How to get a group started?

If it were private like the Knight group, that might suffice. I suspect it would end up operating more like a discussion group than anything else, region not being the variable at hand.

Assuming a knight was running it, you could trust that knight to moderate appropriately to avoid the "unauthorized teaching" rule. (I think that's a funny phrase. It makes it sound heretical, which makes it sound exciting.) No big worry there.

Also, thank you for using the term neuro-typical. I encountered it in Oryx and Crake. I thought I was the only person that used it.

Akkarin wrote:

Kamizu wrote: In order to make it a "safe" group you'd need something more like the youth forums where no one else could see and that's still no guarantee.

Is there a prevalent risk of such a thing occurring? (genuine question)

My apologies I thought I read in the thread that it should be a closed group to be safe for some reason. Ignore my brain storming over the wrong seas

Kamizu wrote:

Akkarin wrote:

Kamizu wrote: In order to make it a "safe" group you'd need something more like the youth forums where no one else could see and that's still no guarantee.

Is there a prevalent risk of such a thing occurring? (genuine question)

My apologies I thought I read in the thread that it should be a closed group to be safe for some reason. Ignore my brain storming over the wrong seas

Well that's still a question to consider

Is there a reason why such a group as the one in the OP would need to be closed/hidden?

Youth forums I get.. but I'm not sure about any other groups..

Perhaps if the comments didn't show up on the wall (is that possible?) that might be better than closed entirely.

Akkarin wrote:

Kamizu wrote:

Akkarin wrote:

Kamizu wrote: In order to make it a "safe" group you'd need something more like the youth forums where no one else could see and that's still no guarantee.

Is there a prevalent risk of such a thing occurring? (genuine question)

My apologies I thought I read in the thread that it should be a closed group to be safe for some reason. Ignore my brain storming over the wrong seas

Well that's still a question to consider

I can see why some people may be shy. There is a lot of misunderstanding and ridicule about folks who aren't considered "normal" in the eyes of society but honestly I feel TotJO is a safe place. But I'm the kind of person who gave up being quiet about my non normal ness a long time ago for the most part. Maybe someone else can pipe in if they wouldn't feel comfortable with an open group.

In the flip side, a closed group would make it difficult for those who a group like this could help to find it or even know it was there. Which would eliminate the ability of the person staying quiet about what he needed.

Personally I'd be fine with an open group. I have experience in ADHD and anxiety and would love to share what's helped me. A group like this may make me more available to be utilized.

There may be people who don't really realise the implications of problems they have... if they saw posts on the wall or anywhere, it might encourage them to seek help. Open is better, I think. As someone who had OCD (never diagnosed because I was afraid of being labelled crazy)... seeing discussions by people who were living with it would have been helpful..

Tell me if it is different, but.. If I may be so free, lets go back to the basics:

1. Groups are meant for members
2. Groups are open to join, except if it serves a socially defined or protected group
3. Groups that are not socially defined must blend in with the rest of the temples main ideas

If i understand the following things right:

CryojenX thinks that it is good that groups can be for specific people.
Edan conserns about the protection and the (closed/hidden) arguments of groups.
Akkarin thinks that the past may repeat an results in some kind of disappointment.
Jestor thinks that we are all on the same boat, and separation would lead to misunderstanding.
Steamboat28 thinks the opposite of Jestor
Kamizu thinks that save (hidden) groups are a good way to combine understandings and guidance.
Aqua thinks that there must be a balance between seperation and purpose.
Cabur Senaar thinks that private groups would act more like a discussion group, and want avoiding unauthorized teaching.


If I understand it right, that the question is 'to be able to start a group for targeted members'.


What is possible and what is not possible? If a targeted members group is not ideal, why not change the purpose to a clergy guidance group. To be able to talk with multiple people as well with a officer of the clergy / member affair officers.

Like an interest group for help seeking members? Noting that it is an open environment but with different like minded people.


I do not know if such a group exist already. Just thinking..

steamboat28 wrote:

Jestor wrote: Not only was there "unauthorized" teaching, but creating groups causes separation...

This may or may not be off-topic, but I would respectfully disagree, Jestor. Groups can cause separation, but they can also cause togetherness, and tend to much, much more often.

Off topic? Maybe, but then I think the point of the topic has been answered... (EDIT: maybe not? lol)

It becomes a matter of you not liking how I speak, lol...

