And I find myself in perfect agreement with the two of you.
Valete,
Diana

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kling" <tau.athanasios@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Free speech on the ML - and a misunderstaning


>I find myself in perfect agreement with Palladius. This list should be
> about community.
>
> Modianus
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Salvete,
>>
>> Senator Sulla's vision of the ML is exactly right. The restrictions
>> placed
>> on this list and oppressive atmosphere over the years--for example the
>> screams and yells when one goes "off topic," whatever that is supposed to
>> mean--is one reason why some of us who have been in Nova Roma a long time
>> don't post here anymore.
>>
>> Lentulus in his post has a serious misunderstanding as to what this forum
>> is for. The ML is the one place where everyone can come together as a
>> "community," since we don't exist together in a physical place. This list
>> is
>> not the rostra or official medium for members of the government--that's
>> what
>> the NRAnnounce list is for. The ML is the common area in the forum with
>> numerous conversations going on about various and sundry issues, a place
>> to
>> discuss public issues as well as personal beliefs and opinions, except
>> here
>> we can "hear" them all. In the background there is an occasional
>> statement
>> by government officials on the rostra but that should not dominate here
>> except during certain times.
>>
>> Valete,
>>
>> Palladius
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Salve Maior,

I truly hope that you will continue to do all of the cool things that you do
for Nova Roma. Actually being Praetor must be a crap job anyway! It's like
being a referee with a fancy title. :-)
Vale,
Diana

----- Original Message -----
From: "rory12001" <rory12001@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:11 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] to the Quirities


M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;

as Gn. Cornelius Lentulus pointed out there are too few who are truly
conversant with Roman culture and those citizens we need to treasure and
respect as wise models for us.

I wrote to A. Apollonius Cordus, my longtime friend, with great knowledge of
Roman law and political culture and he told me that Romans did not
distinguish between the personal and the political.

So my private letter to the parties involved was indeed a resignation. I am
grieved that I departed from true Roman behavior.

I can only say to the Quirites that I will do better; every day in following
the mos, the examples, of Roma antiqua.

di Novae Romae favent! May the gods favour Nova Roma!
Fortuna mihi semper amet! May Fortuna always love me

M. Hortensia Maior

Salve Omnes
!
This is a private mail to all interested.

As there are some days that are Nefasti I will have to wait with
publishing any statemnment. Still I thank Marca Hortnsia for her
service as Praetor and wish her all the best in the future. I am sure
that The Res Publica will need her in the future.

It is my hope that the discusions on the ML will be a bit more open
and less confrontational.


*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae

Agricola Omnibus sal.


I think Lentulus is on the right track.

The main problem is that we slap the name "Nova Roma" on this list and then the leadership stands back and does nothing to "protect the brand". There is no reason whatsoever, aside from blind ideology arising out of modern cultures, to permit this.

A quick perusal shows that the same currents circulate here endlessly, accomplishing nothing and making us look like fools. By contrast, consider New Roman, a closely moderated list that consistently earns praise for making a real and useful contribution to the welfare of Nova Roma.

I am not the first one to note that we would be far better off to dump this list entirely. Not only does is do little good, but it does harm by siphoning off energy that could constructively be used elsewhere. In my opinion, citizens would be far better off to spend more time building up their local groups. Now I imagine some will say that they have no local group. I answer that this is the wrong place to fix that. "Get local and get active" is an idea that is catching on in parts of Europe and it is much to their honor and credit that this is so.

There is a notion that goes around that somehow this open and unmoderated forum is "like the Roman forum", a place where everyone could gather and be heard on any issue. This is nonsense. People with something to say had dinner with their friends or met in a public bath or did some other such thing. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone with any random thought immediately trotted off to the forum to bellow away at all and sundry. When the forum was a public meeting place it was because there was a pressing public issue. Often the public gathered there to hear what a specific magistrate had to say.

I could go on and on with examples, but I'll stop now, noting that a lot of good things have been happening in Nova Roma recently and they are all happening elsewhere. This list continues to bring disgrace and to obstruct rather than help in our progress. It is a shame that this mess hasn't been cleaned up and that the leadership has done nothing about it for so long.


M. Lucretius Agricola

Senator and Augur

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
>
> Lentulus Ciceroni et omnibus sal.
>  
> Roman citizens were never allowed to speak "freely" to the audience of the forum. Only magistrates with imperrium could make public speeches in Rome freely, and only those high ranking, distinguished senior statesmen whom he invited to support their sides could publicly make their voice heard.
>  
> Freedom of speech, the concept how many understand it when they refer to this ML, never existed in Rome, nor does it exist in the modern world. The ML is a public communication chanel of the NR state. Imagine how it would look if any US citizen were allowed to speak their mind in the national TV or radio channel... Only a very,very selected few are allowed to this, whom the media invites.
>  
> The space for a private citizen's free speech was never the Rostra of the forum, never the official journals, never the Federal Register, never the public national communication channels, but the informal channels and various private comunications. Keeping the example of the USA, no US citizen could go into the Capitol, or into the White House to convoke a conference in which he would address the nation, he could, however, organize a demonstration or a convention as a private initiative: and here comes free speech: in a free state he can do that.
>  
> When it comes to NR, we finally have to understand that the ML is not to place to inundate it with our personal beliefs and opinions, but to nourish and nurture with the glory of Romanitas, with the love towards Nova Roma, with fraternity, with education and with Roman discipline.
>  
> Valete!
>  
> Cn. Lentulus
>
>
> --- Gio 10/6/10, lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@...> ha scritto:
>
>
> Da: lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@...>
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Moderation of the Forum romanum (ML) - prorogation of ed. GEM...
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Giovedì 10 giugno 2010, 14:06
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I have a feeling that if we had a time machine and could get a historical Roman citizen a computer and get him posting to this forum, he'd be banned in short order :)
>

Ave,

But the brand does not need protecting. The members of the organization do that in and of themselves.

The leaders of the organization should only step in if there is a CLEAR AND IMMINENT danger, per the constitution. Not because someone said a bad word, or said something that only a minority agree with. Or if someone talks about their faith.

A Clear and imminent danger is one that threatens the existence of the corporation and as I stated before the only ones I can think of are:

1 - threat to do bodily harm to ANYONE.
2 - announcing that they intend to do something insane like going to be a suicide bomber.
3 - advocating rebellion against the US government and supporting an attack against the US government.

That's it. If it doesn't meet the standard then there should be no moderation.

And, I even agree with Modianus that spam should be monitored - if that ever has been a problem in NR. Beyond that, the ML should be free and open to discuss just about anything because that is what creates a community atmosphere.

This is what is in compliance with the Constitution of Nova Roma. Anything else is an abuse of magisterial power, nothing more and nothing less.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcus.lucretius" <marcus.lucretius@...> wrote:
>
> Agricola Omnibus sal.
>
>
> I think Lentulus is on the right track.
>
> The main problem is that we slap the name "Nova Roma" on this list and then the leadership stands back and does nothing to "protect the brand". There is no reason whatsoever, aside from blind ideology arising out of modern cultures, to permit this.
>
> A quick perusal shows that the same currents circulate here endlessly, accomplishing nothing and making us look like fools. By contrast, consider New Roman, a closely moderated list that consistently earns praise for making a real and useful contribution to the welfare of Nova Roma.
>
> I am not the first one to note that we would be far better off to dump this list entirely. Not only does is do little good, but it does harm by siphoning off energy that could constructively be used elsewhere. In my opinion, citizens would be far better off to spend more time building up their local groups. Now I imagine some will say that they have no local group. I answer that this is the wrong place to fix that. "Get local and get active" is an idea that is catching on in parts of Europe and it is much to their honor and credit that this is so.
>
> There is a notion that goes around that somehow this open and unmoderated forum is "like the Roman forum", a place where everyone could gather and be heard on any issue. This is nonsense. People with something to say had dinner with their friends or met in a public bath or did some other such thing. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone with any random thought immediately trotted off to the forum to bellow away at all and sundry. When the forum was a public meeting place it was because there was a pressing public issue. Often the public gathered there to hear what a specific magistrate had to say.
>
> I could go on and on with examples, but I'll stop now, noting that a lot of good things have been happening in Nova Roma recently and they are all happening elsewhere. This list continues to bring disgrace and to obstruct rather than help in our progress. It is a shame that this mess hasn't been cleaned up and that the leadership has done nothing about it for so long.
>
>
> M. Lucretius Agricola
>
> Senator and Augur
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lentulus Ciceroni et omnibus sal.
> >  
> > Roman citizens were never allowed to speak "freely" to the audience of the forum. Only magistrates with imperrium could make public speeches in Rome freely, and only those high ranking, distinguished senior statesmen whom he invited to support their sides could publicly make their voice heard.
> >  
> > Freedom of speech, the concept how many understand it when they refer to this ML, never existed in Rome, nor does it exist in the modern world. The ML is a public communication chanel of the NR state. Imagine how it would look if any US citizen were allowed to speak their mind in the national TV or radio channel... Only a very,very selected few are allowed to this, whom the media invites.
> >  
> > The space for a private citizen's free speech was never the Rostra of the forum, never the official journals, never the Federal Register, never the public national communication channels, but the informal channels and various private comunications. Keeping the example of the USA, no US citizen could go into the Capitol, or into the White House to convoke a conference in which he would address the nation, he could, however, organize a demonstration or a convention as a private initiative: and here comes free speech: in a free state he can do that.
> >  
> > When it comes to NR, we finally have to understand that the ML is not to place to inundate it with our personal beliefs and opinions, but to nourish and nurture with the glory of Romanitas, with the love towards Nova Roma, with fraternity, with education and with Roman discipline.
> >  
> > Valete!
> >  
> > Cn. Lentulus
> >
> >
> > --- Gio 10/6/10, lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> > Da: lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@>
> > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Moderation of the Forum romanum (ML) - prorogation of ed. GEM...
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Data: Giovedì 10 giugno 2010, 14:06
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a feeling that if we had a time machine and could get a historical Roman citizen a computer and get him posting to this forum, he'd be banned in short order :)
> >
>

Salvete omnes,
just a shost post from Serdica (Sofia).
I agree with what Lentulus and Agricola expressed about the function of this
mailing list.
I'm glad that my friends have yaken the time to articulate their thoughts.

Optime valete,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "marcus.lucretius" <marcus.lucretius@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:41 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Free speech on the ML - and a misunderstaning


Agricola Omnibus sal.


I think Lentulus is on the right track.

The main problem is that we slap the name "Nova Roma" on this list and then
the leadership stands back and does nothing to "protect the brand". There is
no reason whatsoever, aside from blind ideology arising out of modern
cultures, to permit this.

A quick perusal shows that the same currents circulate here endlessly,
accomplishing nothing and making us look like fools. By contrast, consider
New Roman, a closely moderated list that consistently earns praise for
making a real and useful contribution to the welfare of Nova Roma.

I am not the first one to note that we would be far better off to dump this
list entirely. Not only does is do little good, but it does harm by
siphoning off energy that could constructively be used elsewhere. In my
opinion, citizens would be far better off to spend more time building up
their local groups. Now I imagine some will say that they have no local
group. I answer that this is the wrong place to fix that. "Get local and get
active" is an idea that is catching on in parts of Europe and it is much to
their honor and credit that this is so.

There is a notion that goes around that somehow this open and unmoderated
forum is "like the Roman forum", a place where everyone could gather and be
heard on any issue. This is nonsense. People with something to say had
dinner with their friends or met in a public bath or did some other such
thing. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone with any random thought
immediately trotted off to the forum to bellow away at all and sundry. When
the forum was a public meeting place it was because there was a pressing
public issue. Often the public gathered there to hear what a specific
magistrate had to say.

I could go on and on with examples, but I'll stop now, noting that a lot of
good things have been happening in Nova Roma recently and they are all
happening elsewhere. This list continues to bring disgrace and to obstruct
rather than help in our progress. It is a shame that this mess hasn't been
cleaned up and that the leadership has done nothing about it for so long.


M. Lucretius Agricola

Senator and Augur





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
<cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
>
> Lentulus Ciceroni et omnibus sal.
> Â
> Roman citizens were never allowed to speak "freely" to the audience of the
> forum. Only magistrates with imperrium could make public speeches in Rome
> freely, and only those high ranking, distinguished senior statesmen whom
> he invited to support their sides could publicly make their voice heard.
> Â
> Freedom of speech, the concept how many understand it when they refer to
> this ML, never existed in Rome, nor does it exist in the modern world. The
> ML is a public communication chanel of the NR state. Imagine how it wouldÂ
> look if any US citizen were allowed to speak their mind in the national
> TV or radio channel... Only a very,very selected few are allowed to this,
> whom the media invites.
> Â
> The space for a private citizen's free speech was never the Rostra of the
> forum, never the official journals, never the Federal Register, never the
> public national communication channels, but the informal channels and
> various private comunications. Keeping the example of the USA, no US
> citizen could go into the Capitol, or into the White House to convoke a
> conference in which he would address the nation, he could, however,Â
> organize a demonstration or a convention as a private initiative: and here
> comes free speech: in a free state he can do that.
> Â
> When it comes to NR, we finally have to understand that the ML is not to
> place to inundate it with our personal beliefs and opinions, but to
> nourish and nurture with the glory of Romanitas, with the love towards
> Nova Roma, with fraternity, with education and with Roman discipline.
> Â
> Valete!
> Â
> Cn. Lentulus
>
>
> --- Gio 10/6/10, lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@...> ha scritto:
>
>
> Da: lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@...>
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Moderation of the Forum romanum (ML) -
> prorogation of ed. GEM...
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Giovedì 10 giugno 2010, 14:06
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> I have a feeling that if we had a time machine and could get a historical
> Roman citizen a computer and get him posting to this forum, he'd be banned
> in short order :)
>

In a message dated 6/10/2010 6:12:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cn_corn_lent@... writes:

When it comes to NR, we finally have to understand that the ML is not to
place to inundate it with our personal beliefs and opinions, but to nourish
and nurture with the glory of Romanitas, with the love towards Nova Roma,
with fraternity, with education and with Roman discipline.






There are a lot of citizens here who do not remember the old Forum.
When Vedius and Cassius set up this organization the idea this forum was
this was to be like the forum of the republic.

To understand how the Roman Forum worked is to understand its history.

The Roman Forum (Forum Romanum) was the political and economical center of
Rome during the Republic. It is first mentioned in the 7th century BC.
The Forum is located in a valley between the Capitoline Hill on the west,
the Palatine Hill on the south, the Velia mound on the east and Quirinal
Hill and the Esquiline Hill to the north. Apparently the Velia mound was
leveled in Antiquity. Originally the area was swampland and covered in grass,
so it was not suitable for construction.
Apparently the Early Latins used it as burial ground, cemeteries have
been found dating from the 10th century BC, but otherwise the area doesn't
seem to have been used much. This changed in the 7th century with the
construction of a sewer system, using a natural stream, which was enclosed and
covered to drain the area.
Gradually more public buildings were constructed around the drying square,
thus forming a natural center for a rapidly growing Rome.
Legend, has it, the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius, instituted the
cult of Vesta and built the Regia, Tullius Hostilius built the first Curia
and enclosed the area of the Comitium, and Tarquinius Priscus ordered the
Forum paved around 600 BCE.
The importance of the Forum area is indicated by the presence of many of
the central political, religious and judicial buildings in Rome. The Regia
was the residence of the kings, and later of the rex sacrorum and pontifex
maximus; the Curia, was the meeting place of the Senate; and the Comitium
and the Rostra, where public meetings were held.
In Republican times the construction on the Forum continued, with a series
of basilicas, notably the Basilica Sempronia and the Basilica Aemilia. Also
from this period the Temple of Saturn, the Temple of Castor and Pollux and
the Temple of Concord were built.
Julius Caesar as pontifex maximus and finally dictator, constructed of the
Basilica Julia where the Basilica Sempronia stood, the building of a new
Curia (the old had burned in the Sullian War,) and the renovation of the
Rostra, the speakers platform. Caesar didn't see all his plans completed
before his death, but most was finished by his successor Augustus, including the
Temple of Divs Iulius, dedicated to a the deified Caesar.

The Forum was the nerve center of Republic. Here the people gathered to
exchange gossip. Here, teachers instructed students, here lists for the
Legiones call ups and the Senate enacted laws were posted. Here also the
citizens could approach their magistrates, as those worthies moved from though
the Forum to do work or were returning home.

This is why our forum cannot have oppressive moderation. Since it does
represent the gathering place of all our citizens, all matter of topics
should be allowed to discussed. And the argument that topics are a persistent
annoyance fails as well, since no one is forced to listen to everything.
Like the real forum the listener can walk away from the argument, in our
forum that's what the delete button is for.

