursus honorum. To those dissenters who
say "we can't get qualified people to become Provincial Praetors, there is no
incentive" I say nonsense. A dedicated Provincial Praetor can eventually
become a Senator, enter the honorum as a Consular or Praetoral candidate,
build his citizen recognition base to further his ambition, if he wishes a
career here in politics. And even if he doesn't, doing a good job as praetor
will be a reward for its own sake.
The Consules have requested that I look into money contributions (not even
large amounts) to drive our class system. This only means for non cursus
honorum citizens. The reward schedule (Vedian Lex) will remain for those
members. My thought is you could "buy" influence in the assemblies by class
upgrades, but you could not buy political offices. That will still be up to
the people to decide. I intend to look into this and report back my
findings.
Thank you all for your support.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A Means, not an end
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:02:36 -0300 (ART)

Salvete

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@yahoo.es>
escreveu: > Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Octavi.
[..]
> What the current proposal amounts to is to actually
> change *the initial
> measurements*.
>
> What I am proposing is to translate what was
> measured before this
> proposal for a fixed rate. What I am proposing is to
> actually *make a
> conversion*, instead of measuring again.

MAIOR: I fear that im not understanding your
suggestion. Now,under the Lex Vedia Centuriata, a
Censor,Consul or Praetor receives 20 CPs, and when his
office expires, this amount is reduced to 10 CPs
(20/10 CPs).
In the Lex Cornelia, the Consul will receive 100/50
CPs, the Praetor 80/40 CPs, and the Censor 120/60 CPs.
Seems to be fair,since the office of Consul is more
important than the of Praetor, and the office of
Censor implies in two years of work.
And with your proposal?

> Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Tribunus Plebis

Vale
Marcus Arminius

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Empregos
O trabalho dos seus sonhos pode estar aqui. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo no Yahoo! Empregos e tenha acesso a milhares de vagas abertas!
http://br.empregos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Century Points lex.
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:18:05 -0000

--- In novaroma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/23/02 9:01:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> alexious@e... writes:
>
>
> > Citizens I hereby withdraw the attempt of promulgation of the
Century Points
> > law. The law would change the fact that provincial
administrators, who
> > currently do not get "paid" would now get century points.


> Salvete
> I want to thank publically the consul for his sensitivity to the
peoples'
> wishes.
> To all those citizens who wrote me privately to express their
support, while
> I do appreciate it,
> I would prefer next time if you addressed the main list as well.

Pompeia: Indeed? While I understand that you are a Proconsul and
all, I am unclear as to exactly what they were giving you support
for? That you didn't care for the Century Lex? Your statements
about your performance appraisal of Nova Roma's governors? The money
bit? Would you care to expand on this Proconsul Fabi? I didn't
realize we had so many bashful citizens in Nova Roma.

> While I have sympathy with those provincial praetors who claim they
can't get
> good help without the CP rewards, I have to disagree with your
methodology,
> you are not trying hard enough. People will work for a cause they
believe
> in, it is up to you to motivate them.

Pompeia: As a Propraetor I'll take this in a constructive fashion.
You are more than welcome to post your suggestions here or on the
governors' lists, regarding how we can bring our perfomances 'up to
snuff'. Judging by your ability to appraise your colleagues, I am
sure you are an awesome, multi-accomplished governor. I look forward
to reading your report to the Senate this fall.



> Look at Thule and my kinsman Fabius. He has a large staff, and
they get very
> few CPs.
> Why? Because he motivates them to carry out their tasks without
it.


Pompeia: Yes he does indeed. He is without a doubt, a multi-
accomplished, awesome governor. He is also honest, above board,
quick to clear up misunderstandings, cooperates with people, and puts
his own ego behind him in pursuit of what he truly believes in...the
growth of his provincia and of Nova Roma.

> I'd like to see our class system based on monetary contributions to
the
> Republic, as well as work within the cursus honorum. To those
dissenters who
> say "we can't get qualified people to become Provincial Praetors,
there is no
> incentive" I say nonsense. A dedicated Provincial Praetor can
eventually
> become a Senator, enter the honorum as a Consular or Praetoral
candidate,
> build his citizen recognition base to further his ambition, if he
wishes a
> career here in politics. And even if he doesn't, doing a good job
as praetor
> will be a reward for its own sake.
> The Consules have requested that I look into money contributions
(not even
> large amounts) to drive our class system. This only means for non
cursus
> honorum citizens. The reward schedule (Vedian Lex) will remain for
those
> members. My thought is you could "buy" influence in the assemblies
by class
> upgrades, but you could not buy political offices. That will still
be up to
> the people to decide. I intend to look into this and report back
my
> findings.

