Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Historical evidence of "Senate Open/Closed Door"
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:56:26 EST

In a message dated 12/11/2002 1:59:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lafaustus@yahoo.com.br writes:

> The doors are on a Church. They are sacred space (templum) now. It
> would be a sacrilegical proposal. And if they are so well saved there
> for XIV centuries, they are on a safe place. I´m most pleased with
> the Roman Church by having keeping these relics safe, I really didn´t
> know that, what a good surprise!
>

Doesn't it take augurs to make templum? Since the Catholic Church only has
"pontiffs" wouldn't that make the space "sacrum" instead of "templum?"

G. Modius Athanasius
[Note: This is just a joke, no disrespect intended.]

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Consular Proposals: My Final Comments
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:51:51 +0100 (CET)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Sulla.

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> escribió:

<<snipped>>

> 1.- The first proposal aims to eliminate the hypothetical
> possibility
> of duplicated citizenships by placing new citizens among the Capita
> Census.
>
> Sulla: That is not entirely correct. What it does is protect the
> voice of the People by putting new citizens whose knowledge of Nova
> Roma and her inner workings in the same classification as those
> citizens who have not paid their tax, the reasoning is simple. The
> new citizens did not pay for entry into Nova Roma. There is
> absolutely no reason new citizens should have the same exact standing
> as those citizens who have paid their tax.

It seems that I (as well as many other people) was mistaken about the
intent of this law. I now wish I were not, for your intent seems far
worse than the other one.

I do not agree with you, consul. In my opinion, new citizens have
*much* to say about the future of Nova Roma. They *are* the future of
Nova Roma. Older citizens already have many advantages (more century
points, for instance). They do *not* need additional "protection"; in
fact, if someone needs protection here, it is new citizens.

The Lex Vedia de Assiduis et Capitibus Census created a second-class,
practically disenfrankished citizenship. It placed among the Capita
Census those citizens that were not interested enough to make a small
monetary contribution to the public treasury. Now, you want to include
into that disenfrankished group all of our new citizens by default. You
want to take all the power from them. That is *not* fair. And that will
be *extremely* bad for the Republic.

> Sulla: You can certainly have the opinion that it is not complete,
> but this particular law was not designed to address the issue of
> minors posing as adults, because we already have the honesty edict in
> effect. You can view that law here:
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/edicts/censor-2000-04-24-ii.html
> So the examples you cited are covered by that edict as long as our
> Censors keep it in effect (as our current Censors have.)

We also have a law that handles gender change (I think it was you who
wrote it). It is as unenforceable as that one. A 15-year-old boy could
join Nova Roma tomorrow assuring that he is a 30-year-old woman and we
would never know.

> Besides, it places our new citizens in a situation where many of
> them will probably feel alienated and estranged, and it will raise
> the percentage of capita census, thus putting the democratic
> legitimacy of our institutions at stake.
>
> Sulla: I must disagree with your conclusion here. I don't know
> where you get this kind of impression of our citizens Tribune, but I
> tend to have gotten the impression that our new citizens are usually
> very motivated to learn and educate themselves or they can look to
> their gens and paterfamilias for guidance and assistance to learn
> about the traditions and customs of Nova Roma.

I think that your impression of what does being a new citizen currently
mean is pretty incorrect. All that speech about paternal guidance and
tradition is simply not true.

> I also must chuckle a bit at your inflammatory argument about this
> law putting the democratic legitimacy of our institutions at stake, I
> hope you are not serious.

I am *very* serious. If an 80% of our population were included into the
Capita Census, our political system would be closer to Ceacescu's
Romania than to any other. A 20% of our population would control all
votations. And I don't know about you, but I do not feel any urge to
recreate 20th centuries apparatchik dictatorships.

> We need a comprehensive system to check our citizens' identity.
> This "patch" is not enough, and it is not desiderable.
>
> Sulla: Funny you use the word patch again. To patch means that
> there is something already in existence covering this, and
> unfortunately to this date there is nothing. This is the very first
> law that, if the people decide this law is worthy to pass, that will
> begin to form a proper foundation to protect the voice of the People
> of Nova Roma. As Senator Lucius Sicinius Drusus pointed out this is
> 1 part of a 3 piece package. Together all of these laws form a
> decent foundation to protect the voice of the People of Nova Roma.

"Protecting the voice of the People"? That must be a joke. You are
presenting a proposal that will effectively rip our new citizens from
their decision power and you call it "protecting the voice of the
People"?

You must send this idea of yours to the Encyclopaedia Britannica; they
might be interested in adding it to the entry "Demagogy" as a defining
example :-).

As for the word "patch", I had the impression that it could mean a
circumstancial, clumsy solution. I certainly used it in that sense.

> 2.- The second proposal does not define proxies with the necessary
> precision. Elections are a serious business; a "private agreement"
> is certainly not enough to ensure the fairness of our electoral
> system.
>
> Sulla: As opposed to the system we currently have where there is
> absolutely no system in place. I see.

Our current system presents a legal loophole in that aspect. It is not
illegal to give someone else your voter code for them to vote in your
place. Your proposal does not add anything to our current system.

> It has been stated by the iunior consul that some of the issues I
> have raised should be modified by future administrations. In my
> opinion, that is not the way to do things. When someone drafts a
> legislative proposal, that proposal must be thought well, so as to
> make sure that it will not be necessary to ammend it in the
> foreseeable future.
> What is the point of making a proposal while recommending its
> revocation?
> Either a proposal is a good proposal, or it is not.
>
> Sulla: Tribune, most laws in Nova Roma have been amended and
> altered since they were first past. Upon reviewing the Tabularium, I
> can state the following laws have been altered, amended or
> overturned:

<<snipped>>

> This is only a partial list. So, to answer your question as Nova
> Roma grows and evolves I certainly hope that her magistrates review
> the laws that are in place and if any need to be revised to meet the
> needs of Nova Roma that they will take due care in revising them and
> bringing them before the People for a proper vote with an explanation
> on why that presiding magistrate feels the older law should be
> revised.

I am sure that many laws have been ammended, and I am sure that many
other laws will be ammended in the future. But that is not the point.

You said that this law should be changed in the future. Why are you not
presenting that future law that should replace this law? Otherwise, to
vote for this law is a waste of time.

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

___________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sorteos
Consulta si tu número ha sido premiado en
Yahoo! Sorteos http://loteria.yahoo.es

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Consular Proposals: My Final Comments
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:07:52 +0100 (CET)

Salvete Quirites.

It seems that my comments have arisen a lot of support for the latest
consular proposals. I would like to make my final comments here, to let
you know what I think.

1.- The first proposal aims to eliminate the hypothetical possibility
of duplicated citizenships by placing new citizens among the Capita
Census.

In my opinion, this proposal is not complete. Not only does it *fail*
to avoid duplicated citizenships (it just makes them more expensive);
it does not address many other problems (minors posing as adults, lies
about gender, lies about age, lies about address) that are very serious
indeed. Such a system will necessarily need the cooperation of our
provincial institutions, which are close enough to the citizenry to
perform this much needed service.

Besides, it places our new citizens in a situation where many of them
will probably feel alienated and estranged, and it will raise the
percentage of capita census, thus putting the democratic legitimacy of
our institutions at stake.

We need a comprehensive system to check our citizens' identity. This
"patch" is not enough, and it is not desiderable.

2.- The second proposal does not define proxies with the necessary
precision. Elections are a serious business; a "private agreement" is
certainly not enough to ensure the fairness of our electoral system.

3.- The third proposal presents a too lenient penalty for intentional
duplicate citizens, and does not contemplate the case of unintentional
duplicate citizens.