The current NR Forum is not like this at all. It presupposes that the
average N. Roman citizen is stupid and NEEDS guidance on what he can and cannot
say. I don't believe that is the case.
I'd like to see NR return to the Old Forum, myself, but I'll follow the
edict because I'm a good Roman.

Q. Fabius Maximus





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

What you are proposing would mean the death of this forum. I certainnly will unsubscribe if it's going to turn into some sort of Official Newsletter with news from the Magistrates.

This is a place where we as citizens come together to talk to each other. It worked well in the past when we did just that. There is absolutely no need to change that and I can't fathom why anyone would want to take it away from us.

Cicero

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
> just a shost post from Serdica (Sofia).
> I agree with what Lentulus and Agricola expressed about the function of this
> mailing list.
> I'm glad that my friends have yaken the time to articulate their thoughts.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marcus.lucretius" <marcus.lucretius@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:41 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Free speech on the ML - and a misunderstaning
>
>
> Agricola Omnibus sal.
>
>
> I think Lentulus is on the right track.
>
> The main problem is that we slap the name "Nova Roma" on this list and then
> the leadership stands back and does nothing to "protect the brand". There is
> no reason whatsoever, aside from blind ideology arising out of modern
> cultures, to permit this.
>
> A quick perusal shows that the same currents circulate here endlessly,
> accomplishing nothing and making us look like fools. By contrast, consider
> New Roman, a closely moderated list that consistently earns praise for
> making a real and useful contribution to the welfare of Nova Roma.
>
> I am not the first one to note that we would be far better off to dump this
> list entirely. Not only does is do little good, but it does harm by
> siphoning off energy that could constructively be used elsewhere. In my
> opinion, citizens would be far better off to spend more time building up
> their local groups. Now I imagine some will say that they have no local
> group. I answer that this is the wrong place to fix that. "Get local and get
> active" is an idea that is catching on in parts of Europe and it is much to
> their honor and credit that this is so.
>
> There is a notion that goes around that somehow this open and unmoderated
> forum is "like the Roman forum", a place where everyone could gather and be
> heard on any issue. This is nonsense. People with something to say had
> dinner with their friends or met in a public bath or did some other such
> thing. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone with any random thought
> immediately trotted off to the forum to bellow away at all and sundry. When
> the forum was a public meeting place it was because there was a pressing
> public issue. Often the public gathered there to hear what a specific
> magistrate had to say.
>
> I could go on and on with examples, but I'll stop now, noting that a lot of
> good things have been happening in Nova Roma recently and they are all
> happening elsewhere. This list continues to bring disgrace and to obstruct
> rather than help in our progress. It is a shame that this mess hasn't been
> cleaned up and that the leadership has done nothing about it for so long.
>
>
> M. Lucretius Agricola
>
> Senator and Augur
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
> <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lentulus Ciceroni et omnibus sal.
> > Â
> > Roman citizens were never allowed to speak "freely" to the audience of the
> > forum. Only magistrates with imperrium could make public speeches in Rome
> > freely, and only those high ranking, distinguished senior statesmen whom
> > he invited to support their sides could publicly make their voice heard.
> > Â
> > Freedom of speech, the concept how many understand it when they refer to
> > this ML, never existed in Rome, nor does it exist in the modern world. The
> > ML is a public communication chanel of the NR state. Imagine how it wouldÂ
> > look if any US citizen were allowed to speak their mind in the national
> > TV or radio channel... Only a very,very selected few are allowed to this,
> > whom the media invites.
> > Â
> > The space for a private citizen's free speech was never the Rostra of the
> > forum, never the official journals, never the Federal Register, never the
> > public national communication channels, but the informal channels and
> > various private comunications. Keeping the example of the USA, no US
> > citizen could go into the Capitol, or into the White House to convoke a
> > conference in which he would address the nation, he could, however,Â
> > organize a demonstration or a convention as a private initiative: and here
> > comes free speech: in a free state he can do that.
> > Â
> > When it comes to NR, we finally have to understand that the ML is not to
> > place to inundate it with our personal beliefs and opinions, but to
> > nourish and nurture with the glory of Romanitas, with the love towards
> > Nova Roma, with fraternity, with education and with Roman discipline.
> > Â
> > Valete!
> > Â
> > Cn. Lentulus
> >
> >
> > --- Gio 10/6/10, lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> > Da: lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@>
> > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Moderation of the Forum romanum (ML) -
> > prorogation of ed. GEM...
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Data: Giovedì 10 giugno 2010, 14:06
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a feeling that if we had a time machine and could get a historical
> > Roman citizen a computer and get him posting to this forum, he'd be banned
> > in short order :)
> >
>

Cn. Lentulus D. Palladio Invicto sal.

>>> you have a misunderstanding of what this list is and what it is for. It is not the rostra, it is not the official state assembly for Nova Roma, though occasionally a magistrate will post something here. It is more of an informal gathering place, a collection of conversations. <<<

Then why it is called "official public forum" of Nova Roma everywhere? It's almost the sole interface through which people can meet Nova Roma Live... Everything posted here carries a certain wight of importance as it reaches all subscribed citizens (this list has more than 1400 members). If it is a chatting list, I mean a list for just casually, informally talking to everyone, then it should not be advertised as our main public and official forum.

This is a list where everyone joins who wants to be up to date about NR news and the current events, about central NR politics and projects. People, including me, expect a certain quality from this list. I don't want to read personal quarreling, name calling, and infinite, circular debates about who is or who is not moderated. I think the 95% of the subscribed citizens do not want either. Yes, I want that the posts be filtered, and only those truly productive and really important reach this list. This is why we should have moderators, who should help the readers of this forum by filtering the low quality or arrogant or provocatively aggressive posts, cutting down the circular arguments. I mean I agree that each debate should be allowed to START, but not all of them is worth to be allowed to evolve, to be continued ad nauseam. Our elected praetors, or any kind of moderators should exist to this purpose: and we should let them to moderate just according to
their considerations, viewpoints, preferences. This is why we ELECT them, and they have short 1 year term. If they do it unjustly, next time we elect better ones. It is just like the editors of a newspaper, or the directors of the talk shows on the TV. They moderate everything so that it can be enjoyable, but if they do it wrong, they will be fired. The populace of NR can select their "editors", "director" through voting, and can fire them by not electing them again.

I sympathize with the concept that the ML is a big hall where everyone shouts to the 1400 people who either listen or answer, but it is very unproductive, I'd say, impossible, and tiresome. Those who want truly follow it by all means will be exhausted. No one can follow that amount of posts of all levels of quality.

If a citizen wants to be up to date to "Nova Romanitas" through the ML, he will most likely be disappointed after a while. It's too much! Too much noise, too hard work to read through every post, and after a longer period, he will see that it is not worth, he may also loose the "story line". Many enemies, who knows why the long time feuds exist? This place will just look as an insane chaos. This forum, in its current form, can only be interesting to those fully involved into the feuds and personalities, to those who know who hates whom for what exactly and since how long. No surprise so many leaves 1 month after joining.

You can then say that this average citizen I imagined should subscribe just to the Announce List. But that's not what he wants. He wants really to follow NR's events, politics, but only the best posts, the worthy posts, well written, well thought out contributions, the lovely, nice and informative conversations about how people live their Roman lives in Belgium, in the USA, in Romania etc...

My imagined average citizen wants the ML, just in a better quality. An edited ML. In other words, a reasonable moderated ML.

And our constitution provides for it: it says the ML can be "reasonably moderated" to maintain "order and civility".

What "reasonable moderated" means? Only filtering SPAM? All "reason" is exhausted about SPAM? There is no reason to worry about anything except SPAM?

What order is? What civility is?

I think the constiutution clearly supports my points.

Order means the end of the chaotic circular struggle of verbal battles about some individuals' coolness or awfulness, and the end of two sentence verbal punches like "I agree with X, because Y is a giant %=%=/%!".

Civility includes politeness, educated style and tone.

If we followed our constitution, I believe would have an ML which my imagined average citizen wanted.

>>> It is a place to create community so when we meet in person we already know a lot about the people. <<<

That's a good point. However, if we let people to say absolutely everything, this place serves also to damage community, and makes people hate each other, and nurture years long feuds against each other because of the insults on this list. It has already been evidenced. There are a great many people in this list who hate each other because they could freely insult each other in this list. If they had been withheld, supposing that they would not have continued it in private, now they would be less inimical to each other.

This free chat shout list made people the worst kind of enemies. I can acknowledge its benefits, but I see more damage. With moderation, we would be now a better community.

>>> What you describe is a recipe for silence and the continued stagnation of this forum. <<<<

To me it seems that your advocated version of the ML is also a recipe for silence and stagnation of this forum. If the forum is convoluted with chaotic chatting and the most vocal parties can rule out the shyer majority, this causes the most people not to want to open their mouths. I know from experience that most of the citizens find this ML an arrogant place, ruled by aggressive and pervasive debaters, and they rather choose silence and passive participation.

Our forum stagnates since its existence, and no growth is possible, since it is still too much. Such web mailing lists cannot be larger, or if they become larger, they will clear themselves and become again smaller and less active, because the vast majority of the posters will not have enough time and energy to read 1000s of posts each day. For some period it's viable, but through the years you'll see that there are limits of growth. There are limits of how active and big such a list can be. It's still very hard to follow the topics here, even harder to participate, and only very few fortunate people whose job allows it can post each day.


Vale!

CN LENTVLVS

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:

>

> Lentulus Ciceroni, Modiano, Catoni, Sullae etc. sal.

>

> Unfortunately I can't give the time to the topic it deserves as I'm leaving my home for a four day Nova Roman event in Poland in which NR Pannonia's contingent will participate.

>

> A very short answer to the points of many.

>

> Perhaps I was unclear about what I was saying. I don't say we should make this forum an exact equivalent of the ancient forum because if we did, only magistrates and their selected people could post whom they find worthy of posting. I just answered Cicero's original post who visioned what happened if an ancient Roman would want to use our forum to posting. In that case, the ancient Roman citizen in question would find himself in a great confusion about what's happening here, and he would find terrifying that any random citizen can address a 1300+ members large audience in the forum. A real Roman would expect the strongest kind of moderation where a citizen could post only in the tone of utmost respect, dignity - unless the magistrate decides otherwise. The consul M. Tullius Cicero could insult Catilina, and allowed other public speakers to insult him, because he was the consul and he decided what the "rules" are. But if a citizen, when in another

> occasion, would have tried to insult or disrespectfully criticize the institutions of the republic, or any high ranking nobleman, and IF the magistrate would have found it unacceptable, he had every right to remove the speaker from the Rostra. And freedom of speech yet existed: in private circles, in an angle of the forum, the citizen just removed could continue his words, speaking to individuals, because only public speech could be moderated - as it is moderated in all of the modern countries.

>

> Cato in his post mentioned that US citizens can assemble freely at any time. But the analogy is false, because their assembly will not be an "official" "state" assembly, they can't occupy the Capitol and speak what they want. They can't walk into the various media institutions and start speaking just anything and until they want.

>

> Some others evoke the memories of those times when this list was a lovely community place. It can work for certain periods, but as we grow the more problem, the more disruption we will face.

>

> Now really very shortly...

>

> This forum should make us each day more Roman, more experienced in Romanity, and more coherent as a community.

>

> Let's suppose and let's accept that to know "how to behave like a Roman" or to know Roman history, sociology, religion etc requires a huge experiece and knowledge. We can accept that the more experienced people we search, the less we find. There are a thousands of amateurs, a couple of half-experts, and just a very few brilliant individuals. Ideally, those more experienced and more knowledgeable should fill this list with their posts, and within a few year this ML would become a treasure to people who want to be New Romans. They would see how Romans argued, how they thought, what they considered worthy, what they found valuable etc., because those few how are able to set up examples would be the most frequent posters. But they will not post frequently, especially not more frequently than the rest of the citizens. Firstly, because the more "knowledgable" and experineced in Roman things one is, the less time she or he has for NR (probably he teaches,

> studies, works on scholarly projects etc), secondly, they are few in number. So the majority wins, and THEIR values and their perspective will prevail.

>

> I just tell you an example. Some said that how unacceptable is to place personal obligations, friendships before or over the law. With my modern sentiments I would immediately agree, and I'm sure most will agree, too. But that's not Roman at all. The "amicitia" or "necessitudines", as the Romans called these political friendships, were above all law and all moral value. The true patron-client relationship (not the fake gens system that NR had long ago) was considered the most sacred, pious part of one's public life, and to violate it was a greater violation that to violate the law.

>

> It is a good observation that Romans were a profoundly "legal" minded people, and law was almost a religious thing. It's true. But there were even higher values: political amicitia and patron-client realtionship. So it is entirely not Roman to ignore a patron or a client and trying to become 100% purely impartial. This kind of mentality will bring us to the 21 century, to modern democracies, not to Romanitas, and then what this whole endeavour of NR is all about? To finally become modern minded Americans or Europeans - the same thing that we are without NR?

>

> Again: I don't say we shall time travel and forget that we are 21 century modern people, but we shall in some extent become Romans. That means Roman mentality. And what Roman mentality is? It is adoring the law, but even more intensily uphold the sacred amicitia. I sound a bit ridiculous, I know, but I have to say that analogy: to be "Roman minded" is a bit similar to be in a "maffia". The system of personal loyalties is a state in the state: and these civic networs and relationship rund the state, they run the life, the uniquelly Roman type of social life. I think it is admirable, how effective it was, and how it was the essence of Roman public behaviour. Yet if we follow the hundred voices of the posters in this forum, we will never learn this kind of mentality, and we will blame those things that we should admire.

>

> Again warning: I don't mean slavish imitation of everything the Romans did. I don't admire slavery, corruption, etc. But I admire this kind of "Manliness", "Virtus", the political "fides"that constituted Roman civic life: an admirably refined social network based on the "necessitudes" ("necessary relationships").

>

> End of excurse.

>

> This and many other things are between us and the Romans. To have a Roman community, first we need a Roman minded community. And in a Roman minded community it is unimaginable, UNACCEPTABLE, that people of lesser rank lecture people of higher rank IN PUBLIC. That an ordinary citizen publicly, before the entire populace, in the Main List, use speeches consisting of two sentences calling a sitting magistrate in dirty words. The lictors would immediately bundle that person out.

>

> Romans extremely respected seniority. I would say they adored it. Elder persons, patrons and higher magistrates were regarded with respectful obedience in the classical Roman society.

>

> With this post I don't suggest any special idea, I don't say we follow this or that course of action. I simply say that a cyperplace where everyone can say anything to anybody will never become a public Roman place, and will never help us to become more Roman.

>

> In a Roman eye, this ML is just a private chat club, where no seniority prevails in the way the Romans liked, and a simple citizen, or worse: a totally ignorant, aggressive person with no knowledge of Romanitas, can address the entire citizenry with the same right as the most senior elder statesmen.

>

> I repeat, I don't propose an alternative, I just emphasize, that this kind of community what the ML is currently is, it can't become really Roman, nor can it become a comminity without strong order, because most of the people is thin skinned, and without moderating the more agressive posters the majority of the people will either leave or remain silent forever. And especially the more educated people are usually more thin skinned, and they rarely have time to defend themselves against online accusations, so we will loose in the greatest percent the kind of people we need most.

>

> And I repeat, I don't propose anything. I just say one thing: we need reasonable moderation, and this reason should enforce a policy that encourages those polite, intelligent, educated and knowladgeable people who know Romanitas very well, to post here, and which policy helps one to "feel Roman" here: this means that Roman culture of behaviour is followed, magistrates elderly people and senior statesmen are respected, Nova Roma is publicly glorified and upheld, publicly solemn and dignified words are heard, and disruption or negligence of discipline is not tolerated. Such is a public Roman community. Private fora are of other kind, another story.

>

> But we talk about the most public forum, the ML, not?

>

> Curate ut valeatis!

>

>

> --- Gio 10/6/10, lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@...> ha scritto:

>

> Da: lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@...>

> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Free speech on the ML - and a misunderstaning

> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

> Data: Giovedì 10 giugno 2010, 18:27

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Â

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Salvete

>

>

>

> I too find myself in agreement with what has been said here by Palladius, Sulla and Modianus.

>

>

>

> And I too remember that the ML used to be a very different place that fostered a sense of community among citizens.

>

>

>

> I hope we can achieve that again!

>

>

>

> Valete,

>

>

>

> Cicero

>

>

>

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > I find myself in perfect agreement with Palladius. This list should be

>

> > about community.

>

> >

>

> > Modianus

>

> >

>

> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Salvete,

>

> > >

>

> > > Senator Sulla's vision of the ML is exactly right. The restrictions placed

>

> > > on this list and oppressive atmosphere over the years--for example the

>

> > > screams and yells when one goes "off topic," whatever that is supposed to

>

> > > mean--is one reason why some of us who have been in Nova Roma a long time

>

> > > don't post here anymore.

