http://www.novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Tribune_report_of_October_2762_auc_session&feed=atom&action=historyTribune report of October 2762 auc session - Revision history2024-03-28T09:26:06ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.17.0http://www.novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Tribune_report_of_October_2762_auc_session&diff=44027&oldid=prevM. Lucretius Agricola at 11:50, 18 June 20102010-06-18T11:50:34Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: white; color:black;">
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr valign='top'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black;">Revision as of 11:50, 18 June 2010</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 375:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 375:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>conversations on this email list between sessions. There has to be an open line</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>conversations on this email list between sessions. There has to be an open line</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>of communications among members of the BOD.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background: #eee; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div>of communications among members of the BOD.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="background: #cfc; color:black; font-size: smaller;"><div><ins style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[[Category: MMDCCLXII]]</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>M. Lucretius Agricolahttp://www.novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Tribune_report_of_October_2762_auc_session&diff=42307&oldid=prevPublius Memmius Albucius at 13:46, 12 January 20102010-01-12T13:46:38Z<p></p>
<a href="http://www.novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Tribune_report_of_October_2762_auc_session&diff=42307&oldid=42306">Show changes</a>Publius Memmius Albuciushttp://www.novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Tribune_report_of_October_2762_auc_session&diff=42306&oldid=prevPublius Memmius Albucius: New page: '''Fl. Galerius Aurelianus''' Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d. The Senate was called into session at 11.00 hour (CET) on 9 Oct. 2762, with discussions continuing until approximately sunset in...2010-01-12T13:16:10Z<p>New page: '''Fl. Galerius Aurelianus''' Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d. The Senate was called into session at 11.00 hour (CET) on 9 Oct. 2762, with discussions continuing until approximately sunset in...</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>'''Fl. Galerius Aurelianus''' Tribunus Plebis omnibus s.d.<br />
<br />
The Senate was called into session at 11.00 hour (CET) on 9 Oct. 2762, with<br />
discussions continuing until approximately sunset in Rome (17.00 hrs CET) on 13<br />
Oct. 2762.<br />
<br />
Voting on the Agenda began in the second hour at 06.45 hrs CET on 14 Oct. 2762<br />
and concluded at 17.00 hrs CET on 18 Oct. 2762.<br />
<br />
"VTI ROGAS" indicates a vote in favor of an item,<br />
"ANTIQVO" is a vote against,<br />
"ABSTINEO" is an open abstention.<br />
<br />
<br />
The following 27 Senatores voted in the current session:<br />
<br />
MCC Marcus Curiatius Complutensis<br />
LCSF Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix<br />
CCS C. Curius Saturninus<br />
TGP Tiberius Galerius Paulinus<br />
MIP M. Iulius Perusianus<br />
GEC Gaius Equitius Cato<br />
PMA Publius Memmius Albucius<br />
MAM Marcus Arminius Maior<br />
MHM Marca Hortensia Maior<br />
GIC Gnaeus Iulius Caesar<br />
MIS M. Iulius Severus<br />
QSP Quintus Suetonius Paulinus<br />
CFBQ Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus<br />
GEM Gnaeus Equitius Marinus<br />
ATS A. Tullia Scholastica<br />
GVA Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa<br />
PUSV Publius Ullerus Stephanus Venator<br />
TIS T. Iulius Sabinus<br />
CFBM Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus<br />
EIL Equestria Iunia Laeca<br />
MMPH M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus<br />
QFM Quintus Fabius Maximus<br />
FGA Flavius Galerius Aurelianus<br />
CFD Caius Flavius Diocletianus<br />
DIPI Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus<br />
MLA Marcus Lucretius Agricola<br />
ECF Emilia Curia Finnica<br />
<br />
The following 3 Senators did not cast a vote, and their absence was not<br />
announced or justified in line with the Senatus Consultum defining a quorum and<br />
the LEX OCTAVIA DE SENATORIBUS:<br />
*CMM: C. Marius Merullus<br />
*FCA: Fr. Apulius Caesar<br />
*AMA: Arn. Moravia Aurelia<br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br />
=='''Item I - Waiving for M. Minucius Audens the 90 days period after resignation'''==<br />
<br><br />
<br />
