From C. Maria Caeca, Oct. 31:
C.
Maria Caeca Matribus Patribusque S. P. D.
I have decided to present, here, my reasons for supporting both items
involving new and returning applicants for NR citizenship. I do so for
several reasons. First, I was not the author of these items, and my only
input into their structure came during the discussion of them in the policy
committee, so It cannot be claimed that I have a vested interest in them.
When I first read the text of these proposals, I was, to put it bluntly,
horrified. My first thought was "oh, gods, Joseph McCarthy and the HUAAC
would be so proud of us!" However, I have, over the years observed Caesar
Senator carefully enough to appreciate his knowledge, acuity, and
competence, especially in legal matters. Whether I agree with his views
(which I often don't) is irrelevant. I have a very healthy respect for his
abilities, so I will not arbitrarily dismiss any suggestions he makes.
I listened to what members of the Policy Committee had to say, and did some
serious thinking of my own. I have realized that, above and beyond the
reasons already given to support these items, there is another set of
considerations.
We will, hopefully soon, be completing the public discussion of, and
beginning the process of implementing the provisions outlined in Nova Roma
Reborn. This will be a delicate, long term, complicated process, one that
will require our best work and our willingness to change, make mistakes,
readjust, and change again. In addition, once we have set up our processes,
they will have to be tested. Some will survive contact with actual use in
Toto. Some may need to be tweaked, some may need to be restructured, and
some may not survive. This is normal, of course, but this is emphatically
NOT a time when we will need or benefit from the presence of people who may
not wish us success, or worse, wish, and attempt to, sabotage what we will
be trying to accomplish.
No, Senators, I am not being paranoid. When we had a more relaxed policy
toward dual membership, at least one person, who chose not to leave us
during the mass exodus of what is now RPR membership, forwarded messages
from our list back to the RPR. We absolutely know this because she
inadvertently included a reply from the leader of that organization,
commenting on one of our posts, on the ML. Do we really want anyone
dutifully reporting to organizations that have said, publicly, that they
wish to destroy Nova Roma? Both organizations that we have determined to be
competing organizations have done so, and far more.
Once we begin this process, we will, in some ways, be vulnerable to malign
interference, so I think it prudent that we do everything we can to see to
it that we protect ourselves, so that we have a chance to make the kinds of
major changes that will ultimately lead to a stronger, more dynamic and far
more successful organization, and personally, I'd rather be able to
concentrate on the positive aspects of those changes, then trying to make
them while watching my back.
With profound respect,
Valete Bene!
C. Maria Caeca
From Gnaeus Julius Caesar, Oct. 31:
Caesar
sal.
This
below in a nutshell outlines a significant set of reasons why we need these
policies. Caeca is no Caesarian dupe, before the allegations start on that
score. She is independent and rational, two main reasons why I endorsed her for
praetor. Not because I can depend on her vote, but because I can depend on her
to be objective and to deliver sound commentary. So despite the best efforts of
her opponent to paint her out to be favored by myself and Sulla because of her
voting for some items we both backed, we in fact both support her because she
represents the best of what this Senate should be, analytical, reasonable and balanced.
Both Sulla and I appreciate her input precisely because of this, because she
represents a logical moderate attitude and is a good weather vane for how
things will be received.
Her
rationale below is absolutely correct. These people in RPR that were former
members of NR are not there because they wish us well. They are there because
they couldn't achive a full 2/3rds majority necessary for their constitutional
changes they wanted, and instead of negotiating with the 1/3rd plus of the
Senate that blocked their proposals, they moved straight to a plot to stage an
illegal coup, install a Dictator and oust a number of us. When that failed they
took themselves off, all the while circulating half-truths, misinformation and
simply also downright lies.
Of
course it would be insanity personified to take these people back into the
fold. That anyone could even suggest it speaks to my mind that they want to see
that lot back, pursuing the same policies, and driving us once more into the
schisms of the past. They fired their bolt, they failed and this proposed
legislation is necessary to close the loop and ensure we have the effective
conflicts of interest policy that the IRS stated we needed.
Well
said Caeca. You spoke for common sense and the obvious, which sadly is not
obvious to some either out of misguided adherence to appeasement policies, or
due to their having more loyalty to a gang of failed traitors than to Nova
Roma, a loyalty inspired either by personal reasons or political ideology. Well
said again.