>

> > >

>

> > > Lentulus in his post has a serious misunderstanding as to what this forum

>

> > > is for. The ML is the one place where everyone can come together as a

>

> > > "community," since we don't exist together in a physical place. This list is

>

> > > not the rostra or official medium for members of the government--that's what

>

> > > the NRAnnounce list is for. The ML is the common area in the forum with

>

> > > numerous conversations going on about various and sundry issues, a place to

>

> > > discuss public issues as well as personal beliefs and opinions, except here

>

> > > we can "hear" them all. In the background there is an occasional statement

>

> > > by government officials on the rostra but that should not dominate here

>

> > > except during certain times.

>

> > >

>

> > > Valete,

>

> > >

>

> > > Palladius

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

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

>

Well, it would seem that there exists two very different conceptions of what this forum is and what it should be. I trust the candidates in the upcoming election to fill the vacant Praetor offices will make clear what sort of forum they envisage, as it will be in their power to make it happen. This will allow the voters the chance to make their voice known as to what they want - an official newsletter, or a lively and friendly meeting place - by casting their votes.

Cicero

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus D. Palladio Invicto sal.
>
>
> >>> you have a misunderstanding of what this list is and what it is for. It is not the rostra, it is not the official state assembly for Nova Roma, though occasionally a magistrate will post something here. It is more of an informal gathering place, a collection of conversations. <<<
>
>
> Then why it is called "official public forum" of Nova Roma everywhere? It's almost the sole interface through which people can meet Nova Roma Live... Everything posted here carries a certain wight of importance as it reaches all subscribed citizens (this list has more than 1400 members). If it is a chatting list, I mean a list for just casually, informally talking to everyone, then it should not be advertised as our main public and official forum.
>
> This is a list where everyone joins who wants to be up to date about NR news and the current events, about central NR politics and projects. People, including me, expect a certain quality from this list. I don't want to read personal quarreling, name calling, and infinite, circular debates about who is or who is not moderated. I think the 95% of the subscribed citizens do not want either. Yes, I want that the posts be filtered, and only those truly productive and really important reach this list. This is why we should have moderators, who should help the readers of this forum by filtering the low quality or arrogant or provocatively aggressive posts, cutting down the circular arguments. I mean I agree that each debate should be allowed to START, but not all of them is worth to be allowed to evolve, to be continued ad nauseam. Our elected praetors, or any kind of moderators should exist to this purpose: and we should let them to moderate just according to
> their considerations, viewpoints, preferences. This is why we ELECT them, and they have short 1 year term. If they do it unjustly, next time we elect better ones. It is just like the editors of a newspaper, or the directors of the talk shows on the TV. They moderate everything so that it can be enjoyable, but if they do it wrong, they will be fired. The populace of NR can select their "editors", "director" through voting, and can fire them by not electing them again.
>
> I sympathize with the concept that the ML is a big hall where everyone shouts to the 1400 people who either listen or answer, but it is very unproductive, I'd say, impossible, and tiresome. Those who want truly follow it by all means will be exhausted. No one can follow that amount of posts of all levels of quality.
>
> If a citizen wants to be up to date to "Nova Romanitas" through the ML, he will most likely be disappointed after a while. It's too much! Too much noise, too hard work to read through every post, and after a longer period, he will see that it is not worth, he may also loose the "story line". Many enemies, who knows why the long time feuds exist? This place will just look as an insane chaos. This forum, in its current form, can only be interesting to those fully involved into the feuds and personalities, to those who know who hates whom for what exactly and since how long. No surprise so many leaves 1 month after joining.
>
> You can then say that this average citizen I imagined should subscribe just to the Announce List. But that's not what he wants. He wants really to follow NR's events, politics, but only the best posts, the worthy posts, well written, well thought out contributions, the lovely, nice and informative conversations about how people live their Roman lives in Belgium, in the USA, in Romania etc...
>
> My imagined average citizen wants the ML, just in a better quality. An edited ML. In other words, a reasonable moderated ML.
>
> And our constitution provides for it: it says the ML can be "reasonably moderated" to maintain "order and civility".
>
> What "reasonable moderated" means? Only filtering SPAM? All "reason" is exhausted about SPAM? There is no reason to worry about anything except SPAM?
>
> What order is? What civility is?
>
> I think the constiutution clearly supports my points.
>
> Order means the end of the chaotic circular struggle of verbal battles about some individuals' coolness or awfulness, and the end of two sentence verbal punches like "I agree with X, because Y is a giant %=%=/%!".
>
> Civility includes politeness, educated style and tone.
>
> If we followed our constitution, I believe would have an ML which my imagined average citizen wanted.
>
>
> >>> It is a place to create community so when we meet in person we already know a lot about the people. <<<
>
>
> That's a good point. However, if we let people to say absolutely everything, this place serves also to damage community, and makes people hate each other, and nurture years long feuds against each other because of the insults on this list. It has already been evidenced. There are a great many people in this list who hate each other because they could freely insult each other in this list. If they had been withheld, supposing that they would not have continued it in private, now they would be less inimical to each other.
>
> This free chat shout list made people the worst kind of enemies. I can acknowledge its benefits, but I see more damage. With moderation, we would be now a better community.
>
>
> >>> What you describe is a recipe for silence and the continued stagnation of this forum. <<<<
>
>
> To me it seems that your advocated version of the ML is also a recipe for silence and stagnation of this forum. If the forum is convoluted with chaotic chatting and the most vocal parties can rule out the shyer majority, this causes the most people not to want to open their mouths. I know from experience that most of the citizens find this ML an arrogant place, ruled by aggressive and pervasive debaters, and they rather choose silence and passive participation.
>
> Our forum stagnates since its existence, and no growth is possible, since it is still too much. Such web mailing lists cannot be larger, or if they become larger, they will clear themselves and become again smaller and less active, because the vast majority of the posters will not have enough time and energy to read 1000s of posts each day. For some period it's viable, but through the years you'll see that there are limits of growth. There are limits of how active and big such a list can be. It's still very hard to follow the topics here, even harder to participate, and only very few fortunate people whose job allows it can post each day.
>
>
> Vale!
>
> CN LENTVLVS
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Lentulus Ciceroni, Modiano, Catoni, Sullae etc. sal.
>
> >
>
> > Unfortunately I can't give the time to the topic it deserves as I'm leaving my home for a four day Nova Roman event in Poland in which NR Pannonia's contingent will participate.
>
> >
>
> > A very short answer to the points of many.
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps I was unclear about what I was saying. I don't say we should make this forum an exact equivalent of the ancient forum because if we did, only magistrates and their selected people could post whom they find worthy of posting. I just answered Cicero's original post who visioned what happened if an ancient Roman would want to use our forum to posting. In that case, the ancient Roman citizen in question would find himself in a great confusion about what's happening here, and he would find terrifying that any random citizen can address a 1300+ members large audience in the forum. A real Roman would expect the strongest kind of moderation where a citizen could post only in the tone of utmost respect, dignity - unless the magistrate decides otherwise. The consul M. Tullius Cicero could insult Catilina, and allowed other public speakers to insult him, because he was the consul and he decided what the "rules" are. But if a citizen, when in another
>
> > occasion, would have tried to insult or disrespectfully criticize the institutions of the republic, or any high ranking nobleman, and IF the magistrate would have found it unacceptable, he had every right to remove the speaker from the Rostra. And freedom of speech yet existed: in private circles, in an angle of the forum, the citizen just removed could continue his words, speaking to individuals, because only public speech could be moderated - as it is moderated in all of the modern countries.
>
> >
>
> > Cato in his post mentioned that US citizens can assemble freely at any time. But the analogy is false, because their assembly will not be an "official" "state" assembly, they can't occupy the Capitol and speak what they want. They can't walk into the various media institutions and start speaking just anything and until they want.
>
> >
>
> > Some others evoke the memories of those times when this list was a lovely community place. It can work for certain periods, but as we grow the more problem, the more disruption we will face.
>
> >
>
> > Now really very shortly...
>
> >
>
> > This forum should make us each day more Roman, more experienced in Romanity, and more coherent as a community.
>
> >
>
> > Let's suppose and let's accept that to know "how to behave like a Roman" or to know Roman history, sociology, religion etc requires a huge experiece and knowledge. We can accept that the more experienced people we search, the less we find. There are a thousands of amateurs, a couple of half-experts, and just a very few brilliant individuals. Ideally, those more experienced and more knowledgeable should fill this list with their posts, and within a few year this ML would become a treasure to people who want to be New Romans. They would see how Romans argued, how they thought, what they considered worthy, what they found valuable etc., because those few how are able to set up examples would be the most frequent posters. But they will not post frequently, especially not more frequently than the rest of the citizens. Firstly, because the more "knowledgable" and experineced in Roman things one is, the less time she or he has for NR (probably he teaches,
>
> > studies, works on scholarly projects etc), secondly, they are few in number. So the majority wins, and THEIR values and their perspective will prevail.
>
> >
>
> > I just tell you an example. Some said that how unacceptable is to place personal obligations, friendships before or over the law. With my modern sentiments I would immediately agree, and I'm sure most will agree, too. But that's not Roman at all. The "amicitia" or "necessitudines", as the Romans called these political friendships, were above all law and all moral value. The true patron-client relationship (not the fake gens system that NR had long ago) was considered the most sacred, pious part of one's public life, and to violate it was a greater violation that to violate the law.
>
> >
>
> > It is a good observation that Romans were a profoundly "legal" minded people, and law was almost a religious thing. It's true. But there were even higher values: political amicitia and patron-client realtionship. So it is entirely not Roman to ignore a patron or a client and trying to become 100% purely impartial. This kind of mentality will bring us to the 21 century, to modern democracies, not to Romanitas, and then what this whole endeavour of NR is all about? To finally become modern minded Americans or Europeans - the same thing that we are without NR?
>
> >
>
> > Again: I don't say we shall time travel and forget that we are 21 century modern people, but we shall in some extent become Romans. That means Roman mentality. And what Roman mentality is? It is adoring the law, but even more intensily uphold the sacred amicitia. I sound a bit ridiculous, I know, but I have to say that analogy: to be "Roman minded" is a bit similar to be in a "maffia". The system of personal loyalties is a state in the state: and these civic networs and relationship rund the state, they run the life, the uniquelly Roman type of social life. I think it is admirable, how effective it was, and how it was the essence of Roman public behaviour. Yet if we follow the hundred voices of the posters in this forum, we will never learn this kind of mentality, and we will blame those things that we should admire.
>
> >
>
> > Again warning: I don't mean slavish imitation of everything the Romans did. I don't admire slavery, corruption, etc. But I admire this kind of "Manliness", "Virtus", the political "fides"that constituted Roman civic life: an admirably refined social network based on the "necessitudes" ("necessary relationships").
>
> >
>
> > End of excurse.
>
> >
>
> > This and many other things are between us and the Romans. To have a Roman community, first we need a Roman minded community. And in a Roman minded community it is unimaginable, UNACCEPTABLE, that people of lesser rank lecture people of higher rank IN PUBLIC. That an ordinary citizen publicly, before the entire populace, in the Main List, use speeches consisting of two sentences calling a sitting magistrate in dirty words. The lictors would immediately bundle that person out.
>
> >
>
> > Romans extremely respected seniority. I would say they adored it. Elder persons, patrons and higher magistrates were regarded with respectful obedience in the classical Roman society.
>
> >
>
> > With this post I don't suggest any special idea, I don't say we follow this or that course of action. I simply say that a cyperplace where everyone can say anything to anybody will never become a public Roman place, and will never help us to become more Roman.
>
> >
>
> > In a Roman eye, this ML is just a private chat club, where no seniority prevails in the way the Romans liked, and a simple citizen, or worse: a totally ignorant, aggressive person with no knowledge of Romanitas, can address the entire citizenry with the same right as the most senior elder statesmen.
>
> >
>
> > I repeat, I don't propose an alternative, I just emphasize, that this kind of community what the ML is currently is, it can't become really Roman, nor can it become a comminity without strong order, because most of the people is thin skinned, and without moderating the more agressive posters the majority of the people will either leave or remain silent forever. And especially the more educated people are usually more thin skinned, and they rarely have time to defend themselves against online accusations, so we will loose in the greatest percent the kind of people we need most.
>
> >
>
> > And I repeat, I don't propose anything. I just say one thing: we need reasonable moderation, and this reason should enforce a policy that encourages those polite, intelligent, educated and knowladgeable people who know Romanitas very well, to post here, and which policy helps one to "feel Roman" here: this means that Roman culture of behaviour is followed, magistrates elderly people and senior statesmen are respected, Nova Roma is publicly glorified and upheld, publicly solemn and dignified words are heard, and disruption or negligence of discipline is not tolerated. Such is a public Roman community. Private fora are of other kind, another story.
>
> >
>
> > But we talk about the most public forum, the ML, not?
>
> >
>
> > Curate ut valeatis!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- Gio 10/6/10, lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@> ha scritto:
>
> >
>
> > Da: lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@>
>
> > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Free speech on the ML - and a misunderstaning
>
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Data: Giovedì 10 giugno 2010, 18:27
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Â
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Salvete
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I too find myself in agreement with what has been said here by Palladius, Sulla and Modianus.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And I too remember that the ML used to be a very different place that fostered a sense of community among citizens.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I hope we can achieve that again!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Valete,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cicero
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I find myself in perfect agreement with Palladius. This list should be
>
> >
>
> > > about community.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Modianus
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Salvete,
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Senator Sulla's vision of the ML is exactly right. The restrictions placed
>
> >
>
> > > > on this list and oppressive atmosphere over the years--for example the
>
> >
>
> > > > screams and yells when one goes "off topic," whatever that is supposed to
>
> >
>
> > > > mean--is one reason why some of us who have been in Nova Roma a long time
>
> >
>
> > > > don't post here anymore.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Lentulus in his post has a serious misunderstanding as to what this forum
>
> >
>
> > > > is for. The ML is the one place where everyone can come together as a
>
> >
>
> > > > "community," since we don't exist together in a physical place. This list is
>
> >
>
> > > > not the rostra or official medium for members of the government--that's what
>
> >
>
> > > > the NRAnnounce list is for. The ML is the common area in the forum with
>
> >
>
> > > > numerous conversations going on about various and sundry issues, a place to
>
> >
>
> > > > discuss public issues as well as personal beliefs and opinions, except here
>
> >
>
> > > > we can "hear" them all. In the background there is an occasional statement
>
> >
>
> > > > by government officials on the rostra but that should not dominate here
>
> >
>
> > > > except during certain times.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Valete,
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Palladius
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>

Lentulus Ciceroni sal.


Well, well, Corneli, you have just said something that nobody suggested at all:

>>>> This will allow the voters the chance to make their voice

known as to what they want - an official newsletter, or a lively and
friendly meeting place - by casting their votes. <<<


I was very clear and I repeated that I don't suggest this place shall become an official newsletter. I think nobody wants it. We already have one.

I was meditating about some kind of balance between the current form of the ML and a real Roman public community forum. I was thinking about the difference between them, that a Roman public forum should be very hierarchic and disciplined, but we also need a relaxed atmosphere to socialize. Combine that!

But no one wants or suggests this place to convert into a magistrates only announce list.


VALE!

--- Gio 10/6/10, lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@...> ha scritto:

Da: lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@...>
Oggetto: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Free speech on the ML - and a misunderstaning
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Giovedì 10 giugno 2010, 23:36







 









Well, it would seem that there exists two very different conceptions of what this forum is and what it should be. I trust the candidates in the upcoming election to fill the vacant Praetor offices will make clear what sort of forum they envisage, as it will be in their power to make it happen. This will allow the voters the chance to make their voice known as to what they want - an official newsletter, or a lively and friendly meeting place - by casting their votes.



Cicero

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:

>

> Cn. Lentulus D. Palladio Invicto sal.

>

>

> >>> you have a misunderstanding of what this list is and what it is for. It is not the rostra, it is not the official state assembly for Nova Roma, though occasionally a magistrate will post something here. It is more of an informal gathering place, a collection of conversations. <<<

>

>

> Then why it is called "official public forum" of Nova Roma everywhere? It's almost the sole interface through which people can meet Nova Roma Live... Everything posted here carries a certain wight of importance as it reaches all subscribed citizens (this list has more than 1400 members). If it is a chatting list, I mean a list for just casually, informally talking to everyone, then it should not be advertised as our main public and official forum.

