Accountability of the laws spirit beyond its letter

ren wrote: To my knowledge, the knights have supplied no evidence of kyrin's incompatibility with totjo, no evidence of correlation between kyrin's behaviour and participation at totjo, no evidence of other prejudicial effects, and no evidence of considerable contemplation regarding her fate.

That being said I am sure they will provide it if asked to.

I guess this is what bothers me. I have to agree with Kelrax in recognizing the right of TOTJO to simply ban for whatever arbitrary reason it chooses. But in my opinion, as someone who grew up in a church, it's seems bad form to kick out a guest unless they are disrupting service.

As a wise Israelite once said in Matthew 7:2,

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

the back drop of this was a "god given" or legal power/authority of the Pharisees to judge people while at the same time being guilty of offenses themselves. When this wise man pardoned the woman caught in adultery there was no question that she had broken the law. And he didn't know her to know whether or not she would do it again. But he said to her "go and sin no more". What this did was show the character and grace of the person in the position of power to forgive, rather than focus on the criminal so that we would emulate a better judge.

Of course this wise man provoked the ire of those in power because he spoke truth to power. He wasn't concerned about their feelings when he told them they were wrong. He called them a brood of vipers among other things. And yet he is thought to be one of, if not the nicest people to have ever lived and someone that the majority of people claim to want to meet. He had enemies but his ability to have friends and followers continues to this day. This wise man was asked how many times we should forgive and he said 70 x 7 as a play on numbers. In other words, don't even keep track. So if we're going to act like a church, and I left churches partly because of corruption, can we please act like a better church? Can we please not copy the parts that push people like me away?

I'm struggling to understand how it is even relevant that someone who is on this site as a "guest" can be "incompatible". If their beliefs are incompatible then they shouldn't be teachers. I'd agree with that. I'd agree they shouldn't be knights either. They shouldn't be allowed to represent TOTJO in any official capacity if deemed to be incompatible with TOTJO's doctrines. The PUBLIC forum should be another matter. There should be no assumption that any guest on the public forum has the intention of doing the IP and eventually becoming a knight. If a guest comes over your house to eat do you vet their entire belief system before you feed them? Do you kick them out when they say something you disagree with? I have a lot of issues with Old Testament characters but their hospitality is not among them.
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7905-hospitality)

One of the issues I have is with people judging the intentions of others. It's basically judging a person's very heart and mind. It seems arrogant of anyone if they presume to know what is in another person's head without proper examination which includes questioning that person. This scares me, in fact. The proclamation does mention disagreeable behavior, which to me says that regardless of what any stated/posted rules and policies are, if you don't get along with certain people, we can vote you off the island. And of course that extends to watching what you say because you don't know who might be watching and who could get offended. And there's no lawyers, no independent judges, no jury of your peers.

And there seems to be a bit of a "scarecrow" argument that Kyrin is scaring potential new members away. What's interesting to me about that is I believe Kyrin was here before me (as one poster surely pointed out) and yet I'm defending Kyrin. Is there something wrong with me? Or is it fair to say that farmers use scarecrows for a good reason; to protect their crops against birds. Why then assume that the people who aren't here are supposed to be here? Why then assume that the people who aren't here would have all been good and productive members? Why bring up a thread where a knight was rightfully punished for going after Kyrin's gender identification as if Kyrin did something wrong? What about all the people who leave because of perceived corruption in leadership? If those in power aren't going to remove themselves for causing people to leave, quit, etc. then why use this as just cause to suspend a guest? What if our scarecrow was doing TOTJO a service by scaring away people who were so emotionally tied to bad ideas or delusions that they couldn't emotionally separate those ideas from their potential membership and participation? What if they were using or going to use TOTJO as a platform and a soapbox for those ideas that may or may not be "incompatible" with our teachings?

Yes, I'd like to see all the evidence in question; only because the action was so extreme as to call for an "indefinite suspension". I want to be sure that this decision wasn't tainted by corruption, emotion, or bias. Please show us the evidence so that we can justify the faith we have in our leaders.

Thank you, and may the Force be with us.