Optime
valete
From Sulla, Nov. 1:
Ave
Senator Audens and Conscript Fathers,
To
date you have not yet issued an apology to Senator Gn. Iulius. You have 24
hours to issue an apology to Senator Gn. Iulius or you will be placed on
moderation due to your actions here in chambers.
If
you are placed on moderation for failure to apologize to Senator Gn. Iulius you
will then not be removed from moderation until you apologize to the entire
Senate as well as Senator Gn. Iulius for your language and disruption of the
Senate session.
Vale,
Lucius
Cornelius Sulla Felix
Princeps
Senatus
From A. Tullia Scholastica, Nov. 1:
A.
Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae conscriptis bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
Consider,
if you will, Maria, the sad plight of an ardent [fictional, although this
scenario is far from impossible] young Romanophile I shall call James Johnson.
He lives in a small town where no one he knows (and probably none of the
residents) shares his intense interest in ancient Rome. He wants to interact
with others who share his academic passion, heads for the public library or a
net café, where access is better than at home, and trolls the Net for groups
sharing his interests. He comes across several such groups: Roman Way, RPR,
Societas Via Romana, what have you, and joins them, as he presumably must in
order to learn more about them and interact with other members. He is eager to
broaden his knowledge about ancient Rome, too, so he investigates the Academia
Minervalis, and signs up for a course on ancient history. He has a look around,
and decides that apart from the Academia, these organizations don't offer him
what he is looking for, so he leaves them. He also investigates NR, and fills
out the citizenship application, but on it is a notice that he cannot join NR
without a prolonged investigation because he was, however briefly, a member of
the RPR and of the home organization of the Academia, with which he is still
connected. In order to be truthful on his application, he has “confessed†to
these forays into forbidden groups.
Now
NR looks like just the sort of place he is looking for—but from his
perspective, either he is not allowed to join, or he must go through a
prolonged process of investigation into his other memberships before being
accepted. Do you actually think that he will feel welcome even if approved?
Would you feel welcome under such circumstances?
Now
suppose that a censor (or both of them) has / have wasted copious amounts of
time investigating this young man's heinous crime of exploring his options for
learning more about ancient Rome by interacting with others of similar
interests in other groups, including, but not limited, to those considered
‘competing’ with NR. After a search, the censor(s) determine that there is
nothing other than the equivalent of sowing wild oats in his previous
memberships elsewhere, so s/he / they approve(s) this young man--ah, but that
is not the end of it; they must contact the consuls, who in turn must add this
application to the Senate's agenda for full investigation and voting on a
private Senatús Consultum dealing with a single application request. Will our
prospective applicant want to join an organization so paranoid? Maybe not.
Indeed, probably not. Will other application processing be slowed considerably
to accommodate such nonsense? You bet. The same people who complain about
"slow" processing of citizenship applications have demanded an
FBI-like vetting of this eager young man--all because he was interested in
checking out other Roman-oriented groups! What a waste! What's next?
Fingerprints and retina scans? Buccal smears?
As
written, these consulta would block such persons, would deter perfectly
legitimate applicants genuinely interested in ancient Rome (and anyone whom
they might inform about this: college friends, reenactors, etc., for example),
who had spent perhaps a whole day in the RPR or whatever and had no use for
such paranoia on the part of NR. That would be a huge detriment to us. Seems
like overkill to me, but then I prefer reason and logic to emotional
responses--including paranoia. Last I heard, that condition was still classed
as a mental illness. I pass over the matter of those who, like Senator Audens,
are in NR as well as one or another of these so-called competing organizations,
but are, pro tempore at least, safe. The loss of Senator Audens, which could be
accomplished by a minor change to the text, would be a huge detriment to
NR—whether or not that be evident to the writer of these texts.
Vale.
From Marcus Audens, Nov. 1:
Ave
Honored Princip Senatus;
In
actuality , I can remember that much worse has been said, which were lies, on
this list. However, since my ideas and opinions do not matter here, such is the
last that I will bother you with. I have said what I wanted to say, and I have
proof of what I have said, even if neither you nor Caesar will recognize it for
what it is. I am amused that you would take this action, that you threaten
against me, considering the past. However, I suppose that such is simply the
way things go. Since you and others have tried so hard to have me relieved from
the Senate, I will give you what you have wished for. I now resign from the
Nova Roma Senate. I did so once before when overcome with Depression, but there
will be no such reaction along those lines this time.