Pompeia: Now this should prove to be extremely interesting. Just
to remind you, the discussions regarding objections to the proposal
which has just been removed, was not about century points as it was
the dilution of the governors' abilities to do their work.

I can well imagine the torrid discussions 'paying for prestige' will
involve. Time will tell. Yes, it is unfortunate that those who
wrote you privately are too bashful to explain their feelings on the
mainlist so we could all be in better focus on exactly what it is
they want.

There are mailboxes with extra storage you can buy, to help you with
these large influxes of mail.

Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia
> Thank you all for your support.
>
> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] ATTN (Religio Romana): ante diem IX Kalendas Mai (April 23rd)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <antonio.grilo@inov.pt>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:40:59 +0100

PONTIFEX ANTONIVS GRYLLVS GRAECVS OMNIBVS CIVIBVS SALVTEM

This is a dies fastus (F), a day on which legal action and public business
can take place.

This is the Vinalia Priora, the first of two Festivals of Wine (the other
being the Vinalia Rustica on August 19). This festival was sacred to Jupiter
[Varro, De Lingua Latina, 6.16], but (later?) Venus was also honoured. On
this day the Flamen Dialis libated the first jars of wine ('calpar') from
the previous year to Jupiter; only then the wine could be sampled by men
[Plinius, Naturalis Historia, 18.287].

Today is the birthday of the temple of Venus Erucina, located outside the
Colline Gate. Venus is the protectress of prostitutes, and the women that
carried out this activity in the city of Rome did not fail to honour the
goddess on this day [Ovidius, Fasti, IV.865-866]. The temple was dedicated
in 181 BC. Incense, myrtle, mint and roses are offerings that please the
goddess [Ovidius, Fasti, IV.863-872].

Di vos bene ament

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Century Points lex.
From:	Valerian75@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:25:31 EDT

Salvete!

Q. Fabius Maximus has made a good point in his last post! Since it is
Volunteer Appreciation Week, I would like to extend a "thank you" to all of
the citizens who have worked hard to make Nova Roma what it is and continue
to work to do so. Your work has not gone unnoticed and your time and efforts
are much appreciated. May the Gods smile upon each of you!

Valete,
Lucia Ambrosia Valeria
Valerian75@aol.com
AIM: LuciaAmbrosVal



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

Subject:	[novaroma] Bienvenida Verina Furia Pigra. Welcome Sp./Eng./Latin
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?Daniel=20O.=20Villanueva?=" <danielovi@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:20:36 -0500 (CDT)

Salve (Español-Spanish-Hispanice)

Bienvenida ciudadana novaromana argentina Verina Furia Pigra. Sos la segunda mujer entre los ciudadanos novaromanos argentinos.Para tu información te invito a que visites la página provincial oficial provincial : http://argentina.novaroma.org. Y te invito a que te suscribas a la lista provincial : http://ar.groups.yahoo.com/group/NR_Argentina/ o mediante la siguiente dirección de email : NR_Argentina-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com.ar .

Vale bene

Lucius Pompeius Octavianus

Propraetor provincialis Argentinæ



Salve (English-Anglice-Inglés)

Welcome novaroman citizen of provincia Argentina Verina Furia Pigra. You are the second woman among our provincial novaroman citizens.For your information : the official provincial website is located at : http://argentina.novaroma.org .Provincial mailing list : http://ar.groups.yahoo.com/group/NR_Argentina/ or NR_Argentina-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com.ar

Vale bene

Lucius Pompeius Octavianus

Propraetor provincialis Argentinæ



Salve (Latín-Latin-Latine)

Maximo gaudio te accipio novissima civis provincialis Argentinæ Verina Furia Pigra. Secunda femina civium provincialium es. Quaeso vide hanc paginam electronicam provinciæ Argentinæ : http://argentina.novaroma.org et indicem cursualis provincialis http://ar.groups.yahoo.com/group/NR_Argentina/ vel NR_Argentina-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com.ar

Vale bene

Lucius Pompeius Octavianus

Propraetor provincialis Argentinæ


http://ar.geocities.com/danielovi
http://www.astrored.net/danielovi


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, América Latina y el resto del Mundo.
Visíta Yahoo! Noticias.


