Salve Pauline,

It is preferable to hold elections and to do this we need a working cista.

Vale,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salvete
>
>
>
> The law allows the Senate to appoint if three months or less is left in a term. We need to hold elections, period.
>
>
>
> Valete
>
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus

SALVE AMICA!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> It is preferable to hold elections and to do this we need a working cista>>>

My proposal is for using the same cista will be set for M. Hortensia appeal.

VALE,
Sabinus

Cato Iulio Sabino sal.

Under what law is Maior entitled to appeal? I wish someone - anyone - would answer this very basic question.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVE AMICA!
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
>
> > It is preferable to hold elections and to do this we need a working cista>>>
>
> My proposal is for using the same cista will be set for M. Hortensia appeal.
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>

SALVE!
 
Lex Salicia poenalis point 12.1, Legal precedence:
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Salicia_Poenalis_%28Nova_Roma%29%c2%a0
 
VALE,
Sabinus

"Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius

--- On Sat, 7/17/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: A request for new elections.
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 17, 2010, 4:02 AM


 



Cato Iulio Sabino sal.

Under what law is Maior entitled to appeal? I wish someone - anyone - would answer this very basic question.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVE AMICA!
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
>
> > It is preferable to hold elections and to do this we need a working cista>>>
>
> My proposal is for using the same cista will be set for M. Hortensia appeal.
>
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>











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

Cato Iulio Sabino sal.

Thank you, censor. Here is the clause to which he refers:

"Once a sententia has been issued by a legal Novoroman court, since this court represents the will of the Comitia, only a vote in the Comitia may rescind a sententia by the passage of a lex." (lex Salicia poenalis, pars prima, 12.1)

So Maior's sentence can be rescinded by a lex passed in comitia. This means, however, that someone empowered to do so must call the comitia to convene in order to pass this lex - a power which Maior does not possess. It isn't an appeal per se, as the condemned does not have the authority to call a comitia.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVE!
>  
> Lex Salicia poenalis point 12.1, Legal precedence:
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Salicia_Poenalis_%28Nova_Roma%29%c3%82%c2%a0
>  
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
> "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius
>
> --- On Sat, 7/17/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: A request for new elections.
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, July 17, 2010, 4:02 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Iulio Sabino sal.
>
> Under what law is Maior entitled to appeal? I wish someone - anyone - would answer this very basic question.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@> wrote:
> >
> > SALVE AMICA!
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> >
> > > It is preferable to hold elections and to do this we need a working cista>>>
> >
> > My proposal is for using the same cista will be set for M. Hortensia appeal.
> >
> > VALE,
> > Sabinus
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

SALVE!

--- On Sat, 7/17/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

"Once a sententia has been issued by a legal Novoroman court, since this court represents the will of the Comitia, only a vote in the Comitia may rescind a sententia by the passage of a lex." (lex Salicia poenalis, pars prima, 12.1)

So Maior's sentence can be rescinded by a lex passed in comitia. This means, however, that someone empowered to do so must call the comitia to convene in order to pass this lex - a power which Maior does not possess. It isn't an appeal per se, as the condemned does not have the authority to call a comitia.>>>
 
For example tribuni can convene the Comitia Plebis Tributa. It's Maior right to ask for that.
 
However my thought was in connection with cista. Let's say, if CPT will vote in the Maior appeal, there is necessary as cista to work, right? If there will be a working cista for appeal why not for elections? If Maior believe the CPT will have a working cista for appeal why the rest of us can not believe there will be a working cista for praetors election, too? A working cista is necessary in both situations. Therefore here are two posibilities:
1. working cista: appeal & elections.
2. not working cista: no appeal & no elections.
 
VALE,
Sabinus




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

Cato Iulio Sabino sal.

Very, very true. And very, very interesting point.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVE!
>
> --- On Sat, 7/17/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> "Once a sententia has been issued by a legal Novoroman court, since this court represents the will of the Comitia, only a vote in the Comitia may rescind a sententia by the passage of a lex." (lex Salicia poenalis, pars prima, 12.1)
>
> So Maior's sentence can be rescinded by a lex passed in comitia. This means, however, that someone empowered to do so must call the comitia to convene in order to pass this lex - a power which Maior does not possess. It isn't an appeal per se, as the condemned does not have the authority to call a comitia.>>>
>  
> For example tribuni can convene the Comitia Plebis Tributa. It's Maior right to ask for that.
>  
> However my thought was in connection with cista. Let's say, if CPT will vote in the Maior appeal, there is necessary as cista to work, right? If there will be a working cista for appeal why not for elections? If Maior believe the CPT will have a working cista for appeal why the rest of us can not believe there will be a working cista for praetors election, too? A working cista is necessary in both situations. Therefore here are two posibilities:
> 1. working cista: appeal & elections.
> 2. not working cista: no appeal & no elections.
>  
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Sabine;
if we have a working cista; with an appeal and elections at the same time, I'd want to be on the ballot. Otherwise the elections for fairness sake should be after the tribunes bring the lex to the quirites.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVE!
>
> --- On Sat, 7/17/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> "Once a sententia has been issued by a legal Novoroman court, since this court represents the will of the Comitia, only a vote in the Comitia may rescind a sententia by the passage of a lex." (lex Salicia poenalis, pars prima, 12.1)
>
> So Maior's sentence can be rescinded by a lex passed in comitia. This means, however, that someone empowered to do so must call the comitia to convene in order to pass this lex - a power which Maior does not possess. It isn't an appeal per se, as the condemned does not have the authority to call a comitia.>>>
>  
> For example tribuni can convene the Comitia Plebis Tributa. It's Maior right to ask for that.
>  
> However my thought was in connection with cista. Let's say, if CPT will vote in the Maior appeal, there is necessary as cista to work, right? If there will be a working cista for appeal why not for elections? If Maior believe the CPT will have a working cista for appeal why the rest of us can not believe there will be a working cista for praetors election, too? A working cista is necessary in both situations. Therefore here are two posibilities:
> 1. working cista: appeal & elections.
> 2. not working cista: no appeal & no elections.
>  
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete,

I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation which I feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and would help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the elimination of the secret ballot.

The secret ballot was introduced in 139 BCE; through most of the Republic voting was by open ballot. While open voting is pretty antithetical to a modern democratic mindset, I think it makes sense in numerous ways. It allows people to be publicly accountable for their decisions about whom they will support for a particular office. To a large extent it undermines back-door cabals from easily forming, where they can publicly present the face of neutrality but secretly vote along prearranged lines. It undermines outright deception about who supported whom or what policy. I see such deception as a large contributor, directly or indirectly, to many of the tensions in NR.

The fear of reprisal against those who didn't vote as their friends expected or wanted is not much of an issue either--if one is ashamed of or can't defend one's choices then one shouldn't vote in the first place. I suspect the first time we try an open vote it will make some people upset when they are called to defend their choices, but afterward people will get used to the notion of being fully open and honest about their preferences and tensions should significantly decrease.

On the technical side, the voting process will be greatly simplified. People will only need to send an email (from the address registered to their account) to a special voting list. One of the diribitores would verify that the Roman name given is that of an assiduus citizen and that the email is the one registered to their account (clearly in cooperation with someone from the censor's office). The tallied info would then be published in a convenient table either on the ML or the website for people to make sure their ballot was recorded correctly. Indeed, the entire process of tallying centuries would be public so anyone could come along and verify the results.

On the legal side, we would only need to reverse those few laws that explicitly mention a secret ballot so that we have the option of conducting a vote either secretly or openly.

Valete,

Gualterus

Sullae s.p.d.,

> I will need to answer this latter, I have to go out and pick up a check from one of our General Contractors. When I finish that up then I can answer your inquiry.

Your now lack of answering is... unbearable.

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

C. Petronius C. Catoni s.p.d.,

> Under what law is Maior entitled to appeal?

Certainly under the law of her honor.
Even if you do not this word, it is very important for women and men who want to serve Nova Roma.

> I wish someone - anyone - would answer this very basic question.

I did.

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

C. Petronius Gulaterio s.p.d.,

> I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation which I feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and would help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the elimination of the secret ballot.

You are right, secret ballot is absolutly not necessary. But the mailing vote needs to follow the centuries principle.

So no problem with voting.

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Yes, I agree, and I think traditional century/tribal voting can be preserved with voting by email. I know email voting is not ideal, but I couldn't think of another option that was simple and doable by every citizen.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Gulaterio s.p.d.,
>
> > I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation which I feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and would help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the elimination of the secret ballot.
>
> You are right, secret ballot is absolutly not necessary. But the mailing vote needs to follow the centuries principle.
>
> So no problem with voting.
>
> Vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

Cato Maiori sal.

You are, right now, condemned for having abused your authority. You cannot stand for office. The law doesn't twist itself to accommodate you alone.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Sabine;
> if we have a working cista; with an appeal and elections at the same time, I'd want to be on the ballot. Otherwise the elections for fairness sake should be after the tribunes bring the lex to the quirites.
> vale
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, iulius sabinus <iulius_sabinus@> wrote:
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> > --- On Sat, 7/17/10, Cato <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > "Once a sententia has been issued by a legal Novoroman court, since this court represents the will of the Comitia, only a vote in the Comitia may rescind a sententia by the passage of a lex." (lex Salicia poenalis, pars prima, 12.1)
> >
> > So Maior's sentence can be rescinded by a lex passed in comitia. This means, however, that someone empowered to do so must call the comitia to convene in order to pass this lex - a power which Maior does not possess. It isn't an appeal per se, as the condemned does not have the authority to call a comitia.>>>
> >  
> > For example tribuni can convene the Comitia Plebis Tributa. It's Maior right to ask for that.
> >  
> > However my thought was in connection with cista. Let's say, if CPT will vote in the Maior appeal, there is necessary as cista to work, right? If there will be a working cista for appeal why not for elections? If Maior believe the CPT will have a working cista for appeal why the rest of us can not believe there will be a working cista for praetors election, too? A working cista is necessary in both situations. Therefore here are two posibilities:
> > 1. working cista: appeal & elections.
> > 2. not working cista: no appeal & no elections.
> >  
> > VALE,
> > Sabinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Salvete;
the IT has to be fixed, the centuries need to be re-aligned. The censores need to take the census, eheu Octavius did a great job, but his code is old & has many security holes (not his fault, just a product of time).
So what happened that Romans changed to the secret ballot?
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I agree, and I think traditional century/tribal voting can be preserved with voting by email. I know email voting is not ideal, but I couldn't think of another option that was simple and doable by every citizen.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius Gulaterio s.p.d.,
> >
> > > I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation which I feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and would help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the elimination of the secret ballot.
> >
> > You are right, secret ballot is absolutly not necessary. But the mailing vote needs to follow the centuries principle.
> >
> > So no problem with voting.
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
> > a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>

Cato Dextero sal.

Yes, you did, with your usual...ability.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius C. Catoni s.p.d.,
>
>
> > Under what law is Maior entitled to appeal?
>
> Certainly under the law of her honor.
> Even if you do not this word, it is very important for women and men who want to serve Nova Roma.
>
> > I wish someone - anyone - would answer this very basic question.
>
> I did.
>
> Vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

C. Petronius Maiori s.p.d.,

> the IT has to be fixed, the centuries need to be re-aligned. The censores need to take the census, eheu Octavius did a great job, but his code is old & has many security holes (not his fault, just a product of time).

How did the ancient censores without IT and many many more citizens to divide by centuries? This IT problem is a bad excuse and I think the census in Nova Roma trully made, if we have every two-years, it is the constitutional gap of census in NR if I am not mistaken, a public censorial report with each citizens ranged in his century/tribe.

With IT system, we does not know how many citizens NR had, recently Cn. Lentulus gave us an idea, but it is not an official census. Before using complex mechanics with IT programs, and using a lack of them as an excuse to do nothing, may the cohors censoria propose realistic way to count each citizen, to range each citizen within tribes and centuries and permit them to vote.

> So what happened that Romans changed to the secret ballot?

Corruption of attitudes.

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Maior Dextro spd;
the ancient censors had slaves to help them. It's hard to get scribae in NR to help. Have you worked in the censorial cohors amice, conducting the census? I have twice and it is hard work! Perhaps I am bad at explaining why we need the overhaul, Agricola will do a much better job. But no JSTOR without IT.
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Maiori s.p.d.,
>
> > the IT has to be fixed, the centuries need to be re-aligned. The censores need to take the census, eheu Octavius did a great job, but his code is old & has many security holes (not his fault, just a product of time).
>
> How did the ancient censores without IT and many many more citizens to divide by centuries? This IT problem is a bad excuse and I think the census in Nova Roma trully made, if we have every two-years, it is the constitutional gap of census in NR if I am not mistaken, a public censorial report with each citizens ranged in his century/tribe.
>
> With IT system, we does not know how many citizens NR had, recently Cn. Lentulus gave us an idea, but it is not an official census. Before using complex mechanics with IT programs, and using a lack of them as an excuse to do nothing, may the cohors censoria propose realistic way to count each citizen, to range each citizen within tribes and centuries and permit them to vote.
>
> > So what happened that Romans changed to the secret ballot?
>
> Corruption of attitudes.
>
> Vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

I completely agree!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> ...

> > So what happened that Romans changed to the secret ballot?
>
> Corruption of attitudes.
>
> Vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

JSTOR seems to be the real motivation for the overhaul. JSTOR is great, but really, is it worthy of 50% of 10 years worth of taxes? If we want to build a physical community then a much better use of the money would be on conventus or similar projects to physically get people together.

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Dextro spd;
> the ancient censors had slaves to help them. It's hard to get scribae in NR to help. Have you worked in the censorial cohors amice, conducting the census? I have twice and it is hard work! Perhaps I am bad at explaining why we need the overhaul, Agricola will do a much better job. But no JSTOR without IT.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius Maiori s.p.d.,
> >
> > > the IT has to be fixed, the centuries need to be re-aligned. The censores need to take the census, eheu Octavius did a great job, but his code is old & has many security holes (not his fault, just a product of time).
> >
> > How did the ancient censores without IT and many many more citizens to divide by centuries? This IT problem is a bad excuse and I think the census in Nova Roma trully made, if we have every two-years, it is the constitutional gap of census in NR if I am not mistaken, a public censorial report with each citizens ranged in his century/tribe.
> >
> > With IT system, we does not know how many citizens NR had, recently Cn. Lentulus gave us an idea, but it is not an official census. Before using complex mechanics with IT programs, and using a lack of them as an excuse to do nothing, may the cohors censoria propose realistic way to count each citizen, to range each citizen within tribes and centuries and permit them to vote.
> >
> > > So what happened that Romans changed to the secret ballot?
> >
> > Corruption of attitudes.
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>

M. Moravius Horatianus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Virtus Honosque consilia communicent nobiscum.

