Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	LucillaCornelia@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:19:21 -0500

Salvete omnes:

We are one Republic; we are all Roman citizens. And while each of us have
individual ideas and aspirations it is not too much to hope that we share a
common goal and this shared goal is central to our existence and purpose as
Nova Romans.

To foment the further division of citizens along class lines via the
encouragement of elitist channels of communication with the intent of
dividing rather than unifying us is, as Germanicus observes, most distressing
and cannot serve Nova Roma and her Citizens in any positive respect.

We are all Citizens, on equal footing and common ground. Our public channels
of communication exist to maintain unity, encourage discourse and the
exchange of ideas, and enable us to work together as equals. To lose sight
of this is to abandon the spirit of the Republic and relinquish that which
makes us Roman.

Valete bene,

Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata

novaroma@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete;
>
> I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing. Are
> there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
> Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
> necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should we not be
> striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?
>
> I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician, magistrate
> and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the populace for
> no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of communication
> which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
> > To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
> > Cc: Novaroma@--------
> > Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
> >
> >
> > NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
> >
> > Salvete Quirites
> >
> > In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
> > junior Tribunus
> > Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself accessible to
> > all Plebeian citizens.
> >
> > First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
> > email list
> > at
> >
> > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa
> >
> > On this list we shall be posting proposed plebiscita to be discussed
> > prior to voting. This will also become a list for Plebeians to raise
> > issues, and initiate proposals for plebiscita in their own right. In an
> > effort to make this list a primary means for Plebeians to communicate
> > with the Tribuni Plebis and for them to discuss Plebeian issues, I will
> > be making an effort to contact all Plebeian matres et patres familias,
> > to encourage all Plebeian gentes to be represented in the Comitia Plebis
> > Tributa. For this effort I am appointing as my scriba tribunicius,
> > Sentius Bruttius Sura.
> >
> > Secondly, I am in the habit of visiting the taverna in the
> > Forum Romanum
> > (the Nova Roma chat room) Monday through Friday between 2:00 PM to 5:00
> > PM Rome time (GMT 13.00-14.00 hrs). I am not always there, but quite
> > frequently. This is one of the best ways to reach me directly. Other
> > times that I may occasionally be found in the taverna are after 3:00 AM
> > Rome (GMT 02.00 hrs). http://pluto.beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275
> >
> > Third, I shall begin making myself available in the Comitia
> > Plebis chat
> > room on Wednesdays from 10:00 PM to Midnight Rome (GMT 21.00 to 23.00
> > hrs). The day(s) and time can be adjusted for the convenience of the
> > Quirites. http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/y/17189
> >
> > Fourth, I shall be forming a consilium tribunicius, as by custom,
> > consisting of all other plebeian officers and the Moravii et amici. I
> > should like to expand on this tradition. I make an open invitation to
> > all cives, Plebeian and Patrician, to contact me at my email address:
> > piscinus@-------- If you would like to be considered for this panel of
> > advisors to the Tribune, just write to me. Of course at any time, all
> > Plebeians are welcomed to contact me at my email address.
> >
> > Di deaeque vos incolumes custodiant. Valete
> >
> > Cn. Moravius Piscinus
> > Tribunus Plebis
> >
> >
> >
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:59:53 EST

Salve Tribune Piscinus

You start the year off with a bang! I think, unfortunately, that an
appeal to empty legalisms offers us little that is constructive. Try this
one on for size:

Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on the
ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
construed as approval of his candidacy.

Having run illegally, the votes he received were cast in error. His
candidacy was illegal and therefore his "election" was null and void. He
cannot be "allowed to assume office" because he was not legally elected
to the office.

>From a different point of view:

The ambiguity of the law on the point of when a waiver should be
requested allows for two interpretations which have been dsicussed
previously. One may request the waiver before the election (which is what
S. Apollonius did), in which case if one receives it and runs and is
elected then no-one may prohibit him from assuming office. But if one is
denied the waiver, one cannot run for the office anyway and expect to be
allowed to assume it.

The alternative is that one may run for the office and only request the
waiver if elected. This is NOT what S. Apollonius did in this case,
although the inaction of the Senate and Censores on his waiver request
until after the election was over made it appear that this is what was
done.

The people voted him into the office?

No. The people were misinformed as to the legitimacy of his candidacy. If
I had forwarded the name of my Pekinese to M. Octavius Germanicus and he
mistakenly put her name on the ballot and enough citizens voted for her,
would you then say that "by the will of the people" she was entitled to
assume the role of our plebian aedile?

Sextus Apollonius Draco is clearly a noble young Roman who exhibits more
grace and dignity than have some of his elders (myself included) during
the past year. But the law, which (as Consul Vedius has pointed out)
embodies the will of the people, prohibits him from "assuming the office"
unless he has the required waiver from the Censores and the rest of the
Senate. He did not get that, rightly or wrongly, and so he cannot assume
the office. He has accepted this outcome with impressive grace and
dignity, and you will do him no honor if you press the issue in this
manner.

Your responsibility is to hold another election. He could again request a
waiver to become a legal candidate. Some Senators may well have changed
their opinions of him. New Senators have been appointed - I have the
honor to be one of those. He might well receive his waiver on a second
try.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/8/01 3:37 PM Gian G Reali (piscinus@--------) wrote:

> Denuntio Tribunica Ex Domo Tribuni Plebis
>
>Tribunus Plebis Cn Moravius Piscinus SPD Senatoribus et Quiritibus Novae
>Romae:
>
> I have on this day, a.d. VI Id Ian 2753, sent to the Senate the
>following Denuntio Tribunicia:
>
>Tribuni Plebis Cn Moravius Piscinus Senatoribus clarissimi viri SPD:
>
> I have been reading the posts regarding the provisions of the Lex Iunia
>de Magistratum Aetate. More specifically I have been considering the
>situation created by the Senate in the particular matter of Sextus
>Apollonius Draco. Let it be known by the Senate that had I been fully
>installed in office at the time of the Senate's decision I would have
>employed an intercessio for the reasons I shall give below. The incident
>has brought out a legislative gap in our present Constitution which I am
>sure the Consuls will address, as will the Tribuni Plebis. However there
>is a more immediate problem to consider and that is that by your action
>the Senate has left vacant a Plebeian office. To avoid further
>entanglements on this issue I request that the Senate reconsider an
>exemption for Sextus Apollonius Draco so that he may rightfully assume
>the office for which he was duly and legally elected to hold.
>
> The reasons why I would have issued an intercessio are as follows:
>
> The Senate under the Constitution V.A has no other authority than to
>offer the "advise of the Senate." Sections V. B and C do not apply. The
>Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate extended the Senate's authority, in such
>matters as covered by that lex, contrary to Section I. A. It would be
>wrong to further consider that that lex granted an additional
>unconstitutional authority to the Senate to overrule the will of the
>people, in contravention of Section I. B. If the Senate is to exercise
>its authority under the provision of the Lex Iunia, then it must be done
>prior to the election, advising the rogatores on whether or not a
>candidate's name may be placed on the ballot. No Senatus consulta, or
>censorial edicta, can overrule an issue once decided upon by a vote of
>the people in comitia.
>
> Sextus Apollonius Draco was legally placed on the ballot, and was
>legally elected by the vox populi. He is by every legal right the
>elected Aedile Plebis.
>
> Under the provisions of the Lex Iunia, by how I understand the Senate to
>regard the matter, although Sextus Apollonius may be the elected Aedile
>Plebis, he may not "assume" the office for which he was elected. I
>question that provision, but will not challenge what has happened thus
>far. Further, it cannot be said that the Lex Cyrlla de securandis
>magistratus plebis applies, as the provisions it makes are for a
>situation other than what has occurred here. Candidates were declared
>and placed on the ballot in December, and two candidates were legally
>elected. The Senate, by its action, has deprived us of a capable Aedile
>Plebis, and has placed us into a constitutional vacuum.
>
> There are now three issues before us. Required are a new lex to replace
>the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, and a new plebiscitum to broaden and
>clarify the scope of the Lex Cyrlla regarding Plebian offices. I shall
>take under advisement formulating a plebiscitum to be presented to the
>Comitia Plebis Tributa later this year concerning the appointment of
>Plebeian officers. Discussion on the Lex Iunia is already progressing
>towards adopting some proposal to deal with the issue of age limits and
>how to implement such a lex. I trust the Consuls shall duly treat this
>matter.
>
> Meanwhile, there is the third issue. As Sextus Apollonius was legally
>elected you cannot offer to hold a second election, for by doing so you
>would be overruling a decision already made by the Comitia, and thus
>would be acting in violation of Section I. B. Nor can you appoint anyone
>to his office, as there is no provision made to cover the vacancy left
>under the current situation. Therefore the choice is between leaving
>Sextus Apollonius in as elected Aedile Plebis, but not allowed to assume
>office, while carrying out his duties as a scriba to his colleague. Or
>for the Senate to reconsider the exemption for this one individual and
>allow him to hold office as the people have so ruled.
>
> I urge the Senate to take the latter course of action, accept the
>election of Sextus Apollonius as a fait accompli and move on to deal with
>the problems that caused this problem to arise. To deny the assumption
>of office because of indecision on the part of the Senate regarding the
>exemption prior to the election is patently wrong. To now deny
>assumption of office after the election was made could set a dangerous
>precedent. Whereas to continue to deny the assumption of office by this
>one particular individual amounts, in practical terms, to merely a denial
>of his participatory points for a job he will be performing anyway. Such
>a denial is simply too petty for the Senate to consider proper.
>
>Pro Di consentes, quod bonum, felix, faustumque sit.
>
>
>
>
>

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:25:39 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LucillaCornelia@-------- [mailto:LucillaCornelia@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:50 PM
>
> I, likewise, object to this.
>
> Lucilla Prima
>
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia wrote:
> >
> > I object to this.
> >
> > Livia

Not to press you fine ladies on a point which you seem reticent to elaborate
on, but would you care to explain _why_ you object? (The subject at hand
was, I believe, Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus' idea of using the order in which
votes are registered within tribes and centuries to resolve ties; first
candidate to reach their vote total wins the tribe/century.)

Such terse "I object"'s with no elaboration, while certainly within your
prerogative, are hardly conducive to the free and spirited flow of ideas
which we have been enjoying here as of late.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:20:07 EST

Salvete Omnes

I agree with these objections. I did not subscribe to a "plebian list"
when I was a Tribune of the Plebs, not only because I have no more time
and energy to squander on additional mailing lists but also because I see
such a list as divisive. Separate lists for those who want to talk about
wine-making or pilum-throwing or philosophizing are fine because those
are particular interests that we may not all share. But WHAT PARTICULAR
INTEREST IS THERE IN THE LABELS "PLEBIAN" OR "PATRICIAN?"

None! The labels are purely symbolic - relics of the past. There are no
"plebian interests" or "patrician interests" to be served by splitting us
up. We saw in November and December how harmful artificial
factionalization could be, with all sorts of discord and trumped-up
accusations and issues created. Let's not do any more of that, please.

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/8/01 6:19 PM LucillaCornelia@--------
(LucillaCornelia@--------) wrote:

>Salvete omnes:
>
>We are one Republic; we are all Roman citizens. And while each of us have
>individual ideas and aspirations it is not too much to hope that we share a
>common goal and this shared goal is central to our existence and purpose as
>Nova Romans.
>
>To foment the further division of citizens along class lines via the
>encouragement of elitist channels of communication with the intent of
>dividing rather than unifying us is, as Germanicus observes, most
>distressing
>and cannot serve Nova Roma and her Citizens in any positive respect.
>
>We are all Citizens, on equal footing and common ground. Our public
>channels
>of communication exist to maintain unity, encourage discourse and the
>exchange of ideas, and enable us to work together as equals. To lose sight
>of this is to abandon the spirit of the Republic and relinquish that which
>makes us Roman.
>
>Valete bene,
>
>Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata
>
>novaroma@-------- wrote:
>>
>> Salvete;
>>
>> I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing. Are
>> there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
>> Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
>> necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should we not be
>> striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?
>>
>> I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician,
magistrate
>> and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the populace
for
>> no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of communication
>> which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.
>>
>> Valete,
>>
>> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>> Consul
>>
>> email: germanicus@--------
>> AIM: Flavius Vedius
>> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
>> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
>> > To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
>> > Cc: Novaroma@--------
>> > Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
>> >
>> >
>> > NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
>> >
>> > Salvete Quirites
>> >
>> > In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
>> > junior Tribunus
>> > Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself accessible to
>> > all Plebeian citizens.
>> >
>> > First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
>> > email list
>> > at
>> >
>> > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:52:32 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:26 PM
>
> Well, essentially, we already do that. We start at tribe or century one,
and
> work our way down the list as a matter of procedure. I still don't see
how
> you're eliminating the possibility of ties.