It has been stated by the iunior consul that some of the issues I have
raised should be modified by future administrations. In my opinion,
that is not the way to do things. When someone drafts a legislative
proposal, that proposal must be thought well, so as to make sure that
it will not be necessary to ammend it in the foreseeable future. What
is the point of making a proposal while recommending its revocation?
Either a proposal is a good proposal, or it is not.

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

___________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sorteos
Consulta si tu número ha sido premiado en
Yahoo! Sorteos http://loteria.yahoo.es

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Consular Proposals: My Final Comments
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:44:19 -0800

Avete Omnes,

This will be my final comment in regards to the comments of Tribune Gn. Salix. Please bear with me for a moment while I respond to this lengthily post.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:07 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Consular Proposals: My Final Comments

Salvete Quirites.

It seems that my comments have arisen a lot of support for the latest
consular proposals. I would like to make my final comments here, to let
you know what I think.

1.- The first proposal aims to eliminate the hypothetical possibility
of duplicated citizenships by placing new citizens among the Capita
Census.

Sulla: That is not entirely correct. What it does is protect the voice of the People by putting new citizens whose knowledge of Nova Roma and her inner workings in the same classification as those citizens who have not paid their tax, the reasoning is simple. The new citizens did not pay for entry into Nova Roma. There is absolutely no reason new citizens should have the same exact standing as those citizens who have paid their tax.
In my opinion, this proposal is not complete. Not only does it *fail*
to avoid duplicated citizenships (it just makes them more expensive);
it does not address many other problems (minors posing as adults, lies
about gender, lies about age, lies about address) that are very serious
indeed. Such a system will necessarily need the cooperation of our
provincial institutions, which are close enough to the citizenry to
perform this much needed service.

Sulla: You can certainly have the opinion that it is not complete, but this particular law was not designed to address the issue of minors posing as adults, because we already have the honesty edict in effect. You can view that law here: http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/edicts/censor-2000-04-24-ii.html So the examples you cited are covered by that edict as long as our Censors keep it in effect (as our current Censors have.)

Besides, it places our new citizens in a situation where many of them
will probably feel alienated and estranged, and it will raise the
percentage of capita census, thus putting the democratic legitimacy of
our institutions at stake.

Sulla: I must disagree with your conclusion here. I don't know where you get this kind of impression of our citizens Tribune, but I tend to have gotten the impression that our new citizens are usually very motivated to learn and educate themselves or they can look to their gens and paterfamilias for guidance and assistance to learn about the traditions and customs of Nova Roma. I also must chuckle a bit at your inflammatory argument about this law putting the democratic legitimacy of our institutions at stake, I hope you are not serious.

We need a comprehensive system to check our citizens' identity. This
"patch" is not enough, and it is not desiderable.

Sulla: Funny you use the word patch again. To patch means that there is something already in existence covering this, and unfortunately to this date there is nothing. This is the very first law that, if the people decide this law is worthy to pass, that will begin to form a proper foundation to protect the voice of the People of Nova Roma. As Senator Lucius Sicinius Drusus pointed out this is 1 part of a 3 piece package. Together all of these laws form a decent foundation to protect the voice of the People of Nova Roma.

2.- The second proposal does not define proxies with the necessary
precision. Elections are a serious business; a "private agreement" is
certainly not enough to ensure the fairness of our electoral system.

Sulla: As opposed to the system we currently have where there is absolutely no system in place. I see.

3.- The third proposal presents a too lenient penalty for intentional
duplicate citizens, and does not contemplate the case of unintentional
duplicate citizens.

Sulla: So you do not object to the nature of the law, but only to the penalty. Interesting, so are you going to vote for this law and if elected Praetor are you going to work for the revision of the punishment section? I

It has been stated by the iunior consul that some of the issues I have
raised should be modified by future administrations. In my opinion,
that is not the way to do things. When someone drafts a legislative
proposal, that proposal must be thought well, so as to make sure that
it will not be necessary to ammend it in the foreseeable future. What
is the point of making a proposal while recommending its revocation?
Either a proposal is a good proposal, or it is not.

Sulla: Tribune, most laws in Nova Roma have been amended and altered since they were first past. Upon reviewing the Tabularium, I can state the following laws have been altered, amended or overturned:

Lex Vedia de Ratione Comitiorum Populi Tributorum - Rescinded.
Lex Vedia de Ratione Centuriatorum Comitiorum - Rescinded
Lex Vedia de Ratione Eligium - Rescinded
Lex Vedia Centuriata - Amended
Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri - AMENDED
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/1999-09-18-i.html - AMENDED
Lex Iunia de Iusiurando - Amended.
Lex Iunia Centuriata - Rescinded (I believe)
Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus - Amended
Lex Iunia de Magistratuum Aetate - Amended
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2001-04-07-i.html - Amended
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2001-08-27-i.html - Amended
Lex Iunia Cornelia de Ratione Eligium - Rescinded.
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2001-12-04-i.html - Amended

This is only a partial list. So, to answer your question as Nova Roma grows and evolves I certainly hope that her magistrates review the laws that are in place and if any need to be revised to meet the needs of Nova Roma that they will take due care in revising them and bringing them before the People for a proper vote with an explanation on why that presiding magistrate feels the older law should be revised.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] De Vicariis (et Pro Legibus Corneliis)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@novaroma.org>
Date:	Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:29:50 -0600

Salvete

In antiquity, there weren't any such things as proxy votes in the
comitia. In order to vote, a civis had to physically travel to Roma,
stand in line for a few hours, and cast his own vote. At first, he'd do
this with his voice; after 615 AUC (139 BCE), he'd cast a secret vote by
placing a written ballot into a basket under the watchful eye of the
election officials. Those who would or could not get to Roma on the
appointed comitial day simply didn't vote.

So, this is one of those instances in which we depart fairly radically
from ancient practice. A more traditionalist approach would be to wind
the clock back before 615 AUC and use an overt vote--that is, have each
civis cast his own vote publicly (perhaps on a special mailing list) or
not at all. This would certainly give clientela more teeth in Nova Roma
than it has today. Fortunately, it appears that even those who go out
of their way to style themselves as conservative defenders of the mos
maiorum don't wish to go that far.

In any case, given the lack of proxy voting in ancient practice, it does
seem to me to be preferable not to explicitly make it legal in our
leges. True, to define that which is illegal, one must make some
distinction with that which is legal. Still, I think it would have been
possible to do so without direct reference to proxies or proxy voting,
thereby retaining implicit, rather than explicit, legality for the
unhistorical practice.

That said, I would be quite against any effort to outlaw proxy voting
outright. I, like our most vocally conservative cives, prefer to lean
towards democratic practices in this regard by enabling as many cives as
possible to vote in each of our elections. Additionally, I dislike
unenforceable laws. They just clutter the Tabularium and make things
difficult all 'round.

In the end, I'll probably vote for this batch of leges. For the most
part, they seem reasonably well targeted at the problem they intend to
solve. And, it seems preferable to patch a problem sooner than later.
In future, the patch can be improved upon if necessary.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?"

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Attention Voters!
From:	"Julilla Sempronia Magna <curatrix@villaivlilla.com>" <curatrix@villaivlilla.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:00:40 -0000

The voter who cast a ballot, tracking number #28037, was mistakenly
not assigned to a tribe. This error has, I am sure, now been
rectified!

Me paenitet, I'm sorry to have to make this request, but thank you
for voting and now ask you to step up and vote ... one more time!