>

> This is a list where everyone joins who wants to be up to date about NR news and the current events, about central NR politics and projects. People, including me, expect a certain quality from this list. I don't want to read personal quarreling, name calling, and infinite, circular debates about who is or who is not moderated. I think the 95% of the subscribed citizens do not want either. Yes, I want that the posts be filtered, and only those truly productive and really important reach this list. This is why we should have moderators, who should help the readers of this forum by filtering the low quality or arrogant or provocatively aggressive posts, cutting down the circular arguments. I mean I agree that each debate should be allowed to START, but not all of them is worth to be allowed to evolve, to be continued ad nauseam. Our elected praetors, or any kind of moderators should exist to this purpose: and we should let them to moderate just according
to

> their considerations, viewpoints, preferences. This is why we ELECT them, and they have short 1 year term. If they do it unjustly, next time we elect better ones. It is just like the editors of a newspaper, or the directors of the talk shows on the TV. They moderate everything so that it can be enjoyable, but if they do it wrong, they will be fired. The populace of NR can select their "editors", "director" through voting, and can fire them by not electing them again.

>

> I sympathize with the concept that the ML is a big hall where everyone shouts to the 1400 people who either listen or answer, but it is very unproductive, I'd say, impossible, and tiresome. Those who want truly follow it by all means will be exhausted. No one can follow that amount of posts of all levels of quality.

>

> If a citizen wants to be up to date to "Nova Romanitas" through the ML, he will most likely be disappointed after a while. It's too much! Too much noise, too hard work to read through every post, and after a longer period, he will see that it is not worth, he may also loose the "story line". Many enemies, who knows why the long time feuds exist? This place will just look as an insane chaos. This forum, in its current form, can only be interesting to those fully involved into the feuds and personalities, to those who know who hates whom for what exactly and since how long. No surprise so many leaves 1 month after joining.

>

> You can then say that this average citizen I imagined should subscribe just to the Announce List. But that's not what he wants. He wants really to follow NR's events, politics, but only the best posts, the worthy posts, well written, well thought out contributions, the lovely, nice and informative conversations about how people live their Roman lives in Belgium, in the USA, in Romania etc...

>

> My imagined average citizen wants the ML, just in a better quality. An edited ML. In other words, a reasonable moderated ML.

>

> And our constitution provides for it: it says the ML can be "reasonably moderated" to maintain "order and civility".

>

> What "reasonable moderated" means? Only filtering SPAM? All "reason" is exhausted about SPAM? There is no reason to worry about anything except SPAM?

>

> What order is? What civility is?

>

> I think the constiutution clearly supports my points.

>

> Order means the end of the chaotic circular struggle of verbal battles about some individuals' coolness or awfulness, and the end of two sentence verbal punches like "I agree with X, because Y is a giant %=%=/%!".

>

> Civility includes politeness, educated style and tone.

>

> If we followed our constitution, I believe would have an ML which my imagined average citizen wanted.

>

>

> >>> It is a place to create community so when we meet in person we already know a lot about the people. <<<

>

>

> That's a good point. However, if we let people to say absolutely everything, this place serves also to damage community, and makes people hate each other, and nurture years long feuds against each other because of the insults on this list. It has already been evidenced. There are a great many people in this list who hate each other because they could freely insult each other in this list. If they had been withheld, supposing that they would not have continued it in private, now they would be less inimical to each other.

>

> This free chat shout list made people the worst kind of enemies. I can acknowledge its benefits, but I see more damage. With moderation, we would be now a better community.

>

>

> >>> What you describe is a recipe for silence and the continued stagnation of this forum. <<<<

>

>

> To me it seems that your advocated version of the ML is also a recipe for silence and stagnation of this forum. If the forum is convoluted with chaotic chatting and the most vocal parties can rule out the shyer majority, this causes the most people not to want to open their mouths. I know from experience that most of the citizens find this ML an arrogant place, ruled by aggressive and pervasive debaters, and they rather choose silence and passive participation.

>

> Our forum stagnates since its existence, and no growth is possible, since it is still too much. Such web mailing lists cannot be larger, or if they become larger, they will clear themselves and become again smaller and less active, because the vast majority of the posters will not have enough time and energy to read 1000s of posts each day. For some period it's viable, but through the years you'll see that there are limits of growth. There are limits of how active and big such a list can be. It's still very hard to follow the topics here, even harder to participate, and only very few fortunate people whose job allows it can post each day.

>

>

> Vale!

>

> CN LENTVLVS

>

>

>

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Lentulus Ciceroni, Modiano, Catoni, Sullae etc. sal.

>

> >

>

> > Unfortunately I can't give the time to the topic it deserves as I'm leaving my home for a four day Nova Roman event in Poland in which NR Pannonia's contingent will participate.

>

> >

>

> > A very short answer to the points of many.

>

> >

>

> > Perhaps I was unclear about what I was saying. I don't say we should make this forum an exact equivalent of the ancient forum because if we did, only magistrates and their selected people could post whom they find worthy of posting. I just answered Cicero's original post who visioned what happened if an ancient Roman would want to use our forum to posting. In that case, the ancient Roman citizen in question would find himself in a great confusion about what's happening here, and he would find terrifying that any random citizen can address a 1300+ members large audience in the forum. A real Roman would expect the strongest kind of moderation where a citizen could post only in the tone of utmost respect, dignity - unless the magistrate decides otherwise. The consul M. Tullius Cicero could insult Catilina, and allowed other public speakers to insult him, because he was the consul and he decided what the "rules" are. But if a citizen, when in another

>

> > occasion, would have tried to insult or disrespectfully criticize the institutions of the republic, or any high ranking nobleman, and IF the magistrate would have found it unacceptable, he had every right to remove the speaker from the Rostra. And freedom of speech yet existed: in private circles, in an angle of the forum, the citizen just removed could continue his words, speaking to individuals, because only public speech could be moderated - as it is moderated in all of the modern countries.

>

> >

>

> > Cato in his post mentioned that US citizens can assemble freely at any time. But the analogy is false, because their assembly will not be an "official" "state" assembly, they can't occupy the Capitol and speak what they want. They can't walk into the various media institutions and start speaking just anything and until they want.

>

> >

>

> > Some others evoke the memories of those times when this list was a lovely community place. It can work for certain periods, but as we grow the more problem, the more disruption we will face.

>

> >

>

> > Now really very shortly...

>

> >

>

> > This forum should make us each day more Roman, more experienced in Romanity, and more coherent as a community.

>

> >

>

> > Let's suppose and let's accept that to know "how to behave like a Roman" or to know Roman history, sociology, religion etc requires a huge experiece and knowledge. We can accept that the more experienced people we search, the less we find. There are a thousands of amateurs, a couple of half-experts, and just a very few brilliant individuals. Ideally, those more experienced and more knowledgeable should fill this list with their posts, and within a few year this ML would become a treasure to people who want to be New Romans. They would see how Romans argued, how they thought, what they considered worthy, what they found valuable etc., because those few how are able to set up examples would be the most frequent posters. But they will not post frequently, especially not more frequently than the rest of the citizens. Firstly, because the more "knowledgable" and experineced in Roman things one is, the less time she or he has for NR (probably he teaches,

>

> > studies, works on scholarly projects etc), secondly, they are few in number. So the majority wins, and THEIR values and their perspective will prevail.

>

> >

>

> > I just tell you an example. Some said that how unacceptable is to place personal obligations, friendships before or over the law. With my modern sentiments I would immediately agree, and I'm sure most will agree, too. But that's not Roman at all. The "amicitia" or "necessitudines", as the Romans called these political friendships, were above all law and all moral value. The true patron-client relationship (not the fake gens system that NR had long ago) was considered the most sacred, pious part of one's public life, and to violate it was a greater violation that to violate the law.

>

> >

>

> > It is a good observation that Romans were a profoundly "legal" minded people, and law was almost a religious thing. It's true. But there were even higher values: political amicitia and patron-client realtionship. So it is entirely not Roman to ignore a patron or a client and trying to become 100% purely impartial. This kind of mentality will bring us to the 21 century, to modern democracies, not to Romanitas, and then what this whole endeavour of NR is all about? To finally become modern minded Americans or Europeans - the same thing that we are without NR?

>

> >

>

> > Again: I don't say we shall time travel and forget that we are 21 century modern people, but we shall in some extent become Romans. That means Roman mentality. And what Roman mentality is? It is adoring the law, but even more intensily uphold the sacred amicitia. I sound a bit ridiculous, I know, but I have to say that analogy: to be "Roman minded" is a bit similar to be in a "maffia". The system of personal loyalties is a state in the state: and these civic networs and relationship rund the state, they run the life, the uniquelly Roman type of social life. I think it is admirable, how effective it was, and how it was the essence of Roman public behaviour. Yet if we follow the hundred voices of the posters in this forum, we will never learn this kind of mentality, and we will blame those things that we should admire.

>

> >

>

> > Again warning: I don't mean slavish imitation of everything the Romans did. I don't admire slavery, corruption, etc. But I admire this kind of "Manliness", "Virtus", the political "fides"that constituted Roman civic life: an admirably refined social network based on the "necessitudes" ("necessary relationships").

>

> >

>

> > End of excurse.

>

> >

>

> > This and many other things are between us and the Romans. To have a Roman community, first we need a Roman minded community. And in a Roman minded community it is unimaginable, UNACCEPTABLE, that people of lesser rank lecture people of higher rank IN PUBLIC. That an ordinary citizen publicly, before the entire populace, in the Main List, use speeches consisting of two sentences calling a sitting magistrate in dirty words. The lictors would immediately bundle that person out.

>

> >

>

> > Romans extremely respected seniority. I would say they adored it. Elder persons, patrons and higher magistrates were regarded with respectful obedience in the classical Roman society.

>

> >

>

> > With this post I don't suggest any special idea, I don't say we follow this or that course of action. I simply say that a cyperplace where everyone can say anything to anybody will never become a public Roman place, and will never help us to become more Roman.

>

> >

>

> > In a Roman eye, this ML is just a private chat club, where no seniority prevails in the way the Romans liked, and a simple citizen, or worse: a totally ignorant, aggressive person with no knowledge of Romanitas, can address the entire citizenry with the same right as the most senior elder statesmen.

>

> >

>

> > I repeat, I don't propose an alternative, I just emphasize, that this kind of community what the ML is currently is, it can't become really Roman, nor can it become a comminity without strong order, because most of the people is thin skinned, and without moderating the more agressive posters the majority of the people will either leave or remain silent forever. And especially the more educated people are usually more thin skinned, and they rarely have time to defend themselves against online accusations, so we will loose in the greatest percent the kind of people we need most.

>

> >

>

> > And I repeat, I don't propose anything. I just say one thing: we need reasonable moderation, and this reason should enforce a policy that encourages those polite, intelligent, educated and knowladgeable people who know Romanitas very well, to post here, and which policy helps one to "feel Roman" here: this means that Roman culture of behaviour is followed, magistrates elderly people and senior statesmen are respected, Nova Roma is publicly glorified and upheld, publicly solemn and dignified words are heard, and disruption or negligence of discipline is not tolerated. Such is a public Roman community. Private fora are of other kind, another story.

>

> >

>

> > But we talk about the most public forum, the ML, not?

>

> >

>

> > Curate ut valeatis!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > --- Gio 10/6/10, lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@> ha scritto:

>

> >

>

> > Da: lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@>

>

> > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Free speech on the ML - and a misunderstaning

>

> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

>

> > Data: Giovedì 10 giugno 2010, 18:27

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Â

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Salvete

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I too find myself in agreement with what has been said here by Palladius, Sulla and Modianus.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > And I too remember that the ML used to be a very different place that fostered a sense of community among citizens.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I hope we can achieve that again!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Valete,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Cicero

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > I find myself in perfect agreement with Palladius. This list should be

>

> >

>

> > > about community.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Modianus

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Salvete,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Senator Sulla's vision of the ML is exactly right. The restrictions placed

>

> >

>

> > > > on this list and oppressive atmosphere over the years--for example the

>

> >

>

> > > > screams and yells when one goes "off topic," whatever that is supposed to

>

> >

>

> > > > mean--is one reason why some of us who have been in Nova Roma a long time

>

> >

>

> > > > don't post here anymore.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Lentulus in his post has a serious misunderstanding as to what this forum

>

> >

>

> > > > is for. The ML is the one place where everyone can come together as a

>

> >

>

> > > > "community," since we don't exist together in a physical place. This list is

>

> >

>

> > > > not the rostra or official medium for members of the government--that's what

>

> >

>

> > > > the NRAnnounce list is for. The ML is the common area in the forum with

>

> >

>

> > > > numerous conversations going on about various and sundry issues, a place to

>

> >

>

> > > > discuss public issues as well as personal beliefs and opinions, except here

>

> >

>

> > > > we can "hear" them all. In the background there is an occasional statement

>

> >

>

> > > > by government officials on the rostra but that should not dominate here

>

> >

>

> > > > except during certain times.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Valete,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Palladius

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

























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

Laenas Lentulo sal.

>>Yes, I want that the posts be filtered, and only those truly productive and

really important reach this list.<<


I do not like disagreeing with you amice, but who among us is wise enough to handle such filtering. Do not people differ on what is "productive" and "truly important"?

Laenas Ciceroni sal.

>>>> This will allow the voters the chance to make their voice

known as to what they want - an official newsletter, or a lively and
friendly meeting place - by casting their votes. <<<

I think the current character of our Forum (which we both seem to agree is best) is guaranteed by the Constitution; the specific section of which Sula and others have posted. It would take a Constitutional amendment to make the changes that some here have proposed.

Lentulus iterum Ciceroni Cornelio sal.


After reading this mail, an interesting point came to my mind. But firstly, I address this:

>>> What you are proposing would mean the death of this forum. I certainnly will unsubscribe if it's going to turn into some sort of Official Newsletter with news from the Magistrates. <<<

I was very clear that nobody wants it, no one wants or suggests this place to convert into a magistrates only announce list. We talk about a bit stricter moderation, not closure of free posting. Huge difference.

And now, here comes the interesting part.

>>> This is a place where we as citizens come together to talk to each other. It worked well in the past when we did just that. There is absolutely no need to change that and I can't fathom why anyone would want to take it away from us. <<<<

I noticed that you, and others, say that "This is a place where we as citizens come together to talk to each other".

Is there a single place in any of the nations or states of the Earth, which serves as the sole place to citizens to come together and talk to each other"? I ask this because to me it strongly seems as a crucial point of the arguments. Is there a discussion list, or a square or a street, where e.g. Americans come together to talk to each other?

I think no citizenry has a sole place to come together and talk to each other. People come to together in different places, if they can do, in real life places, in pubs, in streets, in their homes, etc, to talk to each other. People can come together in clubs, like in the sodalitates, in mailing lists, like in the Back Alley. People come together in little groups, where they are few, because only few can become friends. People come together in large crowds when meeting in an electoral convention.

The place changes always to match the purpose. Citizens would assemble in full number only when talking about the most serious national businesses.

But why do we have to have a single special list, the ML, which we expect to be everything to everyone? This is both the official main list, but we also want it to be a tavern, an angle of the forum, a friendly alley where to chat with friends etc.

But the main list should have the place what (I think) the most people expect from it when they join. This list should be the MAIN list only for the MAIN things. For the most serious, the highest quality and most relevant issues.

Lentulus C. Laenati sal.

>>>> I do not like disagreeing with you amice, but who among us is wise

enough to handle such filtering. Do not people differ on what is
"productive" and "truly important"? <<<


I do like if you voice your disagreement with me, amice, as it shows you truly are a friend, and a sincere, credible person with your own, unique, and characteristic worldview. :)

I think it is not a question of wisdom. It is always a question of "politics", ideology. The majority elects those praetors whose character, vision about the forum they like most. This is why we need elections at all: thus there would be a real reason to elect the best people. Of course, those whose candidates would fail in the elections, they should learn to accept the policy of the winners. But one year is not long, and next year maybe will be their "era", their turn.

Yes, people differ on what is important or productive, and exactly this is why not the people shall decide it, but elected representative, charged and trusted with the duty to decide it. Checks and balances are many: the colleague, the tribunes, and superiors (the consul), and the short one year, and finally, the possibility of a trial because people can accuse them with abuse of power.

Given these checks and balances, most sensible people will try everything to make fair decisions on what is impolite, uncivil, disorder or irrelevant to the list. We just should let them do their job, and accept their policy for a year, and if we don't like it, next year we elect our pals, who will do differently.

















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

C. Maria Caeca Lentulo, Palladio. Leano omnibusque in foro S. P. D.

I post my thoughts with a great deal of hesitation, because I realize that what I, a relatively new, Plebeian citizen of no influence, think may not be welcome here. However, I will presume, at least once more, to take up your valuable time with my observations and considerations.

Perhaps unfortunately for me, I can see both sides in this discussion, and find myself agreeing with some of what both groups are saying. If I understand what you, Lentule Amice, are saying ...you would like to see a more formal style of presentation here ...less spontaneous debate, less peripheral chat (more on that later), and more concern that what is posted be of interest (hopefully) to the majority of members ...and deference to the magistrates, Pontifici, and other officials of the Nation.