If I would have said, "groups seldom cause separation", you could have said,

"But Jestor, they can..."

It depends on how a group is looked at, its purpose, and many other factors...

And, the level of grief one is wanting to give...:lol:...

Jestor wrote:
So, when I thought about your suggestion, my thoughts were:

-are we not all somewhere in the autism spectrum?
-its a public group, anyone can join, view, read or comment.. Its not like a "support group" or "safe zone" because of that....
-would members of this group feel (further) seperation from others?

Kamizu wrote: My apologies I thought I read in the thread that it should be a closed group to be safe for some reason. Ignore my brain storming over the wrong seas

You kinda did...

Aqua wrote: Dear Jestor, I think we need both, equal and in harmony.

Aqua, as a guy married to a lady with depresssion for the last 17 years, my concern was that once they get into the group, and discuss things, they might feel even more seperate from the overall group of Jedi...

I dont necessarily have an issue with this, and why I am glad to see the conversation continue..

++++++++++++++++++++
As I said, we are all on the spectrum somewhere...

I am not against such a group, if you know me, when I am unsure, I move more slowly, and cautiously...

DESPITE how my ramblings might seem... They are actually thought out, I just suck on the delivery, :lol:...

Aqua wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Tell me if it is different, but.. If I may be so free, lets go back to the basics:

1. Groups are meant for members
2. Groups are open to join, except if it serves a socially defined or protected group
3. Groups that are not socially defined must blend in with the rest of the temples main ideas

If i understand the following things right:

CryojenX thinks that it is good that groups can be for specific people.
Edan conserns about the protection and the (closed/hidden) arguments of groups.
Akkarin thinks that the past may repeat an results in some kind of disappointment.
Jestor thinks that we are all on the same boat, and separation would lead to misunderstanding.
Steamboat28 thinks the opposite of Jestor
Kamizu thinks that save (hidden) groups are a good way to combine understandings and guidance.
Aqua thinks that there must be a balance between seperation and purpose.
Cabur Senaar thinks that private groups would act more like a discussion group, and want avoiding unauthorized teaching.


If I understand it right, that the question is 'to be able to start a group for targeted members'.

What is possible and what is not possible? If a targeted members group is not ideal, why not change the purpose to a clergy guidance group. To be able to talk with multiple people as well with a officer of the clergy / member affair officers.

Like an interest group for help seeking members? Noting that it is an open environment but with different like minded people.


I do not know if such a group exist already. Just thinking..

Well, its hardly so 'black and white', lol... :laugh:

But, yes, this is a summary of what was said, Steamboat and I do not think opposite, only Steamboat was pointing out the opposite could be true, and as you see by my last response, I do agree...

The probelm with writing things down, is that the moment it is written, it can become outdated...

It's a good idea. Simple.

The idea that it would cause separation doesn't really fly with me - especially if it's being moderated by a knight AND it's an open group. If it were a closed, unmoderated group, maybe, but this way it's just a specific place for people with mental health issues to get together and talk about their experiences. There are tons of places beyond the Temple where things like this could be discussed, so (to me) the fact that it was brought up here - that there's an interest in starting a space for this here is actually proof that people are looking for even more inclusion with the Temple. Anyway, looking at someone with mental health issues differently than someone without doesn't feel great (in my experience) to the person with mental health issues. We might like to talk about it, we might have no problem admitting it - we might even accept it fully as part of our identity - but I don't think anyone wants to be defined specifically by any mental health things they have going on.

I certainly don't think that having a group like this would cause any sort of 'division'. If groups can cause division, and division is that serious a concern, than the Jedi poets group, Off The Grid, Minstrel Jedi, and Military Jedi all need to be shut down ASAP. I doubt anyone would see this as reasonable?

I feel sorry to hear that story Master Jestor, I feel with the people that sharing Illness in mind of body, and I can put myself in the charges of people, they would like to have a group. I feel also with your opinion, protecting them for feeling less better then before.. It is quite hard to seek the right choice.
Think that this discussions is important to do, as it is for every Jedi, If people want to talk they can always open a thread to share their pain and expressions though.. That would be better than a separate group? Guess not everything can be protected always. Without creating a group you would make it different to feel less better?
You have a inspiring insight by indirectly saying that 'black and white' are just as colorful as any other color. calling it black and white on the same spectrum. :blush:

Jinkies, I didn't expect this to turn into such a spirited debate. To be fair, I'm ok with there not being such a group, should that be how things pan out. I was just kind of thinking it would be helpful, something I proposed on a whim but had never considered all the other implications you all bring up. I certainly don't mean to cause a ruckus! :laugh:

CryojenX wrote: I certainly don't mean to cause a ruckus! :laugh:

Not to worry. We enjoy good, healthy, spirited (and spiritual) debates around here. I might have found it odd if there wasn't one.

