Well, if the proposal mandates prosecution in a case like we just had, then someone is going to lose that case and suffer influence loss, right? So why make that mandatory if we’re just going to acquit anyway?
I mean, I would not vote to convict @CraigM based on bad luck. So why do we want that prosecution to be mandatory?
(Forgive me if spectators aren’t allowed to post here, but I wanted to thank you guys for running this game. The thread prompted me dust off my copy of the game, which I’ve never played, and put it under the Christmas tree for my kid, who is a Classics major. Meanwhile I’ll be reading the latest living rules and following this thread. Are you using Vassal, or just following along at home with your own copies of the game?)
It’s a reform to prevent future abuse. It also puts on notice future Pontifexes that next year (and afterwards, until this is rescinded), they need to have the income saved to indemnify the loss…so the state treasury isn’t depleted. Income comes before omens. A Pontifex who can pay mitigates the damage done to the state.
We can’t risk bankruptcy, manpower loss or other ill omens in these times of crisis.
There’s a game state PM that I’ve been updating. I should add you and anyone else who’s interested to the message so you can see it.
Strongly recommend you get your kid to study law before attempting to read the rules.
As part of the agreement, can we add that the prosecutor in any such case will always be one of your faction? Because I won’t agree in advance to prosecute a case that we all agree shouldn’t be brought in the first place. It doesn’t make sense to me.
No joke. I just used “indemnify” in a forum thread…
I could add that the Censor may ask the Senate to absolve him of making the prosecution.
LoL, thanks – I received the PM. Fascinating!
Proposal for a Public Agreement Modification 1–
490 AUC ( Ab urbe condita ) Pact Regarding Auspices involving the State ( De Auspiciis foedus involvat statum ). It is in the best interests of Rome that the Pontifex Maximus possess adequate funds to be able to pay any fines occurring due to Evil Omens and other inauspicious events. Therefore I propose that we all agree that anyone who accepts this office must be prosecuted by the Censor if such fines cannot be paid in future. The Censor, if he thinks the prosecution will not succeed, may ask the Senate, in advance, to absolve him of this mandated prosecution
Do the factions agree? @Kolbex, @scottagibson, @Juan_Raigada,
Virtus Romana agrees. @Panzeh and @CraigM agree.
Note - This also means that for the upcoming election for Pontificus Maximus, I will be nominating Senators from a faction who have the potential income to pay said fines . With duties come responsibilities.
Kolbexarii agree
New Men agree with the revised proposal.
Thanks for the revision.
No problem. This isn’t intended to ding anyone’s influence through mandating fruitless prosecutions. This is an attempt to make sure that this office doesn’t inadvertently sink the ship of state in the near term.
We just need @Juan_Raigada to chime in and I’ll move on.
The Eastern Grain company agrees.
Also, we do have a lot of income and will be totally willing to take the responsability upon us.
We are willing to keep 20 talents on our personal treasury at all times.
You’re welcome! And may I tempt you with this thread’s statement?
Proposal for a Public Agreement –
490 AUC Specific Pact Preceding Nomination of a Dictator (imprimis ante nominatio foedus dictator) . As a Dictator must be named in order to prosecute Rome’s Wars effectively and save the state. I hereby ask all to agree that the Dictator or this year’s Consuls, whoever is named Censor next year, when named, in the interests of the state, not engage in any prosecutions for the Year 491 AUC.
What say the Factions? @CraigM, @Kolbex, @Panzeh, @Juan_Raigada, @scottagibson
Virtus Romana agrees.
We agree on principle, but I think the censor can come from any previous consul, not just the year previous?
AFAIK you only lose the prior consul marker due to death or prosecution.
New Men agree
You’re right, but the language doesn’t have to be changed. It still works. Just for one year anyway.
You’re asking that anyone who would be qualified to be censor next year agree not to prosecute anyone if they become censor next year. I’m fine with that.
Yessir.