---
cura ut valeas,
@____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
|||| www.villaivlilla.com/
@____@ Daily Life in Ancient Rome
|||| Rogatrix, MMDCCLV
Scriba, Nova Roma Curator Araneae
Curatrix Araneae,
America Boreoccidentalis
http://ambor.konoko.net

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Chatroom
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:30:59 -0800

Avete Omnes,

If anyone is interested I am present in the chatroom.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The Eagle
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:14:08 -0500

Salve,

The Eagle will have a "Letters to the Editor" section so if anybody would like to send a letter to the editor on a subject that doesn't get much play on the main list feel free.
If any of the new magistrates would like to send an article for the January Newsletter please send it by December 27. Any citizen can send an article in ,if not for January then for a future Eagle. ALL DEADLINES FOR THE EAGLE ARE THE 27TH OF THE PRECIDING MONTH.

Vale,
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
ps. Can somebody tell be how much of Bavaria was in the Empire?

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Historical evidence of "Senate Open/Closed Door"
From:	"Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:20:45 +0000

salve Modii Athanasii:

I like your observation.

I thought sacrum was an object, and templum a place. But I am sure our
European friends would have something to say about it too, and I am eager to
hear it.

Vale
Galerius Peregrinator.

>From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Historical evidence of "Senate Open/Closed
>Door"
>Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:56:26 EST
>
>In a message dated 12/11/2002 1:59:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>lafaustus@yahoo.com.br writes:
>
> > The doors are on a Church. They are sacred space (templum) now. It
> > would be a sacrilegical proposal. And if they are so well saved there
> > for XIV centuries, they are on a safe place. I´m most pleased with
> > the Roman Church by having keeping these relics safe, I really didn´t
> > know that, what a good surprise!
> >
>
>Doesn't it take augurs to make templum? Since the Catholic Church only has
>"pontiffs" wouldn't that make the space "sacrum" instead of "templum?"
>
>G. Modius Athanasius
>[Note: This is just a joke, no disrespect intended.]
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Consular bills: Penalties
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:00:41 +0000 (GMT)

A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.

Abstract: I argue that we should as soon as possible
seek to establish a coherent and logical set of
principles to help us determine what penalties should
be proscribed for crimes.

There's been much interesting and balanced discussion
of these proposals, for which I'd like to thank the
participants, particularly Sinicius Drusus for
explaining the link between the multiple-citizenship
bill and the tax bill.

I'd like to talk about something which has been
touched on only slightly, which is the question of
penalties. Two of these bills specify penalties for
the contravention of the laws they aim to set up. Few,
if any, of our previous laws have done this, because
our legal framework is only now beginning to address
issues for which penalties are appropriate. This has
been widely recognized, and Salix Astur in particular
has made moves to address it.

What I'd like to say about penalties is this: before
we establish any more penalties or punishments, let's
think about the whole business of punishment. Most or
all existing nations have penal systems which are
inconsistent and incoherent, as they have been
compiled over long periods out of ad hoc measures.
This sort of penal system is less than ideal: a penal
system with no coherent logical and ideological
foundation, with no guiding principles, will
inevitably leave people confused and feeling that some
punishments are unfair or unjustified.

We have a unique opportunity here. This is a nation at
its beginning, with no penal system as yet. Now is the
time when we must sit down and think hard, and
establish for the future a clear set of principles
which later legislators and judges can use to decide
what penalties to set out and enforce. Should
punishment be based on revenge? On deterrence? On
incapacitation? There are very many options, all with
merits and demerits. I would appeal to all next year's
magistrates to set aside some time to formulate and
set into the Constitution a statement of the
principles of punishment, before we have too many ad
hoc penalties embedded in our laws.

I should stress that this is not a reason to vote
against these current bills. Laws can be amended, as
has been pointed out. But let's have coherent
principles before we have any more penalties after
these ones.

Thanks for your time.

Cordus

=====

www.strategikon.org

__________________________________________________
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Eagle pps
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:42:35 -0500

Provincial Proconsuls and Propraetors should send something to the Eagle about your upcoming events and anything else you want NR to know.
Vale

Tiberius
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Gallagher
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:19 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Eagle

Salve,

The Eagle will have a "Letters to the Editor" section so if anybody would like to send a letter to the editor on a subject that doesn't get much play on the main list feel free.
If any of the new magistrates would like to send an article for the January Newsletter please send it by December 27. Any citizen can send an article in ,if not for January then for a future Eagle. ALL DEADLINES FOR THE EAGLE ARE THE 27TH OF THE PRECIDING MONTH.

Vale,
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
ps. Can somebody tell be how much of Bavaria was in the Empire?

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Historical evidence of "Senate Open/Closed Door"
From:	"Lucius Arminius Faustus <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>" <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:45:41 -0000

Salve,

No problem at all. Since many churches are built on the places of
ruined temples (like St. Nicolas upper the Temple of Peace and Santa
Maria Supra Minerva), they are templum et sacrum.

The question is that christian pontifices or pagan augures make
ceremonies to make the space dedicated to religion. Following the
religious pattern, if the space is dedicated, there is not much
difference in displeasing Yaveh or Iupiter, all gods must be honoured
and must be manteined pleased... as the roman good habit. (I sure
don´t want to have any god against me, oh no!)

L. Arminius Faustus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/11/2002 1:59:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> lafaustus@y... writes:
>
> > The doors are on a Church. They are sacred space (templum) now.
It
> > would be a sacrilegical proposal. And if they are so well saved
there
> > for XIV centuries, they are on a safe place. I´m most pleased
with
> > the Roman Church by having keeping these relics safe, I really
didn´t
> > know that, what a good surprise!
> >
>
> Doesn't it take augurs to make templum? Since the Catholic Church
only has
> "pontiffs" wouldn't that make the space "sacrum" instead
of "templum?"
>
> G. Modius Athanasius
> [Note: This is just a joke, no disrespect intended.]
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Senate doors
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 04:34:43 +0000 (GMT)

A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.

Abstract: I note appreciatively the arguments in
favour of closed doors; consider the historical
argument; and make a compromise suggestion.

Many thanks to the several Senators who have given
their comments on the advantages of keeping the Senate
doors closed. I was hesitant to offer an opinion on
the subject without having any personal experience of
Senate debate, and I see that I was right to be
hesitant: there are many things I hadn't thought of.
Many of the arguments put forward against mine have a
lot of weight and merit, so I'm now very precariously
balanced on the fence.

A vital factor to my mind is the historical one. Now,
opinion varies as to how much weight we ought to give
to historical precedent. My own feeling is that to
depart from ancient republican precedent is
undesirable except where the arguments in favour of
such are departure are very weighty - more weighty
than would be sufficient to sway us if there were no
precedent either way.

This is why I'm very interested in Cassius Calvus'
researches, for which many thanks. If it was indeed
the case, as his research suggests, that the opening
or closing of the doors was at the discretion of the
presiding magistrate, then that seems to me an
eminently reasonable and convenient solution to the
question. Quite how one would in practical terms make
an e-mail list open to the public at one minute and
closed at an other I don't know. But in any case it's
probably more useful for any publication there might
be of the contents of a Senate meeting to be issued
only after the meeting, not during it.

I suppose in general my suggestion echoes the
observation of Consul Germanicus that there is
considerable room for flexibility within the Tribune's
mandate to publicize the content of meetings. I would
hope that the Tribunician College taking office in
January will consult together to consider their
approach to this. I would further hope that they would
conclude in favour of publishing not just the votes
but a set of edited minutes of each meeting. As is
usual with minutes of important meetings, it would be
appropriate for the minutes to be shown to the
Senators before publication to give them the
opportunity to voice any objections they may have
(though of course the Tribunes should retain ultimate
discretion, otherwise the purpose of the exercise
would be somewhat thwarted).

Even if there is no change to current practice, I hope
the Tribunes will continue it after thought and
consideration, and not merely out of inertia; and I
hope that future Tribunes will think about the
question too.

