Glory of the SPRRR (Senate and People of the Real-senate Republic of Rome)(RFC RAND)

Omega is just slightly paranoid. It is justified when you look at dominations actiuons in this thread, not to mention his actions in other threads.
 
Be as it may, this government is illegally formed, and consequently I refuse to either recognize or cooperate with it. I urge all members of my coalition to do the same.
 
Omega was the one i was suggesting it to.
I know, he has to accept the offer

if not, then please explain the EXACT effects of each civic before we change any.
They all are better then the original civics, ill tell you that much. I am prepared to tell you the government civics, but the others will remain unknown. This is because you should adopt the other civics not out of it does better in the game, but because its your parties policies.
Despot- does nothing
Heredity Rule
-10% GP birth
+20% Great General Birth
-40% # of cities maintenance
Can conscript 3 units/turn
+1 happiness in every city
I'll post the others when we have the necessary tech

Anyway the people voted to use the modified civics.

He never requested babylon in particular. He said we would go to war with babylon, and give any cities we take to him. He also said that he would give us a 5 turn respite before we had to act.
You correct. But its the closest city to us, and one of the two he has. So odds are we will take it first

Omega, your Clause IV is a violation of democracy. One of the things that makes Rome a democracy is the right for people to start or join whatever party they want. By making people disband their own parties, you are violating democracy. It's your own fault if people don't like your party's policies.
:agree:

Be as it may, this government is illegally formed, and consequently I refuse to either recognize or cooperate with it. I urge all members of my coalition to do the same.
His government was formed to prevent a dictator from gaining control. The temporary dictatorship is needed, as Rome is being sabotaged by the former government.

Guys, if rome is going to be lead to greatness we need to cooperate.
 
We are not Fascists, we are Conservatives and we want to spread the glory of Rome by Force, even if it means attacking Rome.

We'll be entering Taliban type resistance;)

1. You people are in the age of the Classical era. Facism is unknown, except for Emperors and other legit rulers. Conservatives are simply the people who will stab you in the back instead of the front during this time. And the Taliban don't even exist.

2. Temporary dictatorship happens in Rome. See: Fabian. Rising up against the leadership is also not unheard of. Frankly, calling Rome a democracy is a disgrace to all democracies. It was far closer to a military mob rule than anything.

3. And when the GM stands up and says "I agree" to a post made by a player in a clearly slanted, biased matter he really should consider being a tad bit more neutral.
 
1. You people are in the age of the Classical era. Facism is unknown, except for Emperors and other legit rulers. Conservatives are simply the people who will stab you in the back instead of the front during this time. And the Taliban don't even exist.
I know I used the term incorrectly, but when I said fascist I meant militaristic dictator who wants to start a world war.

Temporary dictatorship happens in Rome. See: Fabian. Rising up against the leadership is also not unheard of. Frankly, calling Rome a democracy is a disgrace to all democracies. It was far closer to a military mob rule than anything.
exactly, hence the point of Omega being the temporary dictator

And when the GM stands up and says "I agree" to a post made by a player in a clearly slanted, biased matter he really should consider being a tad bit more neutral.
Actually if you bothered to read the first 10 pages, what Aysee was suggesting was Omega's post (2 or 3 pages back) was in violation of the rules stated in the opening post. I was pointing out that he was correct. It was in violation of teh rules.
 
The first two points are addressing D3K's wild claims that Omega is not the legit government.

I do read, and understand. I don't like it when you wildly claim that I didn't read the 12 pages. And as I pointed out, if you bothered to read my post at all, was that Roman "Republic" was a military mob rule(strongest muscle wins) and that stating its a democracy is clear bull. And when the GM defends some sort of crazy illusion of the Roman Republic, its a bit slanted, non? Your rules frankly don't even resemble the Roman Republic whatsoever.
 
Well Cull, its a matter of opinion. Even in RPs, different hosts may be more nuetral then others. My GM style (that reminds me, i have to get to work on my RP again sooner or later) was obviously different from LH's. It depends on the person.

Rome was very much a democracy. itIt was a republic, and although its been awhile since ive looked at roman government, i believe at least some of the positions were chosen by the people. At the very least, your description of a military mob rule is very off.

Ilduce what was the result when my spartans captured dommy? Doesnt that mean he cant perform sabotage anymore?

Aysee, saying my government is illegitamate is like saying america controls the land of the 13 colonies illegitamatly, and britain should control it instead. It was a revolution. plenty have happened throughout history. Deal with it.

In that case, hereditary rule (as the in game civic, the effective power would remain with the senate consuls) seems like a good choice. i envision that as a sort of parliamentary manarchy, where a monarch rules, but he doesnt have actual power, only great influence (maybe GM can be the monarch?).
 