Very
Respectfully;
Marcus
Audens
From Sulla, Nov. 1:
Ave
Audens,
I
was not Princeps Senatus at those times. I am Princeps Senatus now and I will
not tolerate that type of language here while I am Princeps Senatus.
As
Censor, I accept your resignation from the Senate.
Vale,
Lucius
Cornelius Sulla Felix
From Gnaeus Julius Caesar, Nov. 1:
Caesar
Scholasticae sal.
You
talk of the loss of Audens. Nothing in either of these proposed SC`s is going
to affect his status as a senator. If that was your inference, then you are
grossly mistaken. I have no intention of addressing those inside NR. Yes, that
means we are closing the stable door with some inside already, but in the wider
picture rather than start divisive witch hunts internally, it is better to
close the doors on only future members. If those with dual membership
subsequently become a huge issue, well the House can always revisit that - but
of course those people would be known by then and thus subject to our Code of
Conduct in NR.
As
for your fictional character, what you fail to mention is that after being a
member of a competing organization, let us say RPR (and the others you quoted
are not deemed competing), he will likely have been surrounded by people who
are utterly hostile to Nova Roma as it is currently constituted and the current
senatorial majority, His immersion will have been utterly to the negative, and
as a keen young soul he would likely have asked his RPR buddies when he
stumbled over NR. We can imagine what Maior would say and Plauta. Automatically
he will likely have a tainted view for who will he believe? Well of course
those people he knows already - Maior and Plauta et al.
The
likelihood is that if he hasn`t come to notice through the grapevine, he will
be just fine. Let`s not over dramatize all of this. The way in which you have
to word legislation such as this requires that we seal off those we know are
hostile (Plauta, Maior et al) as well as those that realistically could have
been directed here.
These
items are necessary and if we don't do this we have an incomplete shield and
thus have failed to deliver what the IRS directed we required, and if Master
Johnson has to take a pass, so be it. It is one of those situations where in
order to deliver this policy an occasional egg may have to get broken, and yes
it might have Mr. Johnson's name on it, but I am fairly confident he can
quickly surmount the administrative hurdles.
Also,
since you were keen to subject new citizens to the 90 day hurdle, this is
likely to be far less onerous than that.
Optime
vale
From C. Maria Caeca, Nov. 1:
C.
Maria Caeca A. Tulliae Scholasticae S. P. D.
It
might surprise you to learn that I raised a scenario very similar to the one
you present in the Policies Committee …practically the same, and very nearly in
the same words, as I remember. (well, similar enough). This type of thing could
happen, yes, and it does concern me, because, had I not joined NR when I did, I
might have, during the period of my own investigations of groups and
organizations dedicated to the study of Ancient Rome (at least in their public
rhetoric) indiscriminately joined every one I could find, and then filtered
them using my own standards of content and conduct. I would have then been the
applicant you describe, and I would have had to either go through the process
we are considering, or chosen not to join NR. If handled with tact and courtesy
by the Censura, I would have understood, and followed the necessary procedures.
However, I think there are enough safeguards that allow for such situations.
First, the Censura is staffed with people, not automatons. So, it will be the
duty of the person who first contacts the applicant (usually a scribus, at
least when I served in the Censura) to fully explain why these policies exist,
the procedures that we will need to follow, and do so in as courteous and as
positive a manner as possible. It should also be expected of that scribe that
he/she maintain contact with the prospective citizen, to keep that citizen
informed as to the status of the application.
Next,
I seriously doubt that the investigation will be prolonged and/or arduous.
True, the Censors may have to wait a while until the next Senate session, but
if there is no good reason for not admitting the applicant to citizenship, it
should be easy for the Senate to so determine, and then the process will
continue quickly and smoothly.
It
would be lovely to be able to welcome in all comers, but experience has taught
us that it might not be to our advantage to do so, and, since I doubt seriously
that our gates will be bombarded by hundreds of such applicants, I rather think
that this process will actually take less time than the previous probationary
period.
Vale,
C.