Thanks for listening.

Cordus

=====

www.strategikon.org

__________________________________________________
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Consular bills: Penalties
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 04:07:46 EST

In a message dated 12/11/02 10:41:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cordus@strategikon.org writes:

Romans!
> What I'd like to say about penalties is this: before
> we establish any more penalties or punishments, let's
> think about the whole business of punishment. Most or
> all existing nations have penal systems which are
> inconsistent and incoherent, as they have been
> compiled over long periods out of ad hoc measures.
> This sort of penal system is less than ideal: a penal
> system with no coherent logical and ideological
> foundation, with no guiding principles, will
> inevitably leave people confused and feeling that some
> punishments are unfair or unjustified.

I have been working on the law here since the departed founder requested it
be done.
Flavius and I came up with some interesting facts during our period as
Praetors.

First off, since all of us are here voluntarily, this limits our options.

Rome had three basic punishments. Death. Banishment. Fines.
There was no imprisonment. Prison was a place were lawbreakers held until
the hearing or trial.

So in order to punish one of us, we have to submit to it voluntarily.
Anybody want to be punished? <GRIN>

> We have a unique opportunity here. This is a nation at
> its beginning, with no penal system as yet. Now is the
> time when we must sit down and think hard, and
> establish for the future a clear set of principles
> which later legislators and judges can use to decide
> what penalties to set out and enforce. Should
> punishment be based on revenge? On deterrence? On
> incapacitation? There are very many options, all with
> merits and demerits. I would appeal to all next year's
> magistrates to set aside some time to formulate and
> set into the Constitution a statement of the
> principles of punishment, before we have too many ad
> hoc penalties embedded in our laws.
>

Death in a virtual world would be banishment for life. No matter what
was done by his friends or the State, the condemned would be "dead"
never to return.

Banishment is likely the most common and easiest punishment we have
available.
It is easy to ban someone here in NR. We simply moderate his access to the
various lists. He is visitor, but nothing more. He cannot "speak" He cannot
vote. He cannot pay taxes. After all the State is in control of most of the
e-mail lists here.
The period of banishment would vary according to offense.
The Dictator once banished a NR citizen for perceived treason. However upon
reviewing the facts the Dictator allowed the citizen to return in three
weeks. So a precedent has been set.

Fines offer the third alternative. Nevertheless it is fraught with
obstacles. The guilty party would have to pay the fine, voluntarily. He
would not be under obligation to do so, our constitution even says that. I
suppose we could threaten him with banishment if he didn't pay, but fines
should be for most trivial offenses, if we are going threaten banishment, why
not banish at the start?

The fourth way is public chastisement by using the Nota. However this is
issued by the Censors, not the Praetors, and it is tempered by the Censors'
judgment. There is no lex on the books that forces the Censors to side with
the Praetors.

Those who have read down this far will notice that these are virtual
punishments, even the fines which must be submitted to by agreement. If we
ever get land, and start a colony these "punishments" would have to be
adjusted. However like most Romans I believe that bridge will be crossed
when our descendants come to it. Romans traditionally passed laws to solve
immediate problems. They were never
that far seeing when it came to their government.

> I should stress that this is not a reason to vote
> against these current bills. Laws can be amended, as
> has been pointed out. But let's have coherent
> principles before we have any more penalties after
> these ones.
>

Agreed. Let us at least get some protections in place so anybody
contemplating election fraud, thus breaking the law, cannot claim ignorance
of it.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Historical evidence of "Senate Open/Closed Door"
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 06:13:32 EST

In a message dated 12/12/2002 1:51:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com writes:

> I thought sacrum was an object, and templum a place. But I am sure our
> European friends would have something to say about it too, and I am eager
> to
> hear it.

>From what I understand an Augur's consecration of place was symbolic of the
will of the Gods (because an Augur took auspices which indicated the favor of
the Gods), while the consecration of a Pontiff was the will of men.
Therefore an Augur and a Pontiff could fully consecrate a "place" into
templum (not to be confused with the templum they use to take auspices),
while a Pontiff could consecrate a place sacrum by himself.

If this is incorrect -- PLEASE -- someone correct me. This is how I
understand it.

G. Modius Athanasius

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The Consular Proposals
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:23:55 +0000 (GMT)

Salvete Omnes,

There has been much debate on the list in recent days
on the package of proposals put forward by Consul
Sulla. I feel that it would be beneficial at this
stage to examine exactly what the proposals will and
will not achieve.

1. The potential to commit voter fraud will be very
much reduced. At present it is very easy for a single
individual to apply and attain numerous citizenships
and consequently numerous votes. This legislation
attempts to make this more a much difficult venture.

2. Voter fraud will be punishable by law. At present
there is no legislation by which to gain redress with
regards to those who attempt to defraud the republic.
This needs to be rectified.

3. New citizens are not being deprived of rights. They
are being asked to assume the same rights as existing
citizens.

4. New citizens will not automatically be placed
amongst the capiti censi. New citizens will be given
the choice to pay their taxes, same as the rest of us,
or assume the status of capiti censi.

5. New citizens will not be barred from Nova Roma if
they refuse to pay the tax. They will simply have
reduced voting power, same as the rest of us.

6. This is not an entrance fee, which I am very much
against. This is a voluntary payment which can be made
on admission, or at a later date if desired.

7. Proxy voting is not encouraged. It is a realistic
law that recognises that proxy voting exists and that
those who may find it necessary to utilise it are not
punished by doing so.

This is a sensible package of proposals which provides
a firm basis for the future by which to combat voter
fraud. I urge you all to support them.

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus.

__________________________________________________
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Historical evidence of "Senate Open/Closed Door"
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:52:42 -0500

Salve Cousin; did you see my last post Do you know how much of Bavaria was in the Empire?

your Cousin Tiberius

----- Original Message -----
From: Gaius Galerius Peregrinator
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:51 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Historical evidence of "Senate Open/Closed Door"

salve Modii Athanasii:

I like your observation.

I thought sacrum was an object, and templum a place. But I am sure our
European friends would have something to say about it too, and I am eager to
hear it.

Vale
Galerius Peregrinator.

>From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Historical evidence of "Senate Open/Closed
>Door"
>Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:56:26 EST
>
>In a message dated 12/11/2002 1:59:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>lafaustus@yahoo.com.br writes:
>
> > The doors are on a Church. They are sacred space (templum) now. It
> > would be a sacrilegical proposal. And if they are so well saved there
> > for XIV centuries, they are on a safe place. I´m most pleased with
> > the Roman Church by having keeping these relics safe, I really didn´t
> > know that, what a good surprise!
> >
>
>Doesn't it take augurs to make templum? Since the Catholic Church only has
>"pontiffs" wouldn't that make the space "sacrum" instead of "templum?"
>
>G. Modius Athanasius
>[Note: This is just a joke, no disrespect intended.]
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: absent people
From:	"William Rogers <wlr107@yahoo.com>" <wlr107@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:54:20 -0000

Ave!

Antonius Adrianus Urcitanus,

As someone fairly new to NR, I too se his point. And I am also sure
your wife and family are truly good, loving and caring people, the
kind we would all like to know and be friends with!

That being said, Nova Roma cannot (In my humble opnion) keep those on
the roles who not pay taxes and not actively support Nova Roma. What
will make us great is ACTIVITY, SERVICE, SACRAFICE, LOVE, FRIENDSHIP,
and MUTUAL SUPPORT OF ALL CITIZENS.

Let me try to explain each:

ACTIVITY: Go to Nova Roma events, support your local Providence.