Perhaps an example would serve to make this clearer, since my previous
explanations were obviously lacking. Let's say Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey
are running for Consul. Crassus wins his office handily, but Caesar and
Pompey are tied at 20 centuries each.

Who wins? Under our current system, neither, or both. It is unclear.

Under my proposal, the counting would start with a random century (let us
say #65), and then proceed in numerical order. Century #65 votes for Caesar,
#66 and #67 vote for Pompey, #68 votes for Caesar, and so on, until one or
the other of them reaches the total number of centuries that voted for them.
In this case, whichever of them counts their 20th century first, wins the
office. (Naturally, only one of them can hit their total first, since the
centuries are counted in order.)

The reason for choosing a starting century at random is to make this aspect
of the process fair to everyone. If we adopt the system of sequential
counting, but always start with century #1, that gives the lower-numbered
centuries an unfair advantage. By making the starting place random, no
century or group of centuries has a built-in institutional advantage in this
regard (there are, of course, weightings in terms of the century system
specifically, but the principal extends to the evenly-weighted tribes as
well).

> Now we want
> to impose an unnatural order on the order in which we count the centuries
> (unnatural being anything other than starting from century/tribe no 1)
because
> we think we need to find a fix to a terrible problem with having tied
candidates
> or an office slot left open. Maybe I'm really missing something, but WHAT
does
> this solve?

I must wonder at your use of the term "unnatural". This is a system that was
used in Roma Antiqua, with the randomness introduced in order to afford
equal access (in the long run) to members of all tribes and centuries.

> In my opinion, this last election re the quaestors worked EXACTLY
> the way it should have.

Actually, this proposal is in response to the situation where two people
tied for second place among the Rogatores (leaving us with three when we
only can use two); it has nothing to do with the recent election of the
Quaestores.

> Here's my two cents there: this is where the system
> is broken. Change it so that approval from the senate is not of the
election
> results, but of the ability of the candidate to run in the election.

Already on the docket. Unfortunately, that's a different subject than the
one at hand. (Granted, they're both about the election process, but two very
different aspects thereof.)

> The system isn't broken in regard to the 8 quaestorships. It is working
fine,
> and simply needs to mature again. Leave it alone.

I happen to agree. As mentioned above, this isn't about the Quaestores.

> Here are something things that are broken:
> - As my Rogatorial colleague Dalmaticus mentioned, there was never a clear
point
> of cutoff prior to the beginning of voting when nominations of candidacy
> stopped. In addition, the process of throwing in one's nomination seemed
a bit
> spotty at best. I'd add to that a standardization of time announcements
for
> the elections.

Indeed; I pointed out to him yesterday where that information could be
found. When the vote starts, no more nominations can be accepted.

> There should be notification to the Rogators prior to the
> people, including giving them all the information they need to set up
their
> spreadsheets, etc., PRIOR to the beginning of voting.

Now this is a new notion, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree! It only
makes sense to make sure that the people involved in actually running the
technical aspects of the election are ready and able to do so when required.
I'm leery of turning this into legislation, however, because there could
always be the rare occasion where swift action is required in such things,
and we'd not want to leave our hands tied. But I know that I fully intend to
keep the rogatores and webmaster informed of any intention to call a vote.
(Indeed, I don't see any value in springing such things on the people
either; I think it'll be better to give a little warning about when a vote
is coming and what will be on it.)

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	[novaroma] Unsuccessful =?iso-8859-1?Q?Qu=E6stor?= quest...
From:	Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:50:00 -0600

Avete Omnes,

I must confess that the discussion of the mechanics of our voting procedures isn't high on my list
of things to study, but I've read all the posts with some interest.

One point I'd like to raise - I don't mind that I lost in a fair and open election.

Our system, imperfect though it may be (as is anything designed and run by humans), worked under its
current strictures.
Our laws, however they need amendment or emendment, are those of a nation barely into its infancy,
no matter the thousands of years of cultural heritage upon which we may draw for ideals, ideas and
examples.

Good work thus far, I think.

--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives, Paterfamilias Gens Ulleria
Legatus Provincia Laci Magnus, Dominus Sodalis
My homestead
http://www.geocities.com/piparskegg/index.html
Nova Roma website
http://www.novaroma.org/main.html
Sodalis pro Coqueror et Coquus
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:49:59 -0600 (CST)

Salve Luci Sergi,

> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on the
> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
> construed as approval of his candidacy.

On the subject of nonaction -- can a tribune veto a non-action (and thereby
force an action)? Gnaeus Moravius said he would have performed an
intercessio of this Senate vote if he had been Tribune at the time... but
as it would have required an affirmative action by the Senate to enable
Sextus Apollonius to assume office, there was nothing that could have
been vetoed. If either tribune attempted to veto that vote, then Apollonius
would have been unable to serve as Aedile, having failed to gain the
exemption needed.

The vote was on the question of granting an exemption to the law -- the
vote was not on whether he should be denied an office that normally he
would have the right to. Thus I don't think it can be vetoed, any attempt
to veto a non-action would be as ludicrous as "I veto your attempt to
refrain from proclaiming me 'king'."

Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?

Vale, O.

M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:58:19 -0800

Ave,

Not only that but there is a check on the power of the Veto in the
Constitution of Nova Roma. As stated, in the Constitution,

"To collegially pronounce intercessio against the actions of any other
magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex), Senatus
consulta, and laws passed by the comitia when they feel that the spirit and
letter of this Constitution are being violated thereby."

The Tribunes should ask themselves if the spirit AND letter of the
Constitution is being violated. But, your point, M. Octavius is an
excellent one. To me a veto would kill the process and the result is the
same, Sextus Apollonius would have still been denied to hold the office
since the Lex Iunia's requirement would not have been completed.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Octavius Germanicus" <hucke@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office

> Salve Luci Sergi,
>
> > Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
> > from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
> > Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on
the
> > ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
> > construed as approval of his candidacy.
>
> On the subject of nonaction -- can a tribune veto a non-action (and
thereby
> force an action)? Gnaeus Moravius said he would have performed an
> intercessio of this Senate vote if he had been Tribune at the time... but
> as it would have required an affirmative action by the Senate to enable
> Sextus Apollonius to assume office, there was nothing that could have
> been vetoed. If either tribune attempted to veto that vote, then
Apollonius
> would have been unable to serve as Aedile, having failed to gain the
> exemption needed.
>
> The vote was on the question of granting an exemption to the law -- the
> vote was not on whether he should be denied an office that normally he
> would have the right to. Thus I don't think it can be vetoed, any attempt
> to veto a non-action would be as ludicrous as "I veto your attempt to
> refrain from proclaiming me 'king'."
>
> Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?
>
> Vale, O.
>
>
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneae et Senator
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:03:19 -0800


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:41:56 -0700

I object because it's a spurious issue -- a tribe or century is either tied or
it's not. The order in which votes are cast is accidental. You might as well
toss a coin in the air and call the election.

