IMPORTANT!!! Inactive members during the past six months.

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salvete!

In accordance with I,7 of our regula fundamentalis
(Membership in the Societas Via Romana is not to be sought for itself, simply to belong passively. The Societas urges every member to find specific modes of active contribution for themselves in one or more of its institutions. Membership in the Societas is a quest of exploration, an instrument of self-improvement and an offer of service. We define activity as doing one or more of the following things at least once in six months: posting on one or more of our official avenues, voting or participating in elections, joining in scheduled chat sessions and/or real life meetings and writing contributions for the site.

(a) Should a member not meet the requirements for activity set in the above paragraph in the sixth month of his membership, he will be informed of his or her status by the Censores acting collegially, inquiring of said member is still interested in membership.

(aa) If the Censores receive a negative answer, the inactive member will be removed from the Societas Via Romana

(ab) If the Censores receive no answer within a term of three weeks, the Censores shall pass this name on to the Praetores, who shall remove this member from the Societas Via Romana by means of an Arbitrium. Said member shall be informed of his right of Provocatio therein. If this does not happen, the removal of this member will be considered illegal.

(b) Should a member not meet the requirements for activity set in the above paragraph for a third consecutive time, said member's case will be passed on to the Praetores immediately, who must then decide whether or not to use an Arbitrium to remove the member)

To be short : I will now publish the names of the people who weren't active during the last six months. If someone believes someone is mentioned, but has been active please let us now by this forum or by email (censores@societasviaromana.org).

- Livia Vatinia Aprilia
- Teresia Oregonia Medica
- Priscilla Vedia Serena
- Persepheia Eleutheria Hadreana
- Anyte Aletheia Helena
- Flavia Valeria Octavia
- Marcus Antonius Pulcher
- Lucius Salix Cicero
- Aletheia Iulia Hypathia
- Sokrates Kinetos Barbaros
- Alexandra Eleutheria Eudocia
- Hamilcar Iunius Massiensis
- Flavius Claudius Iulianus
- Sokrates Eleutherius Callistus
- Caius Iulius Claudianus
- Appius Claudius Falco
- Lucianus Dionysius Bibens
- Hiera Iulia Minervina
- Caius Ælius Ericius
- Domna Durmia Cintia
- Marce Moravi Horati Pisci (under that name)

All these people (except the last one ) will also receive an email (and when their adress bounces, a PM through this forum). If they do not respond within three weeks their names will be given to the preatores who will remove them from the alba (with the right of provocatio).

Valete,

The Censores
Quintus Claudius Locatus
Marcus Pomponius Lupus

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salvete!


For all forum users who are not a member of the SVR:

If you have been inactive during the last six months, you will receive a PM. If you do not respond within three weeks, your names will be given to the aediles, who will remove you from this message-board.

Valete,


the Censores

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete,

I can account for both Bibens and Claudianus. Claudianus is still too wrapped up in irl activities and Bibens... well, he's the sponsor of charioteer Bibax!

More comments will follow later.

Valete,
Draco

[Aldus Marius]

Salvete, Censores...

Caius Aelius Ericius has not posted, but he *has* visited the Forum recently-enough to have read my "Idea Factory" thread. He has stated on his own e-List that he would like to come by more often, if this is the quality of material that's been going up. We are now discussing Roman theme parks (one of the ideas) on his List.

Lucius Salix Cicero moved from Hispania back to Britannia Province some months ago, and immediately ran into computer problems of a hardware nature. I think we will hear more from him once he gets questions of employment, housing, machinery and others settled, or more settled than they have been at least.

These are as many of the missing as I can account for.

I know it's been less than six mos., but has anyone heard from Ursus or Xanthippa?

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete,

I haven't heard of Xantippe or Ursus. Last time I heard Xantippe was travelling a lot. Pisc recently sent mail to Ursus wrt the collegial elections; not sure if he replied.

That said, here are my comments on this whole thing.

When this rule was implemented, first by means of edict, then by writing it into the RF in September 2002, I very hesitantly supported it. At that time, when we were switching from mailing lists to forums, many of the active members were a little frustrated with the inactive members but every attempt to make them active or at least reply to inquiries why they were not (some people just don't like to make postings - a completely understandable fact) active failed.

However.