Hodie est ante diem XVI Kalendas Sextilias; haec dies comitialis Merkatus est:

AUC 545 / 208 BCE: The Temples for Virtus and Honos

"It is no wonder therefore if the indulgence of the Gods has persisted, ever watchful to augment and protect an imperial power by which even minor items of religious significance are seen to be weighed with such scrupulous care; for never should our community be thought to have averted its eyes from the most meticulous practice of religious observances. In which community, when M. Marcellus, who captured first Clastidium and then Syracusa, desired in his fifth consulship to consecrate a temple to Honos and Virtus in due discharge of vows taken, he was obstructed by the Collegium Pontificum on the grounds that a single sanctuary could not properly be dedicated to two deities, arguing that if some prodigy were to occur therein, it would be impossible to determine to which of the two an expiatory ceremony should be performed and that it was not customary to sacrifice to two different deities at once, with certain exceptions. The pontifical admonition resulted in Marcellus placing images of Honos and Virtus in two different shrines. Thus neither the authority of so great a man weighed with the Collegium Pontificum nor the additional expense with Marcellus so as to interfere with due course and due observance rendered in matters of religion." ~ Valerius Maximus 1.1.8

"One of the consuls, T. Quinctius Crispinus, left with reinforcements for the army in Lucania which Q. Fulvius Flaccus had commanded. Marcellus was detained by religious difficulties which one after another presented themselves. In the war with the Gauls he had vowed during the battle of Clastidium a temple to Honos and Virtus, but he was prevented from dedicating it by the pontiffs. They said that one shrine could not be lawfully dedicated to two deities, because in case it were struck by lightning, or some other portent occurred in it, there would be a difficulty about the expiation, since it could not be known which deity was to be propitiated; one victim could not be sacrificed to two deities except in the case of certain specified deities. A second temple was hastily built to Virtus, but this was not dedicated by Marcellus. At last he started with reinforcements for the army which he had left the previous year at Venusia." ~ Titus Livius 27.25

This was the same Marcus Claudius f. Marcus Marcellus who defeated Vertomarus, King of the Insubres, at Clastidium in single combat. Thus he was one of only three men recorded as having won the spolia optima; the event was so significant that Naevius wrote a play about the duel. But no less remarkable was that at a critical time when such an experienced general was needed against Hannibal that he should accede to the religious duties imposed on him by the pontifices, even at a significant personal expenses as having to build a second temple must have cost him. This of course is the point made by Valerius Maximus, and probably by others as well since the story also appears in Livy. He did face Hannibal eventually, and was credited with having defeated Hannibal at the First, Second, and Third Battles of Nola.

"Why do they also sacrifice to the God called Honos with the head uncovered? One might translate Honos as 'renown' or 'honor.' Is it because renown is a brilliant thing, conspicuous, and widespread, and for the reason that they uncover in the presence of good and
honored men, is it for this same reason that they also worship the God who is named for honor?" ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 13


Victoria Augusta

On the Capitoline Hill, on this day in years past rites were performed to honor divine Victoria of the Romans. This Victoria was possibly associated with Jupiter Victor, who received a temple on the Quirinal (?), 13 April 295 BCE. A Temple of Victoria was first founded on the Palatine Hill, 1 August 294 BCE. It was here that the black stone of the Magna Mater was first kept while Her own Palatine temple was being built. A second Palatine Temple of Victoria Virgo was dedicated 1 August 193 BCE. Then, to honor the Emperor Augustus of his victories, the Senate voted to set up an Ara Victoriae in the Curia. Each senator offered incense and poured a libation of wine for Victoria Augusta upon entering the Curia (Herodian, Histories 5.5.7). In 382 CE the Ara Victoriae Augustae was removed from the Senate house. The Praefectus of Rome, Symmachus, wrote in vain to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius in 384 CE requesting that this altar be restored to the Senate.

"Permit us, I beseech you, to transmit in our old age to our posterity what we ourselves received when boys. Great is the love of customÂ… Where shall we swear to observe your laws and statutes? by what sanction shall the deceitful mind be deterred from bearing false witness? All places indeed are full of God, nor is there any spot where the perjured can be safe, but it is of great efficacy in restraining crime to feel that we are in the presence of sacred things. That altar binds together the concord of all, that altar appeals to the faith of each man, nor does any thing give more weight to our decrees than that all our decisions are sanctioned, so to speak, by an oath. A door will thus be opened to perjury, and this is to be approved of by the illustrious Emperors, allegiance to whom is guarded by a public oath! But Constantius, of sacred memory, is said to have done the same thing. Be it so, let us then imitate his other actions, feeling sure that had any one committed this error before his time, he would never have fallen into it. For the fall of one is a warning to his successor, and the censure of a previous example causes amendment. It was allowable for this predecessor of your Majesties to incur offence in a novel matter, but how can the same excuse avail us, if we imitate that which we know was disapproved? Will your Majesties listen to other acts of this same Emperor more worthy of your imitation? He left uncurtailed the privileges of the sacred virgins, he filled the priestly office with men of noble birth, he allowed the cost of the Roman ceremonies, and following the joyful Senate through all the streets of the eternal city, he beheld with serene countenance the temples, reading the names of the gods inscribed on their pediments, he enquired after the origin of the sacred edifices, and admired their founders. Although he himself professed another religion he maintained the ancient one for the Empire; for every man has his own customs, his own rites. The Divine mind has distributed to cities various guardians and various ceremonies. As each man that is born receives a soul, so do nations receive a genius who guards their destiny. Here the proof from utility comes in, which is our best voucher with regard to the Deity. For since our reason is in the dark, what better knowledge of the gods can we have than from the record and evidence of prosperity? And if a long course of years give their sanction to a religion, we ought to keep faith with so many centuries, and to follow our parents, as they followed with success those who founded them. Let us suppose Rome herself to approach, and address you in these terms: ' Excellent Emperors, Fathers of your country, respect these years to which pious rites have conducted me. Let me use the ancient ceremonies, for I do not repent of them. Let me live in my own way, for I am free. This worship reduced the world under my laws; these sacred rites repulsed Hannibal from the walls, and the Gauls from the Capitol. Am I reserved for this, to be censured in my old age? I am not unwilling to consider the proposed decree, and yet late and ignominious is the reformation of old age.' We pray therefore for a respite for the gods of our fathers and our native gods. That which all venerate should in fairness be accounted as one. We look on the same stars, the heaven is common to us all, the same world surrounds us. What matters it by what arts each of us seeks for truth? We cannot arrive by one and the same path at so great a secret; but this discussion belongs rather to persons at their ease, it is prayers not arguments which we now offer." ~ Symmachus, Relationes III. 5-10


ADONIA

A dancing lament was performed on this day by the Salmbas, commemorating the death of Adonis the mortal lover of Venus. Pots of germinating fennel, barley, wheat and lettuce were placed on River Tiber to float to the Blessed Isles as a sign of resurrection, the journey made in honor of Adonis.


Our thought for today is from Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Natura Deorum 2.71:

"But the best and also the most chaste, holiest and most pious way of worshipping the Gods is ever to venerate Them with purity, sincerity, and innocence both in thought and of speech."

Salve;

This seems like a simple enough solution. A "voting" list where all that is
posted is a person's vote. I could see this as a workable solution to our
problems. At least see how it would work. Something the senate should be
asked to get the opinion of the senatores. Actually use the senate for what
they are there for!

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:33 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation which I
> feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and would
> help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the elimination of
> the secret ballot.
>
> The secret ballot was introduced in 139 BCE; through most of the Republic
> voting was by open ballot. While open voting is pretty antithetical to a
> modern democratic mindset, I think it makes sense in numerous ways. It
> allows people to be publicly accountable for their decisions about whom they
> will support for a particular office. To a large extent it undermines
> back-door cabals from easily forming, where they can publicly present the
> face of neutrality but secretly vote along prearranged lines. It undermines
> outright deception about who supported whom or what policy. I see such
> deception as a large contributor, directly or indirectly, to many of the
> tensions in NR.
>
> The fear of reprisal against those who didn't vote as their friends
> expected or wanted is not much of an issue either--if one is ashamed of or
> can't defend one's choices then one shouldn't vote in the first place. I
> suspect the first time we try an open vote it will make some people upset
> when they are called to defend their choices, but afterward people will get
> used to the notion of being fully open and honest about their preferences
> and tensions should significantly decrease.
>
> On the technical side, the voting process will be greatly simplified.
> People will only need to send an email (from the address registered to their
> account) to a special voting list. One of the diribitores would verify that
> the Roman name given is that of an assiduus citizen and that the email is
> the one registered to their account (clearly in cooperation with someone
> from the censor's office). The tallied info would then be published in a
> convenient table either on the ML or the website for people to make sure
> their ballot was recorded correctly. Indeed, the entire process of tallying
> centuries would be public so anyone could come along and verify the results.
>
> On the legal side, we would only need to reverse those few laws that
> explicitly mention a secret ballot so that we have the option of conducting
> a vote either secretly or openly.
>
> Valete,
>
> Gualterus
>


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

I like this idea. It sounds good.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:33 AM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>wrote:

>
> Salvete,
>
> I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation which I
> feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and would
> help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the elimination of
> the secret ballot.
>
> The secret ballot was introduced in 139 BCE; through most of the Republic
> voting was by open ballot. While open voting is pretty antithetical to a
> modern democratic mindset, I think it makes sense in numerous ways. It
> allows people to be publicly accountable for their decisions about whom they
> will support for a particular office. To a large extent it undermines
> back-door cabals from easily forming, where they can publicly present the
> face of neutrality but secretly vote along prearranged lines. It undermines
> outright deception about who supported whom or what policy. I see such
> deception as a large contributor, directly or indirectly, to many of the
> tensions in NR.
>
> The fear of reprisal against those who didn't vote as their friends
> expected or wanted is not much of an issue either--if one is ashamed of or
> can't defend one's choices then one shouldn't vote in the first place. I
> suspect the first time we try an open vote it will make some people upset
> when they are called to defend their choices, but afterward people will get
> used to the notion of being fully open and honest about their preferences
> and tensions should significantly decrease.
>
> On the technical side, the voting process will be greatly simplified.
> People will only need to send an email (from the address registered to their
> account) to a special voting list. One of the diribitores would verify that
> the Roman name given is that of an assiduus citizen and that the email is
> the one registered to their account (clearly in cooperation with someone
> from the censor's office). The tallied info would then be published in a
> convenient table either on the ML or the website for people to make sure
> their ballot was recorded correctly. Indeed, the entire process of tallying
> centuries would be public so anyone could come along and verify the results.
>
> On the legal side, we would only need to reverse those few laws that
> explicitly mention a secret ballot so that we have the option of conducting
> a vote either secretly or openly.
>
> Valete,
>
> Gualterus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

I like this idea too.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> I like this idea. It sounds good.
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:33 AM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>wrote:
>
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation which I
> > feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and would
> > help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the elimination of
> > the secret ballot.
> >
> > The secret ballot was introduced in 139 BCE; through most of the Republic
> > voting was by open ballot. While open voting is pretty antithetical to a
> > modern democratic mindset, I think it makes sense in numerous ways. It
> > allows people to be publicly accountable for their decisions about whom they
> > will support for a particular office. To a large extent it undermines
> > back-door cabals from easily forming, where they can publicly present the
> > face of neutrality but secretly vote along prearranged lines. It undermines
> > outright deception about who supported whom or what policy. I see such
> > deception as a large contributor, directly or indirectly, to many of the
> > tensions in NR.
> >
> > The fear of reprisal against those who didn't vote as their friends
> > expected or wanted is not much of an issue either--if one is ashamed of or
> > can't defend one's choices then one shouldn't vote in the first place. I
> > suspect the first time we try an open vote it will make some people upset
> > when they are called to defend their choices, but afterward people will get
> > used to the notion of being fully open and honest about their preferences
> > and tensions should significantly decrease.
> >
> > On the technical side, the voting process will be greatly simplified.
> > People will only need to send an email (from the address registered to their
> > account) to a special voting list. One of the diribitores would verify that
> > the Roman name given is that of an assiduus citizen and that the email is
> > the one registered to their account (clearly in cooperation with someone
> > from the censor's office). The tallied info would then be published in a
> > convenient table either on the ML or the website for people to make sure
> > their ballot was recorded correctly. Indeed, the entire process of tallying
> > centuries would be public so anyone could come along and verify the results.
> >
> > On the legal side, we would only need to reverse those few laws that
> > explicitly mention a secret ballot so that we have the option of conducting
> > a vote either secretly or openly.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete;

I have no problem whatsoever in an open voting process; secrecy breeds
many of the troubles we have seen.

As I have written before, we have all these proposals for a lovely, 8
passenger coach with all the modern appointments, with driver, sideman
and 2 baggage handlers, to be pulled by a matched team of 4 horses,
when in reality all we need is a small cart pulled by a burro, guided
by one man walking.

As for JSTOR, why? The vast majority of folks interested in Nova Roma
are not academics, and those who are, seem to have vast resources
available already.

mea sententia - Venator

This is lovely! I am certain Apollo is pleased. I will try and have it set to music. :)
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 


<<--- On Mon, 7/12/10, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:

 
In Praise of Apollo

When you, Glorious One, Beautiful One,

Lay your gleaming hands upon your golden lyre

The music that flows from it, from you,

Teaches birds their rightful songs .

Makes water droplets dance in joyous sparkles .

Strokes the meanest streets with loveliness .

Draws the hues of roses and of lilies

Into trembling, vibrant richness .

Fills the hearts of children with wondering laughter .

Brushes the faces of all men and all women with a shadow of your own
radiance .

Warms the stone of walls,

Where warm furred cats sleep, and lovers sit together .

Heals the hurts of dark loneliness

Replaces fear with hope,

Restlessness with rest,

Enmity with accord

For with your music, you bestow all living things

With the beneficence of your undying light.

C. Maria Caeca>>




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

Salvete

Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova Roma there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked. In the last Centuriata elections there were five ballots that appear to have been submitted by one individual using the voter codes of others. That is, five ballots were cast randomly during the election and then appeared in a block near the end of voting. The last two votes cast duplicated codes that were among those what voted on 24 June.

If open voting is done on a comitia list, you still need some method to ensure the votes are secured. Perhaps where a code matches to an email address and profile. But that is still less secure than the method we use now.