===Proposal===<br />
<br />
M. Minucius Audens resigned his citizenship and all his offices including his<br />
seat in the Nova Roman Senate. Under the terms of the Lex Minucia Moravia de<br />
civitate eiuranda former citizens must wait ninety days before they can be<br />
reinstated, unless the Senate waives the return period.<br />
<br />
Following a request from Censor Ti. Galerius Paulinus, the Consuls request the<br />
Senate of Nova Roma to waive the ninety day waiting period and to return M.<br />
Minucius Audens to Nova Roman citizenship.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Results===<br />
<br />
<br />
23 UR; 4 ANT; 0 ABS: Item I has '''passed'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=='''Item II - New internal rules for the Senate: moderation of the contiones and no discussion during the vote period==<br />
<br><br />
<br />
===Proposal===<br />
<br />
In recent times the Senate list has been becoming a tacky place for<br />
discussion, where everybody seems to feel authorized to attack and insult<br />
everybody.<br />
<br />
To avoid this situation, the Consuls propose the establishment of some minimum<br />
standards.<br />
- The Senate list must be under the moderation control of the Consuls.<br />
- The Contio will be moderated. Each Senator shall have her or his respective<br />
turns for speech and replies according to the traditions followed in ancient<br />
Rome. So nobody can monopolize the Senate rostrum and become the center of all<br />
debates.<br />
- The Senate list will be closed between sessions. If the Senatores would like<br />
to discuss Nova Roma matters, they can do this in private or in other forums.<br />
- Discussions will be not allowed during the voting time.<br />
- Off topic messages during contio or voting time will be rejected.<br />
<br />
===Results===<br />
<br />
13 UR, 13 ANT, 1 ABS: Item II has '''failed'''.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Votes and discussions on '''both items'''===<br />
<br />
MCC<br />
Item I: Antiqvo. I am against the exception to the general rule.<br />
<br />
Item II: Vti Rogas. We need order in our Senate meetings.<br />
<br />
LCSF<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. This is probably the best item these consuls have<br />
presented to the Senate.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. And this is probably the worst item presented by the<br />
consuls. The same consul who has utterly diminished the office of the consulship<br />
no less. Given the sockpuppet issue. Yeah, lets give the consuls more authority.<br />
Let them determine free speech for them, but not for anyone else who disagrees<br />
with them. So, dictatorial. If this item passes, I will look forward to the law<br />
of unintended consequences.<br />
<br />
CCS<br />
Item I: Antiqvo. I have always been for mercy and against unnecessary rules, but<br />
I have now realized that I have been too liberal in this. Allowing Cato to<br />
return was a huge mistake. Perhaps if he would have had to wait the normal<br />
period he would have acted differently. I don't want to see same again. Let<br />
Audens wait the time he should and calm down.<br />
<br />
Item II: Vti Rogas. Much need change. Senate session list is not a chatroom.<br />
<br />
TGP<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. Senator Audens is the type of person who the exception rule<br />
was written for. I respectfully request that all Senators to vote to restore<br />
Senator Audens to citizenship. As I said before Senator Audens will be the last<br />
person I will ask the Senate to approve an exception for.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. For over ten years this Senate list has been open between<br />
sessions for any Senator to bring before this body any subject that a Senator<br />
may choose to address. The items discussed still must make their way on to the<br />
Consuls agenda before a formal vote can be taken. If it is a good idea it usual<br />
does, if not, not. I believe that an open Senate list has served us well in all<br />
of this time and I am firmly against this proposal in its entirety.<br />
If an individual Senator or a group of Senators do not want to receive<br />
messages between sessions they can simply change their own Yahoo setting for<br />
this list to digest only. Those Senators who wish to discuss an item would be<br />
free to do so.<br />
Nova Roma needs more free and open discussions not less.<br />
During a formal session of the Senate the Consuls get to invite anybody they<br />
like to address this house and they set the agenda. Those Senators who wish to<br />
remain after a session to discuss whatever should be allowed to do so. By<br />
keeping this list open we have a permanent record of these informal discussions<br />
and can use these to determine if a given idea has merit or not.<br />