Maria Caeca
From Sulla, Nov. 1:
Ave,
I
think a 90 day waiting period before one could become a citizen is a far more
arduous process than any investigation that might have to be conducted.
Vale,
Sulla
From C. Maria Caeca, Nov. 1:
C.
Maria Caeca Matribus Patribusque Conscripti S. P. D.
You
know, I have to admit that not only did I not mind the waiting period, but I
found it helpful. Of course, at that time, prospective citizens did have access
to the ML (not a bad idea, actually, even with the contentiousness at the time)
though I suspect that it is in our best interests to limit membership to active
citizens. The probationary period allowed me to ask a million questions on the
Newroman list (and I was more annoying than a 4 year old), and also allowed me
some time to observe how NR functions, get an idea of the issues being
discussed, and some idea of the people here. (although I spent my first year
being confused by Roman names). By the time I became an active citizen, I was
somewhat prepared to begin to take part in community life, at least, able to
read material with some intelligence and understanding, so, while our current
policy is certainly more efficient, and does bring citizens in more quickly,
the probationary period did have, to my mind, some elements to recommend it,
and, honestly, I’m glad I joined NR when it was still in effect.
With
profound respect,
C.
Maria Caeca
Reply
From Pompeia Minucia, Nov. 1:
Pompeia
Minucia Princeps Senatus Conscriptii S.P.D.
Cornelius
Sulla: Senator Audens didn't 'insult Caesar's legislation". To begin with,
this is not Caesar's legislation...it was drafted by him, proposed by him to
the policy committee who adopted it for presentation to this august body. When
this Senate votes for it, it will become legislation. Until then, it is an item
for discussion. Senator Audens calls it 'hatred legislation'. In his post, he
is conflating events of the past, to wit, people leaving due to insults
(putting matters mildly) with people who made huge trouble for the NR in 2010,
trying to steal money, putting us in trouble with the IRS, etc.. I understand
that this may be tedious, but it is still not an ad hominem attack on Caesar.
You piped in, Sulla, in your capacity as Princeps Senatus and advised Senator
Audens that you didn't want any more of what you felt were harsh words, so
things might not escalate out of hand. Your call. And given that Caesar had
written Audens two very generously candid rebuttals, and with the Senate not
hearing further from Audens, the matter should have ended at that.
Nope.
We read from you today Sulla, that you are demanding a Senate House apology
from Audens to Caesar, for his 'insult' to Caesar by criticizing the proposal,
issuing him a "24 hour deadline".
There
seems to be a double standard at play today, regarding the discipline of the
Princeps Senatus. Let's draw a comparison: Caesar Senator, in response to the
remarks of Tutor Consul regarding one item, called this Consul's thinking
"misguided nonsense" and "waffling". But of course he
indicated that these words were delivered 'with respect' :
just as insulting as anything Audens presented. Tell me, when is Caesar's
deadline to appear before this august body, to render a most humble apology in
the presence of us all for insulting the Consul? Strangely, I haven't read a
thing from you in regard to Caesar's naughtiness.
.I
know as well as many Senators that Audens has friends in other Roman Groups,
that he has known for years. Audens has never been any trouble to NR, other
than the odd blast of rhetoric here in the Senate. He has been one of our
earlier members and has done a great deal for NR. Lets not forget that he has
presented with good ideas here in the Senate over the years. Was there an
agenda to goad him into resigning?
I
voted for these items in the policy committee election, but with the obvious
understanding that they would, like other proposals, be discussed in the Senate
forum. I didn't expect everyone to fall in love with them on first read, and
low and behold there have been objections. Perhaps a more detailed preamble
with regards to why these proposals are being made and their necessity would
have been helpful, but hindsight is 20/20. The proposals are wordy, and if
Senators weren't aware they were in the works, they may wonder, quite
legitimately, why some changes are necessary. Not everyone sits on the Policy
Committee.
No
doubt there are some, not all, who will think that my words are not founded on
logic, but rather on friendly persuasion, as Minucius Audens is my
Paterfamilias. I concede that I'm motivated by a bit of both. Regardless, I am
saddened at today's events, of Virtue and fair play being conspicuous by their
absence.