Valete

Piscinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Salve;
>
> This seems like a simple enough solution. A "voting" list where all that is
> posted is a person's vote. I could see this as a workable solution to our
> problems. At least see how it would work. Something the senate should be
> asked to get the opinion of the senatores. Actually use the senate for what
> they are there for!
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:33 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation which I
> > feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and would
> > help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the elimination of
> > the secret ballot.
> >
> > The secret ballot was introduced in 139 BCE; through most of the Republic
> > voting was by open ballot. While open voting is pretty antithetical to a
> > modern democratic mindset, I think it makes sense in numerous ways. It
> > allows people to be publicly accountable for their decisions about whom they
> > will support for a particular office. To a large extent it undermines
> > back-door cabals from easily forming, where they can publicly present the
> > face of neutrality but secretly vote along prearranged lines. It undermines
> > outright deception about who supported whom or what policy. I see such
> > deception as a large contributor, directly or indirectly, to many of the
> > tensions in NR.
> >
> > The fear of reprisal against those who didn't vote as their friends
> > expected or wanted is not much of an issue either--if one is ashamed of or
> > can't defend one's choices then one shouldn't vote in the first place. I
> > suspect the first time we try an open vote it will make some people upset
> > when they are called to defend their choices, but afterward people will get
> > used to the notion of being fully open and honest about their preferences
> > and tensions should significantly decrease.
> >
> > On the technical side, the voting process will be greatly simplified.
> > People will only need to send an email (from the address registered to their
> > account) to a special voting list. One of the diribitores would verify that
> > the Roman name given is that of an assiduus citizen and that the email is
> > the one registered to their account (clearly in cooperation with someone
> > from the censor's office). The tallied info would then be published in a
> > convenient table either on the ML or the website for people to make sure
> > their ballot was recorded correctly. Indeed, the entire process of tallying
> > centuries would be public so anyone could come along and verify the results.
> >
> > On the legal side, we would only need to reverse those few laws that
> > explicitly mention a secret ballot so that we have the option of conducting
> > a vote either secretly or openly.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Petronius M. Piscino s.p.d.,

> Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova Roma there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked.

Roman virtues are difficult to some people.

> In the last Centuriata elections there were five ballots that appear to have been submitted by one individual using the voter codes of others.

So, the current voting code system is not very sure.

> That is, five ballots were cast randomly during the election and then appeared in a block near the end of voting. The last two votes cast duplicated codes that were among those what voted on 24 June.

Not very sure at all...

> If open voting is done on a comitia list, you still need some method to ensure the votes are secured.

Better method than the old which permitted the fakes whose you speak about.

> Perhaps where a code matches to an email address and profile. But that is still less secure than the method we use now.

Which is not perfect...

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XVI Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Salve,

It's certainly up for discussion what sort of checks would/could be done. I suggested that the ballots would need to be sent from the email address registered to the civis, and a diribitor would have the task to verify this for each ballot. Actually, there are two types of checks that can be done with emails. Firstly, check if the email address itself is the registered one, and secondly, look at the email header to see which IP it is coming from and verify that the IP is from the city/state that the civis is supposed to be living in and that duplicate ballots do not come from the same IP. There will be those rare cases where this can legitimately happen if you have a family voting together or something like that. A diribitor would be tasked to investigate such situations as they happen.

While the above process would be tedious, 1) we don't get many voters anyway. Even in a good election only about half of the assidui actually bother voting, and 2) it would make voter fraud virtually impossible.

I would suggest that the list to which ballots are sent be completely open for everyone to examine, which would add a third layer of protection since outsiders could verify all of the ballots too, just in case the diribitores do a sloppy job or are themselves corrupt.

I don't like the use of additional voter codes since that adds one more layer of complexity that could be gamed by unscrupulous users, like what you mentioned already happens in our system anyway. The fewer moving parts, the less chance something will go wrong.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete
>
> Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova Roma there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked. In the last Centuriata elections there were five ballots that appear to have been submitted by one individual using the voter codes of others. That is, five ballots were cast randomly during the election and then appeared in a block near the end of voting. The last two votes cast duplicated codes that were among those what voted on 24 June.
>
> If open voting is done on a comitia list, you still need some method to ensure the votes are secured. Perhaps where a code matches to an email address and profile. But that is still less secure than the method we use now.
>
> Valete
>
> Piscinus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve;
> >
> > This seems like a simple enough solution. A "voting" list where all that is
> > posted is a person's vote. I could see this as a workable solution to our
> > problems. At least see how it would work. Something the senate should be
> > asked to get the opinion of the senatores. Actually use the senate for what
> > they are there for!
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:33 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvete,
> > >
> > > I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation which I
> > > feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and would
> > > help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the elimination of
> > > the secret ballot.
> > >
> > > The secret ballot was introduced in 139 BCE; through most of the Republic
> > > voting was by open ballot. While open voting is pretty antithetical to a
> > > modern democratic mindset, I think it makes sense in numerous ways. It
> > > allows people to be publicly accountable for their decisions about whom they
> > > will support for a particular office. To a large extent it undermines
> > > back-door cabals from easily forming, where they can publicly present the
> > > face of neutrality but secretly vote along prearranged lines. It undermines
> > > outright deception about who supported whom or what policy. I see such
> > > deception as a large contributor, directly or indirectly, to many of the
> > > tensions in NR.
> > >
> > > The fear of reprisal against those who didn't vote as their friends
> > > expected or wanted is not much of an issue either--if one is ashamed of or
> > > can't defend one's choices then one shouldn't vote in the first place. I
> > > suspect the first time we try an open vote it will make some people upset
> > > when they are called to defend their choices, but afterward people will get
> > > used to the notion of being fully open and honest about their preferences
> > > and tensions should significantly decrease.
> > >
> > > On the technical side, the voting process will be greatly simplified.
> > > People will only need to send an email (from the address registered to their
> > > account) to a special voting list. One of the diribitores would verify that
> > > the Roman name given is that of an assiduus citizen and that the email is
> > > the one registered to their account (clearly in cooperation with someone
> > > from the censor's office). The tallied info would then be published in a
> > > convenient table either on the ML or the website for people to make sure
> > > their ballot was recorded correctly. Indeed, the entire process of tallying
> > > centuries would be public so anyone could come along and verify the results.
> > >
> > > On the legal side, we would only need to reverse those few laws that
> > > explicitly mention a secret ballot so that we have the option of conducting
> > > a vote either secretly or openly.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Gualterus
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.

I have no knowledge of such things, but it sounds to me like it would work, and would enable us to have some breathing space to resolve our IT issues, which involve more than just the cista (a huge and essential part of it, certainly) or Jstor (potentially an asset, but not absolutely essential to the conduct of business in the Res Publica). However, I think it would increase tensions, rather than decrease them, although they would be different.

I think that citizens should be aware that those for they choose *not* to vote, and their factions, and their friends, are very likely to subject them to various forms of intimidation, publicly, and that the tactics that will be used will be, at the very least, unpleasant, humiliating, and offensive.

However, this system beats not being able to vote, hands down ...and I am extremely hard to intimidate ...so I agree that it should be considered carefully.

Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca



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

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

I am hereby publicly asking the consul Quintilianus to ensure that this item be placed before the Senate for a vote in our "emergency" session beginning on Monday, with Gualterus Graecus being authorized to head the setting up of this system.

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> I have no knowledge of such things, but it sounds to me like it would work, and would enable us to have some breathing space to resolve our IT issues, which involve more than just the cista (a huge and essential part of it, certainly) or Jstor (potentially an asset, but not absolutely essential to the conduct of business in the Res Publica). However, I think it would increase tensions, rather than decrease them, although they would be different.
>
> I think that citizens should be aware that those for they choose *not* to vote, and their factions, and their friends, are very likely to subject them to various forms of intimidation, publicly, and that the tactics that will be used will be, at the very least, unpleasant, humiliating, and offensive.
>
> However, this system beats not being able to vote, hands down ...and I am extremely hard to intimidate ...so I agree that it should be considered carefully.
>
> Respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Yes, I think there would be some pressure and intimidation. Although, that can happen anyway, since right now with such a small assidui pool you can more or less guess who voted in what direction for the first class centuries, and some of the others.

But extreme public or private intimidation is a two-edged sword; the rougher you are with people, the more they will resist you and it may all end up being counter-productive for factional unity. Plus, NR being how it is, there isn't any *real* kind of pressure that can be put on people, since we can all just walk away or ignore everyone else if we want to and no one can stop us. In that sort of situation I think pressure and intimidation becomes self-limiting very quickly.

That being said, there will always be some back-room deals cut and pressure to stick by those agreements. It's very Roman, as well as bribery.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> I have no knowledge of such things, but it sounds to me like it would work, and would enable us to have some breathing space to resolve our IT issues, which involve more than just the cista (a huge and essential part of it, certainly) or Jstor (potentially an asset, but not absolutely essential to the conduct of business in the Res Publica). However, I think it would increase tensions, rather than decrease them, although they would be different.
>
> I think that citizens should be aware that those for they choose *not* to vote, and their factions, and their friends, are very likely to subject them to various forms of intimidation, publicly, and that the tactics that will be used will be, at the very least, unpleasant, humiliating, and offensive.
>
> However, this system beats not being able to vote, hands down ...and I am extremely hard to intimidate ...so I agree that it should be considered carefully.
>
> Respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Maria Caeca Gualtero Greco S. P. D.

what you say is, of course, true, especially for those who do not take this organization seriously. the bottom line, of course, is that it would provide us with a way to vote ...and that, I think, entirely justifies its extremely serious consideration ...and, perhaps, an experimental use of this option. It could be created, used for the election of Praetors now ...and kept viable as an emergency back up system (yes, I believe in redundancy), even after we deal with our IT issues. But then, I prefer to have more than one basket for eggs, keep a good supply of candles and oil lamps in case I lose electricity, etc. etc.

Vale,
C. Maria Caeca

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

Salvete omnes,
the idea of voting by email has been mentioned many times since the problems
with our IT system started, but every time it has been discarded by the IT
experts as unsecure.
I'm no expert myself, but I tend to believe the professionals.

Probably the only way it could work is with the cross-checks proposed by
Gualterus. However, checking each IP number would be very time-consuming.
With such a system it would be very hard to keep the deadlines for counting
votes, even in an ideal situation when all diribitores work.
As a matter of fact, since the beginning of the year we only have two active
diribitores, Arminius Maior and Piscinus. Of the two diribitrices one did
part of her work in one of the elections, only to be never heard of again,
and the other one has never been heard of.

In fact the vote by email has nothing to do with the ballot being secret or
open. It is perfectly possible to have secret ballot even when voting by
email: of course the identity of the voters will be known to the
diribitores, but it can be kept secret to the public. That is, unless one
wants to apply the additional security measure envisaged by Gualterus of
having the votes arrive into a public list, which I don't find a bad idea.

However, before deciding to vote by email, alternative methods should be
investigated. A while ago someone posted links to websites with automated
voting systems one of which was apparently compatible with our century and
tribe voting system.
If it could be used it would certainly be more secure than email.

There seems to be a widespread misapprehension that the IT system we are
seeking to replace is only a voting system.
This is not the case: the Nova Roma IT system is a complex one and includes
a database of all the current and past citizens, with a number of sensitive
data, such as real names, birth dates, street addresses, etc, which are
required for the macronational management of NR, and other data, such as
join date, which are necessary to maintain our system of a three-month
probationary period. It has a system for keeping track of citizens' cursus
honorum, for calculating century points, and assigning citizens into
centuries and tribes.
It also has a secure voting system, with voter codes which insure the secret
ballot.

It then has a web interface for this whole database (the Album Civium).

The problem is that the whole system is now outdated: it was constructed in
layers that are not always totally compatible with each other, so it
requires a very expert person to operate and it is not always possible to do
every operation required.

The new system would be more consistently constructed, with more modern and
widespread programming solutions, so as to make it easier to modify it and
add new features, and so that operations like elections can be run by anyone
without needing any informatic competence.

Optime valete,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:09 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Cista and Voting



Salve,

It's certainly up for discussion what sort of checks would/could be done. I
suggested that the ballots would need to be sent from the email address
registered to the civis, and a diribitor would have the task to verify this
for each ballot. Actually, there are two types of checks that can be done
with emails. Firstly, check if the email address itself is the registered
one, and secondly, look at the email header to see which IP it is coming
from and verify that the IP is from the city/state that the civis is
supposed to be living in and that duplicate ballots do not come from the
same IP. There will be those rare cases where this can legitimately happen
if you have a family voting together or something like that. A diribitor
would be tasked to investigate such situations as they happen.

While the above process would be tedious, 1) we don't get many voters
anyway. Even in a good election only about half of the assidui actually
bother voting, and 2) it would make voter fraud virtually impossible.

I would suggest that the list to which ballots are sent be completely open
for everyone to examine, which would add a third layer of protection since
outsiders could verify all of the ballots too, just in case the diribitores
do a sloppy job or are themselves corrupt.

I don't like the use of additional voter codes since that adds one more
layer of complexity that could be gamed by unscrupulous users, like what you
mentioned already happens in our system anyway. The fewer moving parts, the
less chance something will go wrong.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete
>
> Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova
> Roma there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked.
> In the last Centuriata elections there were five ballots that appear to
> have been submitted by one individual using the voter codes of others.
> That is, five ballots were cast randomly during the election and then
> appeared in a block near the end of voting. The last two votes cast
> duplicated codes that were among those what voted on 24 June.
>
> If open voting is done on a comitia list, you still need some method to
> ensure the votes are secured. Perhaps where a code matches to an email
> address and profile. But that is still less secure than the method we use
> now.
>
> Valete
>
> Piscinus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve;
> >
> > This seems like a simple enough solution. A "voting" list where all
> > that is
> > posted is a person's vote. I could see this as a workable solution to
> > our
> > problems. At least see how it would work. Something the senate should
> > be
> > asked to get the opinion of the senatores. Actually use the senate for
> > what
> > they are there for!
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:33 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvete,
> > >
> > > I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation
> > > which I
> > > feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and
> > > would
> > > help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the
> > > elimination of
> > > the secret ballot.
> > >
> > > The secret ballot was introduced in 139 BCE; through most of the
> > > Republic
> > > voting was by open ballot. While open voting is pretty antithetical to
> > > a
> > > modern democratic mindset, I think it makes sense in numerous ways. It
> > > allows people to be publicly accountable for their decisions about
> > > whom they
> > > will support for a particular office. To a large extent it undermines
> > > back-door cabals from easily forming, where they can publicly present
> > > the
> > > face of neutrality but secretly vote along prearranged lines. It
> > > undermines
> > > outright deception about who supported whom or what policy. I see such
> > > deception as a large contributor, directly or indirectly, to many of
> > > the
> > > tensions in NR.
> > >
> > > The fear of reprisal against those who didn't vote as their friends
> > > expected or wanted is not much of an issue either--if one is ashamed
> > > of or
> > > can't defend one's choices then one shouldn't vote in the first place.
> > > I
> > > suspect the first time we try an open vote it will make some people
> > > upset
> > > when they are called to defend their choices, but afterward people
> > > will get
> > > used to the notion of being fully open and honest about their
> > > preferences
> > > and tensions should significantly decrease.
> > >
> > > On the technical side, the voting process will be greatly simplified.
> > > People will only need to send an email (from the address registered to
> > > their
> > > account) to a special voting list. One of the diribitores would verify
> > > that
> > > the Roman name given is that of an assiduus citizen and that the email
> > > is
> > > the one registered to their account (clearly in cooperation with
> > > someone
> > > from the censor's office). The tallied info would then be published in
> > > a
> > > convenient table either on the ML or the website for people to make
> > > sure
> > > their ballot was recorded correctly. Indeed, the entire process of
> > > tallying
> > > centuries would be public so anyone could come along and verify the
> > > results.
> > >
> > > On the legal side, we would only need to reverse those few laws that
> > > explicitly mention a secret ballot so that we have the option of
> > > conducting
> > > a vote either secretly or openly.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Gualterus
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Salve Aquili,
thanks a lot for the link. It seems an event of mainly local interest. Did
you find anyone from that area?