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Century Points law
From:	Terry Wilson <pudens656@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:40:37 -0700 (PDT)

Avete,

I have followed the debate on the now-withdrawn law with great interest. Because I have been a citizen for only a short time I have refrained from taking part in it, prefering to let wiser heads prevail. But when I read suggestions such as that put forth by Q. Fabius Maximus I regret that I did not participate while my opinion could have accomplished some good.

The noble Maximus proposes (quite unabashedly) that citizens be able to buy influence in the centuries with monetary contributions. This is a repugnant idea. For what purpose does he propose it? Is the Republic in such dire need of money that it must stoop to influence peddling to fill its treasury?

The noble Maximus opposed the proposed law as it was put forward, saying that "people will work for a cause they believe in," it is just up to the propraetors to motivate them. Why reward their hard work with century points? I say in return, people will contribute their money to a cause they believe in, you (Maximus and others in powerful positions) just have to motivate them. If financial need is not the motive behind the proposal, what is then?

I have little power to oppose such a scheme, or to prevent it from becoming part of the fabric of Nova Roma. If such a wrong-headed proposal is ever grafted into the political or social system of the republic, I will pack my bags and flee to the barbarians, whose system is at least honestly corrupt, and not cloaked with a show of public virtue.

If the republic is in desperate need of money, then make a public call for sacrificial giving on the part of devoted citizens. Don't even begin to consider the sale of influence, in whatever form it might take. Once we begin a journey down that road, the fabric of Nova Roma I referred to will begin to unravel.

Respectfully,

Gaius Cornelius Pudens



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more

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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Century Points
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 19:52:31 -0300 (ART)

Salvete Quirites

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
escreveu: > Avete Omnes,
>
> Citizens I hereby withdraw the attempt of
> promulgation of the Century Points law. The law
> would change the fact that provincial
> administrators, who currently do not get "paid"
> would now get century points. However, in an effort
> to prevent abuse a limit (cap) was added.
[..]

MAIOR: It seems that the main problem here is to
decide if there was to be a limit in the number of
provincial offices. My suggestion is that we left to
the Senate of Nova Roma to decide, and cut this
"gordian knot".

> Respectfully,
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul

Vale
Marcus Arminius

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Empregos
O trabalho dos seus sonhos pode estar aqui. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo no Yahoo! Empregos e tenha acesso a milhares de vagas abertas!
http://br.empregos.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Century Points
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:00:12 -0700

Ave,

It was left to the Senate, the clause was suggested and immediately added per the request of Propraetor Lucius Sicinius Drusus before the lex was published to the People. The Senate could have expanded or even shortened the limits on an as needed basis. Our governors felt that was not good enough and wanted either no limit at all, or agreed to the compromise and then backed out, or wanted this issue handled separately in another lex. I cannot in good conscious allow a loophole like that to exist when I am expanding more opportunities for citizens to gain additional points. It is better, in my opinion that the law simply not be promulgated than to allow an additional possibility for abuse to become a factor.

Very Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul

----- Original Message -----
From: M Arminius Maior
To: novaroma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Century Points


Salvete Quirites

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
escreveu: > Avete Omnes,
>
> Citizens I hereby withdraw the attempt of
> promulgation of the Century Points law. The law
> would change the fact that provincial
> administrators, who currently do not get "paid"
> would now get century points. However, in an effort
> to prevent abuse a limit (cap) was added.
[..]

MAIOR: It seems that the main problem here is to
decide if there was to be a limit in the number of
provincial offices. My suggestion is that we left to
the Senate of Nova Roma to decide, and cut this
"gordian knot".

> Respectfully,
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul

Vale
Marcus Arminius

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Empregos
O trabalho dos seus sonhos pode estar aqui. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo no Yahoo! Empregos e tenha acesso a milhares de vagas abertas!
http://br.empregos.yahoo.com/

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] A Means, not an end
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	23 Apr 2002 20:44:07 -0300

Em Ter, 2002-04-23 às 17:02, M Arminius Maior escreveu:
> Salvete
>
> --- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@yahoo.es>
> escreveu: > Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Octavi.
> [..]
> > What the current proposal amounts to is to actually
> > change *the initial
> > measurements*.
> >
> > What I am proposing is to translate what was
> > measured before this
> > proposal for a fixed rate. What I am proposing is to
> > actually *make a
> > conversion*, instead of measuring again.
>
> MAIOR: I fear that im not understanding your
> suggestion. Now,under the Lex Vedia Centuriata, a
> Censor,Consul or Praetor receives 20 CPs, and when his
> office expires, this amount is reduced to 10 CPs
> (20/10 CPs).
> In the Lex Cornelia, the Consul will receive 100/50
> CPs, the Praetor 80/40 CPs, and the Censor 120/60 CPs.
> Seems to be fair,since the office of Consul is more
> important than the of Praetor, and the office of
> Censor implies in two years of work.
> And with your proposal?
>


The consuls,praetors and censors of 2002 will get exactly the same as
you just said: 100,80 and 120 this year and stay with 50,40 and 60 in
2003.

