Copy of Post in the Knight's Forum: Election of Knights as Advisory Council

I think you're missing his point, Hatter. What reassurance do we have that the apprentice nominee, whoever they may be, will have their voice heard where it matters if the rest of the apprentices cannot voice more than a mere "I like this person"? If a vote by us cannot be taken in heart, then why select one of us at all? That's what he's trying to say... And I empathize with it greatly.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Steam.

Leah Starspectre wrote: Also, are you speaking for all apprentices when you say that the input of the apprentices isn't being listened to?

I'm stating that the apprentices should (ideally) want to be listened to, regardless of whether or not they currently are. I'm stating that I'd personally like to see the apprentices given slightly more autonomy when it comes to things that could affect them all. I'm stating that including an apprentice in this advisory role is progress, but allowing a non-apprentice choose the only apprentice that gets to speak in this format seems a bit...unfair?

These are my personal opinions. I speak for no one else unless they specifically wish for me to.

steamboat28 wrote: I'm just saying that I'm sure that apprentices would like to have a pretty confident say in who speaks for them as a Council advisor. Because, no matter what we want to call it at this point, it's a safe assumption that's what it'll turn into.

Why is that safe to assume? Further anyone on the board should be voicing concerns for the Temple body as a whole, not any one group.

Avalonslight wrote: I think you're missing his point, Hatter. What reassurance do we have that the apprentice nominee, whoever they may be, will have their voice heard where it matters if the rest of the apprentices cannot voice more than a mere "I like this person"? If a vote by us cannot be taken in heart, then why select one of us at all? That's what he's trying to say... And I empathize with it greatly.

Even if they let us vote why does that assure us of the person being listened to any more than doing this behind closed doors without ever having put this here for us to talk about? If they did not wish to listen to an Apprentice they would not bother to post this here for input never mind invite one to the board. Our voting on this changes nothing and just complicates the voting process. If the Council and Knights did not care what the membership thought there would not be so much that gets put out for input from the Temple as a whole.

I'd rather complicate the voting process than have someone the apprentices feel like they can't talk to. I'd rather complicate the voting process in an effort to make it look more fair than to just go along with "masters nominate, knights choose." Apprentices aren't children, they are students. Forgive me for believing they should be treated with some respect for their own agency.

*edit - Furthermore, what does the Council have to lose by letting the apprentices choose? It's not a voting seat, it's an advisory seat. It's not a permanent choice, it's a temporary one. It would also give them more time (though they should set a deadline) to get the rest of these ducks in a row while the apprentices decide.

But again, is the advisor meant to speak for the apprentices, or just provide a perspective from an apprentice?

In my opinion, it will wind up a combination of both, because that's how these things usually go. If you have an ambassador, they are a touchpoint between two groups, and each assumes you speak for the other. It's a common human thing.

steamboat28 wrote: I'd rather complicate the voting process than have someone the apprentices feel like they can't talk to. I'd rather complicate the voting process in an effort to make it look more fair than to just go along with "masters nominate, knights choose." Apprentices aren't children, they are students. Forgive me for believing they should be treated with some respect for their own agency.

There is no one in this Temple I feel unable to talk to and my choice in their office or not does not change that. Further, we are students exactly. We are learning and in the process of learning to lead and train others. That is why the Knights are the ones to make most choices. They have put in the time to be trusted with that position. Finally, if we were not trusted with our own agency we would not be asked our opinion, to begin with.

We weren't, really. We were given a copy of a note. Also, part of the learning process is doing. If masters spoon-feed their apprentices until they "level up", they've done them a disservice. Apprentices should be trusted to make decisions to learn about the consequences of those decisions. It's an effective teaching tool.

Why not trust the knights to make the vote, then if you feel the advisor is unsuitable, voice your concerns?

I feel that the apprentices voting on their rep would be ideal. I'd even add the Initiates too. The only difference is that one has a TM and the other doesn't.

I feel that there should be a conversation between a willing apprentice and the TM. I would hope that they would respect each other enough to understand their goals for training. (And could this not count for points? ) but I don't see a reason the nominations have to come from TMs.

I would also see where someone who was an apprentice and is now am initiate be consisted too (assuming they're still in good standing)