Another title for this post might be "How to avoid learning about Rome".
We have chronicled here the shady dealings of the Nova Roma "senate", the expulsion of many leading pagans and the sharp decline in membership. Now let's take a look at one reason that membership has taken a sudden dive.
The new year brings new "magistrates", and two of those magistrates ("praetors") are charged with oversight of the Nova Roma discussion groups. This means managing the hand-full of Yahoo groups that Nova Roma uses as the base of their virtual "country". Whereas most normal people would say that forum moderators set forum guidelines, in Nova Roma the "praetors" "promulgate" an "Edict of Moderation".
Before we go on, it is important to understand that there are two Yahoo groups that are used for general discussion. The "Main List" (ML) that is open to "citizens" only and the "Forum Hospitum" (FH) which is open to anyone. Message archives of both these Yahoo groups are closed to non-subscribers, and the "Forum Hospitum" rules include this not very hospitable note:
WARNING: Discussion of any matters internal to Nova Roma, such as Nova Roman politics and issues, is not permitted. Failure to abide by this prohibition could result in warnings or moderation or revocation of membership of this list.
In other words, criticism of the "government" is not allowed.
Now on to the matter of forum guidelines. One "C. Petronius Dexter praetor" posted "PRAETORIAL EDICT CPD StCVIA 65-01: MODERATION EDICT FOR THE FORUM NOVAE ROMAE (AKA MAIN LIST OR ML)" that includes among its points the following:
6. Except for the openings and closings, all Latin text posted on the ML must be accompanied by an English translation so that those less familiar with Latin will be able to understand it.It should be noted that no language other than Latin is mentioned as needing translation. This provision has prompted a flurry of activity, much of it centered on this "unfair treatment" of Latin, resulting in this, posted three days later:
I, Aulus Liburnius Hadrianus, Tribune of Nova Roma, pronounce
intercessio against the "PRAETORIAL EDICT CPD StCVIA 65-01: MODERATION OF THE FORUM NOVAE ROMAE (AKA MAIN LIST OR ML)" promulgated by praetor Gaius Petronius Dexter and praetrix Statia Cornelia Valeriana Iuliana Aeternia.
Nobody in Nova Roma seems to say anything. It is all promulgate and pronounce.
This was not the end of the matter, though, as "Cn. Iulius Caesar consul" posted the following reply:
EX OFFICIO
The Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunici regulates the issuance of an intercessio. As was noted earlier in the Forum the Lex Didia requires:
--------------
a. The official name(s) of the citizen(s) who has requested the Tribunus Plebis to issue the intercessio, or the official name(s) of the citizen(s) on whose behalf the Tribunus has provided auxilium ex officio.
b. The official name and office of the magistrate(s) against whose act or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been interposed.
c. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s).
---------------
I am sure that this is not the first documented case of virtual nation red tape, but it is a shining example of what can be done by people who really like hearing themselves talk. Next, a person called "Cato" provided an example of what a Nova Roma "intercessio" should look like. It is too long to post here and too confusing to excerpt. He then goes on to support "Caesar" in his claim that the actual "intercessio" was invalid, but then he provides his own claim against the original moderation guidelines:
The consul was absolutely correct in deciding that the intercessio as pronounced was invalid under our law.
However, since what I have written is, in fact, true, and since an illegal restriction on any citizen to participate in the fora of the Republic is unconstitutional, I hereby claim the right of provocatio against the edict of moderation published by the praetor C. Petronius Dexter.
He then winds up a discussion of some of the finer points of the Nova Roma "constitution" by saying "on behalf of my Constitutional rights as a Nova Roman I appeal to the comitia populi tributa to judge whether or not the edict of moderation is valid."
This was followed by "A. Tullia Scholastica" who said:
As a citizen who may well be affected by this provision, and who has been privately threatened when I informed certain parties that I would not violate pedagogical principles by complying with this provision, I support you in your provocatio, and add my own. Shall we have a class action provocatio?
She does not elaborate on the threats, but the tendency for Nova Roma "citizens" to resort to threats of violence has already been documented here. "Cn. Iulius Caesar consul" then replied:
"Shall we have a class action provocatio?"That is the final word so far: nothing can be done "because we don’t have a process at all".
As there is currently no defined process of provocatio, no you cannot have it even if you want it – for the simple reason we don’t have any process at all yet, let alone one that could even consider such a possibility. Your support of the claim of provocatio is noted but irrelevant as we don’t have a process that requires it, because we don’t have a process at all.
To sum up: "praetors" made new message board guidelines ("edict on moderation"). A "tribune" tried to block them ("intercessio"). A "consul" rejected the block on red-tape grounds. A "citizen" supported the "consul" but then made his own objection ("provocatio"). Another citizen "has been privately threatened" over this. In the end there is no resolution "because we don’t have a process at all".
Throughout all this, no mention has ever been made of Roman law, culture or customs. The focus has been entirely on Nova Roma "laws" and internal procedures. We are nearly two weeks into the year and this is the only accomplishment thus far. It is not hard to see why people get fed up and depart those virtual shores so quickly.