Also? In regards to the OP? "Incompatibility" is grounds enough for a divorce in many localities. Why wouldn't it be grounds enough for ejection from a house of worship?

steamboat28 wrote: Also? In regards to the OP? "Incompatibility" is grounds enough for a divorce in many localities. Why wouldn't it be grounds enough for ejection from a house of worship?

divorce suggests marriage just as Excommunication suggests membership. And I was recently at an excommunication last year where my cousin was lied on by the pastor and they were told they would have an opportunity to present character witnesses but that was a lie too... people involved and affected are still not over it. Neither should ever apply to someone who is a guest. And I get it. There are people who don't care because of who this is happening to. Let's be real. So the process doesn't matter. The evidence doesn't matter. The justification doesn't really matter because at the end of the day there are people who just don't like the person it's happening to and it isn't happening to them. What if it thought... the same thing happened to you?

And couples can say "irreconcilable differences" because there are things married couples have to do together and need to agree on (like who gets the house). Now if you have a house guest you don't like you can ask them to leave because it's your house. That's part of the privilege of ownership. But if that's the case then they should say that so everyone knows where they stand. Because depending on how guests are treated other guests may want to go too. If you say rules were broken and it wasn't arbitrary then you can point out the rule and the evidence of when and how it was broken. But all of the justifications I've heard to date I haven't seen evidence even though the accusations warrant the existence of such evidence. Removing access to the forums is basically censure. Persons unknown to me are using other people leaving as justification for a forced removal. Where is the evidence of this? And could anyone simply make up justifications as he said she said basis for campaigning to remove people they disagree with?

ZealotX wrote: What if it thought... the same thing happened to you?

If you'll remember, it did. Just before Senan's memorial. It was a whole thing.

And, honestly, if you're curious I'll tell you exactly how and why I voted the way I did. That information, in my opinion, should be open to people from me, especially Kyrin. Other people may not have the balls to say it, but I will. If anyone's curious, they can either PM me or ask me here in public. I'm not going to hide behind a wall of secrecy.

The rules here are not just technical policy. They exist by principle, one of the most important being that the church has a certain function for people to feel welcome and supported. So the point of the rules are not for the sake of them being explicitly followed but for the principle that they exist which is to support the church and its function. The rules being broken in most situations assume that what has taken place promotes the compromising of that function. There is a reason I am pointing this out..

If one is smart enough, they can undermine the function of the church without technically breaking any rules. In this case, people stopped participating here because someone who was technically not breaking rules were still somehow discouraging people from feeling welcome here when they post. On top of this, a history of painting the temple in just the right way to ensure that banning them would make the temple look hypocritical by regularly injecting statements into their posts about it being corrupt was their ongoing shield. They could insult newcomers and authority alike but because they did it in just the right way, they would be exempt from breaking rules and would even be protected by them and the people who were influenced by agreement of protest about the the temple.

In short, the principle of the rules spoke in this event through the voting of the knights, in the event that someone was undermining them without breaking them and compromising the function of the church.

So what is more important here? The rules themselves or the principle behind them?

Proteus wrote: The rules here are not just technical policy. They exist by principle, one of the most important being that the church has a certain function for people to feel welcome and supported. So the point of the rules are not for the sake of them being explicitly followed but for the principle that they exist which is to support the church and its function. The rules being broken in most situations assume that what has taken place promotes the compromising of that function. There is a reason I am pointing this out..

If one is smart enough, they can undermine the function of the church without technically breaking any rules. In this case, people stopped participating here because someone who was technically not breaking rules were still somehow discouraging people from feeling welcome here when they post. On top of this, a history of painting the temple in just the right way to ensure that banning them would make the temple look hypocritical by regularly injecting statements into their posts about it being corrupt was their ongoing shield. They could insult newcomers and authority alike but because they did it in just the right way, they would be exempt from breaking rules and would even be protected by them and the people who were influenced by agreement of protest about the the temple.

In short, the principle of the rules spoke in this event through the voting of the knights, in the event that someone was undermining them without breaking them and compromising the function of the church.

So what is more important here? The rules themselves or the principle behind them?