The Consuls are already moderators of this list per an agreement made during<br />
Censor Modianus Consulship on list ownership and moderation. The Senate list<br />
should remain under the ownership and lead moderation of the Censors as the<br />
Consuls have enough to do and enough power over this house as it is. The<br />
moderation of this house by the Censors,with the occasional assistance of the<br />
Consuls is one more check and balance within our system.<br />
I see no need to change what has worked for over ten years. For the record, both<br />
public and private, I have to add that I believe this recommendation of the<br />
Consuls is one more grab for power and another effort to silence anybody who has<br />
an opinion different than theirs.<br />
It should also be noted that this is the first pair of Consuls in Nova Roman<br />
history to have ask for the ability to silence the Senate in their own house.<br />
Consuls like Modianus and myself never asked for it. Consuls dealing with a<br />
civil war back in 1998 did not request it. For ten years no other Consuls have<br />
asked for this.<br />
I respectfully ask that ALL Senators vote against this measure for the freedom<br />
of speech you save today will be your own.<br />
<br />
MIP : Item I and II: UR.<br />
<br />
<br />
GEC<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. I do not understand why some people keep referring to this<br />
issue as if it is contrary to the law; the law has this clause specifically to<br />
enable this House to use its authority in precisely this manner. Allowing the<br />
waiver of the 90-day period IS PART of the law, not an "exception" to it or even<br />
particularly extraordinary.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. The senators Iunius Paladius, Galerius Paulinus, and Iulius<br />
Caesar have expressed the matter to perfection.<br />
ADDENDUM to my comments on Item II, which I would like to put on record:<br />
There is constant reference to the Senate House in Roma Antiqua being<br />
"closed"; when I asked for specific primary sources to support this claim, none<br />
were given. In Roma Antiqua, the Senate could meet in any number of buildings or<br />
places, and did so. This is *not* an ancient practice, and to claim that it was<br />
for political purposes - is a gross misrepresentation of history.<br />
<br />
PMA<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas, in the unmodified frame of my general position and<br />
considering that Lex Minucia Moravia de civitate eiuranda itself allows (VIII.B)<br />
an exception whowe [sic] application is then decided by the senate. M. Minucius<br />
Audens, by his cursus and his realizations for the republic, is among the few<br />
ones who deserve such an exception.<br />
<br />
Item II: Vti Rogas. Our Senate must work as a true senatus romanus, under the<br />
watching of its presiding magistrates, with sessions where people may speak in,<br />
and off-sessions times, as in Ancient Rome, where the Curia is closed and<br />
several other places are available to senators for political discussions.<br />
<br />
MAM<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas.<br />
<br />
Item II:Abstineo.<br />
<br />
MHM<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. For Senator Audens an exception should be made, he deserves<br />
it.<br />
<br />
Item II: Vti Rogas. The Curia must be closed between sessions as was done in<br />
Roma Antiqua. It is appalling when senators ignore the calendar, the PM who<br />
reminds them and chat in the Curia on days when they should be celebrating the<br />
feria. Our ancestors put the gods first; so must we.<br />
<br />
GIC<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. I said to some that "the first item needs no comment, and the<br />
second item deserves no comment". By that I mean that the first item is<br />
self-evident and the second , this item, not really a practical solution and<br />
therefore barely worth the effort of reply. Yet having read some of the comments<br />
here, I see why my good friend Palladius did comment.<br />
I too wouldn't have a problem with this, if this Senate was a functional body<br />
with a capacity and willingness to debate issues. A certain amount of insults,<br />
rock throwing and banter in posts is to be expected and if one has the proper<br />
perspective this shouldn't cause any more discomfort than a raindrop on the end<br />
of your nose, as long as the quantity is in moderation though. This isn't the<br />
case. Emotions run rampant all the time. Rarely can this house focus on an issue<br />
and dissect it and debate it, without succumbing to irrational fears, ludicrous<br />
allegations, and a general breakdown of common sense. Also, this Senate does not<br />
meet in a physical sense and therefore using the argument that the ancient Roman<br />
