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.

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

The application is an ever changing document...

This is the third or fourth incarnation of the application under my watch...

The application runs until something pops up..

The last change involved some wording clarifications (and has seemed to help) and order of the questions for better "flow"...



My first adjustment was to ask for a little more information and refine what we were asking...

It'll change again down the road....

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.

You saying that people were just "ticking boxes" right?

Its why we moved it...

People were "ticking boxes" for "this rank" or "that rank"....

And not taking due consideration in the posting of their oath...

So now, the oath is a requirement to bevome an Initiate, and apprenticeship eligibility...[/quote]

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....

Still is if you ask me...

Everything we for, is a "right of passage" to the next....

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.

Well...

Emotionally, yes...

But technically, legally, no....

Say what you will, but as a legal entity, who has a legally recognizable members, an application is a more reliable thing....

I can see the that an oath, could be seen that way... But, less so, in my thinking...

Unfortunately with no-one reading the blasted proposed material, idiot "poets" making legal threats, plus other concerns and changes, it never saw the light.

Yet....

.... hasn't seen the light, yet...

Its not "try/fail/give up", its "try/fail/adjust/try again"...

ren wrote:

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.

Mm.. I will repeat myself, with different words I guess. First a question, Is Novice and Initiate the same rank? Or does it say two different ranks? If it is the same ``novice`` rank, then I would like to see the novice and initiate rank clustered together. Just like with the two different codes in our doctrine. Initiate as an 'next step' within the novice rank.
If the Initiate is 'higher' than novice, I would like to know why.


The oath is moved because people saw it as a way to become apprentice, rather than becoming member. A second option would have been to change the code in form itself, as I have suggested in a other post in this topic. T repeat my own words different:

Aqua: ,,Does oath change value of rank? Does rank change value of oath? And how to deal with it?''

Jestor wrote:

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

The application is an ever changing document...

This is the third or fourth incarnation of the application under my watch...

The application runs until something pops up..

The last change involved some wording clarifications (and has seemed to help) and order of the questions for better "flow"...



My first adjustment was to ask for a little more information and refine what we were asking...

It'll change again down the road....

How can it change again, if it is the application is an ever changing document, if the application is part of the whole then so are we? Ah.. that is where the fun joins! Haha, when we are no longer able to change a situation - we are challenged to change ourselves. Jediism is just like it?
Not able to change ourselves, change the way we see it (example the application) When we do not change 'the world' we will change? Fun to say to change again, I wonder in what context you try to say. The self, or what is considered not the self. Do not mind to much about what I say, funny Jestor.. so many ways to read your posts. :side:

Well...

Emotionally, yes...

But technically, legally, no....

Say what you will, but as a legal entity, who has a legally recognizable members, an application is a more reliable thing....

I can see the that an oath, could be seen that way... But, less so, in my thinking...

The oath is a religious thing. Jedi have had an oath since jediism began, just look at the original maxims. Things have changed, but oaths were there....

Totjo has historically made no difference between a member and a Jedi, assuming all members are Jedi (they have taken an oath to that affect after all ) and all Jedi are members (mmmm not so sure about this one ). Just because the difference wasn't being made on paper, doesn't mean it isn't there.
And in the end, it's not more members that you want, it's more jedi.

I honestly don't think any Jedi should put any kind of value in being a member of the order/corporation. Being a member should only be a sort of by-product of doing things at totjo... Even with the current setup, what it should be seen as is "you are given greater roles and responsibilities because we know you". Seen from this angle, the only people who actually would need to be "application processed" are knights and clergy. (or any others who serve the order/corporation in some form)

I don't know how other churches operate, but I doubt many require such a large application to consider someone a member at such an early stage. Instead, they have some kind of ceremony (baptism?), and when looking at christian practices, it seems to start off with "accept jesus loves you and died for your sins", not with "where do you live, where were you born, what is your job, how well educated are you, and what are your crimes"...

I don't know how other churches operate, but I doubt many require such a large application to consider someone a member at such an early stage. Instead, they have some kind of ceremony (baptism?), and when looking at christian practices, it seems to start off with "accept jesus loves you and died for your sins", not with "where do you live, where were you born, what is your job, how well educated are you, and what are your crimes"...