SERVICE: Volunteer-write to your Governor, the Senate, our
Magistrates, and volunteer to assist them in ANY way they have need
of you. Their burdens are great, and if I can just open mail for them
and place it on their desk at home, it gives them more time to spend
with their families after the Nova Roma and other duties...not for
recognition, but to allow those chosen to serve to more fully focus
on their duties and their families.

SACRAFICE: Pay those taxes, go to events, give up reading you
favorite book for a few days...assist others.

LOVE: Give of yourself without reservation, without expecting to "get
something back." Be ther for others when they call upon you.

FRIENDSHIP: Do not just look at the surface. Look into each person's
heart, and be their friend, no matter what. Serve each other, Serve
Nova Roma.

MUTUAL SUPPORT OF ALL CITIZENS: This ties all the above points
together for this reason. We cannot grow unless we are willing to do
this also.

If we clean up the "closed" Gens, remove those not utilized, we have
a page that loads faster, we give Paters at the bottom of the list
more of a chance to get new comers too. I had someone tell me they
did not join the Tarquitii simply because the page took so long to
load down that far they did not know we were there!

This is NOT about just removing people who do not read this list.
They may be reading others, and good for them! :-) If they are
serving their best, great! :-) I am truly happy for them!

BUT....if they do not respond to e-mail, snail mail, telephone calls,
do not pay taxes...why should we keep them? They take up valuable
space we could utilize for those who ARE active (like your family).

> We have citizens who are members of reenactor legions, and
> who only participate in the Sodalitas Militarium. You don't
> ever see them posting here, and they may not pay the tax since
> they don't care all that much who happens to be in office in
> a given year. But they're out there spreading the idea of
> Nova Roma around, and they do count. Please don't dismiss
> them as contemptable because they don't want to participate in
> a mailing list.
*****Their activities are appreciated too! But how can they be truly
supporting Nova Roma by witholding their taxes? Is the small amount
too much for them? (After buying all that armor, it could very well
be!:-})

I do not say that these are "bad" people. Far from it. Maybe we could
see if individuals would like to "sponsor" someone like that...pay
their taxes for them, as they serve Nova Roma in a VERY expensive way
as an alternative. I can afford to sponsor one person in such a way,
and I shall gladly do so next month.

Who's with me? If you are a member (or know of one) who cannot afford
to pay taxes next year, let me know. I shall compile a list of name,
location, and all I can. If I can get a sponsor, I will work with the
sponsor to get their taxes sent in and paid.

Publius Tarquitius Rufus

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Proposed Leges
From:	"pompeia_cornelia <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:20:11 -0000

Good Morning:

I will be, after due process of thought, supporting the proposed
leges. I think they are adequate enough that they will serve our
purpose. I do not see any gross flaws which present potential abuses
or harm to the state. This is not to say they may never have to be
amended. What laws boast these attributes?

<<<<<squirt gun>>>>>>

I think the largest quality of regulations regarding voter fraud is
that they serve as a deterrant. I do not anticipate that we will be
dealing with alot of culprits from here on in.

And with respect to some comments made regarding the taxation, new
citizens, I prefer to give full assuidi privileges to new citizens.
They can 'reduce' these privileges of their own accord by failure or
refusal to pay taxes .

The obverse makes a nice 'rags to riches' story, but it is not a
drawing card in a micronation/organization which is voluntary in
nature, and depends upon the funds of its citizens to further any
positive and productive causes Nova Roma wishes to undertake.

Bene valete,
P. Cornelia

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Congratulations
From:	"pompeia_cornelia <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:44:29 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

I wish to congratulate, rather belatedly, Lucius Sicinius Drusus and
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus on their appointments as Senator.

I would also like to say at this time, that I feel Lucius Pompeius
would make a fair and competant tribune. He will guard the needs and
rights of the populace well, and will work amicably and cooperatively
with other Tribunal hopefuls.

His attention to detail is evident in his ability to create and
govern an active provincia under less than ideal macronational
circumstances.

My best to both Druse and Pompe in the future.

Po

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Consular Proposals: My Final Comments
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:16:43 +0000 (GMT)

Salve Gnaeus Salix et omnes,

In a previous post you wrote:

> Currently, we have a group of second class citizens:
> the capita census. It is most unfortunate for us to
> have such a group, but it seems a necessary evil; we
> need to set a difference between tax payers and non
> tax payers. We include in the capita census those of
> us who are not compromised enough with Nova Roma to
> make a small yearly payment; most of them are not
> what we consider "active citizens".

Here, although your unease is evident, you appear to
acknowledge the necessity of the capiti censi. As you
quite rightly state, we need to set a difference
between tax payers and non tax payers. Voting
privileges should be inherent in that difference. Very
few states allow full voting privileges to those who
fail to pay their taxes. Indeed, Nova Roma can be
considered one of the few states where tax payment can
be considered completely voluntary. It's a trade off;
tax payment is voluntary but if you do not wish to pay
your taxes then your voting 'power' is reduced. Note
however, that you still retain the right to vote,
ableit in the 5th class. Seems emminently fair to me.

More recently you wrote:

> The Lex Vedia de Assiduis et Capitibus Census
> created a second-class, practically disenfrankished
> citizenship. It placed among the Capita Census those
> citizens that were not interested enough to make a
> small monetary contribution to the public treasury.
> Now, you want to include into that disenfrankished
> group all of our new citizens by default. You want
> to take all the power from them. That is *not* fair.
> And that will be *extremely* bad for the Republic.

Here, your line seems to have hardened with regards to
the capiti censi. You talk about disenfranchisement
and second class citizens, as if entry into the capiti
censi were not a matter of choice. Your argument
ignores the fact that payment or non payment of taxes
remains and will continue to remain voluntary.

Further, you claim that all new citizens will be
included in the capiti censi by default. This is not
true. What is proposed is that new citizens get
completely the same rights as existing citizens. Those
that do not wish to pay their taxes will enter the
capiti censi, same as the rest of us. There is no
refusual of entry, no entry fee and no loss of right
to vote. There is simply reduced voting power. New
members of the capiti censi can still join Nova Roma,
find out what it has to offer, and decide to pay their
taxes at a later date should they want to. This to me
is fair, and further it is an appropriate first step
in making voter fraud emminently more difficult.

Please enlighten me as to why you do not consider it
fair and why it will be bad for the republic to extend
the same rights of existing citizens to new members of
Nova Roma?

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus.

__________________________________________________
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Consular bills: Penalties
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:48:59 +0000 (GMT)

A. Apollonius Cordus to Q. Fabius Maximus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

Abstract: I consider Fabius Maximus' pragmatic
comments; and elaborate my case for a set of
principles to take precedence over considerations of
practicality.

Senator, thank you for your comments about the
practicalities of the various penal options available
to us. The limitations on the types of punishment
which can actually be used are important to bear in
mind.

But I should like to emphasise that these are matter
for a later stage of consideration, in my view. Surely
no one would suggest that a judge or a legislator
should decide what punishment to proscribe by
considering which would be easiest to enforce. If they
were to do this, they would surely decide that all
crimes should be punished by summary banishment, or
else by nothing at all.

Let us rather have a system of guiding principles
which enable us to determine what the best punishment
would be, and indeed whether a punishment is
appropriate or not. Then the next stage is to consider
the practicalities.

The questions we should be asking before imposing any
punishment are these, and in this order:
Why should this crime be punished?
How should this crime be punished?