Senate met in locations sanctioned by religious ceremony to imply that somehow<br />
this non-physical list in cyber space can somehow be designated in the same way,<br />
and the same prohibitions apply, is ludicrous.<br />
I know that it is common-place to claim that the doom of Nova Roma is imminent -<br />
largely as a result of the discord here, and that "something must be done".<br />
Nonsense. Nova Roma will survive as it always has done. So what if some people<br />
quit the arena in a huff? That happens all the time, and frequently they come<br />
back, sometimes within days and they come from all sides of the political<br />
spectrum (well it would be days assuming we get the chance to vote on it<br />
promptly of course). Those that don't come back will be replaced. These are<br />
personal choices to stay or quit and most times they are fueled by emotional<br />
reactions. You can't legislate the causes of these incidents of quitting out of<br />
existence, for they are infinite and you can't legislate against personalities<br />
prone to this. Clearly many of you think the same way, even if you don't know<br />
it, for one person who provided an essential service - Octavius - departed<br />
without much hair pulling from some in office this year. As we have seen, this<br />
was someone who helped glue Nova Roma together (and we are currently obviously<br />
working out how to fill his very big pair of shoes - without any imminent signs<br />
of success I might add), as the majority of its business and future still rests<br />
in cyberspace, however much some of you may want to downplay that. If he can<br />
depart with barely a squeak of protest then the claims that people may leave and<br />
the house of cards will come tumbling down seems somewhat selective. I suppose<br />
people who say that doom is imminent really mean they or their friends will<br />
quit, if they really mean it at all and aren't simply using it as a convenient<br />
device to stir up public sentiment (rarely happens as the silent majority on the<br />
Main List remain silent) and create an atmosphere of fear, in order to nullify<br />
their political opponents. I see this proposal as either a reaction by one side<br />
to the opposition of the other, borne out of frustration and a complete loss of<br />
direction and control (which is really what this is about I suspect), or a<br />
deliberate effort to<br />
nullify their opponents. The supporting arguments are unconvincing. You want<br />
peace in this house? Start to debate issues. Start to dialogue with your<br />
opponents to secure your legislation. Do something really original and<br />
negotiate, in advance of putting changes to the people. Ensure you can pass<br />
constitutional changes before you bother us all with them, through the simple<br />
device of calculating support and taking steps to secure support if you don't<br />
initially have enough. Peace won't come by shutting down the one place where<br />
dialogue needs to happen, before, during and after formal sessions.<br />
Until many of you stop proclaiming the doom of Nova Roma is imminent unless<br />
measures like this are passed, until you cease the rather uninspiring and dull<br />
insults (at least be witty or cuttingly sarcastic instead of the witless<br />
gibbering about "rats" and the rest of the usual drivel that passes for an<br />
intelligent insult) and until you decide to give value to your proposals by<br />
negotiating for them, rather than turning up your noses at talking to your<br />
opponents, until all that happens this proposal can only be seen as either a<br />
forlorn hope to regain control of the situation by suppressing the very dialogue<br />
that is needed, or, an attempt to squash dissent. Neither option is worth<br />
supporting. One last thought, as with all repressive acts this could one day<br />
come back to bite all of you who support it, for it is predicated on having<br />
consuls you as individual Senators trust at the helm. One day you may find<br />
yourself facing two consuls who abuse the powers proposed. A shocking concept I<br />
know, entirely unknown in Nova Roma of course, but it may happen. Some may say<br />
it will happen, as sure as the sun rising and setting, and then what? By then it<br />
will be too late, having gifted so much power over this house, a house barely<br />
able to function. Stop looking to others to solve the problem and solve it<br />
individually.<br />
We need a collective resolve to solve our own issues, not a consular nanny<br />
service, putting us all to bed with no tea for being bad children.<br />
<br />
MIS<br />
Item I: Antiqvo. I think that besides the merits of a person, we must stop<br />
granting exceptions.<br />
<br />
Item II: Vti Rogas. The Senate has a purpose and a dignitas. The kind of<br />