Nope...

Run down to your local church...

They ask you to come sit in a few services and get a feel, see if it is something you like...

Then, they ask you to fill out some basic paperwork, name, members of the family's names, parents names, address, phone, previous church, why are you interested, and most likely a few other questions...

Then baptism, in the case of the Catholics...

I joined a Catholic Church when I was in my early thirties, I had to be a member for my child to attend the school...

And, yes, the church ask me those questions, the school had a hole other set of papers to fill out and answer... Their files did not cross...

I had belonged to this Church as a child, been baptized and confirmed in that church in that very altar... Took religion classes in that school at night because I didnt have religion classes in my normal schooling... Married my current wife in that church as well...

Went to the rectory and studied with the priest in my youth, as well as he came to our house and taught my sister and myself one on one there....

Lets say I am a bit familiar with that church... lol...

Yes, I had to 'fill out an application', and as I was 'already catholic', with baptismal papers in THEIR files, I still had to have an application to the Parrish...

They didnt make me get rebaptised, but, they wanted the certificates (copies) I had for it...

They wanted more personal information than TOTJO asks for...

And as we are internet based, our questions are a bit different...

++++++++++++++++
Because there is no 'big book of Jedi', like their is for Catholics... No heritage (yet), we allow anyone to 'legally' become a Jedi, with an application, just as I filled one out to join that church/Parrish...

So, we assume that all have been 'baptized by fire' and realized that this religion makes the most sense...

Fill out an application, boom, you are a member of TOTJO... "You have already been calling yourself a Jedi, right?"

Totjo has historically made no difference between a member and a Jedi, assuming all members are Jedi

Yes...

(they have taken an oath to that affect after all )

No, becasue the met the requirements for membership as defined by TOTJO, which did include the Oath, now does not...

and all Jedi are members(mmmm not so sure about this one ).

lol, no, not this one...

There are many jedi who are not members of TOTJO....

Just because the difference wasn't being made on paper, doesn't mean it isn't there.
And in the end, it's not more members that you want, it's more jedi.

Yes, quality, not quantity...

We are working on that...

Such as the waiting period...

Actually, the difference between the two is on 'paper'... Everyone can be a Jedi... It requires an application to be a TOTJO Jedi...

I honestly don't think any Jedi should put any kind of value in being a member of the order/corporation. Being a member should only be a sort of by-product of doing things at totjo... Even with the current setup, what it should be seen as is "you are given greater roles and responsibilities because we know you". Seen from this angle, the only people who actually would need to be "application processed" are knights and clergy. (or any others who serve the order/corporation in some form)

Campbell said, "

Joseph Campbell once said to his students at Sarah Lawrence College, “If you really want to help this world, what you will have to teach is how to live in it.” That’s what he taught. Over the last two summers of his life, in hours of conversations recorded in the library of Lucasfilm in California, we talked about how mythology can still awaken a sense of awe, gratitude and even rapture. Why myths? Why should we care about myths? What do they have to do with my life?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: "Well, my first answer would be, well, go on, live your life, it’s a good life, you don’t need this. I don’t believe in being interested in subjects because they’re said to be important and interesting. I believe in being caught by it somehow or other. But you may find that with a proper introduction, this subject will catch you.

And so what can it do for you when it does catch you? These bits of information from ancient times, which have to do with the themes that have supported man’s life, built civilizations, informed religions over the millennia, have to do with deep inner problems, inner mysteries, inner thresholds of passage and if you don’t know what the guide signs are along the way, you have to work it out yourself. But once this catches you, there is always such a feeling from one or another of these traditions of information, of a deep, rich life-vivifying sort, that you won’t want to give it up."

Its how I respond to people when they ask me, "why should they join?"

I tell them, "you dont have to... Join in the conversations, hang out, do your thing... No one (Disney? lol) jhold the rights to stop you from calling yourself a Jedi, keep doing what you are doing...

But, if you are interested, and think this might benefit you, go ahead and join as well...