Valete
From Sulla, Nov. 1:
Ave
Po,
Actually
that was not correct, he just needed to apologize to Caesar - only if he got
moderated then the Senate. However, I am sorry you disagree with me. His
inflammatory response was uncalled for given this House and I would like to
think that I would hold anyone just as accountable, even myself. This is not
the ML, this is the Senate. He could have expressed his disagreement for the
proposed legislation in a less aggressive and less discriminatory tone and that
would have been just fine. He choose to go the route he did. All he needed to
do was just to apologize to Caesar. He instead chose to resign...his choice.
He
bears the responsibility for his action.
With
utmost respect,
Sulla
From Sulla, Nov. 1:
Ave,
One
last point, when Caesar made his post no one in this House complained to me
about it. No one at all. However, I found Audens post crossed the line in
civility and acted within my capacity as Princeps Senatus. We all have
different standards of civility, yet out of our different standards the end of
it stands that no one complained of Caesars assessment of the Consuls job
performance. Just to point out this "double standard."
Respectfully,
Sulla
From Pompeia Minucia, Nov. 1:
Pompeia
Minucia Princeps Senatus Conscriptii S.P.D.
I'm
not sure when you said that he had to apologize to Caesar privately rather than
in the Senate before us all, but my point is , there were really no apology
indicated at all. A proposal was insulted, not a person. Caesar's remarks to
Tudor Consul were every bit as insulting by your definition.
Audens
was disciplined and Caesar wasn't, bottom line, by your definition.
So,
I'm really not so wrong after all.
Valete
From Pompeia Minucia, Nov. 1:
P.
Minucia sal
Sulla,
maybe nobody was on line at the time. I wouldn't assume a general tacit
approval of something as 'ok' because nobody has complained.
Valete
From Pompeia Minucia, Nov. 1:
Pompeia
Sulla sal
You
disciplined one Senator and not the other by your standards/definition. It
really has nothing to do with nobody complaining about it.
From Sulla, Nov 1:
Ave,
Part
of me does not really wish to continue this thread because I believe the matter
could have easily been resolved by Audens who chose to escalate the matter out
of orbit instead of apologize. A simple apology to Caesar would have resolved
this.
However,
using your logic if Audens was criticizing a document and not the writer who
authored the document, which I disagree with that given the inflammatory
language used in Audens post. One could argue that Caesar was not criticizing
the person, Tutor but the Consul's job performance.
Actually,
given that the Senate has carried on conversations by a number of individuals
after Caesar's posts and I had received no notification from anyone, considering
that we are all present given the quorum of the Senate I stand by the
conclusion that tacit approval was given. We are all listed as present in the
Senate and all have the ability to speak both publicly or privately. I have
been in communication with a number of Senators privately since this matter
became an issue - none of them raised any other issue at all. In conclusion the
only issue was Audens inflammatory post - based on my interpretation that his
inflammatory language crossed the line of civility. It's unfortunate we
disagree, I still respect your opinion always, Pompeia.
Respectfully,
Sulla
From Gnaeus Julius Caesar, Nov. 1:
Salve
amica,
Firstly,
I do understand your emotions at this moment. Let me stress that there was NO
agenda to end up here, because no one predicted these two posts firstly, and
also I had no wish to see another 'crisis" erupt as it might likely
because he came across as a likable chap.
Secondly,
he had been approaching this point since 2012. I am not sure if you are aware
but probably on three, maybe four separate occasions he engaged Sulla and
myself in email exchanges where he got pretty pointed and vitriolic, and the
rason was as I said in the Senate, because he hates being told what to do and
saw being told no to serving on two boards as a personal affront. He has
carried that grudge to this day, and a number of times has vented in public,
where without alluding specifically to us, it is clear he targeted Sulla and
myself. In the interests of preserving the peace and hoping his anger would
blow itself out for a time, bot of us took it on the chin and
(uncharacteristically) bit our tongues so to speak, to no avail.
Thirdly,
he insists on perpetuating this false view about the events of 2010. He is not
some doddering old relic, he has a sharp mind and apparently in person an even
sharper and rougher tongue, yet for years many of us have all bitten our
tongues over his infamous lectures on incivility. In sort he has had so much
slack cut for him, yet despite that he kept on and on regurgitating this
nonsense, to the point where he essentially says that this proposed SC is
"hatred". He is clearly accusing me of that. I know that, he knows
it, Sulla knows it... That is serious because it isn't just a slap to a consul
over being unprepared, even though I reached out prior to the call to order and
offered to help (behind the scenes). No, it can lead to these accusations permeating
through NR and given the allegation that can lead to the sort of civil
disruptions we saw in the past. Underpinning it all is not some highbrow
aversion to the SC's but a total fury that because of legislation like this he
didn't get his way and to serve on the RPR board. Well, what can I say? As
before, sorry but tough..he cant get an exemption.
