Knights Tenure

Instead, it would be more like "Who haven't we heard from in 3-6 months that hasn't told us they're on a Leave of Absence?" And, obviously, the first step should be "Let's check up on them and see if they're okay." After that, or rather during that, it should be rather easy to determine if they've been "active" or not off-site. Perhaps if they haven't been, and life has been keeping them away, put them on a LoA so they're not expected to be active, and move along.

Not unreasonable.

I have an apprentice that is active military and they have to go away for long stints at a time where it is not easy, or possible at times, to log in and check in. and I know that when they come back I am secondary to seeing the family they have been away from for so long. It is a part of the life and I accept that. And one day he will be knighted and his duties will be the same...

Understanding, patience and acceptance are things we try to cultivate as Jedi. Sure it would be nice to have people check in more often. But that is not always possible. and I'm not sure it would be very understanding or accepting of us to force time tables on those whom our time tables would not fit. If that makes any sense.

Certainly, and that's how things are with all of us. This Temple is but a portion of our lives.

I think the difference in what the OP was asking and the case of your apprentice is that you're aware of their situation. There are so many Knights and ministers we just plain haven't heard from in ages. At all. There are ways to contact them, but for whatever reason, we still don't know where they've been or if they're coming back. The goal of my personal suggestion is to separate those who are taking time off, or taking care of other things, from those who simply have no desire to contribute to the community this Temple represents.

I find them to be two vastly different categories of individual, and at the moment, it's difficult to tell them apart.

I find them to be two vastly different categories of individual, and at the moment, it's difficult to tell them apart

I'm guessing some just want the title and move on. I feel it reflects poorly on the image of the active Knights as the title seekers interests are not genuine. I guess it's a standard's issue. Do active involved Knights wish to be associated with disingenuous knights/people?

Perhaps, instead of (or maybe in addition to?) the other ideas in this thread, we could incentivize with awards for years of active service? Or some kind of cutesie little image for their signatures? IDK.

I preferred length of service for rank rather than work done... But that's just me..

Isn't that what a "Senior Knight" Is? Someone who has spent time, effort, and work here? Or am I understanding that wrong....

I agree with Wescli Wardest, People shouldn't be punished when life take over or their Joureny takes them some place else. If you earned something you don't lose it unless you do something majorily stupid.

Instead, perhaps those duties could have a different sub "Job Title"

Knight of Moderator
Knight of Graphic Designer
Knight Instructor

*Shrugs* I see this a far lesser concern than what the Council is already dealing with from last week's "List of suggetions" such as the Oaths.

Edan wrote: I preferred length of service for rank rather than work done... But that's just me..

Thing is, I could be here years and just sit around being an ass under that system, and gain rank. Or, I could work hard for less time. For me years of active membership isn't indicative of depth of understanding or quality/dedication of service, in and of itself.

Trisskar wrote: I agree with Wescli Wardest, People shouldn't be punished when life take over or their Joureny takes them some place else. If you earned something you don't lose it unless you do something majorily stupid.

The issue is that this community invests a hell of a lot of time into each and every individual that makes it to Knighthood. A lot of time in the forum, a lot of time answering questions, a lot of time giving advice, a lot of time listening to rants, a lot of time in chat, a lot of time designing coursework, a lot of time teaching an apprentice, a lot of time deliberating over their decision to knight them, etc.

Knighthood and Clergy are both calls to service, not calls to "kewl titulz" to throw after your name. And I don't know about some of you, but where I come from we have a word for people who take and take with no intention of giving back. And it's not polite.

Do people sometimes leave? Yes. For a great number of different reasons, many people leave this Temple. Many more simply leave their studies, but stay on socially. We cannot control what happens in the lives of others, nor should we attempt to: everyone who passes through these doors has a life outside of the Temple, and they need to keep themselves in order before looking to other responsibilities. We miss them when they're not here, and we miss what they brought to the Temple, but we can't ask them to come back if they have things that are higher on the priority chain. They need to take care of themselves first. Nobody is going to punish them for that.

Do people sometimes come back? In my time here, some of the most influential voices you'll see around the forums have left and come back. I've carried on conversations this week alone with at least three people who just vanished without telling me why they left, and then popped back in, welcome as glad news. And that's fine. That's totally okay, and nobody is going to punish them for that, either.

But there are a lot more Knights in the roster than there are Knights who attempt to give back to the community that gave so much to them. And that distinction is very important. Those who refuse, absent of decent cause, to re-invest in this community have no right to maintain an active status through which they can represent this Temple.

Nobody is going to go door-to-door stripping titles off people. Nobody is talking about punishing people for life getting in the way. What we're talking about are people who took on responsibilities as a Knight or as a Minister and cannot or will not see them through. There is absolutely no problem placing those individuals on an "inactive" list. When they wish to become active again, they can come back and talk to someone.

This is not unreasonable. Especially from a Temple who, less than a month ago, had a "If you don't like it, leave" clause at the front door.

steamboat28 wrote: From what I understand, isn't the Degree Scheme intended to specifically train Apprentices into Knighthood? And, as such, wouldn't it be very difficult to divide the "academics" from the responsibilities? How many people get medical degrees without any plans to go into a medical field? How many people go to a seminary just for the experience?

Perhaps religious education doesn't work the same way as medical education.

My point isn't that some people would do the Academic track without knighthood (though, why couldn't they?), but rather that if somebody leaves TOTJO they are still recognized for the training they DID do here.

Imagine somebody had a Knighthood and B Div. And, then they left TOTJO. They could leave their Knighthood here and take their B Div. with them. Perhaps a rank bar beside their name. So, somebody who comes back to TOTJO years later can say: "Oh yes, I have a B Div. from TOTJO and I used to be a Knight."

They can ALREADY do this (I believe). My suggestion is to formalize and market this so people know this is the case. I'm not suggesting anything that isn't already in place.

This is not a pointed comment, more a general pondering: why should an institution invest so much time, effort and internal resource into someone's training and grant them a degree if they don't accept the responsibility to give something back? Responsibility is part of the path of Jedi for me. It's not a purely theoretical discipline and it's therefore reasonable to ask for a level of commitment, in the same way in my country you can't qualify in the highest levels of some practical professions without being an active employed member of those professions.