conversations that we have witnessed lately is not for this House. We have<br />
several fora and we could create more, if needed.<br />
<br />
QSP<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. Senator Audens is the backbones of Nova Roma as I<br />
previously mentioned and I do not hesitate to have him re-instated.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. I respectfully ask that ALL Senators vote against this measure<br />
for the freedom of speech you save today will be your own. I agree with Censor<br />
Tiberi and could not have said this better myself.<br />
<br />
CFBQ<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. I agree that M. Minucius Audens, is among the few who deserve<br />
this an exception, especially considering the circumstances during the decision<br />
to resign.<br />
<br />
Item II: Vti Rogas. I have been active in democratic assemblies since my teens<br />
and the bullies always thrive when there are no rules and the one who screams<br />
the loudest will always be the one who dominate the debate climate if<br />
discussions are not structured. As a chairman of many assemblies I would never<br />
tolerate the chaos that is the Nova Roman Senate. Those who teach how to lead<br />
democratic assemblies would just shake their heads to our Senate. With this<br />
proposal we may see more serious debate.<br />
<br />
GEM<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. If Marcus Audens isn't deserving of an exception in this<br />
case, nobody is, ever was, or ever will be.<br />
<br />
Item II: Vti Rogas. If the members of this Senate conducted themselves as<br />
senators ought, this measure would not be necessary. However, they do not, and<br />
thus it is.<br />
<br />
ATS<br />
Item I (restoration of M. Minucius Audens' citizenship): Vti rogas. I, too, do<br />
not favor making exceptions the rule, but occasionally one should indeed make<br />
exceptions. This is one such case.<br />
<br />
Item II (new rules for the Senate): Antiqvo. While there are certainly members<br />
of this body who, like a student who just expelled himself before we did,<br />
require considerable external control as they are unable to restrain themselves,<br />
it seems excessive to impose this on all members of this body. Moreover, closing<br />
the curia (better known as its mailing list) while the Senate is out of session<br />
is counterproductive, and if anything, gives the consules more power as no one<br />
could speak up in between sessions. Perhaps certain members who are prone to<br />
emotional outbursts and the like should be moderated, but to me it is offensive<br />
for all of us to be dealt with as if we were naughty children or feeling the<br />
effects of excessive indulgence in assorted psychotropic drugs. The same could<br />
also be said about unjust moderation elsewhere.<br />
<br />
GVA<br />
Item I: Uti rogas.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiquo.<br />
<br />
PUSV<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas!!! If we can not welcome Marcus Minucius Audens back, a<br />
gesture we should have made much, much sooner, then perhaps the critics are<br />
correct and Nova Roma is mortally wounded.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. I have been reading both historical and well-researched<br />
historical, fictional accounts recently; the Senate Antiqua was, to my eyes, a<br />
rather rough house. I also agree that no<br />
documentation has been promulgated that supports closing this email list and<br />
allowing any "gagging" between or during sessions.<br />
<br />
TIS<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. I think that M. Minucius Audens represent one of the few<br />
exceptions I can take in consideration when it comes about to waive the ninety<br />
day waiting period. That because his contributions to Nova Roma are<br />
unquestionable and greatest than the effects of his decision. My expectation is<br />
as M. Minucius to follow the romanitas he usually shows us and to wait ninety<br />
days as any ordinary citizen and to take the responsibility of his decision,<br />
despite what Censor Ti.<br />
Galerius, in his well known style entering nose in other people business,<br />
proposed to this August Body. It's up to M. Minucius.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. I paid attention to all what my colleagues said about this<br />
item. Indeed, for some Senators, is necessary more discipline and focus to the<br />
specific subject of the items presented during the debates time of the sessions.<br />
It's normal as this to be accomplished through their own efforts as a continue<br />
process of understanding of the Roman moral values.<br />
With all of these, in the current political climate of Nova Roma, this item<br />
sounds to me not as a regulation of the Senate debates but as a restriction of<br />