Personally I don't see the point of this. It's too late to change the RF before the next 'purging' if I may use that term but I would definitely like to discuss it after the collegial elections. When Mus first posted it as a consular edict last year I would have vetoed it but I was censor (and they can't veto or post edicta ).

Okay, so by doing this we get an idea of who's still interested, following the list etc etc. But that's the only meager thing we gain, and compared to the effort it takes, it's barely something. Actually to me it always had the uncomfortable connotation of being a witch-hunt. Certainly when last year Atticus began interfering with our tasks and was eagerly composing lists of "lazy people" (note that the consul himself has not posted for a few months) I got this feeling.

I understand that some may wonder about the fact that some people become members, subscribe to the forum and never come back. Such things just happen. Additionally, I would like to point out that, suppose we fall back after this 'census' to about 30 members, I wonder how we will persuade people to join us. Larger numbers make a better impression and may convince people to join, even if many of those numbers are not a reflection of our activity.

That's my opinion.

Valete!
Draco

[Marcus Pomponius Lupus]

Salve mi Draco,

A discussion we've had before, anyway, here are my comments:

Actually to me it always had the uncomfortable connotation of being a witch-hunt. Certainly when last year Atticus began interfering with our tasks

First of all, a witch-hunt requires people with malevolent motivations who want to get rid of certain other persons, I sure hope that the censores (both now and in the past) are not regarded as such.

And second, a witch-hunt usually isn't very forgiving. What we do is simply select every member who hasn't made a single posting in six months or more. We send them a friendly reminder about their membership and if they respond by saying they are no longer interested or if they don't respond for another three weeks, we consider them not to be interested in the SVR anymore. I don't really see what's wrong with that, should they change their mind afterwards, then they can simply re-join.

Atticus started interfering last year, that's true, but eventually he had no impact at all; the list you and I then brought forward was entirely composed by us, no one else. And I might add that not a single member whose membership we then ended has complained, meaning we didn't make any mistakes. Looks more like a clean operation in which we picked out all those members not interested anymore than a witch-hunt, doesn't it ?

Additionally, I would like to point out that, suppose we fall back after this 'census' to about 30 members, I wonder how we will persuade people to join us. Larger numbers make a better impression and may convince people to join, even if many of those numbers are not a reflection of our activity.

Here I simply do not agree. I don't believe we should persuade potential members to join us by our sheer inactive numbers... Anyone who joins because "they have over 200 members - waw"' will soon find out that over 150 haven't made postings in the last 6 months. Besides, why would someone who is interested in the SVR as a concept ultimately decide not to join because there aren't over 100 members ? Quality over Quantity, no ?

Vale bene
Lupus

[Primus Aurelius Timavus]

Lupus beat me to my own reply! I agree with what he said and would add that there are plenty of safeguards built into the process to ensure that no one is unfairly removed. First, anyone contacted by the censors can simply reply that he or she is still interested in membership and thereby remain enrolled (at least for another 12 months of inactivity). Second, he or she can obtain "active status" by posting, joining a chat, or even voting. Third, once the removal process has begun, a member can appeal to the praetors regarding his or her case and, if denied, appeal to the Comitia through the right of provocatio.

Given all the above, it is hard to see how a witch hunt could be sustained against someone who wants to remain a member of the Societas but who has merely been too busy to contribute in the last six months.

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete viri nobiles,

Okay, I said that it came across as a witch hunt, not that it actually was one.

I understand your points of criticism on my own points: the system does have enough safeguards and indeed someone who joins SVR merely by being impressed is not very likely to become an active member. But I think that my main point, namely that we don't really gain much by it, still stands. Additionally, larger orgs are also more prone to be taken seriously (even if we have 80% of our members doing nothing). Making somewhat of an impression is still important for the pr. There is some amount of truth in what you say, mi Lupe, but are you sure you're not being too idealistic?

But of course, as long as the majority among you will support this rule I'll simply abide by it and accept it. I don't intend to start an "I-will-not-be-silenced"-campaign . I hope that in the long run I'll be proven wrong, then so you can later all mock sour Draco!

Valete!
Draco

[Tiberius Dionysius Draco]

Salvete,

I remember meeting Lucius Salix Cicero in the chatroom about 4-5 months ago. Does this count as being active?