Lastly,
I have to wonder if Audens set this course deliberately, for RPR is trying to
rebuild its Senate and I would not be surprised if Quintilanus has been
offering him a seat again. Really though, it was always going to come to this
at some point, simply because he won't tolerate being told no. That is his
issue and the Gods know Sulla and I have bent over backwards over the years,
putting cold towels on his head, trying to calm him down, all again to no
avail. Let us not forget that this cuddly old ex-sea dog (or so he appears) had
fallen out with most, if not all, of the principals in the RPR mob when they
were in NR. He has a temper. You know that. Did I want it to end this way?
Nope, I'd rather he had grown up and accepted no, and simply let it drop, but
it isn't his way, and I think you know that too. I regret that his
pigheadedness got him to this point, but to me it was always going to happen.
He had to choose. Also I know that after being called out by me, he would have
a tough time of it, but that was his choice, and I had reached the breaking
point with him
Vale
bene
Caesar
From Statia Cornelia Aeternia, Nov. 1:
Salvete
Omnes:
Audens resigning Nova Roma a dark day. I remember when I joined what almost 16
years ago and Senator Audens I think was Consul then. To think so much History
and time spent here only for Audenti to quickly resign and say goodbye to only
two people in Nova Roma. One Scholastica and our esteemed Virgo Maxima and
Senator C. Maria Caeca- I know Audens was fond of Caeca but the interactions I
remember with the Magistra. I don't remember them being the best of friends? Is
this suddenly the old addage of "The enemy of my enemy is now my friend
angle?" Many questions arise on this most tragic departure of a well
notable citizen. Gives you a bit of perspective if you think about it.
Couple things I would like to point out as I am going through recent threads.
1. Audens threw a tantrum and left. No one made him resign, there was no
"virtual" gun pointed to his skull. There were no threats to make him
leave. Yes Audens could have apologized to Caesar-of course he would have
guffawed about it and raised a fuss. But the bottom line is he could have but
he chose to leave instead. He made the elective choice to resign now sadly we
are all left to deal with his decision.
2.
I found nothing wrong with Caesar's response to the Consul. He gave the truth,
he gave examples of error. I could see maybe Caesar was too harsh if he had not
given examples and just unleashed pure fury. If we cannot correct the Consul if
he has done something in error. Then why are we here as Senators? Why is this
all here? When we were Consuls did we not get chewed out by our Senators when
made an erroneous suggestion? I know I surely did and I know I am not the only
one. Why the sudden "kid glove" treatment?
As
a side for beloved Pompeia- if I were in Sulla's place and someone had did this
to you. I would certainly demand them to apologize point blank.
Valete
bene,
Statia
Cornelia Aeternia
From A. Tullia Scholastica, Nov. 1:
A.
Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae conscriptis bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
Once
again I am pasting your reply below to facilitate my response.
C.
Maria Caeca A. Tulliae Scholasticae S. P. D.
It
might surprise you to learn that I raised a scenario very similar to the one
you present in the Policies Committee
ATS:
Glad to hear that you did!
…practically
the same, and very nearly in the same words, as I remember. (well, similar
enough).
ATS:
Funny, I don't recall doing a Vulcan mind-meld with you; ;-) that might have
resulted in very similar scenarios being produced by both of us.
This
type of thing could happen, yes, and it does concern me, because, had I not
joined NR when I did, I might have, during the period of my own investigations
of groups and organizations dedicated to the study of Ancient Rome (at least in
their public rhetoric) indiscriminately joined every one I could find, and then
filtered them using my own standards of content and conduct.
ATS:
As would several applicants, particularly the young. They often have more time
on their hands for such things.
I
would have then been the applicant you describe, and I would have had to either
go through the process we are considering, or chosen not to join NR. If handled
with tact and courtesy by the Censura, I would have understood, and followed
the necessary procedures.