the freedom of speech. The health of a Republic consists in the powerful voice<br />
of the political opposition. Without that opposition there is not any correct<br />
development and democratic progress.<br />
<br />
CFBM<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. I think Audens should wait the 90 days, what is the rush? <br />
However, because of his accomplishments to Nova Roma an exception seems<br />
appropriate. Let his departure and desire to return a testament to thinking<br />
before acting.<br />
<br />
Item II: Vti Rogas. I'm not absolutely sure we need this proposal, but our<br />
dysfunctional culture needs to change and this might work. If it doesn't I'll<br />
gladly vote to have it removed.<br />
<br />
EIL<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. Seven months ago, this body waived the waiting period for a<br />
senator who resigned out of anger. At that time, it was obvious that this<br />
exception to the law was flawed. It provided<br />
senators the ability to decide, solely based on their personal feelings for the<br />
resigned person, whether or not the true purpose and intent of the law should be<br />
enforced.<br />
The senator who resigned this time, did so out of a feeling of hopelessness<br />
mainly due to the lack of civility in this body. Marcus Minucius Audens has been<br />
one of our longest serving citizens and<br />
senators, and has contributed an enormous amount of time, energy and talent to<br />
growing and shaping this organization. Furthermore, his consistent good faith<br />
efforts have earned him the well deserved reputation of being one of the most<br />
honored and trusted of Nova Romans.<br />
This law should be modified to ensure that it can be applied fairly to all<br />
citizens. However, at this time, if any exception should be made under the<br />
current law, it should be made for someone as vital to Nova Roma as this<br />
citizen. Therefore, I am in favor of waiving the waiting period for Marcus<br />
Minucius Audens.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. As the Senate is the governing body of this organization,<br />
there needs to be a line of communication open to its' members at all times in<br />
order to monitor the routine policies, actions<br />
and affairs of the state. However, I am in favor of placing those members unable<br />
to conduct themselves with decorum, especially with regard to controlling their<br />
emotions, be placed on moderation for a time to ensure that discussions do not<br />
devolve into unproductive or damaging rhetoric.<br />
<br />
MMPH<br />
ITEM I: Adsentior uti rogas. I agree entirely with Senator Palladius on this<br />
Item. Provision was made for the Senate to allow exceptions, and if Senator<br />
Audens is not worthy of an exception, then no one in this chamber should be<br />
considered worthy.<br />
<br />
ITEM II: Assentior uti rogas. There have been attempts made to have the Senate<br />
accept some code of conduct that would make our discussions here more civil.<br />
Rather ironically, those efforts have been led for the most part by Senator<br />
Audens whom we now consider<br />
to rejoin us. He has been opposed by the worst offenders, claiming that it is<br />
their right to say whatever they wish, to whomever, about whoever, in any manner<br />
that is suited to the gutters of society. This Senate is not the Back Alley. We<br />
should never have allowed the list for this august body to have fallen to such a<br />
state as breeds divisive factionalism. Those opposed to this measure as they<br />
see it aimed directly at their own abuses, are now joined by others with a<br />
reasoned concern that this Senate rule would be used to squelch dissenting<br />
opinions in the Senate. I think not. The aim is to make our discussions more<br />
orderly, under a model similar to that used by the Senate of Roma antiqua. It<br />
will allow all sides to voice their opinion so that all members may weigh the<br />
arguments given for or against an Item, and without all the fruitless exchanges<br />
of vile insults and counter insults, threats, lies, fabrications, and hyperbole<br />
aimed to disrupt discussions. I do not deny the concern expressed by some for<br />
the possible abuse of this Senate rule. Yet I believe we are all aware of this<br />
potential and thus shall guard against it, because no matter what side our<br />
individual members may consider themselves on, we share in the value of reasoned<br />
arguments freely presented. I believe that this Senate rule can be used to much<br />
improve communication within the Senate, and thus overcome the recent<br />
factionalism and build bridges between sides based on mutual respect.<br />
<br />
QFM<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas. Conscript Fathers, it is obvious that this law is flawed. <br />