But the consul of 2000 will get the same number of points as the Censor
of 2000 and the Praetor of 2000, since when they were elected they
expected to gain the same number of CPs, it will also be the same number
of CSIs, through the exange rate I calculated it could be 48CSIs each
(could be made 50CSIs to ease calculations).


Manius Villius Limitanus


> > Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> > Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> > Tribunus Plebis
>
> Vale
> Marcus Arminius
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Empregos
> O trabalho dos seus sonhos pode estar aqui. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo no Yahoo! Empregos e tenha acesso a milhares de vagas abertas!
> http://br.empregos.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] FLOREALES LUDI CIRCENSES - Subscriptions
From:	"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <sacro_barese_impero@libero.it>
Date:	Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:03:07 +0200

Franciscus Apulus Caesar Omnibus S.P.D.

I'm very displeased to make a break to our discussion about the Lex Cornelia
by a less important content.
But I'm sure that you'll love what I'm announcing. ;-)

I'm proud to Announce the Opening of the Subscription of the

<< FLOREALES LUDI CIRCENSES II ed. >>

The Cohors Aedilis Caeso Fabius Quintilianus organizes the second tourn of
our chariot races, the annual virtual championship. I'm happy to say you
that we have updated the Ludi with new features and rules and we are sure
you like their.
The regulations of the Ludi Circenses are at
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/floreales/chariotraces.htm.
Every player have to send own subscription to piteas@jazzfiesta.com [Gnaeus
Salix Galaicus] with the subject "Ludi Circensis", within the following
informations:
*His/her name in Nova Roma
*The name of his/her driver
*The name of his/her chariot
*His/her tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals (see point 2)
*His/her tactics for the Finals (see point 2)
*The name of his/her "factio" or team (green, red, blue or white)

The subscriptions must be sent before APRIL 30, 2002. Every player only will
send one chariot.
Six (6) new race tactics are possible:
1) To hurry in the last laps
2) To pass the curves closely the "spina" of the circus.
3) To support a constant pace
4) To lash the rivals
5) To push the rivals to the wall of the circus
6) To hurry in the straight lines

Each player have the possibility to change his/her tactics if he/she runs in
the Final. He/she can send a tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals and a
tactics for the Final race.

---- TIME SCHEDULE ----
*April 23, 2002: Announcement of the races' instructions and opening of the
inscriptions (a maximum of 32 players)
*April 30: Deadline for the inscriptions
*2nd May:
h. 9:00 AM (time of Rome): Announcement by C.Fabius Quintilianus and start
of the first turn of races.
h. 3:00 PM: Announcement of the winners of the first turn and summary of the
races. Start Semifinals
h. 7:00 PM: Announcement of the winners of the semifinals and summary of the
races. Start Final
h. 9:30 PM: Announcement of the winner history of the race.

The Winner of the Final will be the Winner of the 1st Ludi Circensis and
will publish on the Ludi Florales Website
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/floreales and in the Main
Mailing List of Nova Roma at 2nd May, 2002.
There will other races during the Ludi of the 2755. The best 4 runners of
the year will run in the Final Chariot Race in November.

Citizens, this is the opportunity for win, for destroy your brothers like
Romulus and Remus, to speed like the wind, to revenge your defeat in
Megalesia Ludi.
Please, subcribe your chariot and show us how many you're Roman. :-X

Informations:
- Cohors Aedilis Website - Section Ludi:
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/floreales
- Scriba Aedilis Cursus Equorum Curulis Aedilis Gnaeus Salix Galaicus:
piteas@jazzfiesta.com
- Quaestor Franciscus Apulus Caesar: sacro_barese_impero@libero.it

Valete
Franciscus Apulus Caesar
-------------------------------------------
Propraetor Provinciae Italiae
Quaestor Aedilis C. Fabius Quintilianus
Scriba Curatoris Araneum
-------------------------------------------
Provincia Italia - http://italia.novaroma.org
Paterfamilias Gens Apula - www.gensapula.too.it
Cohors Aedilis C. Fabius Quintilianus -
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis
Web Nova Roman Experiments - http://lab.novaroma.org/wnre

Subject:	[novaroma] FLOREALES FASHION AWARD - 3 days
From:	"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <sacro_barese_impero@libero.it>
Date:	Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:40:11 +0200

Franciscus Apulus Caesar Omnibus S.P.D.