Actually one year it would be nice to decide to meet at the big Roman
festival in Xanten. If planned in advance NR citizens from all Europe could
go there. Hovever I was unable to find information about this year's
festival. The Xanten museum website
(http://www.apx.de/english/visiting/specialevents/roman+festival.htm ) only
gives information about the 2009 edition.

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "albmd323232" <albmd32@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 3:00 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Tag der Archäologie in Mannheim, Germania


Salvete,

On October 9th, the 7th "Tag der Archäologie" will take place in and around
Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germania and there are several excurions to
Roman villas/museums and also current archeological digs in the area. I'm
wondering if any one else from NR will go? By the way, the website is:
http://www.foerderkreis-archaeologie.de/ and the 3 itineraries are listed
after clicking on 'Tagungs-Flyer' under that article. I will be moving there
in September and it will be nice to meet up with others and see a current
dig.

Valete,
D. Claudius Aquilius

Cato Liviae sal.

With all due respect, the "IT experts" have brought us to precisely the spot in which we find ourselves now, so my faith in them is somewhat leavened by our current state.

We hear over and over that anyone who is not an "expert" should be quiet and let the "professionals" do their job - we have even been scolded soundly for asking the simplest, most basic questions; and here we are.

Again I call on the presiding magistrate of the "emergency" session of the Senate to place Graecus' proposal on the Senate agenda and let the Senate discuss and decide.
Vale,

Cato

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

I wouldn't be opposed to letting the senatores discuss it and give their
advice on the issue. That is what the senate SHOULD be doing!

Valete;

Modianus

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Liviae sal.
>
> With all due respect, the "IT experts" have brought us to precisely the
> spot in which we find ourselves now, so my faith in them is somewhat
> leavened by our current state.
>
> We hear over and over that anyone who is not an "expert" should be quiet
> and let the "professionals" do their job - we have even been scolded soundly
> for asking the simplest, most basic questions; and here we are.
>
> Again I call on the presiding magistrate of the "emergency" session of the
> Senate to place Graecus' proposal on the Senate agenda and let the Senate
> discuss and decide.
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


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

Cato senatores omnibusque in foro SPD

I have been unable to express my sentiments in the Senate House and so bring them here to the Forum.

The consul Quintilianus has decided to call an "emergency" session of the Senate - and decided that he shall "co-convene" the Senate with several tribunes.

Then, we get this (in part):

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

>
> Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
>
> Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani
>
> Due to zero Internet access because of Thunderstroms, lightnings
> Maxima Valeria Messallina has been unable to sign the call for the
> incoming Senate meeting in time for my issueing of it. As it was her
> intention to sign the call I have now added her as one of four
> Tribunes who jointly convene the Senate, togther with me.

> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

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


I'm sorry but where in his imagination did our consul come up with the idea of simply declaring that someone "intended" to do something, and then taking action in their name?

This is almost comically illegal.

First, there is nothing in our law which allows "co-convening" of the Senate; there is always and *only* a single presiding magistrate allowed under our law. Either the consul is convening the Senate, or the tribunes are.

Now our consul purports to speak for someone who - until the Senate is in session and is *then* given permission to do so - is not allowed to speak in that House, yet he claims she "intended" to support his "co-convening" aberration and so declares it is so.

What if I announced that all of the Senate "intended" to appoint me dictator, so I just declare it so and assume power?

Senators, look to your prerogatives carefully before they are swept away.

Valete,

Cato

Salvete



If and when Maior's appeal is heard and she prevails then and only then would she be eligible to be a candidate for office. I was prevented from being a candidate for Tribune in last years elections because the presiding magistrate confused the requirement for STANDING for office and assuming office. I had to live with his mistake.



Maior can not be a candidate for office and the elections for Praetor should not wait one second just because she wants to be one.



Valete



Ti. Galerius Paulinus


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

Hey,

I have created a Netlog profile with my pictures, videos, blogs and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. You first need to register on Netlog! When you log in, you can create your own profile.

Take a look:
http://en.netlog.com/go/mailurl/-bT05NjE1NjE5MzUmbD0xJmdtPTM3JnU9JTJGZ28lMkZyZWdpc3RlciUyRmlkJTNEMjA5NzMxOTk0NSUyNmklM0R0OTE_

Cheers,
Denzel

----------------------------------------------------------------
Don't want to receive invitations from your friends anymore?
http://en.netlog.com/go/mailurl/-bT05NjE1NjE5MzUmbD0yJmdtPTM3JnU9JTJGZ28lMkZub21haWxzJTJGaW52aXRlJTJGZW1haWwlM0QtYm05MllTMXliMjFoUUhsaGFHOXZaM0p2ZFhCekxtTnZiUV9fJTI2Y29kZSUzRDEyMTUxMTA2JTI2aWQlM0QyMDk3MzE5OTQ1JTI2aSUzRHQ5Mg__


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

Salvete



"Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova Roma there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked."



I have served the republic as Tribune, Praetor and Consul and NEVER once has anybody informed me in any of these capacities that faked votes had been cast. Never!



It seems that we have far greater problems than IT or JSTOR.



Valete



Ti. Galerius Paulinus


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

Salve,

Yes, the IT professionals (although, I'm no country bumpkin on the subject) should be taking part in this discussion, both in the Senate (if it ever happens) and in public.

You're right that checking IPs would be rather tedious, but I think a diribitor working at moderate speed can verify about 100 ballots in about 4-5 hours. Also, we have two custodes who can help out in the process, and additional part-time diribitores can be brought in as has been done in the past.

You're right that a "secret" ballot could be nominally maintained with email voting, but there are three serious issues here: 1) with the diribitores and custodes privy to such useful information I don't expect their mouths to stay shut for long--corruption would be all too tempting; 2) if secrecy becomes an accompanying goal then there would be temptation to add on another layer, perhaps some voter code, which could potentially compromise security (which may be why email voting in the context of a secret ballot has been rejected before); 3) we would lose the advantage of public eyes counting and verifying in parallel.

But, my suggestion of an open vote isn't primarily for security reasons, although, as you can tell, I think it would be easier to make it secure than partial or near-total secrecy, but because I also think there are virtues in itself. Plus, implementation would be fairly simple.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
> the idea of voting by email has been mentioned many times since the problems
> with our IT system started, but every time it has been discarded by the IT
> experts as unsecure.
> I'm no expert myself, but I tend to believe the professionals.
>
> Probably the only way it could work is with the cross-checks proposed by
> Gualterus. However, checking each IP number would be very time-consuming.
> With such a system it would be very hard to keep the deadlines for counting
> votes, even in an ideal situation when all diribitores work.
> As a matter of fact, since the beginning of the year we only have two active
> diribitores, Arminius Maior and Piscinus. Of the two diribitrices one did
> part of her work in one of the elections, only to be never heard of again,
> and the other one has never been heard of.
>
> In fact the vote by email has nothing to do with the ballot being secret or
> open. It is perfectly possible to have secret ballot even when voting by
> email: of course the identity of the voters will be known to the
> diribitores, but it can be kept secret to the public. That is, unless one
> wants to apply the additional security measure envisaged by Gualterus of
> having the votes arrive into a public list, which I don't find a bad idea.
>
> However, before deciding to vote by email, alternative methods should be
> investigated. A while ago someone posted links to websites with automated
> voting systems one of which was apparently compatible with our century and
> tribe voting system.
> If it could be used it would certainly be more secure than email.
>
> There seems to be a widespread misapprehension that the IT system we are
> seeking to replace is only a voting system.
> This is not the case: the Nova Roma IT system is a complex one and includes
> a database of all the current and past citizens, with a number of sensitive
> data, such as real names, birth dates, street addresses, etc, which are
> required for the macronational management of NR, and other data, such as
> join date, which are necessary to maintain our system of a three-month
> probationary period. It has a system for keeping track of citizens' cursus
> honorum, for calculating century points, and assigning citizens into
> centuries and tribes.
> It also has a secure voting system, with voter codes which insure the secret
> ballot.
>
> It then has a web interface for this whole database (the Album Civium).
>
> The problem is that the whole system is now outdated: it was constructed in
> layers that are not always totally compatible with each other, so it
> requires a very expert person to operate and it is not always possible to do
> every operation required.
>
> The new system would be more consistently constructed, with more modern and
> widespread programming solutions, so as to make it easier to modify it and
> add new features, and so that operations like elections can be run by anyone
> without needing any informatic competence.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:09 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Cista and Voting
>
>
>
> Salve,
>
> It's certainly up for discussion what sort of checks would/could be done. I
> suggested that the ballots would need to be sent from the email address
> registered to the civis, and a diribitor would have the task to verify this
> for each ballot. Actually, there are two types of checks that can be done
> with emails. Firstly, check if the email address itself is the registered
> one, and secondly, look at the email header to see which IP it is coming
> from and verify that the IP is from the city/state that the civis is
> supposed to be living in and that duplicate ballots do not come from the
> same IP. There will be those rare cases where this can legitimately happen
> if you have a family voting together or something like that. A diribitor
> would be tasked to investigate such situations as they happen.
>
> While the above process would be tedious, 1) we don't get many voters
> anyway. Even in a good election only about half of the assidui actually
> bother voting, and 2) it would make voter fraud virtually impossible.
>
> I would suggest that the list to which ballots are sent be completely open
> for everyone to examine, which would add a third layer of protection since
> outsiders could verify all of the ballots too, just in case the diribitores
> do a sloppy job or are themselves corrupt.
>
> I don't like the use of additional voter codes since that adds one more
> layer of complexity that could be gamed by unscrupulous users, like what you
> mentioned already happens in our system anyway. The fewer moving parts, the
> less chance something will go wrong.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete
> >
> > Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova
> > Roma there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked.
> > In the last Centuriata elections there were five ballots that appear to
> > have been submitted by one individual using the voter codes of others.
> > That is, five ballots were cast randomly during the election and then
> > appeared in a block near the end of voting. The last two votes cast
> > duplicated codes that were among those what voted on 24 June.
> >
> > If open voting is done on a comitia list, you still need some method to
> > ensure the votes are secured. Perhaps where a code matches to an email
> > address and profile. But that is still less secure than the method we use
> > now.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> > Piscinus
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve;
> > >
> > > This seems like a simple enough solution. A "voting" list where all
> > > that is
> > > posted is a person's vote. I could see this as a workable solution to
> > > our
> > > problems. At least see how it would work. Something the senate should
> > > be
> > > asked to get the opinion of the senatores. Actually use the senate for
> > > what
> > > they are there for!
> > >
> > > Vale;
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:33 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@>wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salvete,
> > > >
> > > > I write here to suggest another possible fix to the cista situation
> > > > which I
> > > > feel is more Roman, would avoid expensive investment in technology and
> > > > would
> > > > help ease some of the tensions in NR. What I propose is the
> > > > elimination of
> > > > the secret ballot.
> > > >
> > > > The secret ballot was introduced in 139 BCE; through most of the
> > > > Republic
> > > > voting was by open ballot. While open voting is pretty antithetical to
> > > > a
> > > > modern democratic mindset, I think it makes sense in numerous ways. It
> > > > allows people to be publicly accountable for their decisions about
> > > > whom they
> > > > will support for a particular office. To a large extent it undermines
> > > > back-door cabals from easily forming, where they can publicly present
> > > > the
> > > > face of neutrality but secretly vote along prearranged lines. It
> > > > undermines
> > > > outright deception about who supported whom or what policy. I see such
> > > > deception as a large contributor, directly or indirectly, to many of
> > > > the
> > > > tensions in NR.
> > > >
> > > > The fear of reprisal against those who didn't vote as their friends
> > > > expected or wanted is not much of an issue either--if one is ashamed
> > > > of or
> > > > can't defend one's choices then one shouldn't vote in the first place.
> > > > I
> > > > suspect the first time we try an open vote it will make some people
> > > > upset
> > > > when they are called to defend their choices, but afterward people
> > > > will get
> > > > used to the notion of being fully open and honest about their
> > > > preferences
> > > > and tensions should significantly decrease.
> > > >
> > > > On the technical side, the voting process will be greatly simplified.
> > > > People will only need to send an email (from the address registered to
> > > > their
> > > > account) to a special voting list. One of the diribitores would verify
> > > > that
> > > > the Roman name given is that of an assiduus citizen and that the email
> > > > is
> > > > the one registered to their account (clearly in cooperation with
> > > > someone
> > > > from the censor's office). The tallied info would then be published in
> > > > a
> > > > convenient table either on the ML or the website for people to make
> > > > sure
> > > > their ballot was recorded correctly. Indeed, the entire process of
> > > > tallying
> > > > centuries would be public so anyone could come along and verify the
> > > > results.
> > > >
> > > > On the legal side, we would only need to reverse those few laws that
> > > > explicitly mention a secret ballot so that we have the option of
> > > > conducting
> > > > a vote either secretly or openly.
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > >
> > > > Gualterus
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

When I was diribitor last year no votes were thrown out for this reason either (although, there was some suspicion at one point). I didn't respond to this claim before because I just assumed it was hyperbole.

-GG

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salvete
>
>
>
> "Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova Roma there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked."
>
>
>
> I have served the republic as Tribune, Praetor and Consul and NEVER once has anybody informed me in any of these capacities that faked votes had been cast. Never!
>
>
>
> It seems that we have far greater problems than IT or JSTOR.
>
>
>
> Valete
>
>
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Maior Paulino spd;
I'm ready, and Cordus is ready and I've contacted the tribunes. The abuse of our justice system is something that really needs to be discussed in Nova Roma.
Cordus is happy to explain just how the process was subverted. I was in one election and I'd be in the next if the praetor hadn't abused the system. Last years' mistake is no reason to punish me!

optime vale
M. Hortensia Maior
candidate for praetrix!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salvete
>
>
>
> If and when Maior's appeal is heard and she prevails then and only then would she be eligible to be a candidate for office. I was prevented from being a candidate for Tribune in last years elections because the presiding magistrate confused the requirement for STANDING for office and assuming office. I had to live with his mistake.
>
>
>
> Maior can not be a candidate for office and the elections for Praetor should not wait one second just because she wants to be one.
>
>
>
> Valete
>
>
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In a message dated 7/17/2010 8:13:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rory12001@... writes:

The abuse of our justice system is something that really needs to be
discussed in Nova Roma.
Cordus is happy to explain just how the process was subverted. I was in
one election and I'd be in the next if the praetor hadn't abused the system.
Last years' mistake is no reason to punish me!