Well that recent cull post i agree with. The rules do not represent the roman republic correctly. Although if i am correct this was mostly due to gameplay/roleplay/limits of people sorts of reasons.
 
Well Cull, its a matter of opinion. Even in RPs, different hosts may be more nuetral then others. My GM style (that reminds me, i have to get to work on my RP again sooner or later) was obviously different from LH's. It depends on the person.

I suppose. A totally biased GM makes a game annoying though, but thats just me.

Rome was very much a democracy. itIt was a republic, and although its been awhile since ive looked at roman government, i believe at least some of the positions were chosen by the people. At the very least, your description of a military mob rule is very off.

Not really. Since the military had the power, they could very easily use their might as well as their coin to influence the positions even those chosen by the "people". Not only that, it was by the Senate the major power seats were voted in by, and those patricians were were the same as the common people.

The rules are fine the way they are, although they might need some balance checks and what not. but calling it a Roman Republic quite frankly is stupid and it merely entertaining fantasies and delusions.
 
That might possibly be true. Oh well...

Still, Arya, the Grand Militaristic government was fairly elected, you didn't like its policies so you revolted--That constitutes illegitimacy in my book.
 
yes, and we don't like your policies, so i think we can as well fight against it, even if it's not in a revolution. you lost the first elections, and then started a revolution without even waiting to see the outcome of Dommy government. you can't say the dictatorship wasn't benefical, and i can't say it was benefical as well.

sorry, but until there is a true election, i can't cooperate with this government. at the moment i am idle, but if there is the need i will start to cooperate with guerillas.
 
With the arguments of myself and previous posters standing, I hereby lodge a Call for Reelection against this unjust and illegitimate regime.
 
And as I pointed out, if you bothered to read my post at all, was that Roman "Republic" was a military mob rule(strongest muscle wins) and that stating its a democracy is clear bull.
No it wasn't. In the Roman Republic Money meant everything, not muscle. but yes, it was a republic not a democracy.

And when the GM defends some sort of crazy illusion of the Roman Republic, its a bit slanted, non? Your rules frankly don't even resemble the Roman Republic whatsoever.
I already told Omega 2 or 3 posts ago that his claim was in violation of the rules. Now more recently he brought it up again, and Aysee told him it violated the rules. As gm, by agreeing with Aysee, I was saying that he wasn't allowed to do that.

In that case, hereditary rule (as the in game civic, the effective power would remain with the senate consuls) seems like a good choice. i envision that as a sort of parliamentary manarchy, where a monarch rules, but he doesnt have actual power, only great influence (maybe GM can be the monarch?).
Don't worry in game, it is still a republic (for now)

Not really. Since the military had the power, they could very easily use their might as well as their coin to influence the positions even those chosen by the "people". Not only that, it was by the Senate the major power seats were voted in by, and those patricians were were the same as the common people.

The rules are fine the way they are, although they might need some balance checks and what not. but calling it a Roman Republic quite frankly is stupid and it merely entertaining fantasies and delusions.
you are confusing the Empire with the Republic.

Roman Republic whatsoever.
I did the best I could. However there are 300 positions in the senate house, I couldn't cover all of them. I choose the most important few, did research on them to determine their roles. Also try to remember, int he republic there was never 1 person for a position. There were 2 consuls 10 quastors etc, but for the purpose of this game, unless we find 300 people willing to joining, I have to cut back on the roles. I also had to simplify them. But ultimately based on the restrictions of the game (Number of people, the fact that this is a forum game, the inablilty of people to spend 8 hours a day on this site etc), this was the best I could do.

I would also recommend that based on your complaints you re-research the roman republic, because all your points are referring to the empire when the emperor was in charge. This was the republic when there was no official leader, you could only be elected once, and elections took place every year.

edit: x-post
Call for Reelection
Ninja already called for that. It was turned down by Arya. I also request that no opposition actions take place until Omega gets back online. Then we can continue with them.
 
I recommend you stop reading the Canadian propaganda that praises the Roman Republic/Empire, and look at it with your eyes. I also ask that you look into Patricians and Plebeians more. From Wikipedia:

Status

Patricians were bestowed special status as Roman citizens. They were better represented in the Roman assemblies. The Comitia Centuriata, the main legislative body, was divided into 193 voting centuriae (centuries). The first two houses (which consisted largely of patricians) together had 98 centuriae, a number which was enough to obtain a majority, despite the fact that they were fewer in number. That meant that if the patricians acted in concord, they could always determine the result of the voting of the people's assembly. So, although it was not forbidden for plebeians to hold magistracies, the patricians dominated the political scene for centuries.