Now, I ask you this, how are we suppossed to measure when the votes are cast?
There are two (or more) Rogators. How do we assure the order in which a vote is
received is the same for both Rogators? Come on, Germanicus, you know about
networks....a vote is cast not from a fixed point, but from any point (and as
you know, computers can have differences between them as to their internal
clocks), it flows across the internet....it has multiple destinations.....it
hits my isp and gets a time stamped on it -- time when it left the originating
system?? time when it hit the retreiving system?? hmm, could be either, could
depend on what happens to it along the way (does every packet technology, etc.,
used to transmit data across the multiple networks a data signal has to travel
record time according to the same point? [originating/retrieval point]) -- it
hits Dalmaticus' at a different time, does it reflect a different time to
Dalmaticus than mine.....well, yes, it most likely will.....Now let's reflect on
having TWO votes cast simultaneously.....vote A and vote B.....it's the
internet, all the little packets are doing their thing, and travelling the
network.......well, vote A hits my system first, but vote B hits Dalmaticus'
system first.....BUT they were supposedly "cast" at the same moment......how do
we tell the "order" of vote? How do we ensure that each vote has a time affixed
to it according to being cast over the internet which is FAIR in comparision to
the votes cast "before" and "after" it?

To judge an election, the Rogators have to coordinate whether the votes we
receive are received in the same order. We have to use data that agrees, or
it's not going to yield a valid result. If we can't get the time to agree, we
can't use the time. It's impossible to get the time to agree in an
electronically mediated election.

Livia

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LucillaCornelia@-------- [mailto:LucillaCornelia@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:50 PM
> >
> > I, likewise, object to this.
> >
> > Lucilla Prima
> >
> > Livia Cornelia Aurelia wrote:
> > >
> > > I object to this.
> > >
> > > Livia
>
> Not to press you fine ladies on a point which you seem reticent to elaborate
> on, but would you care to explain _why_ you object? (The subject at hand
> was, I believe, Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus' idea of using the order in which
> votes are registered within tribes and centuries to resolve ties; first
> candidate to reach their vote total wins the tribe/century.)
>
> Such terse "I object"'s with no elaboration, while certainly within your
> prerogative, are hardly conducive to the free and spirited flow of ideas
> which we have been enjoying here as of late.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:38:24 -0600 (CST)

Salve Livia Cornelia,

> I object because it's a spurious issue -- a tribe or century is either tied or
> it's not. The order in which votes are cast is accidental. You might as well
> toss a coin in the air and call the election.

I agree on this point.

> Now, I ask you this, how are we suppossed to measure when the votes are cast?
> There are two (or more) Rogators. How do we assure the order in which a vote is
> received is the same for both Rogators?

They have serial numbers.

> Come on, Germanicus, you know about networks....a vote is cast not from a
> fixed point, but from any point (and as you know, computers can have differences
> between them as to their internal clocks),

Regardless of where the user is, the voting mail is generated in exactly one
place, the server.

> It's impossible to get the time to agree in an electronically mediated election.

But it is possible, if there is one central server that timestamps each vote
as it is case and also issues a serial number. They might arrive out of order on
your mail server, but the number embedded in each one tells what the original
ordering was.

Vale, O.

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Interesting website
From:	"esoterix@--------" <ckieffe@comp.uark.edu>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:39:52 -0600

Here is the webpage for the group: http://cavern.uark.edu/studorg/stpa/
There are currently only two of us (besides the advisor) with any interest
in things Roman, so probably not many recruitment possibilities there. I
have however encouraged members both of S.P.A. and our university's Eta
Sigma Phi (classics honor society) -- http://comp.uark.edu/~etasigma/ --
with any interest to look into Nova Roma.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Interesting website

> Salve C. Cordius Symmachus,
>
> Am intrigued by your mention of the Student Pagan Association. Out of
> curiosity,
> how large an organization is it? Are there NR recruitment possibilities
> there?
> Is it a very active association?
>
> Gratiae multi,
> -Oppius
>
> PS: It is a very cool site, especially for those looking for a great
> overview of various
> aspects of the Religio. Thanks for posting it Sulla Felix!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chad [mailto:ckieffe@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:47 AM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Interesting website
>
>
> Salvete!
> I'm taking Ovid's "Fasti" as a Latin graduate elective (for my Comp
> Lit
> M.A.) under the professor who put up this webpage when the U of A
semester
> starts back next Tuesday. He is also teaching a course on "Religion in
> the
> Roman Empire" next semester, and he is the advisor for our campus
Student
> Pagan Association.
>
> Valete,
> C Cordius Symmachus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lucius Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
> To: "NovaRoma" <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:04 AM
> Subject: [novaroma] Interesting website
>
>
> >
http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/cicero/clst%201013%20religion.html
> >
> > Hope you enjoy.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
> Click here to subscribe.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:52:19 -0700

I understand a little better what you're trying to achieve, it's like this:

Candidate A gets 15 tribes, Candidate B and C get 10 each.

Some number gets picked between 1-35. We start counting there. Let's say at
10. So Cand. B gets tribe 12, 14, 15, C get 21, etc.....we keep going until
eventually one or the other hits 10 tribes and is the winner.

No. I don't like it. I oppose it. I'd rather see a reversion to popular vote.