I agree that following the rules of civility is beneficial, on this, or on any list, and in daily life. I agree that respect should be sown to every citizen by every citizen (or guest), especially when one disagrees with a specific point. I would dearly love to see the kinds of academic and intellectual posts you describe, and would read them avidly.

However. You say that, because there is no one place in the real world where all citizens of a Nation (or Nations) can gather to get to know one another and share their views, we should not have such a place, either. I submit that one of the reasons the internet has become so prevalent, and even essential to most people is that it has provided us (here and elsewhere) with *just* such a place! How else could I find, and come to be friends with ...a young man from Hungary, for example? Had it not been for this list, I would never have come to know you, (as one example, there are many others), Amice, and I believe that my life would be the poorer had that happened.

I also see the point made by several others, that this is the place where we can form the essential bonds of community, so that, when the time comes, if it does, that we can actually meet, we will not meet as strangers ...but as close acquaintances, knowing something of one another, and that if friendship does develop, it will do so quickly and more easily. Yes, as we grow, we may want to re-examine the "village square" model that has worked for us ...but I think it a *serious* mistake to partition us so tightly, and confine us to small groups. We will be attracted to those, fat any rate, for various reasons, and those relationships will, naturally, tend to be more close, but that in no way negates the benefits derived from easy access to all members, and we can use technology for this purpose. that does not exclude other means of communication, especially forming local groups, and building a "real world" life with activities. I just don't see why *both* avenues should not be encouraged, and why we are being urged to choose between them.

It is my strong belief that the moderation of any mailing list is a very delicate matter. On the one hand, other than the extremely self evident things that can be dealt with, such as SPAM (having owned and moderated some large lists, I've seen some ...unique ...examples), the time comes when a moderator must make what is, undeniably, a subjective decision, and there are very *very* fine lines, there. No moderation of any list will always be precisely objective, so long as we use human beings as moderators (and I hope we *always* do), each decision must be made using the best understanding of our laws, our guidelines, Yahoo guidelines ...and the moderator's perceptions of whether the post involved exceeds them, or is in some way damaging to the environment of the list. Senator Sulla's definition of "clear and imminent danger to the Res Publica" is a bit more restrictive than mine ...but, in essence, I agree that we should not esteem anything we dislike or with which we disagree as a danger to the Res Publica.

In addition, if I cannot make my views known to the magistrates (and I do understand that the magistrates give my views little, if any value) here, then how am I to do that? Now ...I fully understand that I have not, as yet, earned the respect of the magistrates of this Nation, as I have yet to demonstrate my worth by my service. That day may, or may not come ...and, perhaps I am instinctively reacting based on my own cultural political heritage ...but ...it is pat of my very bone marrow to be able to speak my mind on pertinent issues. It is in my very blood to participate in serious debates. It is essential to know that I have the right to hold the officials I have elected (or who have been elected) accountable for their actions, whether they are serving at the time or not. I do understand that this may not be "Roman", and I do understand that the mechanism for dealing with magistrates who have not performed their duties in the ways which are deemed to be correct can be charged after they leave office ...but I find it untenable that I must allow things which I perceive to be unjust to continue, unchecked and unprotested, until that time.

Finally, while I have always tried to be courteous and respectful, and will always try to be so ...I will, publicly and privately defer to those whose knowledge and experience exceed mine; I learn from many, often from those with whom I disagree most, because they make me solidify and define my own views; I esteem and deeply respect certain people for any number of reasons; I cherish and enjoy a few very dear friends, and will do what I can to support and help them--but I bow to no one, and I never will.

From what I have read, it would seem that you and others would wish me silent ...and that, Amice, saddens me.

Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca

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

Salvete Omnes;

If I may offer a very simple set of analogy and some commentary?

The Nova Roma Yahoo-Groups "Main List" is our combined National
Newspaper (with sports, religious, arts, technology, political,
editorial, metro and local sections). It is also the bulletin boards
at neighborhood businesses, community centers, churches/temples,
billboards, those annoying pests who talk loudly into their cell
phones while you're trying to enjoy dinner at a nice
restaurant...chatting with a few friends sitting around a table in a
public park...cracking a few jokes in the locker room...reminiscing
about your dad to an audience...sharing information you find
interesting...a new poem...an old building...

This list is our communal conversation pit.

The community is made up of scholars and dullards, veterans and
peaceniks, athletes and oafs, saints and sinners, men and women,
adults and minors, conservatives and liberals, doers and don't-ers,
religious and impious...and all points in between any and all parings
of human characteristics.

We have come together from far-flung birthplaces to this place, drawn
by a mutual love of things Roman. We all have much for which we
admire Roma Antiqua. We all know that there are things, which will
never translate into this New Rome of ours.

My interest is from a distinctly nonacademic view. I am an historical
hobbyist. Roman military, engineering and culinary arts are the high
points for me. I'm not a Latinist, never will be; translations suit
my needs just fine.

I am, like everyone else here, a product of a late 20th Century
upbringing, within the confines of my country of national origin. My
contacts with the outside world, with the world beyond my birth
community, my places of residence over the years, are still very
limited.

Fora such as this one enhance my ability to see what others think, to
learn of their experiences, to fully realize that the world is indeed
larger than where I now reside.

I am a firm believer that Freedom of Speech is one of the great powers
we have as natural born human beings, regardless of the conditions
where one lives. I know that other societies beyond my own have
different views of the Natural Rights of Man and a person's liberty to
exercise them in light of individual versus collective needs, duties
and strictures.

With this great power, comes a great responsibility, to use it as well
and as wisely as one possibly can. However, unless the speech clearly
indicates that some harm will befall...I believe that self-moderation
is the key.

As this is the e-list of an organization, it should follow the
community's standards and the standards must address a consensus,
which is as broad as possible. Otherwise we do face the danger of
diminishing interest and membership

I think the standard should be as liberal as possible in the latitude
shown conversations.

I have an Asatru community list, which I have or have helped to run
and moderate for almost 12 years (both this and a linked successor
list). The credo of the list is that since Asatru is about life, then
the fullest scope of conversation is allowed. One on one "ad
hominums" are tolerated (for a day or so, but things must run their
course), but my rules do not allow attacking one's family or issues
relevant thereto. I do limit the list to folks 18 years of age and
older, though I do not list it in the "adults only" section of Yahoo
Groups.

In this time only 5 people have been banned, 3 of whom were Spammers.
Dozens of subscribers have come and gone over the years for differing
reasons, including my not moderating heavily enough and allowing
idiots their say, too. We usually have between 250 and 300 members;
traffic has always ebbed and flowed, but we've racked up over 90,000
messages thus far.

There are several gathering a year happening now because of the
contacts people made through this list, we even had our own series of
annual gatherings (8 in all) directly sponsored by members of the
list, until illness and the economy hit the main organizers hard (me
amongst them).

I purposefully did not make that list the center of an organization,
for which I had many voices clamoring. My purpose was to provide a
place for people to have real conversations an any topic under the
sun, which would in the end promote the idea of the growth of Asatru.
Besides, there are many fine Asatru organizations out there already.

That would be my ideal for this list here...a place that promotes
messages on any and all topics near and dear to the heart of even just
one person, because (lo and behold) another person may feel a spark of
interest and make a connection, and decide to get together, and build
something out of which the community benefits and grows, too....do we
really have that many places to go as New Romans in this Modern World?

==============================
In amicitia et fide
Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
Civis - Poeta
--
May the Holy Powers smile on our efforts.
May the Spirits of our family lines nod in approval.
May we be of Worth to our fellow Nova Romans.

12, 13 June. Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, legatus pro praetore of Pannonia and Pontifex is representing Nova Roma at the historical festival in Kalisz in Provincia Venedia.

May the gods guard him and grant his safe return.

I M. Lucretius Agricola ask this.

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Kalisz

Lentulus Mariae Caecae sal.

Now just really very shortly, because I have to sleep before we leave Budapest, and I'll have only 3 hours to that.

>>> However. You say that, because there is no one place in the real world

where all citizens of a Nation (or Nations) can gather to get to know
one another and share their views, we should not have such a place,
either. <<<<


I don't exactly say that. What I say it's that it should not be our main ideological basis for this forum that the citizenry needs a place where to talk to each other en mass. I say we can and we shall have this ML, but I don't think that it is crucial that everything shall be allowed here. This place should not be everything. It's just the main public forum, and it shall serve as such.

Moderation on the main public forum does not mean moderation of free speech in Nova Roma, because Nova Roma is not the main list, and a main public forum is not equals to Nova Roman civic life.

Basically I agree with you and others that this ML is vital and should be there for everyone, and should make an important role in the civic life of NR, but I would want to see a moderation. This would only affect, let's say, 3-4% of the posts, or even less, but it would create a new culture, a Roman culture here, an a better community, where people might actually care about others' respect. Basically in my vision everything remained the same, but the noise and aggression would be a bit filtered out.

>>> I submit that one of the reasons the internet has become so

prevalent, and even essential to most people is that it has provided us
(here and elsewhere) with *just* such a place! How else could I find,
and come to be friends with ...a young man from Hungary, for example?<<<<<<


I think you misunderstood me. I did not speak against internet, or against using the ML. The ML and all other internet venues connect us when we can't meet, so I say it is ever more important than one can imagine. So there is no difference between our views.

>>>> .but I think it a *serious*

mistake to partition us so tightly, and confine us to small groups. <<<<


I don't propose such thing. What I'm saying is that huge hordes of people will not become really coherent in the ML. Friendships born (in most cases) offlist, in private mails. Or in smaller, more intimate circles. And the real cohesion, the real sense of community starts when those off-list relationships begin to flourish. I encourage everyone to find person to person connections, to create small groups of friends, and on these grounds the NR society will grow up as a community of the whole.

>>> I just don't see why *both* avenues

should not be encouraged, and why we are being urged to choose between
them. <<<<


Both avenues must equally be encouraged and we aren't being urged to choose between them. There has be some misunderstanding.

>>> In addition, if I cannot make my views known to the magistrates (and I

do understand that the magistrates give my views little, if any value)
here, then how am I to do that? <<<


In that vision of the ML about what I speak, you can make your views known to the magistrates on the ML, so no difference would be. But even if you could not, you always can send a private e-mail to the magistrates. What's more, that's always the preferred way of action, as the magistrates are not obliged to monitor the ML when there is no comitia session, but they ARE obliged to monitor their private mails from individuals always.

>>> From what I have read, it would seem that you and others would wish me silent ...and that, Amice, saddens me. <<<<

I can't believe from where you think this. I have repeatedly said what I meant, and it was about filtering the dirty posts, the irrational personalities, childish circular personal quarrels, and two sentenced posts saying nothing but curses. How would that silence you? You, who always post diginified and well though out posts? My version of the ML would exactly be for you, it would be a place which would encourage people to follow your example, and would discourage the bad behavior.

So don't be saddened, I think we basically agree!

















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

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
This would only affect, let's say, 3-4% of the posts, or even less, but it would create a new culture, a Roman culture here, an a better community, where people might actually care about others' respect. Basically in my vision everything remained the same, but the noise and aggression would be a bit filtered out.
>

But, moderation can't get rid of aggression or create respect. You can moderate the manifestations, but the aggression will only surface and express itself in other, perhaps more subversive, ways. Likewise, no matter how much a moderator encourages it, you'll only squeeze out the appearance of respect, but people will still continue to feel what they feel. In short, moderation can't transform the culture here, it can only hide it or paint over it, with the result that things will explode somewhere else, out of clear sight. This might be convenient for PR purposes, but it will only make it harder to identify the problems and actually fix them, which can only hurt NR more in the long run.

Vale,

Gualterus

What a great event! I love re-enacting Roman life. Just last year, my fiance and I were married at an event called Old Ft. MacArthur Days that's on next month. And I have to say the groom, A. Vitellius Celsus, bears a very uncanny resemblance to my fiance, M. Valerius Brutus! (He's not in this group : (.) We're gearing up for this year's event that won't be so crazy since our real wedding is on the 30th of July.
Vale,
L. Antonia Auriga

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
> I`m still in Bulgaria, and will remain here until June 20, because I have
> been invited to another Roman re-enactment festival in Plovdiv from June 18
> to June 20.
>
> I have sporadic internet access, and i have not been able to check out yet
> all the links Agricola posted.
> However here1s a link to A. Vitellius Celsius` photos of the Kyustendil
> festival:
> http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#
>
> You can see in order some military reenactors from Veliko Tarnovo, very good
> gladiators from Varna, us rehearsing in a school, then going on parade under
> the rain. A religious ceremony (re-enactment only, not real) performed on
> the remains of the Roman baths in Kyustendil. A ballista demonstration.
> A slave market, gladiatorial combats, another religious ceremony in the
> Roman baths, a reading of Ovid in Latin by Dobromir Rusev (the guy in a toga
> praetexta, with a laurel wreath), a showing of the "Miles gloriosus" by
> Plautus, more weapon demonstration, a very small part of my Roman fashion
> show, part of the Roman replicas I sell, a Roman cuisine demonstration, a
> confarreatio ritual by Ti. Claudius Drusus (the guy in the red and purple
> toga). The groom was A. Vitellius Celsus himself.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

PRIMO CONVENTUS CONSULARE INTERNAZIONALE DI ROMA - URBS ROMÆ, 17-20
June 2010


Abbiamo il piaceder di invitare tutti i membri di Nova Roma e chiunque
sia interessato alla cultura antico-romana al Primo Conventus
Internazionale di Roma, che sarà tenuto a Roma, Italia, dal 17 al 20
giugno 2010.





Patria est communis omnium parens
~Cicerone
La patria è il genitore comune di tutti.





Unitevi a noi e sfruttate questa splendida occasione per incontrarvi con
altre persone da Paesi diversi che condividono un amore comune per Roma
e per la cultura dell'antica Roma.


La magia di Roma risveglierà tutti i vostri sensi mentre camminerete
nelle sue antiche strade e scoprirete le meraviglie dell'antichità
che rimangono tuttora infuse nel sangue vitale di questa magnifica
città. Roma vi avvolgerà con il suo incantesimo che voi
prontamente accoglierete, scoprendo il fascino e la storia nei suoi
stretti vicoli, nei caffè, nelle taverne, perfino nei fiori alle
finestre.

Scoprirete che l'antica Roma ha ancora una salda presenza
nell'attualità e sta aspettando voi per riportare in vita il meglio
della sua antichità in una cultura viva e pulsante. Godete di questa
opportunità per immergervi nei magnifici monumenti, nelle fontane e
nell'architettura che vi circonda durante l'esplorazione delle parti
più antiche della città.

Esplorate da voi l'antico centro di Roma: le meraviglie del colle
Palatino, la cittadella dell'antica Roma con i suoi templi, il Foro ed i
mercati! Il Colosseo! Il Palatino!
Passeggiate nel Centro Storico, dove il Pantheon, eretto nel 27 DC, è
ancora in piedi - quest'area è stata indaffaratissima per duecento
anni e con un occhio attento potrete scoprire il Tempio d'Adriano, il
Pié di Marmo, ed altri edifici più "moderni" mischiati con quelli
antichi romani: Riuscirete a trovare il tempio di Minerva? Lo gnomone
della meridiana gigante riportata dall'Egitto da Augusto? C'è molto
altro da scoprire a Roma!

I Sette Colli di Madre Roma vi chiamano!
Gli Dèi ci chiamano!

Questa è un'occasione magnifica per tutti coloro che sono interessati
all'antica Roma, sia i membri che i non-membri, di incontrarsi e
discutere questioni importanti e rilevanti per Nova Roma. Questa è
un'opportunità di apprendere di più su Nova Roma e di parlare con
i nostri leader, divenendo quindi più coinvolti nel contribuire agli
obiettivi di Nova Roma!

Uniamoci tutti verso la devozione allo studio ed alla restaurazione
della cultura dell'antica Roma!

Per ulteriori informazioni:
http://novaroma.org/nr/VII_Conventus_Novae_Romae
<http://novaroma.org/nr/VII_Conventus_Novae_Romae>



Contact to register, M. Iulius Perusianus: peraznanie@...


Conventus passati e foto:
http://novaroma.org/nr/Nova_Roma_Rally_%28MMDCCLVI%29
<http://novaroma.org/nr/Nova_Roma_Rally_%28MMDCCLVI%29>
http://novaroma.org/nr/III_Conventus_Novae_Romae
<http://novaroma.org/nr/III_Conventus_Novae_Romae>
http://novaroma.org/nr/V_Conventus_Novae_Romae
<http://novaroma.org/nr/V_Conventus_Novae_Romae> (with marvelous
"recollections)
http://novaroma.org/nr/VI_Conventus_Novae_Romae
<http://novaroma.org/nr/VI_Conventus_Novae_Romae>



Molti grazie P. Annaeus Placidus per la traduzione!