It would be very easy to skip straight to the second.
But if we did this, the punishment would be set for
reasons which were either arbitrary or dictated by the
legislator's unexamined prejudices about the purpose
of punishment. If a punishment is set, it will be
natural to expect people to ask, 'why should this be
the punishment?' The legislator may say, for instance,
'well, it is intended to be a deterrent'. But someone
might then ask, 'but why is deterrence a good thing?
Why should we decide on punishments with deterrence as
a goal?' What are we to say? 'It is self-evident that
deterrence is a good thing and the best justification
for punishment?' To call anything 'self-evident' means
nothing more than that one hasn't thought about it.
How much better if we were to say, 'the guiding
principles of our penal system, agreed by the Senate
and People and enshrined in the Constitution, state
that the ultimate purpose of punishment is the
prevention of crime by deterrence.' Or, if not
deterrence (I myself don't favour it), then something
else. But something, please, arrived at by careful
thought, lively debate and finally popular vote; not
by the instinct or unconscious prejudice of the
legislator, or by considerations of practicality
unfettered by considerations of principle.

Thanks for your time.

Cordus

=====

www.strategikon.org

__________________________________________________
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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Honesty Edictum
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:01:53 -0800 (PST)

Hm. I was just going to mention a grammar nit, but
upon looking at this, I think it does need more
extensive change:

I think the following should be added:

"...barred from reapplying for two years, unless the
applicant made a false claim of being of legal age.
In such a situation, the applicant would be barred
from reapplying for Nova Roman citizenship for two
years or until he or she has reached legal age,
whichever is greater."

No sense in making 14 year-olds wait only two years
before they can reapply.

(Text of Edictum)
"...Beginning immediately any citizen who puts false
information on a citizenship application will
immediately have their citizenship removed and will be
barred from reapplying for Nova Roman citizenship for
a period of 2 years..."

---
Renata Corva

=====
Chantal
http://www.theranweyr.org

"Yesterday, it worked.
Today, it is not working.
Windows is like that."

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Eagle
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:36:38 -0500

>From F. Galeri Aureliani to his cousin T. Galeri Paulini. Salve.

As near as I can tell, virtually all of modern Lower Bavaria and a good piece of Upper Bavaria were incorporated in the province of Noricum Caesari. There are extensive Roman remains there including a fairly well preserved arena. Modern Vienna was at Carnantum which was on the border of Pannonia Caesari and the unsettled border area of the Marcomanni tribes. In the Middle Ages, the area was known as Franconia.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Eagle
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:36:38 -0500


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Senate doors
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus <richmal@attbi.com>" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:15:38 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<cordus@s...> wrote:
> This is why I'm very interested in Cassius Calvus'
> researches, for which many thanks. If it was indeed
> the case, as his research suggests, that the opening
> or closing of the doors was at the discretion of the
> presiding magistrate,

Salve,

With the conflicting information about whether the doors of the
Senate were open or closed, I must again stress that I was making an
inference based upon the data available to me at this time.

That the presiding magistrate determined whether the doors were
opened or closed is an inference based upon whom would most likely
have the authority to order the Senate doors open or closed.

For those that would say I am just guessing, remember that a jury is
called upon to make an inference based upon evidence it is
presented. Since no one is capable of time travel all that anyone
can do is study the evidence and make an inference.

Vale

Q. Cassius Calvus

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Historical evidence of "Senate Open/Closed Door"
From:	"Lucius Arminius Faustus <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>" <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:08:20 -0000

Salve,

Sure not. A christian pontiff represents also the will of its god, as
well as an augurian adress. (But there is a change: the pagan gods
choose places, while the christian god want churches everywhere, it
is EVER His Will building churches).

The question is that ´spaces dedicated to worship´ is every time
sacred, don´t mind the religion, be templum, be sacrum, be holy, be
divine, be whatever you want.

There is a pattern on human nature that ensures the safety of all
sacred places. It is a human behavior having sacred places. That is
why we must respect all.

Vale,
L. Arminius Faustus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/12/2002 1:51:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> gaiusgalerius@h... writes:
>
> > I thought sacrum was an object, and templum a place. But I am
sure our
> > European friends would have something to say about it too, and I
am eager
> > to
> > hear it.
>
> From what I understand an Augur's consecration of place was
symbolic of the
> will of the Gods (because an Augur took auspices which indicated
the favor of
> the Gods), while the consecration of a Pontiff was the will of
men.
> Therefore an Augur and a Pontiff could fully consecrate a "place"
into
> templum (not to be confused with the templum they use to take
auspices),
> while a Pontiff could consecrate a place sacrum by himself.
>
> If this is incorrect -- PLEASE -- someone correct me. This is how
I
> understand it.
>
> G. Modius Athanasius
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Eagle
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:36:40 -0500


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] absent people
From:	Krysialtemus@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:52:55 -0500

Exactly what is your definition of a parasite as it implies to a citizen of Nova Roma? I have been a citizen for nearly two years now. I applied for that honor so that I could learn more about ancient and new Rome. Although I don't hold office, have anyone else in my gens, or take part in the on-line debates, I still read all the e-mails, peruse the web-site, and add to my knowledge. Old and new Rome was/is made of people who were politically talented, artistically creative, outspoken and leaders. Others are quiet, choosing to listen and learn. Are you suggesting some type of benchmark that citizens must meet in order to risk being expelled from the citizenry?
Caecilia Drusa Dalmatica

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Germanic food for Pompeia
From:	Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia <arnamentia_aurelia@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:08:18 -0800 (PST)

Salve!

There is also a nice collection of German restaurants
here in Portland, Oregon!

Arnamentia

*****
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:29:02 +0100
From: "Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Subject: Germanic food for Pompeia

Salve Pompeia,

> Yunno, I haven't had a plate of spatzel in about
two years. The
only
> Germanic Restaurant in our fair city closed down,
and as it stands
> I'll have to drive like 50 miles for a decent feed.

Then you'll have to come visit us in Vlaanderen where
there is
Germanic
food aplenty and where the local Nova Roman would love
to take you on a
tour!

Vale!
Diana Moravia Aventina

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: absent people
From:	"Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com>" <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:23:37 -0000

Publius Tarquitius Rufus writes:

> Antonius Adrianus Urcitanus,

Ah, I think these comments are actually being addressed to
me (Gnaeus Equitius Marinus) and not to our new citizen
Urcitanus. Perhaps some confusion occured in Rufus' quoting?

Anyhow, to address what Rufus has to say:

> As someone fairly new to NR, I too see his point.

Urcitanus point? I think it's a bit extreme, and that it shows
an incomplete understanding of all that Nova Roma involves.

> And I am also sure
> your wife and family are truly good, loving and caring people, the
> kind we would all like to know and be friends with!

Well, I sure think so.

> That being said, Nova Roma cannot (In my humble opnion) keep those
> on the roles who not pay taxes and not actively support Nova Roma.

I must respectfully disagree with you. If you'll review the
history of the discussion about whether or not to even have a
tax, there was a huge concern about it becoming mandatory. It
is not, and it's not intended to be. Citizenship is not
contingent on payment of taxes, and I would oppose any effort
to tie the two together.

-- Marinus

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Attention Voters! Invalid voter code
From:	"Julilla Sempronia Magna <curatrix@villaivlilla.com>" <curatrix@villaivlilla.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:53:13 -0000

The civis with the following voter tracking codes has a malformed or
inaccurate voter code:

#28032

Please remember to enter your code exactly as it is given, and if you
are unsure of your new code, follow my instructions posted previously
to obtain your current voter code by e-mail:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/5339

Or you may write the censors: censors @ novaroma.org

---
cura ut valeas,
@____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
|||| www.villaivlilla.com/
@____@ Daily Life in Ancient Rome
|||| Rogatrix, MMDCCLV
Scriba, Nova Roma Curator Araneae
Curatrix Araneae,
America Boreoccidentalis

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Consular Proposals - Tax Payment
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:53:23 -0800 (PST)

Salvete omnes--

When I applied to become a citizen of NR almost a year
ago, I joined with no knowledge or expectation of
anything like taxes. When I first learned of the tax
system, I was a bit dismayed, because I had believed
it was possible to participate in Nova Roma, free of
charge--and indeed, it is possible to do that.