If this was ever an actual practice, I'd like citations on it.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salvete;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:26 PM
> >
> > Well, essentially, we already do that. We start at tribe or century one,
> and
> > work our way down the list as a matter of procedure. I still don't see
> how
> > you're eliminating the possibility of ties.
>
> Perhaps an example would serve to make this clearer, since my previous
> explanations were obviously lacking. Let's say Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey
> are running for Consul. Crassus wins his office handily, but Caesar and
> Pompey are tied at 20 centuries each.
>
> Who wins? Under our current system, neither, or both. It is unclear.
>
> Under my proposal, the counting would start with a random century (let us
> say #65), and then proceed in numerical order. Century #65 votes for Caesar,
> #66 and #67 vote for Pompey, #68 votes for Caesar, and so on, until one or
> the other of them reaches the total number of centuries that voted for them.
> In this case, whichever of them counts their 20th century first, wins the
> office. (Naturally, only one of them can hit their total first, since the
> centuries are counted in order.)
>
> The reason for choosing a starting century at random is to make this aspect
> of the process fair to everyone. If we adopt the system of sequential
> counting, but always start with century #1, that gives the lower-numbered
> centuries an unfair advantage. By making the starting place random, no
> century or group of centuries has a built-in institutional advantage in this
> regard (there are, of course, weightings in terms of the century system
> specifically, but the principal extends to the evenly-weighted tribes as
> well).
>
> > Now we want
> > to impose an unnatural order on the order in which we count the centuries
> > (unnatural being anything other than starting from century/tribe no 1)
> because
> > we think we need to find a fix to a terrible problem with having tied
> candidates
> > or an office slot left open. Maybe I'm really missing something, but WHAT
> does
> > this solve?
>
> I must wonder at your use of the term "unnatural". This is a system that was
> used in Roma Antiqua, with the randomness introduced in order to afford
> equal access (in the long run) to members of all tribes and centuries.
>
> > In my opinion, this last election re the quaestors worked EXACTLY
> > the way it should have.
>
> Actually, this proposal is in response to the situation where two people
> tied for second place among the Rogatores (leaving us with three when we
> only can use two); it has nothing to do with the recent election of the
> Quaestores.
>
> > Here's my two cents there: this is where the system
> > is broken. Change it so that approval from the senate is not of the
> election
> > results, but of the ability of the candidate to run in the election.
>
> Already on the docket. Unfortunately, that's a different subject than the
> one at hand. (Granted, they're both about the election process, but two very
> different aspects thereof.)
>
> > The system isn't broken in regard to the 8 quaestorships. It is working
> fine,
> > and simply needs to mature again. Leave it alone.
>
> I happen to agree. As mentioned above, this isn't about the Quaestores.
>
> > Here are something things that are broken:
> > - As my Rogatorial colleague Dalmaticus mentioned, there was never a clear
> point
> > of cutoff prior to the beginning of voting when nominations of candidacy
> > stopped. In addition, the process of throwing in one's nomination seemed
> a bit
> > spotty at best. I'd add to that a standardization of time announcements
> for
> > the elections.
>
> Indeed; I pointed out to him yesterday where that information could be
> found. When the vote starts, no more nominations can be accepted.
>
> > There should be notification to the Rogators prior to the
> > people, including giving them all the information they need to set up
> their
> > spreadsheets, etc., PRIOR to the beginning of voting.
>
> Now this is a new notion, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree! It only
> makes sense to make sure that the people involved in actually running the
> technical aspects of the election are ready and able to do so when required.
> I'm leery of turning this into legislation, however, because there could
> always be the rare occasion where swift action is required in such things,
> and we'd not want to leave our hands tied. But I know that I fully intend to
> keep the rogatores and webmaster informed of any intention to call a vote.
> (Indeed, I don't see any value in springing such things on the people
> either; I think it'll be better to give a little warning about when a vote
> is coming and what will be on it.)
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:55:47 -0700

Whose server?? The nova roma server? My isp server? Serial numbers are better, but
by the gods.....the Senate opposes tallying per office but there's actual support for
THIS scheme?

I can't explain further. It's incredibly, intuitively, unfair to me in a way I cannot
put into words further.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve Livia Cornelia,
>
> > I object because it's a spurious issue -- a tribe or century is either tied or
> > it's not. The order in which votes are cast is accidental. You might as well
> > toss a coin in the air and call the election.
>
> I agree on this point.
>
> > Now, I ask you this, how are we suppossed to measure when the votes are cast?
> > There are two (or more) Rogators. How do we assure the order in which a vote is
> > received is the same for both Rogators?
>
> They have serial numbers.
>
> > Come on, Germanicus, you know about networks....a vote is cast not from a
> > fixed point, but from any point (and as you know, computers can have differences
> > between them as to their internal clocks),
>
> Regardless of where the user is, the voting mail is generated in exactly one
> place, the server.
>
> > It's impossible to get the time to agree in an electronically mediated election.
>
> But it is possible, if there is one central server that timestamps each vote
> as it is case and also issues a serial number. They might arrive out of order on
> your mail server, but the number embedded in each one tells what the original
> ordering was.
>
> Vale, O.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ties in votes (was RE: Uncontested elections)
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:52:27 -0600 (CST)

Salve Livia Cornelia,

> Whose server?? The nova roma server?

Yes. That is where the voting actually takes place, and that one server issues
serial numbers and timestamps the vote. You saw these numbers in the last
election, from 1001 to 1192.

> the Senate opposes tallying per office but there's actual support for THIS scheme?

Not from me. I don't particularly like the idea of having the election depend upon
a random tribe chosen as the starting point; I'd prefer a run-off election between
the tied candidates a few weeks later.

But I do think that if there is clear historical evidence for some method, then we
*should* adopt it. If we were trying to create an ideal and fair system of voting
we'd do away with the idea of tribes altogether -- but that's now why we're here,
we're here to recreate the traditions of Rome, and we should adhere to them
whereever possible.

Vale, O.

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Local Groups and Administrative Structures (was Local Groups)
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:47:10 -0800 (PST)

Salvete!

--- Oppius Flaccus <oppiusflaccus@--------> wrote:

> +The last point I can comment on relates
> specifically to
> recruitment. For this endeavor, I think that we *do*
> need
> to advertise and recruit at the city (urbes) level.
> It's difficult
> to foresee a more granular division becoming
> necessary for
> quite some time. As a pretense for sparking
> community interest
> in joining Nova Roma, the idea of 'forming a
> chapter' at the
> 'local level' is great, as long as it's applied at
> the city level.
> This will be especially important in areas that are
> widely
> distributed. For some mega-large and diffuse cities
> such as
> Los Angeles, then further subdivisions may be viable
> and beneficial
> at some future point.

I am a recruiting officer for my local SCA group and
have a series of handbills that we distribute. I'll
modify a few of them for NovaRoma and post them at the
egroups site (note that you'll need PowerPoint).
Local groups will still need to add local contact
information.

Here in Germania, as a result of your inspiring
comments, two nascient local groups are being
discussed, one in the "Land" ('state') of Hessen and
one in Baden-Wuerttemberg. We're still in the early
stages and have not sought any kind of formal
recognition.

