Changes to the Simple Oath

Adder wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Jestor wrote:

Adder wrote: I tend to agree with ren, and think its a retrograde step, but I can understand the positive spin on the change so its no big thing for me, though I had written a few paragraphs but didn't feel it needed to be said...

... then I realized these changes, if considered in the context of the recent forum changes regarding member forum areas, sort of defeats the point of those recent forum changes? Or at the least they are now redundant and could be replaced by the existing Initiate and up forum access level. Since I believe those forum changes were made specifically for people who'd taken the commitment of the Oath.

I'm a little confused...

What do you think this has to dobwith forum access?

Recent changes separated guests from members....

Members complete apps, guests generally do not...

I was just under the impression the recent forum change was to create a space for Temple 'Jedi', as determined by the taking of the Oath. In my eyes the application is irrelevant to one's categorization of themselves as Jedi, that is just to become a Temple member.

As a Mod I understood the proposed changes to reflect a higher standard, so trolling which was in the grey area of allowed by Temple/forum rules, but 'not very Jedi' could be differentiated with different levels of behaviour being expected from those who took the Oath to be Jedi. Now this most recent changes in effect make anyone blw Initiate only a member of the Temple, which is equivalent to a registered guest in regards to their requirement to identify as a Jedi or not.

It's no big deal, its just I saw the previous structure more structured and workable, but at least now people wont be taking an Oath they actually haven't considered properly.

lol, I got you....

The Oath does not make one a Jedi here at TOTJO...

It does, in the legal sense of our rulesn (which are scheduled to be changed o9n January one, unless a good enough argumant is presented to sway the Council's mind...), but, shoot, there are plenty who we would call a Jedi, and those who call themselves a Jedi, who have never taken our Oath...

The app makes it so that they are members of the organization (TOTJO) and can legally say that they are Jedi, and members of TOTJO....

But, anyone can make the claim of being a Jedi... They dont need us for that, lol...

Jestor wrote: The Oath does not make one a Jedi here at TOTJO...

It does, in the legal sense of our rules (which are scheduled to be changed on January one, unless a good enough argument is presented to sway the Council's mind...

Yea, it makes more sense to me the way it was, but I'm no lawyer and I'm not privy to the organisational options available to make the best TOTJO, and how they might relate to the broader community, so I'm probably wrong in my interpretation.

As I saw it, it was real/legal recognition by TOTJO of all Jedi who might want to join without having them to undergo 'any' training at the Temple - thus being a real 'church' for the entire Jedi community. All they had to do was become a member, take their Oath about being a Jedi, and then they were a fully fledged member of the church. No-one assessed their claim to take the Oath so they could be any type of Jedi, even a beginner who knew nothing about it. That to me was ideal, and part of why I joined, a 'broad church' to use that sort of language.

Now we'll have temple members who may or may not have any interest in Jediism, which is even broader and feels a little too broad, structurally speaking.

The training is great and all, but I think the IP works better if the person doing it tries to do it as part of actually being a Jedi, not part of being their old judgmental, indecisive, see how it goes and defer any commitment to an unspecified later date, self. The Oath did that where it was, now the IP has been placed as some 'taste' of Jediism?

The argument people needed to do it before knowing if it was for them sounds like an excuse to me. The IP does not make one a Jedi. Anyone can read through the IP and assess if its of interest without joining, or even do the work, so to me the real value of the IP is saying to oneself I am a Jedi, undetake the IP as a Jedi and see how I grow, and then decide if I want to take it to the next level. It all just made more sense the way it was.

I understand that in effect nothing changes probably... its all news to me so I'll sleep on it a few times and eventually get used to it!!
:lol:

A sincere thank you to the council for considering input from all of those here at TOTJO regardless of rank.

I fully support the council's current course of action as outlined in the original post.

I personally would have no issue making a formal commitment to learn as part of the membership application. I seems to me to be a reasonable request of membership and something that even a beginner like me can understand and adhere to from the start.

Adder wrote: Now we'll have temple members who may or may not have any interest in Jediism, which is even broader and feels a little too broad, structurally speaking.

