Changes to the Membership Application....

ren wrote: The auto-login after registration won't show as a successful first login.... On top of that we use long sessions, and have a "remember me" feature... Someone who has some kind of browser extension which reloads totjo automatically may never get a session timeout.

This being said, I remember arguing against marking a difference between "temple members" and "novices" but the court's most famous jester at the time said he didn't mind doing the extra work :whistle:

Then he did a good move. Learning and being with are two important things that makes us who we are. Would we be different as temple if we would change that part? Say guest-novice vs guest-member-novice? Thankful that our famous one likes doing extra work, were would Jediism be without it?

it used to be that a temple member would have taken the simple oath, and as such would be bound by that oath to learn the jedi ways, which may or may not involve posting the IP's exercise 4 (or whatever the equivalent is nowadays). Well that was my argument.

ren wrote: it used to be that a temple member would have taken the simple oath, and as such would be bound by that oath to learn the jedi ways, which may or may not involve posting the IP's exercise 4 (or whatever the equivalent is nowadays). Well that was my argument.

Thank you for sharing your words about this. To understand me, I see two things:

1. Member, bound by oath.
2. Member not bound by oath.

I wonder, what is the difference? To understand I would like to ask what is a oath? I did search it up..

,, A oath is either a statement of fact or a promise with wording relating to something considered sacred as a sign of verity'' [1]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Does an apprentice needs a oath? Does a member needs a oath? I would say they do not. But the bond between member and temple, between apprentice and master may do. Not because of formality. But as a symbol to show that a person takes a certain step that includes other people or goal. I did take the oath, I have no regret of doing. I see a oath as a pact for life, breaking an oath may not result like the ancient ways. It is humane to say one can reject the oath. But would it affect the value of the oath?
Could I say that oath does not include becoming apprentice? Not to seal, but to show the symbol of forming a pact with a other person, or groups of persons? If members should have a oath, then an oath not as symbol of study, but as symbol of a pact. Union, and alliance.

A oath should include all parts of Jediism, multiple oath may be difficult to understand. I would like a single oath, to be neutral to use in all kinds of situations.. But that is just me I guess..

Ha...

I still don't...

This delay in application eligibility will stop it I'm pretty sure Aqua, and why i want it installed...

The sign up, get logged in, app/oath/first lesson, and then log out...

So, this is what happens... They may never return...

So, by pitting the weight/responsibility back on them in the application, it will remove this from happening, at least as much...

(I'm famous? Gwarsh!)

Whoops, that was to Ren two statements back![/cback

Haha....

Jestor wrote: Ha...

I still don't...

This delay in application eligibility will stop it I'm pretty sure Aqua, and why i want it installed...

The sign up, get logged in, app/oath/first lesson, and then log out...

So, this is what happens... They may never return...

So, by pitting the weight/responsibility back on them in the application, it will remove this from happening, at least as much...

(I'm famous? Gwarsh!)

Sounds understandable, but to come up with such a plan.. did take quite some minding about it I guess eh?

Regiseeyoulaters are a big part of the internet, mostly its 'gathering' behaviour for information or resources - fly in, grab, fly out, disappear.... sounds like mining! They might not see the difference between the Order and the forum. Maybe there is room to make them more clearly different and that might help a little.

For those regiseeyoulaters who do join the Order deliberately - perhaps its a statement, not an ongoing commitment like the rest of us who are still here. Maybe a statement to themselves alone, or to us, or to the wider community if anyone asks them. That's ok, but I agree they do not need the Oath IMO.

So who needs the Oath from a Temple service perspective;

• IP program no
• DP I guess not but its currently linked to Apprenticeship etc AFAIK and a WIP
• Apprenticeship yea as its taking a Training Master personal time etc
• Seminary yea its a calling etc and has big requirements.

Interestingly that was the problem I had with moving the Oath. Despite appearing obvious, the problem with the Oath where it was, wasn't the location IMO it was the filtering of people who were taking it. I think people were taking it slot into the IP pipeline - which I don't think was/should be the purpose.

Maybe keep Temple Members unrelated to IP progress etc, and instead just require a new specific application for intention to work towards Apprenticeship, rather then those just here to work for self development (in whatever form it may take).

If the need exists.

That new type of application would need to be clearly (physically) unrelated to forum or Order membership.... it would require the Oath, and could also have a timelimit or other assortment of features, like asking them which Knights they might be interested (list 3). This means a top down support structure could better leverage everyones time and effort where its actually trying to go (on both sides of the Oath)!?

I'm not suggesting its a big deal, just thinking out loud :blink: :side:

instead just require a new specific application for intention to work towards Apprenticeship,

I think the problem with this could be that members change their minds all the time... what if someone makes an application for that and changes their mind? We still then have a pointless application, but we can't delete it because what if they change their mind again?

If we had this, why have an application at all?

Just thoughts.

Edan wrote:

instead just require a new specific application for intention to work towards Apprenticeship,

I think the problem with this could be that members change their minds all the time... what if someone makes an application for that and changes their mind? We still then have a pointless application, but we can't delete it because what if they change their mind again?

If we had this, why have an application at all?

Just thoughts.

My thinking was different people join for different reasons, some just want to work on the IP, some just want to talk, some just want to read, some want all of that but also to become a Knight or Clergy, or get a degree etc. If people change their mind that is fine of course, as it is now, but ideally in that model for Knighthood and the Oath they'd communicate that change of heart because it would become a measure of ones interest participation (as determined by them).

I was just mulling over structural adjustments, not a replacement application to join the ORder - rather an additional application available for members, who choose to also join the Knights Corp as Novices eg.

Maybe keep Temple Members unrelated to IP progress etc, and instead just require a new specific application for intention to work towards Apprenticeship, rather then those just here to work for self development (in whatever form it may take).

That is what the IP was meant to be, originally. An application of sorts, in order to avoid people showing up, asking for a master, and never coming back again....

The problem with the IP is that ideally it shouldn't reward anyone with any sort of rank. Being a member (identifying as a Jedi) and then an apprentice (becoming a knight) are the true beasts. We tried to create a growing membership by having a streamlined and rank-rewarding early experience (registration>application>IPstart>IPend) . It was achieved but the cost is high.

I still don't understand why the oath was "moved" (no longer required to be a member/jedi) while the application remained. A public statement like the oath, whether its consequences are fully understood or not, whether it is taken lightly or not, is a far more powerful thing than any application or exercise completion will ever be.

To go back to the IP, when I was working on it, it was my hope to see it become more modular, with "themes" so to speak, from which students could choose exercises and direction. This way I feel it would have been more interesting for the student, and more "appetizing" for potential masters... And more in line with the original goal of the IP being to pave the way to a successful apprenticeship.
Unfortunately with no-one reading the blasted proposed material, idiot "poets" making legal threats, plus other concerns and changes, it never saw the light.