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 02:11:06 EST

Salve

No, I don't think there was anything to veto there. It makes no sense to
propose to prohibit a magistrate from not acting. The intent here seems
to be to use the power of intercessio to force an action to be taken,
i.e., to compel recognition of Draco as an elected magistrate. I don't
think it can be used that way. It was designed to protect people from
actions by magistrates - not to force magistrates to take actions.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/8/01 7:49 PM Marcus Octavius Germanicus (hucke@--------) wrote:

>Salve Luci Sergi,
>
>> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a waiver
>> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of December.
>> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent inclusion on the
>> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores cannot be
>> construed as approval of his candidacy.
>
>On the subject of nonaction -- can a tribune veto a non-action (and thereby
>force an action)? Gnaeus Moravius said he would have performed an
>intercessio of this Senate vote if he had been Tribune at the time... but
>as it would have required an affirmative action by the Senate to enable
>Sextus Apollonius to assume office, there was nothing that could have
>been vetoed. If either tribune attempted to veto that vote, then Apollonius
>would have been unable to serve as Aedile, having failed to gain the
>exemption needed.
>
>The vote was on the question of granting an exemption to the law -- the
>vote was not on whether he should be denied an office that normally he
>would have the right to. Thus I don't think it can be vetoed, any attempt
>to veto a non-action would be as ludicrous as "I veto your attempt to
>refrain from proclaiming me 'king'."
>
>Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?
>
>Vale, O.
>
>
>M. Octavius Germanicus
>Propraetor, Lacus Magni
>Curator Araneae et Senator
>

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	[novaroma] Social/political et Lucius Sergius
From:	dougies@--------
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:54:51 -0000

Ave Lucius Sergius, et all,

How can you call these labels symbollic, when clearly they are not?
Plebeians have
seperate offices to Patricians. By the way the voting system is
positioned at the moment,
the first people to join Nova Roma (who, being the first 30 tribes,
are patricians) have
more power than any others and more influence in certain centruies.
Not only this, but
how can this division be "symbollic" when Patricians are given extra
century points?
These
divisions are not symbollic, rather they are physical and plain to
see. Divisions were a key
in the Roman system of social and political order, and while we seek
to create a replica
of
Roma antiqua that is as close as possible, so will it occur here.
Divisions are real in
Roman times, so too are they in Nova Roma. The Plebeian mailing list
is an essentail
need, considering the vast majority of new citizens who will become
plebs, and who are
plebs, and who feel that the Comitia Plebis Tributa is a way of having
their views
represented.

I mean no offense or disrespect from my comments, they are just
tendered as they are:
simple fact.

Valete bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

LSergAust@-------- wrote:

Salvete Omnes

I agree with these objections. I did not subscribe to a "plebian
list"
when I was a Tribune of the Plebs, not only because I have no more
time
and energy to squander on additional mailing lists but also because
I see
such a list as divisive. Separate lists for those who want to talk
about
wine-making or pilum-throwing or philosophizing are fine because
those
are particular interests that we may not all share. But WHAT
PARTICULAR
INTEREST IS THERE IN THE LABELS "PLEBIAN" OR "PATRICIAN?"

None! The labels are purely symbolic - relics of the past. There are
no
"plebian interests" or "patrician interests" to be served by
splitting us
up. We saw in November and December how harmful artificial
factionalization could be, with all sorts of discord and trumped-up
accusations and issues created. Let's not do any more of that,
please.

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/8/01 6:19 PM LucillaCornelia@--------
(LucillaCornelia@--------) wrote:

>Salvete omnes:
>
>We are one Republic; we are all Roman citizens. And while each of
us have
>individual ideas and aspirations it is not too much to hope that we
share a
>common goal and this shared goal is central to our existence and
purpose as
>Nova Romans.
>
>To foment the further division of citizens along class lines via
the
>encouragement of elitist channels of communication with the intent
of
>dividing rather than unifying us is, as Germanicus observes, most
>distressing
>and cannot serve Nova Roma and her Citizens in any positive
respect.
>
>We are all Citizens, on equal footing and common ground. Our
public
>channels
>of communication exist to maintain unity, encourage discourse and
the
>exchange of ideas, and enable us to work together as equals. To
lose sight
>of this is to abandon the spirit of the Republic and relinquish
that which
>makes us Roman.
>
>Valete bene,
>
>Lucilla Prima Cornelia Fortunata
>
>novaroma@-------- wrote:
>>
>> Salvete;
>>
>> I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most
distressing. Are
>> there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently
from the
>> Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms
are
>> necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should
we not be
>> striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?
>>
>> I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician,
magistrate
>> and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the
populace
for
>> no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of
communication
>> which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.
>>
>> Valete,
>>
>> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>> Consul
>>
>> email: germanicus@--------
>> AIM: Flavius Vedius
>> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
>> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
>> > To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
>> > Cc: Novaroma@--------
>> > Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
>> >
>> >
>> > NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
>> >
>> > Salvete Quirites
>> >
>> > In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
>> > junior Tribunus
>> > Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself
accessible to
>> > all Plebeian citizens.
>> >
>> > First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
>> > email list
>> > at
>> >
>> > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
From:	Craig Stevenson <dougies@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:19:54 +1030

Ave Oppius,

Forgive the colour of the chat room. Pisci did not choose the colour, nor did he
create the chat room. I created the chat room, and have not been able to devote
the proper time to it that it demands. It is left the way it was created, since
I do not know the codes for colours.

Hope this explains things,

Valete bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Oppius Flaccus wrote:

> Salve,
>
> I have to 'me too' on this, at least at this juncture
> in Nova Roma's growth. Speaking as both a plebian and
> an outspoken advocate of community and communication ,
> I'd personally rather see any cives contemplating
> spending time in another chat venue to spend it in
> the Forum or somewhere more public. As it is now,
> the Forum only ever seems to have a handful of cives
> in it at best. I did however subscribe to the mailing
> list as to not miss anything.
>
> (I just visited to see what Piscinus' mail was about,
> the room was a very deep hue of Navy Blue! It needs
> a non-melancholy background :-)..but I digress
>
> That being said, does anyone know of a good multi-zone
> digital clock for Windows that will help me keep track
> of the time in Rome and generic GMT derivatives? As
> everything is based on time in Rome, I don't want to run
> the risk of missing something important.
>
> Vale bene,
> -Oppius
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:11 AM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: RE: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
>
> Salvete;
>
> I must say that I find these rather divisive actions most distressing. Are
> there really issues which impact the Plebeians so differently from the
> Patricians that separate, exclusive email lists and chat rooms are
> necessary? Are we not all Citizens of the same Republic? Should we not be
> striving to come together in unity, the better to work together?
>
> I say we should, and I urge all Citizens, Plebeian and Patrician, magistrate
> and non-magistrate alike, to scorn these attempts to divide the populace for
> no good purpose, and make use of those public channels of communication
> which are provided for all Citizens, no matter what their class.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 16:41
> > To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@--------
> > Cc: Novaroma@--------
> > Subject: [novaroma] Nuntiatio tribunicius
> >
> >
> > NUNTIATIO EX DOMO TRIBUNI PLEBIS CN MORAVII PISCINI
> >
> > Salvete Quirites
> >
> > In keeping with the traditio tribunicius, I as the new
> > junior Tribunus
> > Plebis wish to announce some arrangements to make myself accessible to
> > all Plebeian citizens.
> >
> > First, I encourage all Plebians to subscribe to the Plebian
> > email list
> > at
> >
> > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ComitiaPlebisTributa
> >
> > On this list we shall be posting proposed plebiscita to be discussed
> > prior to voting. This will also become a list for Plebeians to raise
> > issues, and initiate proposals for plebiscita in their own right. In an
> > effort to make this list a primary means for Plebeians to communicate
> > with the Tribuni Plebis and for them to discuss Plebeian issues, I will
> > be making an effort to contact all Plebeian matres et patres familias,
> > to encourage all Plebeian gentes to be represented in the Comitia Plebis
> > Tributa. For this effort I am appointing as my scriba tribunicius,
> > Sentius Bruttius Sura.
> >
> > Secondly, I am in the habit of visiting the taverna in the
> > Forum Romanum
> > (the Nova Roma chat room) Monday through Friday between 2:00 PM to 5:00
> > PM Rome time (GMT 13.00-14.00 hrs). I am not always there, but quite
> > frequently. This is one of the best ways to reach me directly. Other
> > times that I may occasionally be found in the taverna are after 3:00 AM
> > Rome (GMT 02.00 hrs). http://pluto.beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275
> >
> > Third, I shall begin making myself available in the Comitia
> > Plebis chat
> > room on Wednesdays from 10:00 PM to Midnight Rome (GMT 21.00 to 23.00
> > hrs). The day(s) and time can be adjusted for the convenience of the
> > Quirites. http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/y/17189
> >
> > Fourth, I shall be forming a consilium tribunicius, as by custom,
> > consisting of all other plebeian officers and the Moravii et amici. I
> > should like to expand on this tradition. I make an open invitation to
> > all cives, Plebeian and Patrician, to contact me at my email address:
> > piscinus@-------- If you would like to be considered for this panel of
> > advisors to the Tribune, just write to me. Of course at any time, all
> > Plebeians are welcomed to contact me at my email address.
> >
> > Di deaeque vos incolumes custodiant. Valete
> >
> > Cn. Moravius Piscinus
> > Tribunus Plebis
> >
> >
> >
>
> eGroups Sponsor
>
> Click here to subscribe.


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Age-Laws Change
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 02:37:49 -0800 (PST)

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:

> (As an aside, I would say that I can't express how
> much I appreciate the
> well-thought-out comments from various citizens on
> this and other potential
> pieces of legislation, without rancor and
> bitterness. I do love the idea of
> creating consensus first, then acting. As far as I'm
> concerned, this is
> exactly how the system should be working.)

I'm also impressed with how amicable everyone is
being. I sincerely appreciate those especially who,
after a contentious election, have behaved as befits
their dignitas.

Lucius Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"Marc " <RexMarcius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:24:34 -0000

Salvete omnes!

Let me add a few points:

First: I too believe there was nothing to veto here, as this requires
an "action" by one of the magistrates or bodies suceptible to
Tribunician veto. But in the case of the Senate, the Tribune may very
well force an action as he - under the Constitution - also has the
power to call the Senate to order (ie in ym interpretation to force a
vote). If anything, our Tribune's newly planned course of action
could be understood that way, as an enforcement of a new vote on the
same subject, which is still open until a vote has been called in the
Comitia.

Second: The Tribunes have the highest authority apart from the
combined majority of the Comitia Centuriata and a 2/3 majority of the
Senate to interpret the Constitution ie they have not the sole power,
but certainly the most authoritative one.

Third: There is no question that Draco's candidacy was legal. To
imply otherwise would give the wrong impression that Draco did
something (at least morally) wrong and not the Seante (by simply not
reacting) Not the candidacy but the assumption of office is the
crucial deciding point for the Senate and the Censors (at least
according to the now valid lex).

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex
Senator

--- In novaroma@--------, LSergAust@a... wrote:
> Salve
>
> No, I don't think there was anything to veto there. It makes no
sense to
> propose to prohibit a magistrate from not acting. The intent here
seems
> to be to use the power of intercessio to force an action to be
taken,
> i.e., to compel recognition of Draco as an elected magistrate. I
don't
> think it can be used that way. It was designed to protect people
from
> actions by magistrates - not to force magistrates to take actions.
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
>
> On 1/8/01 7:49 PM Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------(hu----------------) wrote:
>
> >Salve Luci Sergi,
> >
> >> Sextus Apollonius Draco has been documented to have requested a
waiver
> >> from the Senate (which included the Censores) on the first of
December.
> >> Not having received the requested waiver, his subsequent
inclusion on the
> >> ballot was at best an error. Nonaction by the Senate/Censores
cannot be
> >> construed as approval of his candidacy.
> >
> >On the subject of nonaction -- can a tribune veto a non-action
(and thereby
> >force an action)? Gnaeus Moravius said he would have performed an
> >intercessio of this Senate vote if he had been Tribune at the
time... but
> >as it would have required an affirmative action by the Senate to
enable
> >Sextus Apollonius to assume office, there was nothing that could
have
> >been vetoed. If either tribune attempted to veto that vote, then
Apollonius
> >would have been unable to serve as Aedile, having failed to gain
the
> >exemption needed.
> >
> >The vote was on the question of granting an exemption to the law --
the
> >vote was not on whether he should be denied an office that
normally he
> >would have the right to. Thus I don't think it can be vetoed, any
attempt
> >to veto a non-action would be as ludicrous as "I veto your attempt
to
> >refrain from proclaiming me 'king'."
> >
> >Is this interpretation of the veto power accurate?
> >
> >Vale, O.
> >
> >
> >M. Octavius Germanicus
> >Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> >Curator Araneae et Senator
> >
>
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	[novaroma] CANADA OCCIDENTALIS EDICTA NUMBER SEVEN
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:20:12 -0600

CANADA OCCIDENTALIS EDICTA NUMBER SEVEN

APPOINTMENT OF LEGATUS FOR THE REGIO OF COLUMBIA

9 Jan 2000

Salve

I, Quintus Sertorius Praetor Canada Occidentalis, issue the following Edicta
to announce the appointment of Remesa Debrascus as Legatus for the Regio of
Columbia in the Nova Roma Provincia of Canada Occidentalis.