Oh, you mean exactly like we did before. And exactly like every other faith on the planet. Gotcha.

steamboat28 wrote:

Adder wrote: Now we'll have temple members who may or may not have any interest in Jediism, which is even broader and feels a little too broad, structurally speaking.

Oh, you mean exactly like we did before. And exactly like every other faith on the planet. Gotcha.

LOL, no, I got you!
I'm not interested in copying the mistakes of other faith's, at least not for no good reason, and before, the Oath did mean something for those who were genuine with it. I think it also has some legal relevance as Jestor pointed out.
:whistle:

Adder are you saying that because Jedi here ought to be held to higher standards (i.e the forum access changes), it seems to you quite odd that we are "lowering" the standards for what constitutes a Jedi here by saying that they no longer need to take an Oath?

I can see how that might be sending mixed signals, though there is no reason to think that we can't still apply the same standards to Temple Members as before. New members probably fill out the oath and the app on the same day, and many probably won't give the process much thought - given how many Temple Members end up never returning... By moving the Oath to the end of the IP we will hopefully encourage potential Initiates to give it greater consideration which might in fact increase the standards that Initiates are held by!

I agree with the changes suggested in the original post. The Oath should be given the reverence it deserves by requiring some kind of commitment beyond simply visiting the Temple. As stated before, anyone can walk into a Catholic church for mass on Sunday. That is not the same as taking communion and going to confession. Membership has its privileges that should be given after commitment has been demonstrated.

Forgive me if I sound a bit hypocritical considering I have taken the Oath but have not finished the IP

Adder wrote: I'm not interested in copying the mistakes of other faith's, at least not for no good reason, and before, the Oath did mean something for those who were genuine with it. I think it also has some legal relevance as Jestor pointed out.

1. There are lots of very good reasons to move the Oath, many of which have been explained here. It is unethical to ask someone to swear an oath on something they know nothing about, and if you want that to be the foundation of this place, why are we trying to be above-board at all?
2. Of the many "mistakes of other faith's", open membership has never been one. To bar access to a spiritual path goes against every universal human right I can think of, and I honestly do believe the oath to be an impediment when placed as the gatekeeper for "Member" level access.
3. No. If we're discussing legalities in regards to church membership, we're discussing shareholding in a corporation. (Since this is a non-profit corporatoin, "shareholder" is actually "member" in this case.) As such, the corporation, via the board of directors (in our case the Council, according to the paperwork), gets to set the requirements for shareholding or, in our case, membership. Any member is then legally sheltered from liability for TOTJO's corporate actions. That's it. That's the "legal benefit." A corporation is adjudicated based on the law of the land of its incorporation, and in Texas, US, the First Amendment, the RFRA of 1993, and a crap-ton of other state and federal laws, really prevent "legality" from pestering churches except over secular affairs, which are then leveled at the corporate body instead of the membership.

That said, IASNAL , this is just my feeble understanding..

I agree with the changes being proposed. I was hesitant to take the oath before learning more but did it anyway because I wanted my rank to reflect that I was learning. At that time if I didn't take the oath I couldn't be a member, and if I wasn't a member I couldn't be a novice.

I do also see how changing that almost nullifies the forum access changes from a while ago. The issue there, if I remember correctly, was that we wanted a place that was more restricted against trolling and to provide an area for discussion that only people working to follow the path of the Jedi as defined by TOTJO can be apart of. Changing the placement of the Oath does make it easier to be a member and thus gain access to that area. Although the process of becoming a member has only been made easier by one step that was very simple to start with.

We then have two options in regards to that. We can change the forum access again to reflect the changes in membership requirements (i.e. make the "member discussion" Novice and above as a novice is a member who has posted at least the first lesson of the IP), or we can live with the idea that the "member discussion" forum is easier to access now.

Goken wrote: I do also see how changing that almost nullifies the forum access changes from a while ago.

I'm going to disagree with this point, because the "oath" taken here has no more enforcability than the application does; it relies on the person who swore it to keep it. Because of that, if people really wanted to troll, it would be easy enough to before these changes. Since most of the "troublemakers" that caused the change were guests, and the changes to the oath regard membership, one can assume that they really didn't want the membership to start with, as it was plenty easy to get before if you don't really hold stock in oaths.