Valete,

Tiberius Dionysius Draco

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salvete,

Some more members have resonded they're still interested in the SVR:

- Flavius Claudius Iulianus
- Marcus Antonius Pulcher
- Maharbal Iunius Massiensis


So that's three less. For short, this is the list of those who have not yet responded

- Livia Vatinia Aprilia
- Teresia Oregonia Medica
- Priscilla Vedia Serena
- Persepheia Eleutheria Hadreana
- Anyte Aletheia Helena
- Flavia Valeria Octavia
- Aletheia Iulia Hypathia
- Sokrates Kinetos Barbaros
- Alexandra Eleutheria Eudocia
- Sokrates Eleutherius Callistus
- Caius Iulius Claudianus
- Appius Claudius Falco
- Hiera Iulia Minervina
- Domna Durmia Cintia

They still have two weeks and 6 days to respond (I like this witch-hunt )

Loc

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

I remember meeting Lucius Salix Cicero in the chatroom about 4-5 months ago. Does this count as being active?

I think it does, according to the Regula.

btw happy hunting mi Locate ,
Draco

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

shall I cook you some pray?

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salve Locate
A while ago i talked with Claudianus through msn messenger. I believe he said that he was to occupied at the moment to become more active. I think the man is to busy with his job and home to visit the forum and post regulary. To be honest, i don't remember that the rest of the people who are on your list, ever visited the forum or even posted?
Anyway i think that our current regulations are a good one. We don't do anything wrong here. They have a about a month to respond to this letter. If they don't do it, its their loss not ours.
vale Romulus

[Anonymous]

Caírete sas,

I am rather new to the SVR and it's the forum, though maybe you'll appreciate an objective oppinion from someone who is in the most an outstander (for little time to come). And eventhough I haven't been that serious these last days, I assure you, I am now.

There is truth in both oppinions. You cannot have a "dead" community, nor can you go about deleting people every census. I do see that our censores are rightuous people, and the methods of the "republic" are good. But maybe, in order that we don't come across (let me stress that, I won't be turning words nor be sarcastic) as pejoratic, maybe we should give the meassures more alignment.

Our dear friend Lupus has scetched the procedure welly. There is a large period of different stadia (with several warnings) before one gets deleted. I am quite a romantic person, and by that I mean in an intellectual way.
So I propose to give it a bit more "historic clothing" (inkleding) and open a graveyard for those who cease activity due to a lack of interest and assure -ase was stated by Lupus- the censores that we should "stop bugging them". It wouldn't create a large space on the server, for there are a lot of statistics the SVR doesn't need on them. The graveyard would just be a listing of romanized names and whatever was kept in the dead-listings of ancient Roma.
Secondly, I prupose a list for people who are to busy with primary needs (housing, jobs, death, sickness, ...) and don't have time for hobbies or exentric lifestyles, but want to resume activity when they are setteld. We could say they are abroad, on a study trip, a hospitialist, for thosre who have officially left the protection of the pólis of Roma. They would of course be pronounced dead, if chances of return aren't possible.

Having just passed the age of Ephebe, I don't proclame any wisdom. Though I hope this enlightens the clash of oppinions.

fíloo <uµâs, fíloi µou,

Héllenos

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve iurisconsulte Dionysi

When this rule was implemented, first by means of edict, then by writing it into the RF in September 2002,

Excusationes, but are you quite sure about this? The original edict exceded the consul's authority because it issued instructions regarding the duties of the censores. A magistrate may only issue edicta governing the performance of his or her own duties. Since his colleague did not veto the edictum, and the censores did not challenge it as they rightly should have, the edictum became de facto policy. None the less it stands as a meaningless edictum consularis, and any edicta of a previous consul is subject to be reversed by any succeeding consulares.

A second point, is that in order to amend the Regula Fundamentalis a consul would need to place a proposed decretum before the membership requiring a vote of the Comitia Generale on the proposed decretum. No such decretum is listed. No vote was taken. No amendment was therefore legally made to the Regula Fundamentalis. I was not in the Senate at the time that this was done, or at the time the regulae collegiorum suddenly and arbitrarily were eliminated, contrary to the Regula Fundamentalis, and without notice to the various collegia. I would be very curious to hear a public explanation of both.