Why exactly are you claiming...What are you claiming anyway? You agreed
to the trial, you never complained about the single Iudex, in fact he was a
friend of yours, you did not mind not having jury because a jury chosen by
lot, would likely find you guilty.

Are you complaining because you lost? And while lot of your statements
you made during the trial on this main list were in-admissible but now that
its over, remember the people heard them all. It pretty much sums up your
original attitude towards Cato and Christians.
Since you weren't banished you cannot appeal to the assembly, you got off
pretty lightly all things considered.
Based on your recent hysterical outbursts, your ability to exaggerate the
facts, and your overwhelming dislike for some people here, you should never
be a Praetor, it is a task you are not suited to, since you lack
temperament to make measured decisions.
The sentence fits.

Greetings from the SD Comic-con
Q. Fabius Maximus



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

Cato Maiori sal.

Then if Cordus is "happy to explain" perhaps he should do so rather than having you keep announcing how happy he is.

You are not being punished for a mistake last year; you are being punished because you were condemned for having abused your office.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Paulino spd;
> I'm ready, and Cordus is ready and I've contacted the tribunes. The abuse of our justice system is something that really needs to be discussed in Nova Roma.
> Cordus is happy to explain just how the process was subverted. I was in one election and I'd be in the next if the praetor hadn't abused the system. Last years' mistake is no reason to punish me!
>
> optime vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
> candidate for praetrix!
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salvete
> >
> >
> >
> > If and when Maior's appeal is heard and she prevails then and only then would she be eligible to be a candidate for office. I was prevented from being a candidate for Tribune in last years elections because the presiding magistrate confused the requirement for STANDING for office and assuming office. I had to live with his mistake.
> >
> >
> >
> > Maior can not be a candidate for office and the elections for Praetor should not wait one second just because she wants to be one.
> >
> >
> >
> > Valete
> >
> >
> >
> > Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

M. Hortensia Q. Fabio;
when Albucius wrote the call for sentence, that's the abuse.
"For the presiding magistrate to tell the judex what verdict to deliver totally undermines the whole design of the Salician procedure,"

I am reposting below my advocatus' analysis. And he will be requesting the Comitia meet to rescind my sentence as Lex Salicia poenalis 12 ensures!!

" Once a sententia has been issued by a legal Novoroman court, since this court
represents the will of the Comitia, only a vote in the Comitia may rescind a
sententia by the passage of a lex"
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Salicia_poenalis_(Nova_Roma)#12._Legal_Precedence\
:

A. APOLLONIUS CORDUS, advocatus:

The document entitled 'Call for a sentence in "Caecilius vs. Hortensia"' is
plainly intended to fulfill the requirement of the lex Salicia judiciaria ch.
XIV: 'Once both parties have presented their evidence, each party shall have the
opportunity to make one final statement in front of the iudices, with the actor
speaking in the first place. Then the praetor shall call for a sententia
(sentence) from the iudices, according to paragraph XV, reminding the iudices
that, in case of doubt, they must *not* condemn the reus.'

There is nothing in the lex Salicia or any other lex or any other legal instrument in Nova Roma to give the slightest indication that the call for a sententia under ch. XIV should contain anything other than a request for the judex to deliver a sententia and a reminder of the presumption of innocence.
There is certainly no legal justification whatsoever for the inclusion of an instruction or even advice about what the sententia should be. No call for a sententia in any trial ever held in Nova Roma under the lex Salicia has ever included this. There is no basis for it in ancient Roman law: on the contrary,the Roman formulary procedure on which the Salician procedure is very closely based did not permit the presiding magistrate to do this. The active involvement of the presiding magistrate essentially ceased with the issue of the
formula, which contained all the magistrate's instructions to the judex.

For the presiding magistrate to tell the judex what verdict to deliver totally undermines the whole design of the Salician procedure, in which the presiding magistrate's role is to formulate the issues to be tried and the role of the judex is to answer the questions the presiding magistrate has set out in the formula. This division of roles is plainly evident from the text of the lex
Salicia itself and is strongly supported by the very close similarity of that
procedure to the ancient Roman formulary system, in which the division of roles
was the same.

Moreover, even if the presiding magistrate had any lawful power to instruct or
advise the judex what verdict to deliver, it would be unfair for him to do so
because it would heavily influence the mind of the judex and effectively
compromise the ability of the judex to make an independent and objective
decision. The system is such that the judex or judices in a trial are selected
at random from among the general population. The judex is clearly neither
required nor intended to be legally qualified or in any way expert in legal
matters. The judex is not required to be a magistrate, and even if he happens
to be a magistrate this has no bearing on his role in the trial: his role is to
be a private citizen making a decision based on common sense and not on legal
expertise. The presiding magistrate, on the other hand, is a magistrate with
imperium and has specific powers relating to the interpretation of law and the
administration of justice. It would be extremely difficult for a judex to avoid
being influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by an explicit recommendation or
instruction from the presiding magistrate to deliver one verdict or the other.
This would compromise the whole position of the judex as an objective
decision-maker. Even if the judex were able to resist being unduly influenced
by the call for a sententia, the public would be unable to be confident that he
had done so, and therefore any sententia he did deliver, if it were the same as
the one recommended by the presiding magistrate, would not be seen by the public
as fair and independent, and the outcome of the trial would be perceived as
unjust. It is therefore unfair and contrary to the spirit and intent and
general principles of the law for a presiding magistrate in a trial under the
Salician system to instruct or advise the judex on what sententia to deliver.

Further, it is extremely unfair in this specific case because the parties had no
warning or notice that the presiding magistrate would seek to give such
instructions. As I have said above, nothing in the law of Nova Roma, ancient
Roman law, or the examples of previous trials in Nova Roma gave the parties any
reason at all to think that the presiding magistrate could or would do this, and
he never at any stage gave any indication that he himself intended to do it or
considered that he had the power to do it. The parties have throughout the
trial addressed their arguments and questions to the judex, believing that the
judex would be making his decision alone. If the parties had known that the
presiding magistrate would take this step, they would very probably have
conducted their cases differently. They have therefore both been treated
unfairly, in particular the accused who is disadvantaged by this unforeseen and
unforeseeable action.

Further, the presiding magistrate bases his call for a verdict of condemnation
upon false or mistaken presmises. He says that Q. Metellus has argued that 'the
violation, by Hortensia, of the laws of Nova Roma would result first of the fact
that her moderation decisions have been vetoed, and second that she would have
refused to obey these vetos', and it is on this basis that he concludes that Q.
Metellus has successfully argued his case. Metellus, however, has not put
forward this argument. It is perfectly clear from his statements during the
course of the trial that he regarded the vetoes purely as evidence that M.
Hortensia must have known that what she was doing was illegal because she had
done similar things before and they had been vetoed. At no stage did he say
that she had refused to obey a veto, nor did he ever argue that her refusal to
obey a veto was itself an offence of abusus potestatis. On the contrary, he
made it perfectly clear that the sole and single allegation on which his case
rested was that M. Hortensia placed C. Equitius on moderation by her second
edictum of 6 June when she had no lawful power to do so and knowing that she had
no lawful power to do so.

Therefore by adopting this argument that was never advanced by Metellus himself
during the trial, either the presiding magistrate has demonstrated a very grave
misunderstanding of the whole basis of the prosecution, in which case his call
for a sententia should be vetoed as being fundamentally flawed in its legal
reasoning, or else the presiding magistrate has deliberately reformulated the
prosecution case in a way that differs from the prosecutor's own argument, in
which case he is effectively prosecuting the case himself in contravention of
his neutral role in proceedings, and has also introduced new arguments without
giving the defence any opportunity to reply to them. In either case the
presiding magistrate has by this action utterly compromised the fairness of the
trial and his own role in it.

What is more, the presiding magistrate, in his explanation of his reasons for
calling for condemnation, shows that he takes a fundamentally different view of
the definition of the offence from the view that was agreed between the parties
at trial and was accepted by the judex T. Julius. Q. Metellus in his opening
remarks made it apparent that he did not ask the judex to find M. Hortensia
guilty of the offence unless she had a culpable state of mind in doing what she
did. One of his remarks seemed to indicate that, as far as he was concerned,
she was guilty if she knew what she was doing was illegal *or* if she acted
without caring whether it was illegal or not; another remark seemed to say that
she was guilty only if she actually knew it was illegal. He was asked to
clarify this beyond doubt and made it clear that he said she was guilty only if
she knew it was illegal. The defence made it plain and explicit to the judex
that they accepted and supported this view, and that M. Hortensia was not guilty
of the offence unless she had done something she knew or believed to be illegal.
The defence also explicitly asked the judex to say if he did not accept this
definition, in order that further arguments could be put forward to support it.
The judex did not say so. The request was later repeated privately to the
judex, and the judex replied that there was no need to say any more about it.
Therefore not only both parties but also, by clear and necessary implication,
the judex himself agreed on this definition of the offence. The presiding
magistrate in his call for a sententia plainly rejects it, basing his whole
reasoning on whether M. Hortensia's actions were 'logical', 'reasonable', and
explaining her actions by reference to 'the will that Hortensia had at this time
that G. Equitius Cato be sanctioned, whatever the legality of such sanctions':
in other words, he concludes that she acted without caring whether what she did
was illegal or not, but he does not conclude that she knew she was acting
illegally. The suggestion that she could be guilty merely as a result of acting
without caring whether she was acting legally or illegally was explicitly raised
in the course of the trial, explicitly disavowed by the prosecutor, and not
discussed any further because both parties and the judex all agreed that this
was not the correct legal definition of the offence. The presiding magistrate
has resurrected it without allowing the parties any opportunity for discussion.
Even, therefore, if his definition is not simply wrong (which both parties agree
it is), it is undeniable that his introduction of it at this stage, without
warning or right of reply, in direct contradiction of the basis on which the
whole trial was conducted, utterly undermines the fairness of the trial.

Finally, the call for condemnation is also justified by the assertion that
'Hortensia Maior "used (her) magisterial powers to act against the lawful rights
of a person", here G. Equitius Cato, by re-issuing [the edictum of moderation]
twice on June 6'. This, again, is in complete contradiction to the actual case
advanced by the prosecutor. Q. Metellus made is completely clear from his very
first remarks after the trial began that the second edictum of 6 June was the
only act done by M. Hortensia that he alleged amounted to an offence of abusus
potestatis. It was therefore that single edictum that formed the basis of the
entire case as conducted by both parties and considered by the judex. Metellus
explicitly disavowed any suggestion that the first edictum of 6 June constituted
an offence for which he sought a condemnation. The presiding magistrate now
calls for her condemnation on the basis of both her edicta of 6 June, thus
clearly indicating that in his view the offence is made up of both the edicta
taken together. He does not say that these two edicta make up two separate
offences of abusus potestatis, therefore presumably neither one on its own is,
in his view, sufficient for a condemnation. If he had considered the
prosecution case as it was put forward, therefore, and addressed himself to the
proposition actually advanced by Metellus that the second edictum was on its own
an offence, he would presumably have had to conclude that it did not. Whether
this is correct or not, it is in any case another clear and egregious example of
the presiding magistrate ignoring the whole basis on which the case has been
conducted, effectively taking over the prosecution himself and putting forward
new allegations and arguments that were never made at trial by the prosecutor,
giving neither party any opportunity to respond to these new allegations and
arguments, and thus rendering it impossible for this trial to have a fair
outcome.

In summary, the presiding magistrate has no power at all to instruct or advise
the judex on which verdict to give; even if he has such a power, it is unfair
and contrary to the spirit of the law and of justice to use it in this way; it
is also specifically unfair in this case because the parties had no idea he was
going to do it and could not reasonably have expected him to do it, and they
might well have conducted their cases differently if they had known this; and
the specific call for condemnation that the presiding magistrate has in fact
issued in this case is legally flawed, ignores and contradicts in several ways
the basis on which the whole trial was conducted by both parties and the judex,
gives the parties no opportunity to answer the points that are raised for the
first time by him now, and consequently severely compromises the fairness of the
trial and its outcome.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 7/17/2010 8:13:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> rory12001@... writes:
>
> The abuse of our justice system is something that really needs to be
> discussed in Nova Roma.
> Cordus is happy to explain just how the process was subverted. I was in
> one election and I'd be in the next if the praetor hadn't abused the system.
> Last years' mistake is no reason to punish me!
>
>
>
>
>
> Why exactly are you claiming...What are you claiming anyway? You agreed
> to the trial, you never complained about the single Iudex, in fact he was a
> friend of yours, you did not mind not having jury because a jury chosen by
> lot, would likely find you guilty.
>
> Are you complaining because you lost? And while lot of your statements
> you made during the trial on this main list were in-admissible but now that
> its over, remember the people heard them all. It pretty much sums up your
> original attitude towards Cato and Christians.
> Since you weren't banished you cannot appeal to the assembly, you got off
> pretty lightly all things considered.
> Based on your recent hysterical outbursts, your ability to exaggerate the
> facts, and your overwhelming dislike for some people here, you should never
> be a Praetor, it is a task you are not suited to, since you lack
> temperament to make measured decisions.
> The sentence fits.
>
> Greetings from the SD Comic-con
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Ti. Galerio Paulino quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Salvete
>
> "Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova Roma
> there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked."
>
> I have served the republic as Tribune, Praetor and Consul and NEVER once has
> anybody informed me in any of these capacities that faked votes had been cast.
> Never!
>
> ATS: I seem to recall that some years ago, several votes, perhaps as
> many as a dozen, were sent from the same IP address right around the same
> time. Faked votes are not impossible even with the cista...and to me, the
> absence of a secret ballot would keep a good many citizens from voting. Is
> that what we want...or only if the members of the opposite faction are
> hindered from voting?
>
> It seems that we have far greater problems than IT or JSTOR.
>
> ATS: Maybe, maybe...perhaps some have been taking lessons from certain
> historical periods in Chicago.
>
> Valete
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

M. Moravius Piscinus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Di vos inculumes custodian.

Hodie est ante diem XV Kalendas Sextilias; haec dies comitialis Merkatus atque dies Alliensis est:

"The 18th of July was marked by a double disaster, for on that day the Fabii were annihilated at the Cremera, and in later years the battle at the Alia that brought ruin to the City was lost on the same day. From the latter disaster the day was called 'the day of the Alia,' and was observed by a religious abstinence from all public and private business." ~ Titus Livius 6.1.11


AUC 276 / 477 BCE: Annihilation of 306 Fabii on the River Cremera:

"The conflicts between the Fabii and the State of Veii were resumed without any more extensive military preparations than before. There were not only forays into each other's territories and surprise attacks upon the forayers, but sometimes they fought regular engagements, and this single Roman house often won the victory over what was at that time the most powerful city in Etruria. This was a bitter mortification to the Veientines, and they were led by circumstances to adopt the plan of trapping their daring enemy in an ambuscade; they were even glad that the numerous successes of the Fabii had increased their confidence. Accordingly they drove herds of cattle, as if by accident, in the way of the foraying parties, the fields were abandoned by the peasants, and the bodies of troops sent to repel the raiders fled in a panic more often assumed than genuine. By this time the Fabii had conceived such contempt for their foe as to be convinced that under no circumstances of either time or place could their invincible arms be resisted. This presumption carried them so far that at the sight of some distant cattle on the other side of the wide plain stretching from the camp they ran down to secure them, although but few of the enemy were visible. Suspecting no danger and keeping no order they passed the ambuscade that was set on each side of the road, and whilst they were scattered in trying to catch the cattle, which in their fright were rushing wildly about, the enemy suddenly rose from their concealment and attacked them on all sides. At first they were startled by the shouts round them, then javelins fell on them from every direction. As the Etruscans closed round them, they were hemmed by a continuous ring of men, and the more the enemy pressed upon them, the less the space in which they were forced to form their ever-narrowing square. This brought out strongly the contrast between their scanty numbers and the host of Etruscans, whose ranks were multiplied through being narrowed. After a time they abandoned their plan of presenting a front on all sides; facing in one direction they formed themselves into a wedge and by the utmost exertion of sword and muscle forced a passage through. The road led up to gentle eminence, and here they halted. When the higher ground gave them room to breathe freely and to recover from the feeling of despair, they repelled those who mounted to the attack, and through the advantage of position the little band were beginning to win the day, when some Veientines who had been sent round the hill emerged on the summit. So the enemy again had the advantage. The Fabii were all cut down to a man, and their fort taken. It is generally agreed that three hundred and six men perished, and that one only, an immature youth, was left as a stock for the Fabian house to be Rome's greatest helper in her hour of danger both at home and in the field." ~ Titus Livius 2.50

For another view of the battle:

"When the others refused their offer and chose the death befitting men of noble birth, the Tyrrhenians renewed the struggle, attacking them in relays, though no longer fighting at close quarters in hand-to-hand combat, but standing in a body and hurling javelins and stones at them from a distance; and the multitude of missiles was like a snow-storm. The Romans, massing by companies, rushed upon their foes, who did not stand their ground, and though they received many wounds from those surrounding them, they stood firm. But when the swords of many had become useless, some having their edges blunted and others being broken, and the borders of their shields next the rims were hacked in pieces, and the men themselves were for the most part bled white and overwhelmed by missiles and their limbs paralyzed by reason of the multitude of their wounds, the Tyrrhenians scorned them and came to close quarters. Then the Romans, rushing at them like wild beasts, seized their spears and broke them, grasped their swords by the edges and wrenched them out of their hands, and twisting the bodies of their antagonists, fell with them to the ground, locked in close embrace, fighting with greater rage than strength. Hence the enemy, astonished at their endurance and terrified at the madness that had seized them in their despair of life, no longer ventured to come to grips with them, but retiring again, stood in a body and hurled at them sticks, stones, and anything else they could lay their hands on, and at last buried them under the multitude of missiles. After destroying these men they ran to the fortress, carrying with them the heads of the most prominent, expecting to take the men there prisoners at their first onset." - Dionysius of Halicarnassus 9.21


AUC 363 / 390 BCE: An army of Gauls defeated the Romans on the River Allia.

"The consular tribunes had secured no position for their camp, had constructed no entrenchments behind which to retire, and had shown as much disregard of the Gods as of the enemy, for they formed their order of battle without having obtained favorable auspices. They extended their line on either wing to prevent their being outflanked, but even so they could not make their front equal to the enemy's, whilst by thus thinning their line they weakened the centre so that it could hardly keep in touch. On their right was a small eminence which they decided to hold with reserves, and this disposition, though it was the beginning of the panic and flight, proved to be the only means of safety to the fugitives. For Brennus, the Gallic chieftain, fearing some ruse in the scanty numbers of the enemy, and thinking that the rising ground was occupied in order that the reserves might attack the flank and rear of the Gauls while their front was engaged with the legions, directed his attack upon the reserves, feeling quite certain that if he drove them from their position, his overwhelming numbers would give him an easy victory on the level ground. So not only Fortune but tactics also were on the side of the barbarians. In the other army there was nothing to remind one of Romans either amongst the generals or the private soldiers. They were terrified, and all they thought about was flight, and so utterly had they lost their heads that a far greater number fled to Veii, a hostile city, though the Tiber lay in their way, than by the direct road to Rome, to their wives and children. For a short time the reserves were protected by their position. In the rest of the army, no sooner was the battle-shout heard on their flank by those nearest to the reserves, and then by those at the other end of the line heard in their rear, than they fled, whole and unhurt, almost before they had seen their untried foe, without any attempt to fight or even to give back the battle-shout. None were slain while actually fighting; they were cut down from behind whilst hindering one another's flight in a confused, struggling mass. Along the bank of the Tiber, whither the whole of the left wing had fled, after throwing away their arms, there was great slaughter. Many who were unable to swim or were hampered by the weight of their cuirasses and other armour were sucked down by the current. The greater number, however, reached Veii in safety. Yet not only were no troops sent from there to defend the City, but not even was a messenger dispatched to report the defeat to Rome. All the men on the right wing, which had been stationed some distance from the river, and nearer to the foot of the hill, made for Rome and took refuge in the Citadel without even closing the City gates." ~ Titus Livius 5.38

AUC 817 / 64 CE: The Great Fire of the reign of Nero began in Rome.

"A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this City by the violence of fire. It had its beginning in that part of the circus which adjoins the Palatine and Cælian hills, where, amid the shops containing inflammable wares, the conflagration both broke out and instantly became so fierce and so rapid from the wind that it seized in its grasp the entire length of the circus. For here there were no houses fenced in by solid masonry, or temples surrounded by walls, or any other obstacle to interpose delay. The blaze in its fury ran first through the level portions of the City, then rising to the hills, while it again devastated every place below them, it outstripped all preventive measures; so rapid was the mischief and so completely at its mercy the City, with those narrow winding passages and irregular streets, which characterized old Rome. Added to this were the wailings of terror-stricken women, the feebleness of age, the helpless inexperience of childhood, the crowds who sought to save themselves or others, dragging out the infirm or waiting for them, and by their hurry in the one case, by their delay in the other, aggravating the confusion. Often, while they looked behind them, they were intercepted by flames on their side or in their face. Or if they reached a refuge close at hand, when this too was seized by the fire, they found that, even places, which they had imagined to be remote, were involved in the same calamity. At last, doubting what they should avoid or whither betake themselves, they crowded the streets or flung themselves down in the fields, while some who had lost their all, even their very daily bread, and others out of love for their kinsfolk, whom they had been unable to rescue, perished, though escape was open to them. And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders." ~ P. Cornelius Tacitus, Annales 15.38


AUC 822 / 69 CE: Vitellius received the titles of Augustus and pontifex maximus.


Our thought of the day comes from the Golden Sentences of Democritus 4 8:

"He is a blessed man who has both property and intellect, for he will use them well in such things as are proper."

Catone

You mean like the time when you were aedilis curulis and declared yourself to have imperium equal to a consul and a right to call the Senate? We know how that ended.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato senatores omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> I have been unable to express my sentiments in the Senate House and so bring them here to the Forum.
>
> The consul Quintilianus has decided to call an "emergency" session of the Senate - and decided that he shall "co-convene" the Senate with several tribunes.
>
> Then, we get this (in part):
>
> --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
> >
> > Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani
> >
> > Due to zero Internet access because of Thunderstroms, lightnings
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina has been unable to sign the call for the
> > incoming Senate meeting in time for my issueing of it. As it was her
> > intention to sign the call I have now added her as one of four
> > Tribunes who jointly convene the Senate, togther with me.
>
> > *****************
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>
> I'm sorry but where in his imagination did our consul come up with the idea of simply declaring that someone "intended" to do something, and then taking action in their name?
>
> This is almost comically illegal.
>
> First, there is nothing in our law which allows "co-convening" of the Senate; there is always and *only* a single presiding magistrate allowed under our law. Either the consul is convening the Senate, or the tribunes are.
>
> Now our consul purports to speak for someone who - until the Senate is in session and is *then* given permission to do so - is not allowed to speak in that House, yet he claims she "intended" to support his "co-convening" aberration and so declares it is so.
>
> What if I announced that all of the Senate "intended" to appoint me dictator, so I just declare it so and assume power?
>
> Senators, look to your prerogatives carefully before they are swept away.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>

A. Tullia Scholastica quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis
S.P.D.

With the conclusion yesterday of the Grammatica II course, we are now
able to accept registrations in both Grammatica Latina I and Grammatica
Latina II. The only requirement for Grammatica I is that one has a copy of
the Sixth Edition of Wheelock¹s Latin, by Frederic Wheelock; those wishing
to enter Grammatica II must have completed Grammatica I at some point, or
have completed a course covering similar material: the five Latin noun
declensions, the adjective declensions, basic pronoun declensions, and the
indicative mood of the verb, both active and passive voices. Sermo I is
fine, and so are many college-level Latin courses. Even some traditional
high-school level ones would work. Entrance into the intermediate courses
is rare, but does occur; if you think you qualify, please contact me. Once
again, all students must have the text before the beginning of class, and to
ensure this, cannot be registered until they do.

Regarding the Sermo classes, we are waiting for a handful of students to
pick up their examination corrections; if they do not do so within the next
few days, we shall have to remove them from the class anyway so that we can
accept new students. Sermo is an excellent path to true fluency in reading,
writing, and speaking Latin, and highly beneficial to those who have some
background in the language. Those who do not can surely attempt it, for
some learn better by this means, but many do better after previous exposure
to Latin.

All of our courses are free except for the cost of the textbooks and
other materials, and are quite rigorous nonetheless; prospective students
must be able to devote a significant bloc of time every week to learning
Latin. This can be done a little at a time, but must be done. Very few of
us learn foreign languages without work.

Valete.




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

Piscinus, like YOU have any room to talk.

There is a saying people in glass houses.

After Gualterus schooled you on Auguries you should learn to keep quiet lest
your own weaknesses get drawn out.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:39 AM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:

>
>
> Catone
>
> You mean like the time when you were aedilis curulis and declared yourself
> to have imperium equal to a consul and a right to call the Senate? We know
> how that ended.
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cato"
> <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > Cato senatores omnibusque in foro SPD
> >
> > I have been unable to express my sentiments in the Senate House and so
> bring them here to the Forum.
> >
> > The consul Quintilianus has decided to call an "emergency" session of the
> Senate - and decided that he shall "co-convene" the Senate with several
> tribunes.
> >
> > Then, we get this (in part):
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
> > >
> > > Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani
> > >
> > > Due to zero Internet access because of Thunderstroms, lightnings
> > > Maxima Valeria Messallina has been unable to sign the call for the
> > > incoming Senate meeting in time for my issueing of it. As it was her
> > > intention to sign the call I have now added her as one of four
> > > Tribunes who jointly convene the Senate, togther with me.
> >
> > > *****************
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry but where in his imagination did our consul come up with the
> idea of simply declaring that someone "intended" to do something, and then
> taking action in their name?
> >
> > This is almost comically illegal.
> >
> > First, there is nothing in our law which allows "co-convening" of the
> Senate; there is always and *only* a single presiding magistrate allowed
> under our law. Either the consul is convening the Senate, or the tribunes
> are.
> >
> > Now our consul purports to speak for someone who - until the Senate is in
> session and is *then* given permission to do so - is not allowed to speak in
> that House, yet he claims she "intended" to support his "co-convening"
> aberration and so declares it is so.
> >
> > What if I announced that all of the Senate "intended" to appoint me
> dictator, so I just declare it so and assume power?
> >
> > Senators, look to your prerogatives carefully before they are swept away.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
>


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

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 7:27 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...

> wrote:

>
> ..and to me, the
> > absence of a secret ballot would keep a good many citizens from voting.
> Is
> > that what we want..
>

I really really don't understand this. Why, in an internet community like
Nova Roma, would someone refuse to vote just because it would be public
knowledge how they cast their vote? Are people ashamed of how they're voting
or are they telling people one thing, while doing another?

I seriously just don't get it. I've never in my life, in any sort of
election, been afraid to say who I was voting for. I think emailing the
votes in and then having the IPs checked and results published would be a
lot less open to abuse than my own (British) government system of voting.

Flavia Lucilla Merula


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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit

Instead of voting ON an e-mail list there could be an e-mail account (I
suggest gmail) where people sent their votes. The e-mail account could have
a folder for each century or for each tribe. When a vote comes the
diribitor finds the century the person is in and placed the vote into the
correct folder. The diribitor verified that the e-mail matches what is in
our system for that person and sends a message back to the person confirming
that their vote was received.

Since there should be updates on votes they could be posted to the main
list:

Example,

Voting on Lex XYZ
Century I
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Uti Rogas
Marcus Lucretius Agricola Uti Rogas
Century I votes to approve Lex XYZ

Century II
Publius Memmius Albucius Antiquo
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Uti Rogas
Century II undecided -- tie breaker needed

Absolute transparency. When e-mails come in they are verified to be from
who they are supposed to be from and a receipt is sent back to them. Then
periodically reports are sent to the list showing how various centuries have
voted and which centuries are in need of tie breakers.

The e-mail account can be used by all the diribitores and custodes too. I
believe it would work just fine.

Valete;

Modianus

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <
spqr753@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Salvete
>
> "Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova
> Roma there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked."
>
> I have served the republic as Tribune, Praetor and Consul and NEVER once
> has anybody informed me in any of these capacities that faked votes had been
> cast. Never!
>
> It seems that we have far greater problems than IT or JSTOR.
>
> Valete
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>

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

Salve,

The problem I see with this is a lack of public transparency. There's no way for the public to verify any of the reports. One might wonder if this isn't similarly an issue with our current secret ballot approach, and I suggest no, because with the current system even the diribitores/custodes don't know who is voting what way, but under an email system they would know and their confidence could be corrupted.

For example, imagine a conspiracy where voter fraud is intended and the diribitores follow along. They could lie about the IP and/or email verification. When the results are published, each individual can account for his own vote, but not verify anyone else's, so the fraudulent ballots would be simply publicly confirmed by the fraudsters.

In short, the moment you've set up a system where a closed circle of individuals have privileged access to valuable information you've prepared a scenario for fraud.