But after thought, I decided that I would pay the
taxes for my first year of citizenship, even though I
was not required to. Why?

Because I realized that I knew of no international
organization in the macronational world that _didn't_
charge dues of some kind for membership.

I decided that paying taxes for NR was little
different from paying membership dues for the
Planetary Society or the National Geographic
Society--both of which charge far more for annual
membership than NR does for taxes.

So it seemed to me that, if I was going to be counted
a citizen of Nova Roma, then I ought to pay the taxes
due to Nova Roma, since I was able to, as any
citizen's rightful obligation.

In the end, I think, it increases my respect for Nova
Roma as a whole, when I know that I pay taxes to
support it, and when I know that those taxes are being
used responsibly and being put toward a worthy goal.

I think that, by allowing citizens of less than a
year's tenure to be considered assidui for that first
year, Nova Roma is giving them a gift, which they may
do with as they judge best for them and their
individual situations.

Looking at assidui status for new citizens as a
first-year's gift, I can stand behind maintaining the
practice the way it is.

Valete,

---
Renata Corva

=====
Chantal
http://www.theranweyr.org

"Yesterday, it worked.
Today, it is not working.
Windows is like that."

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: absent people
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:15:24 EST

In a message dated 12/12/02 9:24:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
equitius_marinus@yahoo.com writes:

> I must respectfully disagree with you. If you'll review the
> history of the discussion about whether or not to even have a
> tax, there was a huge concern about it becoming mandatory. It
> is not, and it's not intended to be. Citizenship is not
> contingent on payment of taxes, and I would oppose any effort
> to tie the two together.
>
>

In Nova Roma like old Rome the Roman citizen enjoys protection under the law.
While paying your tax (dues) allows more voice in the government, your voice
is not stilled only diminished, while you retain your protections if you
chose not to pay taxes (dues).
This is what was decided when the Senate set forth the SC on taxation.

I believe that many here are inactive citizens, and the exact number is
awaiting our census to discover them. Would it be fair to strike them from
the rolls? Some say yes, I say that an inactive citizen is one has the
potential to be active again. Since NR is a voluntarily joined organization,
not everybody has unlimited time to spend on it. After the five years of
existence we are starting to see slow ripples of involvement moving across
our citizenry.
There will be, like in old Rome, citizens that will enter public office, a
small core of men and women who dedicate their lives to the service of the
Republic. Then there will be the larger group who wish to be involved, but
cannot, another needs keeps this from happening. Yet they remain interested,
and talk loudly about the Republic in the Forum.
Then there are those who are silent, who are members of Nova Roma, and
worship her gods and carry out their Romanitas in utter secrecy. They are
good citizens, vote in every election, and pay their taxes, just see no
reason to tell anyone about it.
Finally there are those citizens who are in NR, but cannot be involved at the
present time.
We don't know their situation. They may have joined because of the movie
"Gladiator" or they needed a homework assignment completed, or they like
Roman art, or they like studying Rome in their spare time. But does it
matter? Why eliminate such a pool of people? Just because they are not
active now, does not mean they will be inactive in the future.
They may step up when they have the opportunity and Rome needs them. We
should we deprive them of that? It is not like they are draining us. I say
determine the number of inactive civvies here in Rome, then leave them alone.
They will reconnect us when they are ready.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Eagle
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:53:06 -0500

Salve, F. Galeri Aureliani

Thanks , that mean that because my German ancestors came from Bavaria there IS a chance I have could have REAL Roman blood. I will never know though. (a tear falls).

Vale

Tiberius (Germanicus Romanus) Galerius Paulinus (GRIN)
----- Original Message -----
From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:39 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The Eagle

>From F. Galeri Aureliani to his cousin T. Galeri Paulini. Salve.

As near as I can tell, virtually all of modern Lower Bavaria and a good piece of Upper Bavaria were incorporated in the province of Noricum Caesari. There are extensive Roman remains there including a fairly well preserved arena. Modern Vienna was at Carnantum which was on the border of Pannonia Caesari and the unsettled border area of the Marcomanni tribes. In the Middle Ages, the area was known as Franconia.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: absent people
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus <richmal@attbi.com>" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:10:27 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Krysialtemus@a... wrote:
>Exactly what is your definition of a parasite as it implies to a
>citizen of
>Nova Roma?
>Are you suggesting some type of benchmark that citizens must meet in
>order to risk being expelled from the citizenry?
> Caecilia Drusa Dalmatica

Salve,

There already exists just such a benchmark. According to the LEX
CORNELIA DE CENSO http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-06-05-
ii.html if you do not fall into one of the following catagories:
----
1. Those citizens who voted in the main election (in December) shall
be considered "censi."
2. Those citizens who have paid taxes for the current calendar year
shall be considered "censi".
3. Paterfamiliae who have successfully responded to the yearly
registration of the Lex Cornelia de Tabulis Gentium Novaromanarum
Agendis shall be considered "censi".
4. Persons who became citizens during the current calendar year shall
be considered "censi".
-----
then the minimum requirement is to respond in the affirmative when
contacted by the Censors.

I consider "parasites" those who managed to have enough ambition to
sign up for Nova Roma but were too lazy or just didn't have enough
courtesy to inform the Censors that they did not wish to continue
their association with Nova Roma When NR finally conducts the long
overdue Census such people drain Nova Roma of the resources of time
and money, much in the same way a parasite drains its host. I don't
consider someone who is merely quiet but who would respond to the
Census to be a parasite.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Eagle
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:52:02 -0500

Dear cousin:

Based on the recent information coming out of Ireland about an archaeological site from the First Century AD near Cashel that may have been a Roman trade/military station, even the Irish may be able to make that claim. Unfortunately, this has become a political hot potato for the Irish government as if it can be proven, it could very well re-write the role of Rome in Irish history. I will keep you informed as other news develops. Vale.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Quiet Citizens
From:	MarcusAudens@webtv.net
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:47:53 -0500 (EST)

I tend to agree with Senator Maximus, that one does not have to be a
political candidate, or outspoken on the Main List to be a good citizen.
Further I am not sure just how any citizen drains the resources of the
micronation by not being part of the vocal minority.

I too joined Nova Roma to learn more about Rome. I have been interested
in Rome most of my adult life. When I first joined there were only one
or two interested in Military Architechture, so I created a Sodalitas
dedicated to that subject, which later became the Sodalitas Miltarium.
However, it is not required that anyone create a sodalitas in order to
learn. There are many in the Mlitarium whose interest is only in the
Roman Military, and they participate there and there only. They are
welcome in the Militarium as interested military students and everybody
learns from everybodyelse
.
This "story" has been repeated many times
in other sodalitas, proposed sodalitas, Gens weblists and Provincial
weblists. There are also those who pursue thier interests individually,
and those people in my view are as welcome as the person who psts three
times a day (in some instances moreso!!!! (Grin!!!!).

With a little more life experience, those who see things only in black
and white begin to realize that there are many, many shades of grey in
this area. On this particular topic, there may well be those Citizens
who are:

--Away on military duty;

--Have civilian jobs like truck drivers and seamen who are often away
from home for long periods of time;

--Are ill, hospitalized or handicapped in any one of many ways;

--Are in possession of broken equipment without the means to immediatly
repair it;

--Have limited equipment with limited capabilities;

--Have very limited amounts of time to devote to NR;

--Are on extended vacation;

--Are not vocal, but rather are quiet and reserved preferring to listen
and learn rather than talk / write;

--There are many other conditions that exist within Nova Roma, and I
suspect that when all is said and done it will be found that most of the
above and others as well, find themselves in these situatons.