I remember you that the subscriptions to the FLOREALES FASHION AWARD are
open. The deadline is April 27.

The Florales Fashion Award is the first contest of cloath in Nova Roma,
organized by the Cohors Aedilis Caeso Fabius Quintilianus.
The regulations are at
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/floreales/award.htm
The Award is open to single participants or to groups composed by a maximum
of 5 citizens. Each participant or group of participants can participate
with just _one_ collection (picture) of cloths. It isn't allowed to be a
member of a group and participate as a individual at the same time. The
participants must to send their picture of the contributed cloths in JPG,
GIF, TIFF or BMP.
Each collection must have the following facts about the participant(s): Nova
Roman name, real name, Nova Roman Province age, e-mail address.
The deadline to send own picture is April 27, 2002 (2755 a.u.c.), by e-mail
to sacro_barese_impero@libero.it [Franciscus Apulus Caesar] with the subject
"Fashion Award".
The winner shall be announced on the Cohors Aedilis Website - Section
Ludi and at the Nova Roman Main Mailing List at April 30, 2002.

INFORMATIONS:
- Megalesia c/o Cohors Aedilis - Section Ludi:
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi
- Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus: tjalens.h@telia.com
- Quaestor Franciscus Apulus Caesar: sacro_barese_impero@libero.it

Valete
Franciscus Apulus Caesar
-------------------------------------------
Propraetor Provinciae Italiae
Quaestor Aedilis C. Fabius Quintilianus
Scriba Curatoris Araneum
-------------------------------------------
Provincia Italia - http://italia.novaroma.org
Paterfamilias Gens Apula - www.gensapula.too.it
Cohors Aedilis C. Fabius Quintilianus -
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis
Web Nova Roman Experiments - http://lab.novaroma.org/wnre

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A Means, not an end
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	23 Apr 2002 20:57:04 -0300

Em Ter, 2002-04-23 às 14:19, L. Sicinius Drusus escreveu:
>
> --- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@yahoo.es> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Octavi.
> >
> > --- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > > The argument over "Retroactive" points is
> > absurd. It's
> > > > not a matter of "retroactivatly awarding"
> > points, it's
> > > > a matter of using the same standard for all
> > citizens
> > > > when it's time to realign the centuries.
> > >
> > > Exactly. It's like saying that nothing that
> > existed before 1799
> > > should be measured in meters, because meters
> > didn't exist then.
> >
> > Not at all.
> >
> > What the current proposal amounts to is to actually
> > change *the initial
> > measurements*.
> >
> > What I am proposing is to translate what was
> > measured before this
> > proposal for a fixed rate. What I am proposing is to
> > actually *make a
> > conversion*, instead of measuring again.
> >
> > =====
> > 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.
> >
> Some offices recieve zero points under the present
> leges and would have recieved points under the new
> lex.
>
> Any conversion factor times the zero points results in
> zero points. This means former office holders who now
> get no credit would be treated doifferently than
> people who hold the exact same office at a later date.
>
> Is there a differance in their commitment to Nova Roma
> different because they served before or after a given
> date? The only purpose of the points is to measure
> "commitment" in order to set up the centuries.
>
> For offices that recieve points under both the new and
> old leges there is no single number that will give
> equal results for all offices, meaning that citizens
> would be treated differently depending on the date of
> service and the office held.
>

Let me give you an actual example:
In our institute there are several cleaning persons, some of then clean
the administrative or lecture buildings, others clean the chemical labs.

The new director decided to give the ones that clean the chemical labs
an extra salary for "chemical risk".
Of course this extra is only added to their salaries from the day of the
decision and they won't get any extra for the time they already worked
in this area before the date of that decision.

That is a non-retroactive decision.


> The Error was using the term retroactive rather than
> simply repealling the old leges, abolishing the old
> points and setting a new standard that applies equaly
> to all citizens without discrimanation based on dates
> of service.
>

Without the term the effective retroactivity of the law could have been
misunderstood, I agree, i myself misunderstood the implications.

But the law is still retroactive even without saying it.

Manius Villius Limitanus

> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
> http://games.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>