The more open, the better.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit
>
> Instead of voting ON an e-mail list there could be an e-mail account (I
> suggest gmail) where people sent their votes. The e-mail account could have
> a folder for each century or for each tribe. When a vote comes the
> diribitor finds the century the person is in and placed the vote into the
> correct folder. The diribitor verified that the e-mail matches what is in
> our system for that person and sends a message back to the person confirming
> that their vote was received.
>
> Since there should be updates on votes they could be posted to the main
> list:
>
> Example,
>
> Voting on Lex XYZ
> Century I
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Uti Rogas
> Marcus Lucretius Agricola Uti Rogas
> Century I votes to approve Lex XYZ
>
> Century II
> Publius Memmius Albucius Antiquo
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus Uti Rogas
> Century II undecided -- tie breaker needed
>
> Absolute transparency. When e-mails come in they are verified to be from
> who they are supposed to be from and a receipt is sent back to them. Then
> periodically reports are sent to the list showing how various centuries have
> voted and which centuries are in need of tie breakers.
>
> The e-mail account can be used by all the diribitores and custodes too. I
> believe it would work just fine.
>
> Valete;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <
> spqr753@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Salvete
> >
> > "Sounds simple enough, but not. In every election ever conducted in Nova
> > Roma there are ballots that have to be thrown out because they were faked."
> >
> > I have served the republic as Tribune, Praetor and Consul and NEVER once
> > has anybody informed me in any of these capacities that faked votes had been
> > cast. Never!
> >
> > It seems that we have far greater problems than IT or JSTOR.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> > Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Piscino sal.

You poor thing that the greatest weapon in the pitiful arsenal you have at your disposal is some half-baked version of the facts.

Once again you are adept at not actually responding to the facts at hand but rather choose to try to sling some sort of mud wherever you can.

An admirable quality in a supposed pontifex maximus, and a fine example to all cultores.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Catone
>
> You mean like the time when you were aedilis curulis and declared yourself to have imperium equal to a consul and a right to call the Senate? We know how that ended.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato senatores omnibusque in foro SPD
> >
> > I have been unable to express my sentiments in the Senate House and so bring them here to the Forum.
> >
> > The consul Quintilianus has decided to call an "emergency" session of the Senate - and decided that he shall "co-convene" the Senate with several tribunes.
> >
> > Then, we get this (in part):
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
> > >
> > > Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani
> > >
> > > Due to zero Internet access because of Thunderstroms, lightnings
> > > Maxima Valeria Messallina has been unable to sign the call for the
> > > incoming Senate meeting in time for my issueing of it. As it was her
> > > intention to sign the call I have now added her as one of four
> > > Tribunes who jointly convene the Senate, togther with me.
> >
> > > *****************
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry but where in his imagination did our consul come up with the idea of simply declaring that someone "intended" to do something, and then taking action in their name?
> >
> > This is almost comically illegal.
> >
> > First, there is nothing in our law which allows "co-convening" of the Senate; there is always and *only* a single presiding magistrate allowed under our law. Either the consul is convening the Senate, or the tribunes are.
> >
> > Now our consul purports to speak for someone who - until the Senate is in session and is *then* given permission to do so - is not allowed to speak in that House, yet he claims she "intended" to support his "co-convening" aberration and so declares it is so.
> >
> > What if I announced that all of the Senate "intended" to appoint me dictator, so I just declare it so and assume power?
> >
> > Senators, look to your prerogatives carefully before they are swept away.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

Salvete;

How about this?

Set up a new Yahoo list called, oddly enough, NR_Cista.

Voters will register and have to be confirmed in their
identity....Custodes and Diribitors as moderators, with Senatorial
overview???

Each election is posted there, the votes are openly cast there...for
all to see and crosscheck.

Valete - Venator

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

This is why I think diribitores and custodes should be appointed from
amongst the senatorial and or first classes and approved by the senate. They
should not be elected officials. I support efficiency rather than fear.

Valete,

Modianus

On Jul 18, 2010 7:21 AM, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:




Salve,

The problem I see with this is a lack of public transparency. There's no way
for the public to verify any of the reports. One might wonder if this isn't
similarly an issue with our current secret ballot approach, and I suggest
no, because with the current system even the diribitores/custodes don't know
who is voting what way, but under an email system they would know and their
confidence could be corrupted.

For example, imagine a conspiracy where voter fraud is intended and the
diribitores follow along. They could lie about the IP and/or email
verification. When the results are published, each individual can account
for his own vote, but not verify anyone else's, so the fraudulent ballots
would be simply publicly confirmed by the fraudsters.

In short, the moment you've set up a system where a closed circle of
individuals have privileged access to valuable information you've prepared a
scenario for fraud.

The more open, the better.

Vale,

Gualterus



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

> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit
>
> Instead of voting ON an e-m...

> spqr753@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Salvete
> >
> > "Sounds simple enough, but not. In every el...

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



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

Salvete omnes,

Does anybody know how fruits and other perishable foods where
transported in ancient Rome via land routs and on sea.

I always try to make things most authentic here but when it comes to the lack of refrigeration it is getting pretty tricky.

Peaches, figs, where quite valuable for instance.
I can imagine that certain areas had a quite diverse agriculture therefore, but how were such goods be transported over long distances into areas where the climate did not support the growth of certain fruits etc. ?

C.AQV

Salvete omnes,

Does anybody know how fruits and other perishable foods where
transported in ancient Rome via land routs and on sea.

I always try to make things most authentic here but when it comes to the
lack of refrigeration it is getting pretty tricky.

Peaches, figs, where quite valuable for instance.
I can imagine that certain areas had a quite diverse agriculture
therefore, but how were such goods be transported over long distances
into areas where the climate did not support the growth of certain
fruits etc. ?

C.AQV


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

Cato Aquiliae Rotae sal.

You might want to look here:

http://www.roman-empire-map.askricktoday.com/roman-food.html

or even here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cuisine

or here:

http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/romefood.html

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Aqvillivs" <c.aqvillivs_rota@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Does anybody know how fruits and other perishable foods where
> transported in ancient Rome via land routs and on sea.
>
> I always try to make things most authentic here but when it comes to the
> lack of refrigeration it is getting pretty tricky.
>
> Peaches, figs, where quite valuable for instance.
> I can imagine that certain areas had a quite diverse agriculture
> therefore, but how were such goods be transported over long distances
> into areas where the climate did not support the growth of certain
> fruits etc. ?
>
> C.AQV
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

<<--- On Sat, 7/17/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato senatores omnibusque in foro SPD

I have been unable to express my sentiments in the Senate House and so bring them here to the Forum.>>
 
 
Why didn't you express your "sentiments" in the Senaculum list? Isn't that what it's for, for Senators to use in between sessions? No need to bring it onto the ML, unless of course you want more than just the Senators to know your, uh, "sentiments".


<<The consul Quintilianus has decided to call an "emergency" session of the Senate - and decided that he shall "co-convene" the Senate with several tribunes.

Then, we get this (in part):

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

>
> Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
>
> Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani
>
> Due to zero Internet access because of Thunderstroms, lightnings
> Maxima Valeria Messallina has been unable to sign the call for the
> incoming Senate meeting in time for my issueing of it. As it was her
> intention to sign the call I have now added her as one of four
> Tribunes who jointly convene the Senate, togther with me.

> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

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

I'm sorry but where in his imagination did our consul come up with the idea of simply declaring that someone "intended" to do something, and then taking action in their name?>>
 
 
His imagination had nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, everyone's Internet access can sometimes be messed with on account of bad weather and he was having problems and I was having problems and an email was not received in time and my name was not added. Just as he stated. That's all. Perhaps his English is not perfect, but it's not that hard to understand what he meant.


<<This is almost comically illegal.>>
 
Hmm, are you trying to developing a sense of humor?


<<First, there is nothing in our law which allows "co-convening" of the Senate; there is always and *only* a single presiding magistrate allowed under our law. Either the consul is convening the Senate, or the tribunes are.>>
 
 
There's nothing in our laws that does not allow a Consul and the Tribunes to co-convene together. 


<<Now our consul purports to speak for someone who - until the Senate is in session and is *then* given permission to do so - is not allowed to speak in that House, yet he claims she "intended" to support his "co-convening" aberration and so declares it is so.>>
 
 
You have different things mixed up here. You should be more careful about that. First, as I stated above, you could have posted this to the Senaculum list, where the Senators talk in between Senate sessions. Second, he does not speak for me. Third, he knows what I intended to do because he discussed this with me beforehand. You act like you never heard of 'emails'.
 

<<What if I announced that all of the Senate "intended" to appoint me dictator, so I just declare it so and assume power?>>
 
 
Now that would be funny. I guess you really are trying to develop a sense of humor.


<<Senators, look to your prerogatives carefully before they are swept away.>>
 
 
What prerogatives are you speaking about?


<<Valete,

Cato>>
 
 
Vale bene,
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina





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

Oh, yeah, forgot about that one. ROFL
 
 
<<--- On Sun, 7/18/10, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...> wrote:

Catone

You mean like the time when you were aedilis curulis and declared yourself to have imperium equal to a consul and a right to call the Senate? We know how that ended.>>


 

>--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato senatores omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> I have been unable to express my sentiments in the Senate House and so bring them here to the Forum.
>
> The consul Quintilianus has decided to call an "emergency" session of the Senate - and decided that he shall "co-convene" the Senate with several tribunes.
>
> Then, we get this (in part):
>
> --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
> >
> > Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani
> >
> > Due to zero Internet access because of Thunderstroms, lightnings
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina has been unable to sign the call for the
> > incoming Senate meeting in time for my issueing of it. As it was her
> > intention to sign the call I have now added her as one of four
> > Tribunes who jointly convene the Senate, togther with me.
>
> > *****************
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>
> I'm sorry but where in his imagination did our consul come up with the idea of simply declaring that someone "intended" to do something, and then taking action in their name?
>
> This is almost comically illegal.
>
> First, there is nothing in our law which allows "co-convening" of the Senate; there is always and *only* a single presiding magistrate allowed under our law. Either the consul is convening the Senate, or the tribunes are.
>
> Now our consul purports to speak for someone who - until the Senate is in session and is *then* given permission to do so - is not allowed to speak in that House, yet he claims she "intended" to support his "co-convening" aberration and so declares it is so.
>
> What if I announced that all of the Senate "intended" to appoint me dictator, so I just declare it so and assume power?
>
> Senators, look to your prerogatives carefully before they are swept away.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato

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

Salve Rota;

Frankly, the only sure ways that I know of, which could have been
widely used, were fermentation, dehydration and preserves (fruit
syrups, honeyed fruits and the like).

Until the advent of modern refrigeration, "out of season" usually
meant unavailable.

Some fruits and vegetables can be kept in cool cellars. Some few will
keep if packed in sawdust or other cushioning/insulating material like
moss, or other such.

I suppose the very wealthy could pay for relay riders...

Not impossible to get fresh out of season, but neither easy nor inexpensive.

Vale - Venator

Cato Messallinae sal.

Ah. I see that you are able now to post, despite thunderstorms and lightnings :)

I am not subscribed to this so-called "Senaculum List" because I have yet to be shown any valid historic reason why the Senate House should be closed at any time. I asked repeatedly to be shown why it should be in our Respublica and was never given a single valid response. Perhaps it is petty - in your eyes - but I stand by my principles and do not bend for political expedience. If I cannot speak in the Senate House, I will speak here.

Tribune, there is nothing in our law which allows multiple presiding magistrates, which would be the case if this were allowed to proceed. In every instance, our law refers to "the presiding magistrate" - note the singular tense. It does not allow for "presiding magistrates".

One step further into the law, once the Senate has been called, the senatus consultum de ratione Senatus is quite clear that tribunes may call the Senate to "ask advice" on issues that are directly related to their (the tribunes') Constitutional "powers and obligations", and nothing more. No introduction of legislation.

Since you are not a senator, I will not bore you with details about how I feel about our prerogatives and any attempts to subvert them.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> <<--- On Sat, 7/17/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato senatores omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> I have been unable to express my sentiments in the Senate House and so bring them here to the Forum.>>
>  
>  
> Why didn't you express your "sentiments" in the Senaculum list? Isn't that what it's for, for Senators to use in between sessions? No need to bring it onto the ML, unless of course you want more than just the Senators to know your, uh, "sentiments".
>
>
> <<The consul Quintilianus has decided to call an "emergency" session of the Senate - and decided that he shall "co-convene" the Senate with several tribunes.
>
> Then, we get this (in part):
>
> --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
> >
> > Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani
> >
> > Due to zero Internet access because of Thunderstroms, lightnings
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina has been unable to sign the call for the
> > incoming Senate meeting in time for my issueing of it. As it was her
> > intention to sign the call I have now added her as one of four
> > Tribunes who jointly convene the Senate, togther with me.
>
> > *****************
> > Vale
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> I'm sorry but where in his imagination did our consul come up with the idea of simply declaring that someone "intended" to do something, and then taking action in their name?>>
>  
>  
> His imagination had nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, everyone's Internet access can sometimes be messed with on account of bad weather and he was having problems and I was having problems and an email was not received in time and my name was not added. Just as he stated. That's all. Perhaps his English is not perfect, but it's not that hard to understand what he meant.
>
>
> <<This is almost comically illegal.>>
>  
> Hmm, are you trying to developing a sense of humor?
>
>
> <<First, there is nothing in our law which allows "co-convening" of the Senate; there is always and *only* a single presiding magistrate allowed under our law. Either the consul is convening the Senate, or the tribunes are.>>
>  
>  
> There's nothing in our laws that does not allow a Consul and the Tribunes to co-convene together. 
>
>
> <<Now our consul purports to speak for someone who - until the Senate is in session and is *then* given permission to do so - is not allowed to speak in that House, yet he claims she "intended" to support his "co-convening" aberration and so declares it is so.>>
>  
>  
> You have different things mixed up here. You should be more careful about that. First, as I stated above, you could have posted this to the Senaculum list, where the Senators talk in between Senate sessions. Second, he does not speak for me. Third, he knows what I intended to do because he discussed this with me beforehand. You act like you never heard of 'emails'.
>  
>
> <<What if I announced that all of the Senate "intended" to appoint me dictator, so I just declare it so and assume power?>>
>  
>  
> Now that would be funny. I guess you really are trying to develop a sense of humor.
>
>
> <<Senators, look to your prerogatives carefully before they are swept away.>>
>  
>  
> What prerogatives are you speaking about?
>
>
> <<Valete,
>
> Cato>>
>  
>  
> Vale bene,
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Maria Caeca C. Aquilio Rotae S. P. D.

I'm no expert, but I believe I've read that perishable foods were carried by couriers (or slaves?) using vey fast horses, which were changed often, so that the food did not have to sit while riders and horses were rested. I know, for example, that ice was brought, more or less successfully, from the mountains to Rome ...and the Roman road system allowed this.

having said *that*, I suspect that, in our time, several food safety Governmental agencies would take issue with anything that didn't comply with food safety laws ...especially in the matter of transporting food! I know that there things I will not accept in my shop if they don't arrive in a refrigerated truck, specifically anything containing dairy products, most sandwiches, etc.

Sorry I couldn't be of any *real* help ...no sources or anything, but best of luck, especially in this heat!

Respectfully,
Vale et valete,
C. Maria Caeca

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

Cato Messallinae sal.