The censores may do as they please when issuing notae. I find it exceedingly disturbing, however, that such a list has been posted by our current censores without more discretion in the use of their authority, and without so much as bringing the issue up for discussion in the Senate. Notae should be used on an individual basis, not against an entire slate of sodales. They have the right to do so, but it is very poor form. Censores may determine how they will conduct their own duties. They cannot, however, issue edicta by which to set SVR policy. The censores may request action be taken by the praetores, and request the action be to remove anyone receiving a censorial nota. The consules have the power to veto any such action by the praetores. I will serve notice here and now that while I intend to use my veto power sparingly, I will nonetheless use it in order to ensure that each individual sodalis receiving a nota is given the opportunity to exercise their right of provocatio. For any action made by the praetores with reference to a general list of defendants I will give serious review.

Valete
Marcus. Moravius Horatianus
Consul iterum SVR

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete censores

- Livia Vatinia Aprilia
- Teresia Oregonia Medica
- Priscilla Vedia Serena
- Persepheia Eleutheria Hadreana
- Anyte Aletheia Helena
- Flavia Valeria Octavia
- Aletheia Iulia Hypathia
- Sokrates Kinetos Barbaros
- Alexandra Eleutheria Eudocia
- Sokrates Eleutherius Callistus
- Caius Iulius Claudianus
- Appius Claudius Falco
- Hiera Iulia Minervina
- Domna Durmia Cintia

I find your list very disturbing. Of the fourteen names you give as inactive, ten are women. What I see here is a failure on the part of SVR to retain the interest of our female members, or worse still, that SVR somehow discourages the participation of our female members. However it may be, the failure is on the part of SVR. The problem needs to be addressed differently than by attempting to expel most of our female sodales.

Valete
Marcus Moravius Horatianus
Consul iterum SVR

[Marcus Pomponius Lupus]

Salve Marce Horati,

scripsisti:

I will serve notice here and now that while I intend to use my veto power sparingly, I will nonetheless use it in order to ensure that each individual sodalis receiving a nota is given the opportunity to exercise their right of provocatio. For any action made by the praetores with reference to a general list of defendants I will give serious review.

Why would you have to veto anything ? The purpose of both that edictum and this list is not to annoy anyone, it is not to make the Censores feel that they have any power and it is most definitely not to expel anyone we don't like or to expel members ad random because we just feel like it. Again I might note that not a single member has complained, meaning that not a single membership was revoked in error. After the previous remark about a "witch-hunt" I sure hope that we can get this out of the way.

First of all, we only select members of the SVR who haven't made a single posting in 6 months. We publish the list and if any member at all can say on behalf of someone else that he or she is still interested, then that member is immediately off the list.

Second, we send them a personal email, friendly reminding them of their membership and asking if they wish to stay. If a member wants to stay, then he or she is off the list.

If a member however, after six or more months of inactivity, is not defended by another member and does not reply to said email, then we consider that member to be no longer interested, a fair assumption at that time I believe.

To ensure even further that the Censores do not abuse their power, the list then goes to the Praetores who have the final say in the matter. A member also keeps the right of provocatio, another safety measure. And finally, a member can simply join the SVR again when he or she wishes so.

So what I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of safety measures to ensure that not a single membership can be revoked by accident or by malevolence, though I kind of hoped that both Censores had proven worthy of such trust over the past two years.

As for the purpose of this edictum: not only does it give an honest picture about the SVR, but it also seriously makes the job of both Censores easier when sending voter codes for each election. If we would simply consider each person to have ever requested membership a member for life, then within about 5 years, the Censores would have to send about 700 voter codes with each election, fully knowing that about 300 addresses will bounce and fully knowing that another 300 addressees will delete the email on sight. Considering that, it's worth the effort to pick out those members no longer interested every now and then.

Vale bene
Lupus

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salvete!

None the less it stands as a meaningless edictum consularis, and any edicta of a previous consul is subject to be reversed by any succeeding consulares.

This may be possible, and if there was something wrong with this edictum it was not out of malevolence. But nonetheless it is now no longer an edictum. As I stated in my first message:

In accordance with I,7 of our regula fundamentalis

It is now in our Regula Fundamentalis, which has been approved by the Comitia; thus representing the vast majority of our members.

I find your list very disturbing. Of the fourteen names you give as inactive, ten are women. What I see here is a failure on the part of SVR to retain the interest of our female members, or worse still, that SVR somehow discourages the participation of our female members. However it may be, the failure is on the part of SVR. The problem needs to be addressed differently than by attempting to expel most of our female sodales.