CryojenX wrote: Jinkies...

The fact that you said "jinkies" is fantastic. :woohoo:

CryojenX wrote: Jinkies, I didn't expect this to turn into such a spirited debate. To be fair, I'm ok with there not being such a group, should that be how things pan out. I was just kind of thinking it would be helpful, something I proposed on a whim but had never considered all the other implications you all bring up. I certainly don't mean to cause a ruckus! :laugh:

I personally like your fresh eye on our Temple, the fact that it is a spirited debate is because you created a post with a beautiful subject :side:

CryojenX wrote: Jinkies, I didn't expect this to turn into such a spirited debate. To be fair, I'm ok with there not being such a group, should that be how things pan out. I was just kind of thinking it would be helpful, something I proposed on a whim but had never considered all the other implications you all bring up. I certainly don't mean to cause a ruckus! :laugh:

I think it's a great idea! We're just batting around ideas so the best outcome gets done. Even if that means 'no group'

---

The problem with opening a thread with "I have this problem" is you're making a very public announcement. A group who included people like me who are more open about my experiences would make me available to anyone who needed me.

Long story:


TL;DR: Anxiety caused me not to get help for a long time.

But maybe if someone else has anxiety issues, or ADHD, and is too afraid or shy to speak up in a thread or in this group if it was made, he can always take a look at the group and our conversations and maybe he feels he can talk one-on-one with me (or whoever). Sometimes it's easier to talk to a crowd, and sometimes it's easier to talk to a single person. This'll give the capabilities for both. I think I've piped up in every thread I've seen asking for help in those departments but maybe a group would be more obvious? I can't say how active the group would be but I think it might be worthwhile.

A peer support group can work wonders. I can help.

everywhere i go is a group for people with mental health issues lol

i think its a good idea

i wonder of theres anyone in the temple who WOULDNT join

EDIT - I dont think it needs to be totally anonymous

i think that while not everyone is clinically this that ot the other, still everyone has moments in their lives when they would fit the profile for one or another mental/emotional challenge

there are always PMs and such for extra sensitive discussions

but being available to the communitity as a whole is important

Oh something else I was thinking of is if the mental health side was going to be included in this group we have to be really careful about not giving out medical advice or the group being used instead of seeing a mental health professional for someone who really needs more.

Jestor wrote: Aqua, as a guy married to a lady with depresssion for the last 17 years, my concern was that once they get into the group, and discuss things, they might feel even more seperate from the overall group of Jedi...

I am not against such a group, if you know me, when I am unsure, I move more slowly, and cautiously...

I have to mention the lesson of Jestor, not being against the plan. But cautiousness could be important due to the misunderstanding within a group.. Additionally I want to ask, how to know that a group will fulfill purpose if there is a way of contacting an officer, or starting an thread?

Groups give a more open way to share, and could be experienced as 'less scarry' then a one on one chat. Open ways are not only variable. It is also a good way to learn form each other. It gives the possibility to share, break and heal emotions. The biggest question for me at the moment is: ,,How to know that it works as you want?''

I should suggest using supervision, with a clear rule to talk in private with the supervision when needed, and to undergo a session with an assigned officer, to be instructed before entering te group for the first time about the possible danger of the 'feeling less better moments' that Master Jestor explained. And an instruction to talk with an assigned officer on planned days. Creating the new function of 'health officer' or 'grouphealth officer' (if this does not already exist under some kind of name)

My opinion is that possible groups should only be used when secondly committing to a one on one talking session with an officer ones every two weeks. With this rule you can exclude most danger or misunderstandings. I hope this can convince Master Jestor after a very slow consideration. Guess we all should..

Kamizu wrote: Oh something else I was thinking of is if the mental health side was going to be included in this group we have to be really careful about not giving out medical advice or the group being used instead of seeing a mental health professional for someone who really needs more.

I'd think of it more like a support group...