Ha ha! Probably because he is making it up, little lemming.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, yeah, forgot about that one. ROFL
>  
>  
> <<--- On Sun, 7/18/10, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Catone
>
> You mean like the time when you were aedilis curulis and declared yourself to have imperium equal to a consul and a right to call the Senate? We know how that ended.>>
>
>
>  
> >--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato senatores omnibusque in foro SPD
> >
> > I have been unable to express my sentiments in the Senate House and so bring them here to the Forum.
> >
> > The consul Quintilianus has decided to call an "emergency" session of the Senate - and decided that he shall "co-convene" the Senate with several tribunes.
> >
> > Then, we get this (in part):
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
> > >
> > > Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani
> > >
> > > Due to zero Internet access because of Thunderstroms, lightnings
> > > Maxima Valeria Messallina has been unable to sign the call for the
> > > incoming Senate meeting in time for my issueing of it. As it was her
> > > intention to sign the call I have now added her as one of four
> > > Tribunes who jointly convene the Senate, togther with me.
> >
> > > *****************
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry but where in his imagination did our consul come up with the idea of simply declaring that someone "intended" to do something, and then taking action in their name?
> >
> > This is almost comically illegal.
> >
> > First, there is nothing in our law which allows "co-convening" of the Senate; there is always and *only* a single presiding magistrate allowed under our law. Either the consul is convening the Senate, or the tribunes are.
> >
> > Now our consul purports to speak for someone who - until the Senate is in session and is *then* given permission to do so - is not allowed to speak in that House, yet he claims she "intended" to support his "co-convening" aberration and so declares it is so.
> >
> > What if I announced that all of the Senate "intended" to appoint me dictator, so I just declare it so and assume power?
> >
> > Senators, look to your prerogatives carefully before they are swept away.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

<<--- On Sun, 7/18/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Messallinae sal.

Ah. I see that you are able now to post, despite thunderstorms and lightnings :)>>
 
 
Mercifully, they don't go on forever. It's still very hot and humid today, but the lightning storms have passed.
 

 
<<I am not subscribed to this so-called "Senaculum List" because I have yet to be shown any valid historic reason why the Senate House should be closed at any time. I asked repeatedly to be shown why it should be in our Respublica and was never given a single valid response. Perhaps it is petty - in your eyes - but I stand by my principles and do not bend for political expedience. If I cannot speak in the Senate House, I will speak here.>>
 
 
Ah, I did not know you were not subscribed or had objected to the creation of the Senaculum list. Now, it makes sense why you did not post there. Thank you for the clarification.

 
 
<<Tribune, there is nothing in our law which allows multiple presiding magistrates, which would be the case if this were allowed to proceed. In every instance, our law refers to "the presiding magistrate" - note the singular tense. It does not allow for "presiding magistrates".>>
 
 
There is nothing that does not allow it either.
 

 
<<One step further into the law, once the Senate has been called, the senatus consultum de ratione Senatus is quite clear that tribunes may call the Senate to "ask advice" on issues that are directly related to their (the tribunes') Constitutional "powers and obligations", and nothing more. No introduction of legislation.>>
 
 
We are doing that. Any legislation would be from Consul Quintilianus.


 
<<Since you are not a senator, I will not bore you with details about how I feel about our prerogatives and any attempts to subvert them.

Vale,

Cato>>
 
 
 
Fair enough.
 
Vale bene,
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina





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

Salve and thanks for the response,

Cato unfortunately sends only links which do not say anything about the subject.

I see that all and agree completely but I have the feeling that something is missing. Fruits and such when transported preserved do tend to absorb the taste of the preserve.
I wonder and ask myself if cool sweet water would be a way to transport
fruits for example. When the water is exchanged or somehow cooled a little it might be possible to keep the fruit fresh for a medium time range.
I think I will try this out, or do you by coincidence know how if this could work?

Rota

--- On Sun, 7/18/10, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Experiment! Please help, Transporting perishable foods in ancient Rome?
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 3:18 PM







 









Salve Rota;



Frankly, the only sure ways that I know of, which could have been

widely used, were fermentation, dehydration and preserves (fruit

syrups, honeyed fruits and the like).



Until the advent of modern refrigeration, "out of season" usually

meant unavailable.



Some fruits and vegetables can be kept in cool cellars. Some few will

keep if packed in sawdust or other cushioning/insulating material like

moss, or other such.



I suppose the very wealthy could pay for relay riders...



Not impossible to get fresh out of season, but neither easy nor inexpensive.



Vale - Venator























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

Cato Messallinae sal.

The restrictive (i.e., singular form) references to the "presiding magistrate" do, in fact, disallow this aberration.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> <<--- On Sun, 7/18/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> Ah. I see that you are able now to post, despite thunderstorms and lightnings :)>>
>  
>  
> Mercifully, they don't go on forever. It's still very hot and humid today, but the lightning storms have passed.
>  
>
>  
> <<I am not subscribed to this so-called "Senaculum List" because I have yet to be shown any valid historic reason why the Senate House should be closed at any time. I asked repeatedly to be shown why it should be in our Respublica and was never given a single valid response. Perhaps it is petty - in your eyes - but I stand by my principles and do not bend for political expedience. If I cannot speak in the Senate House, I will speak here.>>
>  
>  
> Ah, I did not know you were not subscribed or had objected to the creation of the Senaculum list. Now, it makes sense why you did not post there. Thank you for the clarification.
>
>  
>  
> <<Tribune, there is nothing in our law which allows multiple presiding magistrates, which would be the case if this were allowed to proceed. In every instance, our law refers to "the presiding magistrate" - note the singular tense. It does not allow for "presiding magistrates".>>
>  
>  
> There is nothing that does not allow it either.
>  
>
>  
> <<One step further into the law, once the Senate has been called, the senatus consultum de ratione Senatus is quite clear that tribunes may call the Senate to "ask advice" on issues that are directly related to their (the tribunes') Constitutional "powers and obligations", and nothing more. No introduction of legislation.>>
>  
>  
> We are doing that. Any legislation would be from Consul Quintilianus.
>
>
>  
> <<Since you are not a senator, I will not bore you with details about how I feel about our prerogatives and any attempts to subvert them.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato>>
>  
>  
>  
> Fair enough.
>  
> Vale bene,
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

You have a selective memory.

When I was consul I used to convene the senate along with my colleague.
Don't believe me? Look at the senate archives. For example, message #9167
states, "My Consular colleague, Pompeia Minucia Strabo, and I are convening
the Senate of Nova Roma jointly."

It has been done in the past, and is being done now. Precedent has been
set... now find something else to complain about!!

Vale;

Modinaus

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> Ah. I see that you are able now to post, despite thunderstorms and
> lightnings :)
>
> I am not subscribed to this so-called "Senaculum List" because I have yet
> to be shown any valid historic reason why the Senate House should be closed
> at any time. I asked repeatedly to be shown why it should be in our
> Respublica and was never given a single valid response. Perhaps it is petty
> - in your eyes - but I stand by my principles and do not bend for political
> expedience. If I cannot speak in the Senate House, I will speak here.
>
> Tribune, there is nothing in our law which allows multiple presiding
> magistrates, which would be the case if this were allowed to proceed. In
> every instance, our law refers to "the presiding magistrate" - note the
> singular tense. It does not allow for "presiding magistrates".
>
> One step further into the law, once the Senate has been called, the senatus
> consultum de ratione Senatus is quite clear that tribunes may call the
> Senate to "ask advice" on issues that are directly related to their (the
> tribunes') Constitutional "powers and obligations", and nothing more. No
> introduction of legislation.
>
> Since you are not a senator, I will not bore you with details about how I
> feel about our prerogatives and any attempts to subvert them.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


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

C. Maria Caeca C. Aquilio Rotae omnibusque in foro S. P. D.

Oh, dear ...I may have given a very wrong impression, quite accidentally!
blame I on caffeine deficiency, to which I am attending!

governor Rota knows the rules and regulations regarding care of, and safety
of, perishable food than I do, and I *certainly* did not mean to imply
otherwise!!!!! I was just thinking out loud, something I try not to do here
...and I apologize if I gave the wrong impression. Believe, if my
Governor's route came as far as Atlanta, his wonderful offerings *would* be
available in my shop (and probably be extremely popular, too). I don't
suppose I could convince him to ...no, too far, sigh.

Vale et valete,
C. Maria Caeca, tucking her head back, firmly, under her wing!

Salve and thanks but these links do not really help with this question.

Do you have any idea how this has been accomplished other than the so far known methods of preservation.

I have the impression there are some ways which are missing. Most sources do mention dinners or feasts with certain fruits and foods which have for sure been imported or brought in over long distances.

Again I have the feeling that some ways of techniques are missing concerning this problem.

Rota

Cato Modiano sal.

Modianus, using *your* having done something in the past is certainly no way to support its legality.

Besides which, it doesn't matter when we discover that we are doing something wrong; once we do, we are bound to correct it and *not* continue to do it.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> You have a selective memory.
>
> When I was consul I used to convene the senate along with my colleague.
> Don't believe me? Look at the senate archives. For example, message #9167
> states, "My Consular colleague, Pompeia Minucia Strabo, and I are convening
> the Senate of Nova Roma jointly."
>
> It has been done in the past, and is being done now. Precedent has been
> set... now find something else to complain about!!
>
> Vale;
>
> Modinaus
>
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > Ah. I see that you are able now to post, despite thunderstorms and
> > lightnings :)
> >
> > I am not subscribed to this so-called "Senaculum List" because I have yet
> > to be shown any valid historic reason why the Senate House should be closed
> > at any time. I asked repeatedly to be shown why it should be in our
> > Respublica and was never given a single valid response. Perhaps it is petty
> > - in your eyes - but I stand by my principles and do not bend for political
> > expedience. If I cannot speak in the Senate House, I will speak here.
> >
> > Tribune, there is nothing in our law which allows multiple presiding
> > magistrates, which would be the case if this were allowed to proceed. In
> > every instance, our law refers to "the presiding magistrate" - note the
> > singular tense. It does not allow for "presiding magistrates".
> >
> > One step further into the law, once the Senate has been called, the senatus
> > consultum de ratione Senatus is quite clear that tribunes may call the
> > Senate to "ask advice" on issues that are directly related to their (the
> > tribunes') Constitutional "powers and obligations", and nothing more. No
> > introduction of legislation.
> >
> > Since you are not a senator, I will not bore you with details about how I
> > feel about our prerogatives and any attempts to subvert them.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Caeca,

I appreciate your comment. I actually do produce an authentic dairy product and even though its PH is completely safe, our modern Food authorities can not deal with a natural dairy product which remains good even in higher than 45 degrees environment.
It simply seems impossible. Also some classic Italian cheeses do good with higher temperatures. The recipes and the fact that some classic products have been made in a time without refrigeration explaines a lot here. Modern authorities here in the us where all this old traditions are missing simply can not deal with it Hi hi. funny to see.
And by the way most cheeses before the age of pasteurisation have naturally developed little worms and that was even at the beginning of the 20th century a common thing and accepted. The old guys even miss it because they say a cheese this way is so delicious and no comparison to modern products. In fact in south Italy, some producers of sheep cheese are still allowed to make it this way.

But do not worry, as long as I have no curier to deliver very fast, I mean before little caterpillars form, I will not send you cheese ;-)

Rota

--- On Sun, 7/18/10, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:

From: C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] transporting food ...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 4:23 PM







 









C. Maria Caeca C. Aquilio Rotae omnibusque in foro S. P. D.



Oh, dear ...I may have given a very wrong impression, quite accidentally!

blame I on caffeine deficiency, to which I am attending!



governor Rota knows the rules and regulations regarding care of, and safety

of, perishable food than I do, and I *certainly* did not mean to imply

otherwise!!!!! I was just thinking out loud, something I try not to do here

...and I apologize if I gave the wrong impression. Believe, if my

Governor's route came as far as Atlanta, his wonderful offerings *would* be

available in my shop (and probably be extremely popular, too). I don't

suppose I could convince him to ...no, too far, sigh.



Vale et valete,

C. Maria Caeca, tucking her head back, firmly, under her wing!

























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

Iulia Rotae omnibusgue S.P.D.

I was thinking about how ice was a special treat (including flavored ice/sorbets) in wealthy aristocratic households and so if they could import ice from the high alps to the city of Rome, then that would be a way for the ancient Romans to also bring perishible items to the city in metal and wood insulated containers.
So with my friend google I found this (complete with sources:
Ice Management
The primary means by which the Romans made use of ice actually had nothing to do with manufacturing it, but everything to do with gathering and storing it. And there were generally two ways to go about it.
•Get It From Somewhere Cold: the Romans to travel to someplace cold ( the Alps) in warm weather. Then, they could "harvest" all the ice they could carry, usually by sawing it off in large blocks that could be loaded onto wagons for the return trip to Rome. The ice was often consumed immediately, but could be stored in icehouses if they were available.
•Get It From Somewhen Cold: Another way to gather ice -- one not involving traveling to a possibly remote, ice-covered location -- is to harvest all the ice you can during the winter months, and then store it in an icehouse. These structures were generally large, insulated, and underground, the idea being that by storing a large quantity of ice in a single, cool location, the chilling effect of the ice itself would help to keep it from melting until it could be enjoyed in the summer months.
*Starting From Scratch a third way to handle ice and this one involvs actually making the ice from scratch, with no refrigeration necessary.
The Romans' ice-making method required that you be in the desert, or at the very least in an area with low humidity, to facilitate heat loss and lower temperatures at night. The method described below was used a lot in North Africa and Palestine, for example:
The Romans would put water into a pit that was well-insulated with straw. The pit would be covered with highly polished shields during the day, to reflect the heat of the sun, while at night the pit would be uncovered so that the water within could lose the maximum thermal energy. Ice often began forming in the evening, and would typically be ready for harvesting by 3 or 4 a.m. Once harvested, the ice would be taken to the nearest icehouse for storage.
This method of manufacturing ice is fairly limited in terms of the amount of ice that can be harvested. The more water placed in the pit, the more resistant it is to freezing overnight. But this method does work, without refrigeration, and without electricity, and was used by the Romans to augment their seasonal ice harvests.
Resources
•Reay Tannahill, Food in History, Three Rivers Press, New York, New York, 1988
•Dan Berger, How can you make ice without electricity or without a fridge?, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov99/941723540.Sh.r.html
•"The Ice House" (http://www.canalmuseum.org.uk/ice/index.html)
(from http://everything2.com/title/Making+Ice+In+Ancient+Rome)
***********************
I would think that in addition to an insulated cart, if they had an understanding of permafrost, they could use the deeper layers of permafrost - while not good for ingesting would make an excellent lining for the edible ice.

Well this is my contribution!

Vale, et valete!

Julia

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Aqvillivs" <c.aqvillivs_rota@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > Does anybody know how fruits and other perishable foods where
> > transported in ancient Rome via land routs and on sea.
> >
> > I always try to make things most authentic here but when it comes to the
> > lack of refrigeration it is getting pretty tricky.
> >
> > Peaches, figs, where quite valuable for instance.
> > I can imagine that certain areas had a quite diverse agriculture
> > therefore, but how were such goods be transported over long distances
> > into areas where the climate did not support the growth of certain
> > fruits etc. ?
> >
> > C.AQV
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>