ATS:
Perhaps you would, but almost certainly some might not, and we would lose
prospective citizens, especially those who have no use for stultifying and
counterproductive bureaucracy. The instant gratification crowd, too, might be
upset, to say the least. All the tact and courtesy in the world might not help.
I have seen quite a bit of impatience and such even when dealing with
admittance to entities other than Nova Roma despite extensive explanations for
the absence of instantaneous admission.
However,
I think there are enough safeguards that allow for such situations. First, the
Censura is staffed with people, not automatons. So, it will be the duty of the
person who first contacts the applicant (usually a scribus, at least when I
served in the Censura) to fully explain why these policies exist, the
procedures that we will need to follow, and do so in as courteous and as
positive a manner as possible. It should also be expected of that scribe that
he/she maintain contact with the prospective citizen, to keep that citizen
informed as to the status of the application.
ATS:
The scriba might have to be in the Senate in order for THAT to happen--and be
privy to the censor's private mail.
Next,
I seriously doubt that the investigation will be prolonged and/or arduous.
ATS:
Checking into memberships in multiple organizations might well be both.
True,
the Censors may have to wait a while until the next Senate session, but if
there is no good reason for not admitting the applicant to citizenship, it
should be easy for the Senate to so determine, and then the process will
continue quickly and smoothly.
Possibly,
but I have seen otherwise. When paranoia reigns, as it does all too often these
days, anything can happen.
It
would be lovely to be able to welcome in all comers, but experience has taught
us that it might not be to our advantage to do so, and, since I doubt seriously
that our gates will be bombarded by hundreds of such applicants, I rather think
that this process will actually take less time than the previous probationary
period.
ATS:
While I share your doubts that we would be bombarded with hundreds of such
applicants, I remember over 20 every day when numerous Africans thought that
they could physically move to Nova Roma and be safe from the turmoil in their
own countries. It is not impossible for something similar to happen regarding
this situation. Amica, this is unnecessary in the instance I described, that of
someone whose membership in the other organizations was quite brief, say a day
to a week or so. Deterring new applicants with little patience for hoop-jumping
of this sort merely because they looked into other groups is detrimental to NR.
One may justify that sort of thing for those in the governing bodies of such
groups, but for short-term members, it is paranoid overkill. Simple membership,
especially brief membership, should not be any impediment to NR citizenship.
Goodness, we ask less of any prospective neo-Nazis; do we have a web page
listing such organizations and demanding such procedures if any such
individuals seek citizenship with us? For them, a simple declaration seems to
suffice.
Regarding
the former probationary period, as you note elsewhere, the tirocinium was quite
beneficial to the new citizens; it gave them the opportunity to ease themselves
into Nova Roma and to ask questions without feeling that they should know
everything already and be ashamed to ask. It also ensured that they knew
something about ancient Rome and about NR, which to me at least are very good
things.
Vale,
C.
Maria Caeca
Vale,
et valete.
From Sulla, Nov. 2:
Ave,
There
is a reason for that, Scholastica, that we are more concerned for competing
organizations than neo-Nazis. First, our organization was audited by the IRS
due to the actions of former members who are members of competing organization.
Have you ever experienced an IRS Audit? Secondly, there are potential conflicts
of interest issues if citizens end up running for office and becoming board
members. Better to educate our new members with full disclosure right at the
start.
Back
to my first point, maybe the next time this organization faces an IRS Audit the
stresses and work required to meet that audit should be spread upon the entire
Senate so each member of this body feel exactly the stresses and pressure
required. This seems to be the ONLY way individuals like you, who seem to
minimize the threat of the IRS removing our 501c3 status would mean. I do not
understand why you maximize the Neo Nazi's lurking in the secret closet whereas
you minimize the real, tangible and verifiable threat that Nova Roma has gone
though! I just do not understand that rationale.
There
are still plenty of unanswered questions that we should still want to know! For
example, Do we know who that individual was who turned us into the IRS? Was it
just ONE person or more than one complaint to the IRS? I'll tell you right now,
I want to know who that person(s) was and until I know who that person is, I
believe we should adequately maintain our borders to minimize any chance that
that person might try to sneak back into Nova Roma. If that means we delay
someone's entry into Nova Roma a few days to do some adequate checking.
Maybe
it would be better for us to j
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)