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Praetor
Canada Occidentalis


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN [Religio Romana] ante diem VII Idus Ianuarias (January 9th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:57:38 -0000

Salvete omnes

Today is one a "dies nefastus publicus" (NP), a day of special religious
observance when legal business cannot take place.

Today is the Agonalia of Ianuarius, when Ianus must be appeased. The Rex
Sacrorum sacrifices a ram to Ianus at the Regia in Roma.

The month of Ianuarius is sacred to Ianus.

Valete bene in pace deorum
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Local Groups and Administrative Structures (was Local Groups)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:08:59 -0500

Salvete!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 01:47
>
> I am a recruiting officer for my local SCA group and
> have a series of handbills that we distribute. I'll
> modify a few of them for NovaRoma and post them at the
> egroups site (note that you'll need PowerPoint).
> Local groups will still need to add local contact
> information.

Terrific! If they are suitable (and it definitely sounds like they will be),
perhaps they could be made availailable on the "Literature for Download"
section of the web site.

> Here in Germania, as a result of your inspiring
> comments, two nascient local groups are being
> discussed, one in the "Land" ('state') of Hessen and
> one in Baden-Wuerttemberg. We're still in the early
> stages and have not sought any kind of formal
> recognition.

As it just so happens, I'm working on some specific proposals regarding the
organization and operation of such local groups, based on feedback I've
gotten on the general ideas I posted last week. As soon as they're in a
presentable state, I'll roll them out here for discussion.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:15:54 -0500

Salve;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc [mailto:RexMarcius@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 07:25
>
> First: I too believe there was nothing to veto here, as this requires
> an "action" by one of the magistrates or bodies suceptible to
> Tribunician veto. But in the case of the Senate, the Tribune may very
> well force an action as he - under the Constitution - also has the
> power to call the Senate to order (ie in ym interpretation to force a
> vote). If anything, our Tribune's newly planned course of action
> could be understood that way, as an enforcement of a new vote on the
> same subject, which is still open until a vote has been called in the
> Comitia.

While your other two points are good ones, this is in fact mistaken. While
the Tribunis Plebis may call the Senate to order, only a magistrate with
Imperium may actually present items for debate and voting. This question
actually came up recently in another context.

However, I don't think this is what our good Tribune had in mind, given what
he actually said in his post on this subject (he specifically said he would
have employed intercessio to overturn the decision of the Senate not to
grant the exemption to Draco). I can definitely see the illogic of that
scenario; "I prevent you from not doing this thing".

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	[novaroma] Resignations
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:25:04 -0500

Salvete, Omnes;

I must at this time announce two resignations. The first was received by the
Senate from Quintus Iulius Camillus Caesar, who resigned yesterday as
Rogatorus. He undertook this selfless act in order to ensure a smooth
continuation of our governmental process, which doesn't provide for
resolving ties in elections (yet).

As I intend to propose a lex in the coming weeks increasing the number of
Rogatores from two to four, I hope that Quintus Iulius Camillus Caesar will
see fit to stand again for the position when and if it becomes open, and I
hope that the Cives will put him back in that position. I thank you, Quintus
Iulius Camillus Caesar, for putting the interests of the Republic ahead of
your own.

I must also, with sadness, announce that, coinciding with his assumption of
the office of Censor, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus has resigned as Legatus of
the Greater Washington D.C. Regio, in the Mediatlantica Provincia. To date,
no replacement has been designated, but any Citizen who wishes to serve in
the position should get in touch with me privately. (I should add that
similar Legati for the Greater New York City and Greater Philadelphia Regia
are being sought, as well.)

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://www.goldenfuture.net/mediatlantica


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: ATTN [Religio Romana] ante diem VII Idus Ianuarias (January 9th)
From:	razenna@--------
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:46:03 -0000

As usual, thanks go to Graecus for these postings. I wish to say that
his wording in this case brings to my mind an Aztec type situation of
threatening gods demanding blood sacrifice, rather than what I have
gotten in my readings, particularly H.H.Scullard. Today is the day of
Ianus. He is offered sacrfice, as are all the gods on their
particular occaisions. I do not have the time now, once again peeking
in instead of doing morning excercises before goiong to work, but
Scullard also goes into the uncertain roots of the name Ianus [Janus]
and has some interesting theories posited. Mainly Ianus is the "Gate
God", and all sorts of things are "gates". The doors of our houses,
the gates of the cities, the bridge across a river, the beginning of a
new undertaking. Today is also another of those days that might be
said to be a Roman New Year, along with Kal. Martis, 21 April and Kal
Ianuarius.

Now out the door and to work.

Salve Iane Pater, admitte me coram numina lucentia.
Conservis nos.
Ita est.

C.Aelius Ericius.

--- In novaroma@--------, "Antonio Grilo" <amg@c...> wrote:
> Salvete omnes
>
> Today is one a "dies nefastus publicus" (NP), a day of special
religious
> observance when legal business cannot take place.
>
> Today is the Agonalia of Ianuarius, when Ianus must be appeased. The
Rex
> Sacrorum sacrifices a ram to Ianus at the Regia in Roma.
>
> The month of Ianuarius is sacred to Ianus.
>
> Valete bene in pace deorum
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Denuntio Tribunicia: Assumption of Office
From:	RexMarcius@--------
Date:	Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:55:43 EST

Salve Consul!

I see your point and you may very well be right! I also know how it was
handled in ancient times. But as this is NOVA Roma let me just point out, how
I arrive at my (maybe erroneous) opinion.

I am not sure that the Senatus Consultum governing the internal procedures
(which you obviously refer to) is constitutional in that it makes a
difference between those Magistrates empowered by the Constitution to convene
the Senate 24 hours before it assembles (Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes) and
those convening it formally (highest ranking official with imperium e.g. a
Curulis Aedilis?? :-))

The Constitution (which has of course been drafted and enacted by you) makes
no difference in its wording regarding the powers of the Consuls, the
Praet