In the beginning of the Republic, all priesthoods were closed to non-patricians. There was a belief that patricians communicated better with the Roman gods, so they alone could perform the sacred rites and take the auspices. This view had political consequences, since in the beginning of the year or before a military campaign, Roman magistrates used to consult the gods. Livy reports that the first admission of plebeians into a priestly college happened in 300 B.C. [3] when the college of Augurs raised their number from four to nine. After that, plebeians were accepted into the other religious colleges, and by the end of the Republic, only minor priesthoods with little political importance like the Salii, the Flamines and the Rex Sacrorum were exclusively filled by patricians.

And:

Patricians vs. Plebeians

The distinction between patricians and plebeians in Ancient Rome was based purely on birth. Although modern writers often portray patricians as rich and powerful families who managed to secure power over the less-fortunate plebeian families, most historians argue that this is an over-simplification. As civil rights for plebeians increased during the middle and late Roman Republic, many plebeian families had attained wealth and power while some traditionally patrician families had fallen into poverty and obscurity.

Historian Adrian Richard states that patrician families were initially those who held positions within the priesthoods, and that the ancient Senate, composed of patricians, was a religious advisory body. The Senate, acting as a council of religious elders, had political power because it was necessary to have their assent on new laws. The priestly class would confirm that the new laws were in keeping with mos maiorum and would give their auctoritas to the measures that could then be enacted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrician_(ancient_Rome)#Roman_Republic_and_Empire
 
None cares about the Plebians. In the roman senate, only 10 seats were representing the plebs and the rest represented the particians.

What I'm talking about is:
1. You called it mob rule, when in reality to American, Canadian and English senates are all based off this one. So by calling it a mob rule, your calling your country a mob rule

2. You claimed the strength was all that matter. And although to be applicable for consul you had to have made at least a certain rank in the army, strength had nothing to do with. A soldier doesn't persuade someone to vote for something when soldiers aren't allowed to enter the city walls. No army under command by a senator was allowed to enter the city so strength meant nothing. A patrician can't be persuade by muscle based on how the senate worked. And you were elected by the patricians.

3. You claimed the military had the power, yet 90% (not accurate) of the military was under direct control of a high ranking senator. The senate had all the power.

4. Rome was the first real republic. It was the best run democracy of the ancient era and for the time, worked quite well, it wasn't perfect for if it was, the republic would still be around today.
 
None cares about the Plebians. In the roman senate, only 10 seats were representing the plebs and the rest represented the particians.

Wrong.

above said:
Patricians were bestowed special status as Roman citizens. They were better represented in the Roman assemblies. The Comitia Centuriata, the main legislative body, was divided into 193 voting centuriae (centuries). The first two houses (which consisted largely of patricians) together had 98 centuriae, a number which was enough to obtain a majority, despite the fact that they were fewer in number. That meant that if the patricians acted in concord, they could always determine the result of the voting of the people's assembly. So, although it was not forbidden for plebeians to hold magistracies, the patricians dominated the political scene for centuries.

What I'm talking about is:
1. You called it mob rule, when in reality to American, Canadian and English senates are all based off this one. So by calling it a mob rule, your calling your country a mob rule

Thats right. Your point?

2. You claimed the strength was all that matter. And although to be applicable for consul you had to have made at least a certain rank in the army, strength had nothing to do with. A soldier doesn't persuade someone to vote for something when soldiers aren't allowed to enter the city walls. No army under command by a senator was allowed to enter the city so strength meant nothing. A patrician can't be persuade by muscle based on how the senate worked. And you were elected by the patricians.

Notice how I never said strength was everything. Unless military equal pure brute strength?

3. You claimed the military had the power, yet 90% (not accurate) of the military was under direct control of a high ranking senator. The senate had all the power.

1. To the bold: Lololol.

2. After Gaius Marius's reforms(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Marius) wrong. I'm not sure, but before that generals not the senate had power but not as much.

4. Rome was the first real republic. It was the best run democracy of the ancient era and for the time, worked quite well, it wasn't perfect for if it was, the republic would still be around today.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#Classical_republics proves that the city states of Greece that came before were republics. It did not work well.
 
I'm not sure, but before that generals not the senate had power but not as much.
The senate had control of the army. Most senators were in fact generals at the same time. People loved voting for war hero's.

proves that the city states of Greece
Athens may have been a democracy. But it was an inefficient democracy that was used for less then 100 years. I don't count it. Also note how I said republic not democracy :p
 
The senate had control of the army. Most senators were in fact generals at the same time. People loved voting for war hero's.


Athens may have been a democracy. But it was an inefficient democracy that was used for less then 100 years. I don't count it. Also note how I said republic not democracy :p

You obviously didn't bother clicking on my links for Garius Marius or the one on republics.
 
Top Bottom