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

FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONSULAR CONVENTUS IN ROME - URBS ROMÆ, 17-20
June 2010



We are pleased to invite members and the general public interested in
Ancient Roman culture to the First International Conventus in Rome to be
held in Rome Italy from June 17 to June 20 2010!



Rome, Italy.

Patria est communis omnium parens

~Cicero

Our native land is the common parent of us all.



Please come join us and take advantage of this valuable opportunity to
meet with others from different lands who share a common love for Rome
and for the Ancient Roman Culture.



The magic of Rome awakens all the senses as you walk her ancient streets
and discover the wonders of antiquity that remain infused in the
lifeblood of this magnificent city. She, Rome, will cast a spell that
you will readily embrace while discovering the charm and history within
her narrow streets, her cafes, her taverns, even the flowers in the
windows.



You will discover that Ancient Rome still has a foothold and is waiting
for you to bring the best of her antiquity back to a living breathing
culture and a start is this opportunity to immerse yourself in the
magnificent monuments, the fountains and architecture that surrounds you
as you tour the most ancient parts of the city.

Explore for yourself the ancient center of Rome. The wonders of the
Capitoline Hill, the citadel of Ancient Rome with its temples, forums
and markets! The Colosseum! The Palatine!

Wander about the Centro Storico where the Pantheon still stand since
being built in 27 CE – this area has been bustling for two hundred
years and with a keen eye you may discover the Temple of Hadrian, the
Pie di Marmo, and more "modern" buildings melded with ancient
Roman buildings. Can you find the Temple of Minerva? The spine of the
giant Sundial brought back from Egypt by Augustus? There is so much more
to discover in Rome!



The Seven Hills of Mother Rome are calling you!

The Gods are calling us!



This is a fortuitous occasion for all those, members and non-members
alike, to meet and discuss important matters relevant to Nova Roma. This
is an opportunity to learn about Nova Roma and to speak to our leaders
thereby becoming truly involved in contributing to the goals of Nova
Roma!

Let us all unite towards the dedication of the study and restoration of
ancient Roman culture!



For more information:

http://novaroma.org/nr/VII_Conventus_Novae_Romae
<http://novaroma.org/nr/VII_Conventus_Novae_Romae>



Contact to register, M. Iulius Perusianus: peraznanie@...



Past Conventus and Photos:

http://novaroma.org/nr/Nova_Roma_Rally_%28MMDCCLVI%29
<http://novaroma.org/nr/Nova_Roma_Rally_%28MMDCCLVI%29>

http://novaroma.org/nr/III_Conventus_Novae_Romae
<http://novaroma.org/nr/III_Conventus_Novae_Romae>

http://novaroma.org/nr/V_Conventus_Novae_Romae
<http://novaroma.org/nr/V_Conventus_Novae_Romae> (with marvelous
"recollections")

http://novaroma.org/nr/VI_Conventus_Novae_Romae
<http://novaroma.org/nr/VI_Conventus_Novae_Romae>



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

Salve,

So far all the suggestions have been about what cives do not want on the ML, however, community building is about people doing things together. It may be time for the moderators of the ML to take a more active role in suggesting monthly topics, maintaining a rolling system of "icebreakers" to engage new citizens, and foster awareness of what other NR groups are doing. Yes, to some extent this requires them to juggle for the crowds, but it seems to me that a great deal of the vitriol spilt on the ML is the result of lack of anything better to do.

Just my own opinion,

V Rutilia Enodia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> >
> This would only affect, let's say, 3-4% of the posts, or even less, but it would create a new culture, a Roman culture here, an a better community, where people might actually care about others' respect. Basically in my vision everything remained the same, but the noise and aggression would be a bit filtered out.
> >
>
> But, moderation can't get rid of aggression or create respect. You can moderate the manifestations, but the aggression will only surface and express itself in other, perhaps more subversive, ways. Likewise, no matter how much a moderator encourages it, you'll only squeeze out the appearance of respect, but people will still continue to feel what they feel. In short, moderation can't transform the culture here, it can only hide it or paint over it, with the result that things will explode somewhere else, out of clear sight. This might be convenient for PR purposes, but it will only make it harder to identify the problems and actually fix them, which can only hurt NR more in the long run.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>

Iulia Quiritibus Bonae Voluntatis S.P.D

"Vesta, watch over the most chaste Vestales whose hand tends the Holy Fire. Live well, fires. O live, I pray, undying flames." adapted from Ovid Fasti 3.426-28

Bene valete in pacem deorum,

L. Iulia Aquila
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis

Salve Maior amica,

> So my private letter to the parties involved was indeed a resignation. I am grieved that I departed from true Roman behavior.
>
> I can only say to the Quirites that I will do better; every day in following the mos, the examples, of Roma antiqua.
>

I have waited for this post. Hopefully not far away is the day when this dawning of wisdom will take hold and you will no longer be quoting Lentulus or Cordus but will be speaking from your own inner deep font of insight built on the knowledge you so accumulate and that it will shine forth with sagacious understanding and realization.

Vale et habe fortuna bona,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia quiritibus spd;
>
> as Gn. Cornelius Lentulus pointed out there are too few who are truly conversant with Roman culture and those citizens we need to treasure and respect as wise models for us.
>
> I wrote to A. Apollonius Cordus, my longtime friend, with great knowledge of Roman law and political culture and he told me that Romans did not distinguish between the personal and the political.
>
> So my private letter to the parties involved was indeed a resignation. I am grieved that I departed from true Roman behavior.
>
> I can only say to the Quirites that I will do better; every day in following the mos, the examples, of Roma antiqua.
>
> di Novae Romae favent! May the gods favour Nova Roma!
> Fortuna mihi semper amet! May Fortuna always love me
>
> M. Hortensia Maior
>

Salve,

This might help. I also think an environment where people can post some off-topic material to cool off, like, for example, their favorite cute kitty photo of the day (of course, being a scrooge I'd just keep scrolling and ignore it), would also help everyone relax a bit. The vast majority of us are adults and know when such things go too far. Without some expression of mundane interests we miss those daily points of contact and commonality which a "real life" community has, and which can be so helpful in diffusing those hot moments that will necessarily crop up.

If all we know about each other are our formal NR legal, political, theological and scholarly positions about things, then we're not really humans to each other, but talking books that can be kicked to the side or thrown across the room.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "enodia2002" <walkyr@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Salve,
>
> So far all the suggestions have been about what cives do not want on the ML, however, community building is about people doing things together. It may be time for the moderators of the ML to take a more active role in suggesting monthly topics, maintaining a rolling system of "icebreakers" to engage new citizens, and foster awareness of what other NR groups are doing. Yes, to some extent this requires them to juggle for the crowds, but it seems to me that a great deal of the vitriol spilt on the ML is the result of lack of anything better to do.
>
> Just my own opinion,
>
> V Rutilia Enodia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> > >
> > This would only affect, let's say, 3-4% of the posts, or even less, but it would create a new culture, a Roman culture here, an a better community, where people might actually care about others' respect. Basically in my vision everything remained the same, but the noise and aggression would be a bit filtered out.
> > >
> >
> > But, moderation can't get rid of aggression or create respect. You can moderate the manifestations, but the aggression will only surface and express itself in other, perhaps more subversive, ways. Likewise, no matter how much a moderator encourages it, you'll only squeeze out the appearance of respect, but people will still continue to feel what they feel. In short, moderation can't transform the culture here, it can only hide it or paint over it, with the result that things will explode somewhere else, out of clear sight. This might be convenient for PR purposes, but it will only make it harder to identify the problems and actually fix them, which can only hurt NR more in the long run.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
>

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Cornelio Lentulo C. Mariae Caecae quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Lentulus Mariae Caecae sal.
>
> Now just really very shortly, because I have to sleep before we leave
> Budapest, and I'll have only 3 hours to that.
>
> ATS: Dormi bene...et post discessum!
>
>>>> >>> However. You say that, because there is no one place in the real world
> where all citizens of a Nation (or Nations) can gather to get to know
> one another and share their views, we should not have such a place,
> either. <<<<
>
> I don't exactly say that. What I say it's that it should not be our main
> ideological basis for this forum that the citizenry needs a place where to
> talk to each other en mass. I say we can and we shall have this ML, but I
> don't think that it is crucial that everything shall be allowed here. This
> place should not be everything. It's just the main public forum, and it shall
> serve as such.
>
> ATS: And I agree that not everything should be allowed here, but there
> should be some restraint exercised on the part of all. We do need this means
> to communicate with one another.
>
> CCL: Moderation on the main public forum does not mean moderation of free
> speech in Nova Roma, because Nova Roma is not the main list, and a main public
> forum is not equals to Nova Roman civic life.
>
> Basically I agree with you and others that this ML is vital and should be
> there for everyone, and should make an important role in the civic life of NR,
> but I would want to see a moderation. This would only affect, let's say, 3-4%
> of the posts, or even less,
>
> ATS: I suspect that, under normal circumstances, less than 1% of the
> posts do not see the light of day. Loss by Yahoo is a bigger hindrance to the
> so-called freedom of speech than moderation on any list, and Yahoo appears to
> be ailing right now, for some posts are missing while others are duplicated.
> Some posts are edited to remove offensive material, but that is very, very
> rare and usually quite limited. This is an open list, and one with minors on
> it; we do not need to use gutter language to express ourselves here. As for
> recent events, it seems that the recent issue concerning Cato led to a total
> blockage of his posts, which is not the purpose of moderation, nor to me is it
> an acceptable course of action unless he were advocating starting a riot or
> the like.
>
>
> CCL: but it would create a new culture, a Roman culture here, an a better
> community, where people might actually care about others' respect. Basically
> in my vision everything remained the same, but the noise and aggression would
> be a bit filtered out.
>
> ATS: As well it should be...preferably at the source: the keyboard of
> the sender.
>
> CMC>>> I submit that one of the reasons the internet has become so
> prevalent, and even essential to most people is that it has provided us
> (here and elsewhere) with *just* such a place! How else could I find,
> and come to be friends with ...a young man from Hungary, for example?<<<<<<
>
> CCL: I think you misunderstood me. I did not speak against internet, or
> against using the ML. The ML and all other internet venues connect us when we
> can't meet, so I say it is ever more important than one can imagine. So there
> is no difference between our views.
>
>>>>> >>>> .but I think it a *serious*
> mistake to partition us so tightly, and confine us to small groups. <<<<
>
> CCL: I don't propose such thing. What I'm saying is that huge hordes of
> people will not become really coherent in the ML.
>
> ATS: Not to mention that over half of the membership is composed of
> non-citizens, some of whom are minors, and some of whom stay for a whole ten
> minutes.
>
>
> CCL: Friendships born (in most cases) offlist, in private mails. Or in
> smaller, more intimate circles. And the real cohesion, the real sense of
> community starts when those off-list relationships begin to flourish. I
> encourage everyone to find person to person connections, to create small
> groups of friends, and on these grounds the NR society will grow up as a
> community of the whole.
>
> CMC>>> I just don't see why *both* avenues
> should not be encouraged, and why we are being urged to choose between
> them. <<<<
>
> CCL: Both avenues must equally be encouraged and we aren't being urged to
> choose between them. There has be some misunderstanding.
>
> ATS: I agree. This almost sounds like the (dimly remembered) arguments
> regarding the establishment of the US: was there to be a number of small and
> very independent states, or a stronger central government...
>
> CMC>>> In addition, if I cannot make my views known to the magistrates (and I
> do understand that the magistrates give my views little, if any value)
> here, then how am I to do that? <<<
>
> ATS: Caeca, I think you can very well make your views known to the
> magistrates. Most of them do not bite. There have been some exceptions,
> however.
>
> CCL: In that vision of the ML about what I speak, you can make your views
> known to the magistrates on the ML, so no difference would be. But even if you
> could not, you always can send a private e-mail to the magistrates. What's
> more, that's always the preferred way of action, as the magistrates are not
> obliged to monitor the ML when there is no comitia session, but they ARE
> obliged to monitor their private mails from individuals always.
>
> ATS: Well, most of the magistrates DO monitor the ML, and the members of
> the praetura are effectively required to do so.
>
>>>> >>> From what I have read, it would seem that you and others would wish me
>>>> silent ...and that, Amice, saddens me. <<<<
>
> ATS: No, no, Caeca; I think you are reading this wrong.
>
> CCL: I can't believe from where you think this. I have repeatedly said what I
> meant, and it was about filtering the dirty posts, the irrational
> personalities, childish circular personal quarrels, and two sentenced posts
> saying nothing but curses. How would that silence you?
>
> ATS: Indeed. Along with the spam. If anyone is interested in a longish
> proselytizing piece on the merits of Islam, we may be able to dredge it up for
> your entertainment. The one wanting to set up a dating service with, what,
> Baptists (I can¹t remember, but it was a Protestant denomination) is older,
> but I might have it on my previous computer if anyone is interested. Others
> do appear, and I doubt that you young lads on the ML need a certain medication
> often sold at huge discounts.
>
>
> CCL: You, who always post diginified and well though out posts? My version
> of the ML would exactly be for you, it would be a place which would encourage
> people to follow your example, and would discourage the bad behavior.
>
> ATS: Indeed. I would also point out that the reason for restricting
> off-topic posts is that some people have very limited mailboxes, and some have
> to pay by the message or whatever, so do not want to receive material they
> deem irrelevant. The ML no longer has 200 members, all of whom are Roman
> citizens, and all of whom share a single vision about NR, Romanitas, and a
> host of other topics. We are larger and more diverse now, and that is a good
> thing.
>
> So don't be saddened, I think we basically agree!
>
> ATS: I think you do, too. Bonum iter!
>
>
>
> Valete.
>
>
>
>
>

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

M. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Dea vos porrigat opitula.

Hodie est ante diem III Eidus Iuniae; haec dies nefastus est: Venatio Ludi Saeculares; Vestalia; Matralia Matri Matutae in Foro Boario

447 Years before the Founding of Rome /1200 BCE (or 1184 BCE): The Fall of Troy and the escape of Aeneas with his father and son, but with the loss of his wife Creusa at the Temple of Ceres outside Ilium

AUC 736 / 17 BCE: The eleventh day of the Ludi Saeculares was celebrated with an animal hunt (venatio).


Matralia

Matuta disperses the rosey dawn and spreads the golden sunlight across the sky. ~ T. Lucretius Carus, De Rerum Natura 5.654-655

Mater Matuta's name, according to Verrius Flaccus, derived from an old Latin word meaning "good," as did such words as mane, manes, manus, and maturus (Paulus 122). She was a Goddess of the first light, as Janus Matutus is also a God of the rising sun. A euphemism for birth is "coming into the light." This idea is found, too, in the names of Diana Lucina and Juno Lucina. The Romans considered dawn to be the luckiest of times to be born, and this idea of a lucky birth at dawn is the meaning of Lucius/Lucia and Manius (Mommsen, Roman History 1.162)

A fanum for Mater Matuta was said to have been dedicated by Servius Tullius in the Forum Boarium. There, too, he had dedicated a Temple of Fortuna Virgo. For the 11 June, Ovid tells the tale of the miraculous conception of Servius Tullius when his mother Ocresia of Corniculum poured a libation of wine, along with Tanaquil, on the hearth, the ashes rose to form the phallus of Volcanus, onto which Tanaquil told Ocresia to sit. In another version it is a spark of Volcanus that falls from the fire into Ocresia's lap, thereby impregnating her. In its own way, this story also relates to Matuta as the Goddess who united mortal woman with immortal. By 396 BCE a Temple of Mater Matuta was built next to the Temple of Fortuna Virgo, after a vow by L. Furius Camillus during the Veientine War. The Matralia celebrates the dedication of this later Temple of Matuta. As a Good Goddess of Birthing we might expect that the Matralia involved matrons, as it did, and would have something to do with children. But there were a couple of odd features to it. First is how slave women were forbidden into the temple.

"Why is it that it is forbidden to slave women to set foot in the shrine of Matuta, and why do the women bring in one slave woman only and slap her on the head and beat her? Is the beating of this slave but a symbol of the prohibition, and do they prevent the others from entering because of the legend? For Ino is said to have become madly jealous of a slave woman on her husband's account, and to have vented her madness on her son. The Greeks relate that the slave was an Aetolian by birth and her name was Antiphera. Wherefore also in my native town, Chaeroneia, the temple guardian stands before the precinct of Leucothera and, taking a whip in his hand, makes proclamation: 'Let no slave enter, nor any Aetolian, man or woman!'" ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 16

And then there is an unexpected and unexplained feature of this festival:

"Why is it that in the shrine of this Goddess Mater Matuta they do not pray for blessings on their own children, but only on their sisters' children? Is it because Ino was fond of her sister and suckled her sister's son also, but was herself unfortunate in her own children? Or is it that, quite apart from this reason, the custom is morally excellent and produces much good will among kindred?" ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 17

The worship of Mater Matuta was widespread in Central Italy, and quite ancient. She is found at Pisarum in two very ancient inscriptions. One is a truncated square column, with Her name, in archaic letters, written around one corner so that it extends across two sides as MAT(er) M – ATUT(a). She appear at Pyrgi, the port of Caere in Etruria, and at Praeneste in Latium, among the Volsci of southern Latium, and down into Campania as well. At Satricum Mater Matuta appears to have been the main deity. Livy recorded a miraculous story about her at the time of Satricum's destruction.