While I understand people needing to get away from Nova Roma, because of<br />
personal crises, illness or work, to punish them because of this seems spiteful<br />
and asinine, not worthy of a Nova Roma which preaches tolerance to all.<br />
Senators that leave usually have a damn good reason to do so, and once whatever<br />
was forcing them to be inactive in NR is resolved they should have the ability<br />
to decide when they are ready to return. I remind the Conscript Fathers that<br />
membership to the marble bench is not elected by the people, but an assigned<br />
honor solely based on their merit, so the Roman people are not being<br />
disappointed by their elected choice. Marcus Minucius Audens explained why he<br />
left. The Senate must decide if we wish to re admit him to our ranks at this<br />
time. I say yes. I agree with Iulia Laeca that this lex needs to be modified.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. We got along fine for X years without such. Why now? There is<br />
a need for lines of communication open to the Senate members so all can discuss<br />
if necessary the affairs of Nova Roma. Rhetoric was a part of the speaker's<br />
weapons, and we are not all stupid Yes men to the Consules, we all have our<br />
opinions and we retain our right to express those. If I did not know better I'd<br />
say that this was a veiled attempt to censor outspoken Senators. But<br />
I know better. So, we don't need this. Peer pressure is more then enough to keep<br />
the occasional boisterous Senator in line.<br />
<br />
FGA<br />
Item I: Antiqvo.<br />
<br />
Item II: Vti Rogas.<br />
<br />
CFD<br />
Item I: Vti Rogas.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo.<br />
<br />
DIPI<br />
Item I: Vti rogas. I usually am against exceptions and have voted against them<br />
in the past. I voted against Cato's exception, unlike many of the people who are<br />
now choosing badly and voting against Audens because they believe they made the<br />
wrong choice then. One must be able to show discernment and weigh the choices.<br />
We have exceptions for a reason, so that in extraordinary circumstances or for<br />
extraordinary people we may break usual practice. If Marcus Audens is not worthy<br />
of an exception, is not one of those exceptional Nova Romans, then not a single<br />
person in this body, not a single person in Nova Roma, is worthy.<br />
<br />
Item II: Antiqvo. If I thought this was being proposed out of concern for the<br />
Senate I would vote for it. I am not blind to the puerile behavior of people of<br />
every faction in these "chambers," especially of late, but let's be honest with<br />
ourselves. This is not a chamber of any kind but an email list and thus prone to<br />
the abuse of those who run it.<br />
My fear, which is quite probably justified, is that this item is not proposed<br />
out of any concern for the well being of the Senate or Nova Roma but rather it<br />
is meant to stifle dissenting voices and discussion of any kind, ESPECIALLY<br />
since part of the proposal states that senators will be moderated even during<br />
the contio. That is going too far. A vote for this item would be a vote to<br />
damage the Senate and Nova Roma.<br />
No legislative or deliberative body in the world, especially the ancient Roman<br />
senate, would put up with such a restriction. The ancient Senate was a pretty<br />
rough and raucous place, our Senate is quite tame by comparison in tone and<br />
language.<br />
These rules would in essence mean that every post would have to be approved by<br />
the presiding magistrate before they could be posted. Just think. If this were<br />
done in person each senator would have to quietly go up to the consuls, give<br />
them a copy of his remarks, and have them approved before he could speak. No<br />
senator should agree to put up with this! No other deliberative or legislative<br />
body would put up with it either unless in a dictatorship. This proposal is<br />
anathema to free speech.<br />
As far as the so-called religious arguments brought up for forbidding casual<br />
conversations between sessions, they are straw men and not very substantial ones<br />
at that. Any religious restrictions--none of which are listed as a reason for<br />
this proposal--only apply to meetings of the Senate. They do not apply to casual<br />
conversations on this email list between sessions. There has to be an open line<br />
of communications among members of the BOD.<br />
<br />
MLA<br />
Item I and II: UR.<br />
<br />
Please record my votes on all items exactly the same as those of Princeps<br />
Senatus Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus. With apologies to all members, I am now<br />
attending a conference and cannot devote more time.<br />
<br />
ECF<br />
Item I and II: UR.</div>Publius Memmius Albucius