Who will take it upon themselves to "eliminate" any of these Citizens
who do not come up to some arbitrary mark of excellence set by someone
who has apparently not given all these aspects of citizenship the
careful consideration that they deserve. The Citizens of Nova Roma have
done well in their past responsibilities when they have had a choice,
and I expect that they will continue to do so, unless we began to
segregate people into classes for not being political candidates, not
speaking on the Main List, not being active in a Sodalitas or the
Academia, etc., etc. etc.

I think that one must remember, that the Citizens of Nova Roma come from
a world-wide base, and the common idea is an interest in ancient Rome.
That common denominator, if anything should be, should be the measure of
a Citizen of NR, and that measure may well be a difficult one to make in
many, many cases.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

A wet sheet and a flowing sea, and a wind follows fast, and fills the
white and rustling sail, and bends the gallant mast; and bends the
gallant mast my boys while like the eagle free, our good ship starts and
flies and leaves old England on our lee------Fair Winds and following
Seas!!!

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] COMITIA PLEBIS TRIBUTA is convened
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:13:37 -0300 (ART)

Salvete Quirites

Due to a small delay of two hours in the beginning of
the voting, the voting period is extended by two
hours, by suggestion of our Curator Araneum;
here is the corrected schedule:

-----
Voting shall begin at 09 December (ante diem V Id.
Decembras), Monday, 20:01 Roman Time (19:01 GMT;
13:01 US/Central).

Voting shall end at 17 December (ante diem XVI Kal.
Ianuarias), Tuesday, 20:01 Roman Time (19:01 GMT;
13:01 US/Central).
-----

And i want to add that:
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus was accepted in
the ballot (as is obvious for the ones who already
voted);
All the plebeians can vote two times for Tribunus
Plebis.

Valete Omnes
Marcus Arminius Maior

--- M Arminius Maior <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
escreveu: > Salvete Quirites !
>
>
> As Tribunus Plebis, I Convene the Comitia Plebis
> Tributa to elect remaining next year's magistrates.
>
> The Contio begins at 18:00 Roman Time, Wednesday 04
> December.
>
> Voting shall begin at 09 December (ante diem V Id.
> Decembras), Monday, 18:01 Roman Time (17:01 GMT;
> 11:01
> US/Central).
>
> Voting shall end at 17 December (ante diem XVI Kal.
> Ianuarias), Tuesday, 18:01 Roman Time (17:01 GMT;
> 11:01 US/Central).
>
> An election guide, containing statements from every
> candidate, is available at:
> http://www.novaroma.org/election/2755
[..]

Valete Omnes
Marcus Arminius Maior
Tribunus Plebis

_______________________________________________________________________
Busca Yahoo!
O melhor lugar para encontrar tudo o que você procura na Internet
http://br.busca.yahoo.com/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: absent people
From:	"Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com>" <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:14:01 -0000

Q. Cassius Calvus writes:

[concerning a 'benchmark' for citizenship]
> There already exists just such a benchmark. According to the LEX
> CORNELIA DE CENSO
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-06-05-ii.html

Woah! You're conflating the requirements for "censi" with those
for citizenship. They are not, and were not intended to be, the
same. Censi were historically those people with some amount of
money, 800,000 sesterces or more for senators, and then lesser
amounts for the other monied classes. The capiti censi were
Roman citizens who had no savings, and therefore no funds for
the state to call on in time of war, but who were still available
for military service. (After the Marian reforms, at least.)

> if you do not fall into one of the following catagories:
> ----
> 1. Those citizens who voted in the main election (in December) shall
> be considered "censi."
> 2. Those citizens who have paid taxes for the current calendar year
> shall be considered "censi".
> 3. Paterfamiliae who have successfully responded to the yearly
> registration of the Lex Cornelia de Tabulis Gentium Novaromanarum
> Agendis shall be considered "censi".
> 4. Persons who became citizens during the current calendar year
shall
> be considered "censi".
> -----
> then the minimum requirement is to respond in the affirmative when
> contacted by the Censors.
>
> I consider "parasites" those who managed to have enough ambition to
> sign up for Nova Roma but were too lazy or just didn't have enough
> courtesy to inform the Censors that they did not wish to continue
> their association with Nova Roma

The issue you're overlooking is that of citizens who do feel
part of Nova Roma, but don't choose to participate in the online
aspects of our community. They joined under conditions which
made them citizens without having to do any of the things
listed above. To make the censi conditions applicable to citizenship
in general would be to create an ex post facto condition.

I think that would be a very bad idea, as well as breaking
faith with the citizens it would impinge upon.

-- Marinus

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Consular Proposals - Tax Payment
From:	"Decimus Iunius Silanus" <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:35:53 -0000

Salve Renata Corva,

> I think that, by allowing citizens of less than a
> year's tenure to be considered assidui for that first
> year, Nova Roma is giving them a gift, which they may
> do with as they judge best for them and their
> individual situations.

Unfortunately, this gift exposes Nove Roma to the very real threat of voter fraud.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] voting
From:	"Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:33:00 +0000

Salvete:

I didn't realize there is voting going on. I've been waiting for
instructions where to go to vote. All posts so far only say candidate's
statemant and profile, but not the site to vote. Could anybody tell me the
site to vote, please.

Valete

Galerius Peregrinator.

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	VOTING (was: Re: [Nova-Roma] voting)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:40:05 -0300 (ART)

Salvete Quirites

If you is a plebeian, you can help the Comitia Plebis
Tributa to elect four Tribunus Plebis and one Aedilis
Plebis right now; the voting process started last
monday and will end next Tuesday, 17 december.

The cista is here (in english, you can choose other
languages):
www.novaroma.org/cursus_honorum/voting/index.html

Valete
Marcus Arminius Maior
Tribunus Plebis

--- Gaius Galerius Peregrinator
<gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com> escreveu: >
>
> Salvete:
>
> I didn't realize there is voting going on. I've
> been waiting for
> instructions where to go to vote. All posts so far
> only say candidate's
> statemant and profile, but not the site to vote.
> Could anybody tell me the
> site to vote, please.
>
> Valete
> Galerius Peregrinator.

_______________________________________________________________________
Busca Yahoo!
O melhor lugar para encontrar tudo o que você procura na Internet
http://br.busca.yahoo.com/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Prov. Brasilia, edict IX
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:48:12 -0300 (ART)

Nova Roma
Provincia Brasilia

----------------------------------

Provincial Edictum - IX
12 dec 2002 - pridie Id. DECEMBRAS MMDCCLV

Nomination of a scriba retiarius for Provincia
Brasilia

The citizen Tittus Arminius Genialis is named Scriba
Propraetoris of the Provincia Brasilia.

Marcus Arminius Maior
Propraetor, provincia Brasilia

----------------------------------

Edito Provincial - IX
12 dec 2002 - pridie Id. DECEMBRAS MMDCCLV

Nomeacao de um escriba para a Provincia

O cidadao Titus Arminius Genialis e nomeado Scriba
(escriba) Propraetoris da Provincia Brasilia.

Marcus Arminius Maior
Propraetor, provincia Brasilia

_______________________________________________________________________
Busca Yahoo!
O melhor lugar para encontrar tudo o que você procura na Internet
http://br.busca.yahoo.com/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Absence
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:27:32 +0100 (CET)

Salvete Quirites.

I will not have an easy access to a computer until next Tuesday, so you
will have to excuse me for a while.

Thank you.

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

___________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sorteos
Consulta si tu número ha sido premiado en
Yahoo! Sorteos http://loteria.yahoo.es

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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