AUC 376 /377 BCE: Mater Matuta and the sack of Satricum

"The exasperation and rage of the Latins at finding themselves unable to injure the Romans in war or to induce the Volscians to keep up hostilities rose to such a pitch that they set fire to Satricum, which had been their first shelter after their defeat. They flung firebrands on sacred and profane buildings alike, and not a single roof of that city escaped except the temple of Mother Matuta. It is stated that it was not any religious scruple or fear of the gods that restrained them, but an awful Voice which sounded from the temple threatening them with terrible punishment if they did not keep their accursed firebrands far from the shrine." ~ Titus Livius 6.33.4


Our thought for today comes from the Golden Sayings of Pythagoras 11-12:

"Do nothing evil, neither in the presence of others, nor privately; but above all things respect thyself."

Ocella Lentulo omnibusque SPD,

I hope I am not out of place in rearing my little head on the Main List, but as someone who has been subscribed to this list for a few months and has only just recently been granted full citizenship, as well as someone who wants quite desperately to understand what is transpiring in Nova Roma, I must support your assertion that a new citizen would find this list chaotic and difficult in which to become involved, Lentule.

I'm not suggesting changes or accusing anyone of deliberately shutting out new citizens - I would never have the audacity to do that with my limited experience in NR - but having been reading the updates from this forum, it is not difficult to figure out why people might be involved for only a short period of time.

(I hope I haven't angered or annoyed anyone with this input...)

Valete,
Cn. Livia Ocella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus D. Palladio Invicto sal.
>
>
> >>> you have a misunderstanding of what this list is and what it is for. It is not the rostra, it is not the official state assembly for Nova Roma, though occasionally a magistrate will post something here. It is more of an informal gathering place, a collection of conversations. <<<
>
>
> Then why it is called "official public forum" of Nova Roma everywhere? It's almost the sole interface through which people can meet Nova Roma Live... Everything posted here carries a certain wight of importance as it reaches all subscribed citizens (this list has more than 1400 members). If it is a chatting list, I mean a list for just casually, informally talking to everyone, then it should not be advertised as our main public and official forum.
>
> This is a list where everyone joins who wants to be up to date about NR news and the current events, about central NR politics and projects. People, including me, expect a certain quality from this list. I don't want to read personal quarreling, name calling, and infinite, circular debates about who is or who is not moderated. I think the 95% of the subscribed citizens do not want either. Yes, I want that the posts be filtered, and only those truly productive and really important reach this list. This is why we should have moderators, who should help the readers of this forum by filtering the low quality or arrogant or provocatively aggressive posts, cutting down the circular arguments. I mean I agree that each debate should be allowed to START, but not all of them is worth to be allowed to evolve, to be continued ad nauseam. Our elected praetors, or any kind of moderators should exist to this purpose: and we should let them to moderate just according to
> their considerations, viewpoints, preferences. This is why we ELECT them, and they have short 1 year term. If they do it unjustly, next time we elect better ones. It is just like the editors of a newspaper, or the directors of the talk shows on the TV. They moderate everything so that it can be enjoyable, but if they do it wrong, they will be fired. The populace of NR can select their "editors", "director" through voting, and can fire them by not electing them again.
>
> I sympathize with the concept that the ML is a big hall where everyone shouts to the 1400 people who either listen or answer, but it is very unproductive, I'd say, impossible, and tiresome. Those who want truly follow it by all means will be exhausted. No one can follow that amount of posts of all levels of quality.
>
> If a citizen wants to be up to date to "Nova Romanitas" through the ML, he will most likely be disappointed after a while. It's too much! Too much noise, too hard work to read through every post, and after a longer period, he will see that it is not worth, he may also loose the "story line". Many enemies, who knows why the long time feuds exist? This place will just look as an insane chaos. This forum, in its current form, can only be interesting to those fully involved into the feuds and personalities, to those who know who hates whom for what exactly and since how long. No surprise so many leaves 1 month after joining.
>
> You can then say that this average citizen I imagined should subscribe just to the Announce List. But that's not what he wants. He wants really to follow NR's events, politics, but only the best posts, the worthy posts, well written, well thought out contributions, the lovely, nice and informative conversations about how people live their Roman lives in Belgium, in the USA, in Romania etc...
>
> My imagined average citizen wants the ML, just in a better quality. An edited ML. In other words, a reasonable moderated ML.
>
> And our constitution provides for it: it says the ML can be "reasonably moderated" to maintain "order and civility".
>
> What "reasonable moderated" means? Only filtering SPAM? All "reason" is exhausted about SPAM? There is no reason to worry about anything except SPAM?
>
> What order is? What civility is?
>
> I think the constiutution clearly supports my points.
>
> Order means the end of the chaotic circular struggle of verbal battles about some individuals' coolness or awfulness, and the end of two sentence verbal punches like "I agree with X, because Y is a giant %=%=/%!".
>
> Civility includes politeness, educated style and tone.
>
> If we followed our constitution, I believe would have an ML which my imagined average citizen wanted.
>
>
> >>> It is a place to create community so when we meet in person we already know a lot about the people. <<<
>
>
> That's a good point. However, if we let people to say absolutely everything, this place serves also to damage community, and makes people hate each other, and nurture years long feuds against each other because of the insults on this list. It has already been evidenced. There are a great many people in this list who hate each other because they could freely insult each other in this list. If they had been withheld, supposing that they would not have continued it in private, now they would be less inimical to each other.
>
> This free chat shout list made people the worst kind of enemies. I can acknowledge its benefits, but I see more damage. With moderation, we would be now a better community.
>
>
> >>> What you describe is a recipe for silence and the continued stagnation of this forum. <<<<
>
>
> To me it seems that your advocated version of the ML is also a recipe for silence and stagnation of this forum. If the forum is convoluted with chaotic chatting and the most vocal parties can rule out the shyer majority, this causes the most people not to want to open their mouths. I know from experience that most of the citizens find this ML an arrogant place, ruled by aggressive and pervasive debaters, and they rather choose silence and passive participation.
>
> Our forum stagnates since its existence, and no growth is possible, since it is still too much. Such web mailing lists cannot be larger, or if they become larger, they will clear themselves and become again smaller and less active, because the vast majority of the posters will not have enough time and energy to read 1000s of posts each day. For some period it's viable, but through the years you'll see that there are limits of growth. There are limits of how active and big such a list can be. It's still very hard to follow the topics here, even harder to participate, and only very few fortunate people whose job allows it can post each day.
>
>
> Vale!
>
> CN LENTVLVS
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Lentulus Ciceroni, Modiano, Catoni, Sullae etc. sal.
>
> >
>
> > Unfortunately I can't give the time to the topic it deserves as I'm leaving my home for a four day Nova Roman event in Poland in which NR Pannonia's contingent will participate.
>
> >
>
> > A very short answer to the points of many.
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps I was unclear about what I was saying. I don't say we should make this forum an exact equivalent of the ancient forum because if we did, only magistrates and their selected people could post whom they find worthy of posting. I just answered Cicero's original post who visioned what happened if an ancient Roman would want to use our forum to posting. In that case, the ancient Roman citizen in question would find himself in a great confusion about what's happening here, and he would find terrifying that any random citizen can address a 1300+ members large audience in the forum. A real Roman would expect the strongest kind of moderation where a citizen could post only in the tone of utmost respect, dignity - unless the magistrate decides otherwise. The consul M. Tullius Cicero could insult Catilina, and allowed other public speakers to insult him, because he was the consul and he decided what the "rules" are. But if a citizen, when in another
>
> > occasion, would have tried to insult or disrespectfully criticize the institutions of the republic, or any high ranking nobleman, and IF the magistrate would have found it unacceptable, he had every right to remove the speaker from the Rostra. And freedom of speech yet existed: in private circles, in an angle of the forum, the citizen just removed could continue his words, speaking to individuals, because only public speech could be moderated - as it is moderated in all of the modern countries.
>
> >
>
> > Cato in his post mentioned that US citizens can assemble freely at any time. But the analogy is false, because their assembly will not be an "official" "state" assembly, they can't occupy the Capitol and speak what they want. They can't walk into the various media institutions and start speaking just anything and until they want.
>
> >
>
> > Some others evoke the memories of those times when this list was a lovely community place. It can work for certain periods, but as we grow the more problem, the more disruption we will face.
>
> >
>
> > Now really very shortly...
>
> >
>
> > This forum should make us each day more Roman, more experienced in Romanity, and more coherent as a community.
>
> >
>
> > Let's suppose and let's accept that to know "how to behave like a Roman" or to know Roman history, sociology, religion etc requires a huge experiece and knowledge. We can accept that the more experienced people we search, the less we find. There are a thousands of amateurs, a couple of half-experts, and just a very few brilliant individuals. Ideally, those more experienced and more knowledgeable should fill this list with their posts, and within a few year this ML would become a treasure to people who want to be New Romans. They would see how Romans argued, how they thought, what they considered worthy, what they found valuable etc., because those few how are able to set up examples would be the most frequent posters. But they will not post frequently, especially not more frequently than the rest of the citizens. Firstly, because the more "knowledgable" and experineced in Roman things one is, the less time she or he has for NR (probably he teaches,
>
> > studies, works on scholarly projects etc), secondly, they are few in number. So the majority wins, and THEIR values and their perspective will prevail.
>
> >
>
> > I just tell you an example. Some said that how unacceptable is to place personal obligations, friendships before or over the law. With my modern sentiments I would immediately agree, and I'm sure most will agree, too. But that's not Roman at all. The "amicitia" or "necessitudines", as the Romans called these political friendships, were above all law and all moral value. The true patron-client relationship (not the fake gens system that NR had long ago) was considered the most sacred, pious part of one's public life, and to violate it was a greater violation that to violate the law.
>
> >
>
> > It is a good observation that Romans were a profoundly "legal" minded people, and law was almost a religious thing. It's true. But there were even higher values: political amicitia and patron-client realtionship. So it is entirely not Roman to ignore a patron or a client and trying to become 100% purely impartial. This kind of mentality will bring us to the 21 century, to modern democracies, not to Romanitas, and then what this whole endeavour of NR is all about? To finally become modern minded Americans or Europeans - the same thing that we are without NR?
>
> >
>
> > Again: I don't say we shall time travel and forget that we are 21 century modern people, but we shall in some extent become Romans. That means Roman mentality. And what Roman mentality is? It is adoring the law, but even more intensily uphold the sacred amicitia. I sound a bit ridiculous, I know, but I have to say that analogy: to be "Roman minded" is a bit similar to be in a "maffia". The system of personal loyalties is a state in the state: and these civic networs and relationship rund the state, they run the life, the uniquelly Roman type of social life. I think it is admirable, how effective it was, and how it was the essence of Roman public behaviour. Yet if we follow the hundred voices of the posters in this forum, we will never learn this kind of mentality, and we will blame those things that we should admire.
>
> >
>
> > Again warning: I don't mean slavish imitation of everything the Romans did. I don't admire slavery, corruption, etc. But I admire this kind of "Manliness", "Virtus", the political "fides"that constituted Roman civic life: an admirably refined social network based on the "necessitudes" ("necessary relationships").
>
> >
>
> > End of excurse.
>
> >
>
> > This and many other things are between us and the Romans. To have a Roman community, first we need a Roman minded community. And in a Roman minded community it is unimaginable, UNACCEPTABLE, that people of lesser rank lecture people of higher rank IN PUBLIC. That an ordinary citizen publicly, before the entire populace, in the Main List, use speeches consisting of two sentences calling a sitting magistrate in dirty words. The lictors would immediately bundle that person out.
>
> >
>
> > Romans extremely respected seniority. I would say they adored it. Elder persons, patrons and higher magistrates were regarded with respectful obedience in the classical Roman society.
>
> >
>
> > With this post I don't suggest any special idea, I don't say we follow this or that course of action. I simply say that a cyperplace where everyone can say anything to anybody will never become a public Roman place, and will never help us to become more Roman.
>
> >
>
> > In a Roman eye, this ML is just a private chat club, where no seniority prevails in the way the Romans liked, and a simple citizen, or worse: a totally ignorant, aggressive person with no knowledge of Romanitas, can address the entire citizenry with the same right as the most senior elder statesmen.
>
> >
>
> > I repeat, I don't propose an alternative, I just emphasize, that this kind of community what the ML is currently is, it can't become really Roman, nor can it become a comminity without strong order, because most of the people is thin skinned, and without moderating the more agressive posters the majority of the people will either leave or remain silent forever. And especially the more educated people are usually more thin skinned, and they rarely have time to defend themselves against online accusations, so we will loose in the greatest percent the kind of people we need most.
>
> >
>
> > And I repeat, I don't propose anything. I just say one thing: we need reasonable moderation, and this reason should enforce a policy that encourages those polite, intelligent, educated and knowladgeable people who know Romanitas very well, to post here, and which policy helps one to "feel Roman" here: this means that Roman culture of behaviour is followed, magistrates elderly people and senior statesmen are respected, Nova Roma is publicly glorified and upheld, publicly solemn and dignified words are heard, and disruption or negligence of discipline is not tolerated. Such is a public Roman community. Private fora are of other kind, another story.
>
> >
>
> > But we talk about the most public forum, the ML, not?
>
> >
>
> > Curate ut valeatis!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- Gio 10/6/10, lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@> ha scritto:
>
> >
>
> > Da: lucius_cornelius_cicero <Cicero@>
>
> > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Free speech on the ML - and a misunderstaning
>
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Data: Giovedì 10 giugno 2010, 18:27
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Â
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Salvete
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I too find myself in agreement with what has been said here by Palladius, Sulla and Modianus.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And I too remember that the ML used to be a very different place that fostered a sense of community among citizens.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I hope we can achieve that again!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Valete,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cicero
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I find myself in perfect agreement with Palladius. This list should be
>
> >
>
> > > about community.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Modianus
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, deciusiunius <bcatfd@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Salvete,
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Senator Sulla's vision of the ML is exactly right. The restrictions placed
>
> >
>
> > > > on this list and oppressive atmosphere over the years--for example the
>
> >
>
> > > > screams and yells when one goes "off topic," whatever that is supposed to
>
> >
>
> > > > mean--is one reason why some of us who have been in Nova Roma a long time
>
> >
>
> > > > don't post here anymore.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Lentulus in his post has a serious misunderstanding as to what this forum
>
> >
>
> > > > is for. The ML is the one place where everyone can come together as a
>
> >
>
> > > > "community," since we don't exist together in a physical place. This list is
>
> >
>
> > > > not the rostra or official medium for members of the government--that's what
>
> >
>
> > > > the NRAnnounce list is for. The ML is the common area in the forum with
>
> >
>
> > > > numerous conversations going on about various and sundry issues, a place to
>
> >
>
> > > > discuss public issues as well as personal beliefs and opinions, except here
>
> >
>
> > > > we can "hear" them all. In the background there is an occasional statement
>
> >
>
> > > > by government officials on the rostra but that should not dominate here
>
> >
>
> > > > except during certain times.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Valete,
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Palladius
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>

Salvete Nova Romans et Senate of Nova Roma

I would like to begin a discussion on replacing PART of our current IT system, the one that must under go massive rewrites anyway with what I would call "off the shelf programs."


Here are two internet VOTING services/programs that seem to be cost efficient for the 200 -300 voters we currently have

http://votingplace.net/?gclid=CLO66Z_llqICFSQ65Qod7T7vWw

http://www.electionsonline.us/




Our IT experts can tell us what percent of our IT structure is dedicated/used by our elections. If one of these programs can replace the election portion of the IT structure and is 20 percent of that structure then that leaves the IT people with 80% of the current system to replace instead of 100 percent.



This just a discussion so please treat it just like that.



Valete



Ti. Galerius Paulinus



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

In a message dated 6/11/2010 11:17:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
lbciddio@... writes:

I'm not suggesting changes or accusing anyone of deliberately shutting out
new citizens - I would never have the audacity to do that with my limited
experience in NR - but having been reading the updates from this forum, it
is not difficult to figure out why people might be involved for only a
short period of time.



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

Well I would imagine that would be true, historically. So, Liva here you
are an Apulian farm girl on the way to sacrifice at a temple that is placed
on the north side of the Forum in Rome.