I find this list disturbing too, but I look upon it as a necessity. I prefer quality over quantity. Members who aren't members anymore (because they do not visit our forum anymore and even don't respond to private messages/emails etc; if there adress doesn't bounce) do not contribute in any way to our Societas. I have no hard feelings towards them; interests change and SVR stays 'a leisure-activity'. But why should we try to motivate them every time again, put work in them when they are no longer interested or even delete all our messages straight away? I'm not expelling them, they can come back when they want too. And why did I publish this list? Because I do not pretend to be the center of the SVR and thus think that other people may have heard of these members. All of our people can help me to correct this list. I also have sent private messages to each member on the list. So the whole societas and the listed members themselves can help me in correcting this list.

And about female activity: I try to post questions on topics that interest me. That's why the SVr still interests me as a whole. If females don't find our topics attractive anymore, why don't they change the topic? I don't know what women mainly are interested in (in the SVR, I mean ), can't they tell it to us themselves? They are free to launch new topics.

And last but not least:

though I kind of hoped that both Censores had proven worthy of such trust over the past two years.

I really have my doubts about all the efforts I try to put in this society, and afterwards always get hints about 'the quest for power' that I seem to be interested in.

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salvete
Personally i find nothing wrong with the current RF. It was a good thing that Locatus published that list. People can help those membes who are on the list by either saying that they are to busy but still interested or to busy and not interested. I fully support the idea quality over quantity. If people aren't active, and don't wish to be, they shouldn't be a member of SVR. Its that simple.
Now on the list that was published. I think everyone found it distirbing that there are mostly women on that list. I have invited two women into SVR (Titania and Shay) one did became meber but she left probably because it didn't interest her that much. I think that our threads on how women were seen in antiquity was probably one of the reasons why they haven't been that active. Perhaps Alegra, which other women ever in SVr became consul or was really active. Ok besides Diana Aventina.If women read those posts on the role of women in antiquity, they eiter think we actually believe this that women should behave this way or find this organisation male dominated where women have no chance of saying their mind. I'm just guessing here. I think that in the future, when we d something about women in antiquity and how they were seen, we must add that in no way we want to recreat those situations.
On anothe note, i think that women (mostly the ones who visit SVR) aren't that interested in dicussing these things. I'm not saying that they are stupid or anything like that. I could try to promote SVr in the Hellenic pagan circles where there are also women present who know alot about history and religion. But they have their lives to live like the majority of SVR here. We could try to promote SVR in circles where the majority are women. But if it will be a success, is entire other thing.
Valete
Romulus

[Publius Dionysius Mus]

Publius Dionysius Mus praetor senatoribus salutem.

Having read the remarks made by our colleague Marcus Moravius Horatianus Piscinus and others, I would like to give my point of view here:

1. Our new Regula Fundamentalis has been presented, voted and approved in both Comitia and Senatus. At the time we were not on this forum yet, so these results are in the Topica archives. The edictum consularis may have been problematic, but it was never applied correctly anyway. However, the new Regula is accepted, so this 'rule' is lawful.

2. Every message board or mailing list on the internet has its guidelines, and most of them have a similar rule to avoid inactive members to remain in the memberlist. But in the SVR we can't just set this rule like on other boards / lists, we have our Comitia and Senatus to pass new rules. This has been done correctly.

3. As has been said before, the members on the 'removal list' have many possibilities and a lot of time to state their willingness to remain on our board. So if they do not respond by said means, this simply is a statement that they don't visit the Soacietas any more and / or that they lost their interest in it.

4. That there are mostly women on the list could be due to what Locatus noticed: almost all of our active members are males, and we don't seem to get women interested in the topics we discuss. I would also like to note that in general, a majority of people interested in classical history are males. Probably the military character of these times should have something to do with it... (an exception though: the Religio Romana has a lot of females interested). The exact cause of this, and the means to solve this problem are not clear to me either. Possibly the situation will be brought to normal when women get more involved in the Societas (and in the Senatus).

5. This discussion will most likely prove to be useless, because inactive members from the list who do not respond to an email or to the message on this board, didn't probably even visit this board in the last six months. Most likely they will also not bother to complain with the praetores about their removal. But as a praetor I can say that, if they do complain, their case will be investigated by the praetores and a fair decision will be made.

Optamo vobis bene valere