Its why I chuckle when people say, "oh thank you for accepting my application"... My response is, "No, thank you for joining TOTJO... Without the members, we would be three or four old men sitting around yelling at each other"... lol...


++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, it kinda sucks that people sometimes just join to 'call themselves Jedi'...

But as I keep saying, we are working on that...

Aqua wrote: How can it change again, if it is the application is an ever changing document

Because 'permeance' is a matter of perspective...

YOu have never seen it change, therefore a change to you is something out of the norm... For me, I have changed it 3-4 times...

I change my socks every day, becasue they become wore out... I change my vehicles evry 10-15 years, becasue they get wore out...

'Nothing is permanent except change"..

so many ways to read your posts

So many ways to read everything.... :lol:...

ren wrote: I don't know how other churches operate, but I doubt many require such a large application to consider someone a member at such an early stage. Instead, they have some kind of ceremony (baptism?), and when looking at christian practices, it seems to start off with "accept jesus loves you and died for your sins", not with "where do you live, where were you born, what is your job, how well educated are you, and what are your crimes"...

Hi! As someone who lives in a place where there are more churches than sinners, I can assure you that nothing in this paragraph is true in the majority of the region in which I live, which is larger than most European countries.

Salvation, Baptism, and Church Membership are all C O M P L E T E L Y separate things in this region's Christian churches, and in order to be a proper member of a church, you need all three, in order. Otherwise, you're just a visitor and have no say in any church decisions and have little access to members-only church functions and programs.

steamboat28 wrote:

ren wrote: I don't know how other churches operate, but I doubt many require such a large application to consider someone a member at such an early stage. Instead, they have some kind of ceremony (baptism?), and when looking at christian practices, it seems to start off with "accept jesus loves you and died for your sins", not with "where do you live, where were you born, what is your job, how well educated are you, and what are your crimes"...

Hi! As someone who lives in a place where there are more churches than sinners, I can assure you that nothing in this paragraph is true in the majority of the region in which I live, which is larger than most European countries.

Salvation, Baptism, and Church Membership are all C O M P L E T E L Y separate things in this region's Christian churches, and in order to be a proper member of a church, you need all three, in order. Otherwise, you're just a visitor and have no say in any church decisions and have little access to members-only church functions and programs.

I think it's a cultural difference.. I went to a few churches as a kid/teenager (one baptist, three Church of England), and there was never any restriction on those who weren't 'members'.

Edan wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

ren wrote: I don't know how other churches operate, but I doubt many require such a large application to consider someone a member at such an early stage. Instead, they have some kind of ceremony (baptism?), and when looking at christian practices, it seems to start off with "accept jesus loves you and died for your sins", not with "where do you live, where were you born, what is your job, how well educated are you, and what are your crimes"...

Hi! As someone who lives in a place where there are more churches than sinners, I can assure you that nothing in this paragraph is true in the majority of the region in which I live, which is larger than most European countries.

Salvation, Baptism, and Church Membership are all C O M P L E T E L Y separate things in this region's Christian churches, and in order to be a proper member of a church, you need all three, in order. Otherwise, you're just a visitor and have no say in any church decisions and have little access to members-only church functions and programs.

I think it's a cultural difference.. I went to a few churches as a kid/teenager (one baptist, three Church of England), and there was never any restriction on those who weren't 'members'.

Not at a service...

That is for everyone...

I didn't mean just at services...

lol...

Ah, my bad...

Well, same here... Basically...

We deny no one anything... The only reason we made some things member only is to stop the trolls from creating too much havoc...

And perhaps a couple for our more over-curious guests from stressing some of our more sensitive members...

++++++++++++++
I am getting ready to hit send, and I thought...

I think it's a cultural difference.. I went to a few churches as a kid/teenager (one baptist, three Church of England), and there was never any restriction on those who weren't 'members'.

Can I ask you to what you mean then?

YOu cannot celebrate the Eucharist, nor be confirmed/baptized...

Other than a ceremony, where a non-,member would of course be welcome as a guest, or a feast, where a non-member might be invited by someone, seldom do non-members attend any of the ceremonies, unless it concerns family...

I am seriously trying to come up with something...