The Forum is teeming with people. People in groups are speaking Latin,
Greek, Phoenician, and Gaelic. This is a basic non ending low roar. You
cannot make out any individual's speech unless you approach a group and join.
Instead you just walk across the Forum to the temple, wondering how
anything so chaotic can build such great monuments.

So it is with us. You have to approach, say hi and ask questions. If you
approached our group you'd meet four Senators of NR, myself, L. Cornelius
Sulla, D. Iunius Palladius, and T. Galerius Paulinus.
We were discussing affairs of State. But we'd be glad to answer any
questions you might have.

Our forum has to include all, because in the internet you need a central
access area, that allows people to meet one another.

Welcome to Nova Roma.

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit

The problem with one of these services is that it wouldn't allow voting to
be counted by centuries or have the votes counted by class.

Vale;

Modianus

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <
spqr753@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Salvete Nova Romans et Senate of Nova Roma
>
> I would like to begin a discussion on replacing PART of our current IT
> system, the one that must under go massive rewrites anyway with what I would
> call "off the shelf programs."
>
> Here are two internet VOTING services/programs that seem to be cost
> efficient for the 200 -300 voters we currently have
>
> http://votingplace.net/?gclid=CLO66Z_llqICFSQ65Qod7T7vWw
>
> http://www.electionsonline.us/
>
> Our IT experts can tell us what percent of our IT structure is
> dedicated/used by our elections. If one of these programs can replace the
> election portion of the IT structure and is 20 percent of that structure
> then that leaves the IT people with 80% of the current system to replace
> instead of 100 percent.
>
> This just a discussion so please treat it just like that.
>
> Valete
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>

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

V Rutilia Enodia spd.

On this beautiful day we are celebrating the Matralia, a festival of the Goddess Iuno. Rather than repeat the excellent information provided by Marcus Horatius, I will give a report on our proceedings.

This morning a group of five matrons gathered at my home for a ritual in which we made offerings to Iuno Lucina. Joining us were several young women who are either relatives or wards, and prayers were offered for the children of our sisters. One lady, expecting her first child, prayed for an easy delivery, in which she was joined by the rest of us. Another is about to be married, and we asked a blessing for her as well.

Special prayers were offered for the health & well-being of the wife and family of Appius Galerius Aurelianus, Equestria Iunia Laeca, and my great niece Jade. Prayers & an offering were made on behalf of all of Nova Roma.

We then retired for a lovely brunch, with excellent food and a great deal of laughter.

May the blessings of Iuno attend Nova Roma and each of us.

Optime vale,
V Rutilia Enodia
sacerdos Iuno

C. Maria Caeca T. Galerio Paulino S. P. D.

Would these programs allow us to retain our current electoral practices? I would hate to see us seriously change those (though I know some would, and I do understand at least part of why), because our electoral system is modeled on that of Roma Antiqua's, and I think that the more we can retain of those ancient models, the "better" our recreation attempts will be. I also realize my views aren't especially practical ...but I would be very careful in choosing an easy, practical, modern way of doing something until and unless we can come to a very clear understanding and consensus as to why we should not do so.

Now, having said that ...I have far less problem melding Ancient and modern practices, *if* we know precisely *what* we are changing and discarding, why, and can present full information on the historical model so that, should we find it feasible to do so, we can re-integrate the ancient practices.

Respectfully,
CMC

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

C. Maria Caeca Cn Liviae Osellae sal,

I have to smile, because I *so* understand what you are saying. I well remember my first few months while reading the ML! First of all, I joined just before the Ludi that were being held in September ...and I was profoundly confused! Fascinated, but utterly at a loss as to what, exactly, I was reading. Then, I got to see my first campaign and election ...and while I understood that I was seeing an electoral campaign ...keeping a score card, with names and platforms and the names of magistracies didn't even help!

I am sure that many come, read a bit, get overwhelmed and leave (probably in rather a big hurry), but others ...don't. some come, flounder for a while, decide that figuring it all out is worth the effort, and stay. I hope you will decide to do the later, and yes, a lot has been going on ...much of it complicated and intricate ...not to mention emotional. I do see that you are on the Newroman list ...and you can ask us anything there, and get answers from every viewpoint, and if our explanations don't make sense ...well, we'll explain it in a slightly different way (smile). Newroman got me through my first year in NR, and it was there that I gained the confidence to post *here*. I believe, although I can't remember exactly, that it really did take that long for me to have the courage to do that ...but gradually, I have become more comfortable, more confident ...and now, well ...keeping me *quiet* is the issue, (smile).

Welcome to NR, and as complicated and chaotic as this place can be ...it can also be wonderful in its intricacy, and I think you will, as I have, find some wonderful people of like mind, here.

Vale bene,
CMC

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

In a message dated 6/11/2010 1:34:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
c.mariacaeca@... writes:

because our electoral system is modeled on that of Roma Antiqua's, and I
think that the more we can retain of those ancient models, the "better" our
recreation attempts will be. I also realize my views aren't especially
practical




Well, actually...

Our practice of winner take all in the individual Centuries and Tribes is
Roman. But the rest of the system is based on an Austrian voting system
that eliminates candidates.

This is because we cannot use the Roman system which allowed the first and
second class to control the voting.

The Roman system worked on the concept that who ever carried "x" amount of
centuries won, no matter who won in the final vote. The last classes often
were not involved.
The Roman reasoning made sense. The famous families of Rome who invested
the most money and had the most to lose in the outcome were covered since
their members usually were in the first and second class.
Our system does not use this.
As for voting on wars, appeals and penalties, the complete tribes would be
counted.

- Q. Fabius Maximus


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

C. Maria Caeca Q. Fabio maximo S. P. D.

Gratias tibi ago, senator. In that case ...my points are, I see ...mute. However, I am always happy to learn, though I do apologize for wasting this list's time in doing so.

Respectfully,
CMC

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

Salve Maria Caeca,

I don't think you need to apologize for posting on the ML. ;-)

You always make good sense to me.

Vale,

C. Popillius Laenas

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca Q. Fabio maximo S. P. D.
>
> Gratias tibi ago, senator. In that case ...my points are, I see ...mute. However, I am always happy to learn, though I do apologize for wasting this list's time in doing so.
>
> Respectfully,
> CMC
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Q. Fabio Maximo salutem dicit

I would actually like to get rid of the "Austrian system" and go with the
system from antiquity. Didn't our original system work like that but was
changed in 2004 or 2005?

Vale;

Modianus

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:53 PM, <QFabiusMaxmi@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/11/2010 1:34:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> c.mariacaeca@... <c.mariacaeca%40gmail.com> writes:
>
> because our electoral system is modeled on that of Roma Antiqua's, and I
> think that the more we can retain of those ancient models, the "better" our
>
> recreation attempts will be. I also realize my views aren't especially
> practical
>
> Well, actually...
>
> Our practice of winner take all in the individual Centuries and Tribes is
> Roman. But the rest of the system is based on an Austrian voting system
> that eliminates candidates.
>
> This is because we cannot use the Roman system which allowed the first and
> second class to control the voting.
>
> The Roman system worked on the concept that who ever carried "x" amount of
> centuries won, no matter who won in the final vote. The last classes often
> were not involved.
> The Roman reasoning made sense. The famous families of Rome who invested
> the most money and had the most to lose in the outcome were covered since
> their members usually were in the first and second class.
> Our system does not use this.
> As for voting on wars, appeals and penalties, the complete tribes would be
> counted.
>
> - Q. Fabius Maximus
>


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

In a message dated 6/11/2010 2:02:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
c.mariacaeca@... writes:

though I do apologize for wasting this list's time in doing so.




Nonsense. I think not enough people ask questions on this list.

QFM


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

C. Maria Caeca Scholasticae, Lentulo omnibusque sal,

One of the many reasons for which I treasure you, Magistra, is your ability to quickly, effectively, with seemingly casual ease, untangle me from the various webs in which I seem to enmesh myself, so once again, gratias tibi ago!

At least this time you didn't, as you have on at least one occasion (though privately, as our always would) tell me that I am being silly, and you had justification in so doing, I might add. Neither did you dismiss with a single word, for which I also thank you.

I realized this morning that the process I have used to establish the friendships I have here are, in fact, much as you, Lentule, describe ...but to me, the process is so natural and organic that I just never examined it. It goes something like this: I read a post on this, or another list, and find something on which I would like more information, but, usually, that something is not the main topic of discussion, but a side note, casual mention or allusion; so I dash off a private email asking for more information, a correspondence begins ...etc., or I especially like something that said, or the way in which it was said ...same process, same result. I do see what you are trying to say, that it is in private communications or small groups that acquaintances and strangers come to know and value one another ...however ...I do find that I value exposure to (at least potentially) most, if not all of our citizens and potential citizens, and *that* happens, primarily, on the main list. Like a large party at a friend's home, where one only knows one or 2 people, it is an opportunity to observe and be "introduced" to any number of potential friends ...and I consider *that* to be a pleasant thing. Of course, once introductions are "made", it is up to the introduced, but again, that is a natural process, isn't it?

Valete quam optime,
C. Maria Caeca

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

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca Scholasticae, Lentulo omnibusque sal,
>
> One of the many reasons for which I treasure you, Magistra, is your ability to
> quickly, effectively, with seemingly casual ease, untangle me from the various
> webs in which I seem to enmesh myself,
>
>
> ATS: Gee, did I do that? You were entangled in webs? When?
>
> so once again, gratias tibi ago!
>
> ATS: Flocci est.
>
> At least this time you didn't, as you have on at least one occasion (though
> privately, as our always would) tell me that I am being silly, and you had
> justification in so doing, I might add. Neither did you dismiss with a single
> word, for which I also thank you.
>
> ATS: You are among the most thoughtful people here, and certainly not
> worthy of being dismissed by anyone.
>
> I realized this morning that the process I have used to establish the
> friendships I have here are, in fact, much as you, Lentule, describe ...but to
> me, the process is so natural and organic that I just never examined it. It
> goes something like this: I read a post on this, or another list, and find
> something on which I would like more information, but, usually, that something
> is not the main topic of discussion, but a side note, casual mention or
> allusion; so I dash off a private email asking for more information, a
> correspondence begins ...etc., or I especially like something that said, or
> the way in which it was said ...same process, same result. I do see what you
> are trying to say, that it is in private communications or small groups that
> acquaintances and strangers come to know and value one another ...however ...I
> do find that I value exposure to (at least potentially) most, if not all of
> our citizens and potential citizens, and *that* happens, primarily, on the
> main list.
>
> ATS: We do have to communicate with large numbers of other citizens, and
> this list seems to be best adapted to that. I had to jump in, too. How would
> any of us have met if we hadn¹t? I would have encountered Lentulus on
> Latinitas, where he used to post fairly frequently, and I would have gotten to
> know my Grammatica students (those who survive, anyway; things are different
> in Sermo, where hardly anyone is a Roman citizen and over half of them speak
> only Spanish), but I would not have met several others who came to be my
> friends at one point or another.
>
> BTW, when we say Off Topic, it refers to an entire post, not a sentence
> here or there.
>
>
> Like a large party at a friend's home, where one only knows one or 2 people,
> it is an opportunity to observe and be "introduced" to any number of potential
> friends ...and I consider *that* to be a pleasant thing.
>
> ATS: Like many in my field, I prefer small gatherings of friends to large
> parties with persons unknown. I¹ve been at several of those, and have yet to
> encounter anyone whom I subsequently befriended. A more casual setting is
> good for learning more about one¹s friends, but to me at least, large parties
> are not the best place to make new friends. For one thing, I can¹t be heard
> over the din that often prevails in such settings.
>
>
> Of course, once introductions are "made", it is up to the introduced, but
> again, that is a natural process, isn't it?
>
> ATS: Sometimes, yes. Those who are shy find that sort of thing much more
> difficult.
>
> On to exam corrections. The latest order of red ink might not survive.
>
>
> Valete quam optime,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> Vale et valete.
>
>
>
>

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

Avete omnes,

Heri, ante diem III Idus Junias, ut in tonstrinam adirem, per Forum Novum Romanum ambulabam, in quo nonnulli Novi Romani gregatim colloquebantur et praesertim aliquot senatores L. Sulla, C. Cato, Q. Maximus, K. Modianus, D. Palladius, T Paulinus de libertate loquendi inter se colloquentes audiebam cum civibus Cn. Lentulo, Gualtero Graeco, L. Cornelio Cicerone, C. Popillio Laenate, Diana Octavia, C. Maria Caeca... in quo colloquio multae res parvi momenti dicebantur.

Yesterday, June 12, coming to my barber's shop, I was crossing the Forum Novum Romanum, where Novi Romani were talking together in groups, and more specially senators L. Sulla, C. Cato, Q. Maximus, K. Modianus, D. Palladius and T Paulinus conversing about the freedom of speech with citizens Cn. Lentulus, Gualterus Graecus, L. Cornelius Cicero, C. Popillius Laenas, Diana Octavia and C. Maria Caeca... in such conversation however many things of few importance was said.

Nam si libertas loquendi maxime interest et maxima res videri potest, multi tamen senatores, quem supra commemoravi, cultu Americano suo cogitabant libertatem loquendi quasi basem legis constitutivae nostrae esse qua se uti ut dicerent omnia quae in buccam venirent. Cui bono? Itaque me ad tonstrinam iter pergere malui, quia ea XXIX luna contra capitis dolores mihi capilli resecandi erant secundum Plinium (H.N.: XXVIII, 28).

If freedom of speech is an important subject and may be a great thing to discuss, the most of the senators that I yet mentioned, by their Amercican habits have imagined the freedom of speech as the base of our Constitution. And using this excuse they think that they can use it to say what they want. What benefit for this freedom? So, I preferred to go to the barber's shop, because I had to cut my hairs on this twenty-ninth day of the Moon according to Pliny the Elder (H.N.: XXVIII, 28) to prevent headaches.

Valete.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Pridie Idus Iunias P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.


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

Dexter Ciceroni s.p.d.,

> I have a feeling that if we had a time machine and could get a historical Roman citizen a computer and get him posting to this forum, he'd be banned in short order :)

Because he could not be able to write in English? But I think that a historical Roman citizen could buy as slave a perfect interpreter.

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Pridie Idus Iunias P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

C. Maria Caeca Dexter S. P. D.

Thank you, Tribune, for your dismissal of my well intentioned and honest posts to this forum. It is instructive to learn of how little value they are deemed, here.

I do hope, however, that your Barbour pampered you in a manner befitting an illustrious citizen of the Res Publica.

Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca

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

Am I the only one who reads this post in the manner that makes Dexter come off as an effeminate pompous euro snob?

Vale,

From an American who values Free Speech

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Avete omnes,
>
> Heri, ante diem III Idus Junias, ut in tonstrinam adirem, per Forum Novum Romanum ambulabam, in quo nonnulli Novi Romani gregatim colloquebantur et praesertim aliquot senatores L. Sulla, C. Cato, Q. Maximus, K. Modianus, D. Palladius, T Paulinus de libertate loquendi inter se colloquentes audiebam cum civibus Cn. Lentulo, Gualtero Graeco, L. Cornelio Cicerone, C. Popillio Laenate, Diana Octavia, C. Maria Caeca... in quo colloquio multae res parvi momenti dicebantur.
>
> Yesterday, June 12, coming to my barber's shop, I was crossing the Forum Novum Romanum, where Novi Romani were talking together in groups, and more specially senators L. Sulla, C. Cato, Q. Maximus, K. Modianus, D. Palladius and T Paulinus conversing about the freedom of speech with citizens Cn. Lentulus, Gualterus Graecus, L. Cornelius Cicero, C. Popillius Laenas, Diana Octavia and C. Maria Caeca... in such conversation however many things of few importance was said.
>
> Nam si libertas loquendi maxime interest et maxima res videri potest, multi tamen senatores, quem supra commemoravi, cultu Americano suo cogitabant libertatem loquendi quasi basem legis constitutivae nostrae esse qua se uti ut dicerent omnia quae in buccam venirent. Cui bono? Itaque me ad tonstrinam iter pergere malui, quia ea XXIX luna contra capitis dolores mihi capilli resecandi erant secundum Plinium (H.N.: XXVIII, 28).
>
> If freedom of speech is an important subject and may be a great thing to discuss, the most of the senators that I yet mentioned, by their Amercican habits have imagined the freedom of speech as the base of our Constitution. And using this excuse they think that they can use it to say what they want. What benefit for this freedom? So, I preferred to go to the barber's shop, because I had to cut my hairs on this twenty-ninth day of the Moon according to Pliny the Elder (H.N.: XXVIII, 28) to prevent headaches.
>
> Valete.
>
> --
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Pridie Idus Iunias P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dexter Sullae sal.,

> Am I the only one who reads this post in the manner that makes Dexter come off as an effeminate pompous euro snob?

That is the fruit of your "freedom of speech" or of your short-sightedness?


Vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Pridie Idus Iunias P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.