I'm sorry but this erks me..
Not really sure why but I read this as, well we have rules and reasons behind the rules, you may not be breaking the rules outright, but if we feel strongly enougth that what you are doing is harmful then we can still vote as Knights to exclude you.
If people stop participating because of one person.. Couldnt topics been moved to where she couldnt participate? Are they actually leaving because of her or her style of questioning everything? Demanding facts? Because that begs the question of what this church would become if we all just slapped eachother on the back and agreed all of the time without questions or encouraging others to question/research for themselves..
Is that what we want Totjo to be?

Maybe I am not understanding your point, but your statement makes me unsettled.

Proteus wrote: The rules here are not just technical policy. They exist by principle, one of the most important being that the church has a certain function for people to feel welcome and supported. So the point of the rules are not for the sake of them being explicitly followed but for the principle that they exist which is to support the church and its function. The rules being broken in most situations assume that what has taken place promotes the compromising of that function. There is a reason I am pointing this out..

If one is smart enough, they can undermine the function of the church without technically breaking any rules. In this case, people stopped participating here because someone who was technically not breaking rules were still somehow discouraging people from feeling welcome here when they post. On top of this, a history of painting the temple in just the right way to ensure that banning them would make the temple look hypocritical by regularly injecting statements into their posts about it being corrupt was their ongoing shield. They could insult newcomers and authority alike but because they did it in just the right way, they would be exempt from breaking rules and would even be protected by them and the people who were influenced by agreement of protest about the the temple.

In short, the principle of the rules spoke in this event through the voting of the knights, in the event that someone was undermining them without breaking them and compromising the function of the church.

So what is more important here? The rules themselves or the principle behind them?

You do see how this could go too far, don't you?

and by the way, if you remove everyone who says "there's corruption" then how many people do you have to remove before you have proven their point?

part of freedom of speech/expression in the US (and yes I know TOTJO is not on US servers) is the right to say "bad things" about people in power without fear of reprisal. Making this argument sounds like... there was reprisal.

And yes, a smart person could totally undermine the spirit of the rules and be condescending and arrogant. However I see this more from other people than I do from Kyrin who I debate all the time. With Kyrin you need to have a solid well thought out argument. If you don't then a good bit of what you're going to run into is on you. And a lot of people get into debates without being fully prepared and without good arguments. And some times people simply post their personal beliefs in the open forums which I've already talked about needs to have more of a warning because the rules are less restrictive there (according to Ren). However, people with relatively well thought out ideas are able to appreciate Kyrin because it makes those ideas better when you have to actually work harder to prove them. I consider myself among these people.

And if a person gets discouraged and feels unwelcome because one person didn't accept their idea... then the whole system has failed them. Where was everyone else? Knights? Apprentices? It should never, and is never, up to one person to determine whether or not people are welcome. Therefore it feels to me more like Kyrin is a scapegoat.

ZealotX wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Proteus wrote: The rules here are not just technical policy. They exist by principle, one of the most important being that the church has a certain function for people to feel welcome and supported. So the point of the rules are not for the sake of them being explicitly followed but for the principle that they exist which is to support the church and its function. The rules being broken in most situations assume that what has taken place promotes the compromising of that function. There is a reason I am pointing this out..

If one is smart enough, they can undermine the function of the church without technically breaking any rules. In this case, people stopped participating here because someone who was technically not breaking rules were still somehow discouraging people from feeling welcome here when they post. On top of this, a history of painting the temple in just the right way to ensure that banning them would make the temple look hypocritical by regularly injecting statements into their posts about it being corrupt was their ongoing shield. They could insult newcomers and authority alike but because they did it in just the right way, they would be exempt from breaking rules and would even be protected by them and the people who were influenced by agreement of protest about the the temple.

In short, the principle of the rules spoke in this event through the voting of the knights, in the event that someone was undermining them without breaking them and compromising the function of the church.

So what is more important here? The rules themselves or the principle behind them?

You do see how this could go too far, don't you?

and by the way, if you remove everyone who says "there's corruption" then how many people do you have to remove before you have proven their point?

part of freedom of speech/expression in the US (and yes I know TOTJO is not on US servers) is the right to say "bad things" about people in power without fear of reprisal. Making this argument sounds like... there was reprisal.

And yes, a smart person could totally undermine the spirit of the rules and be condescending and arrogant. However I see this more from other people than I do from Kyrin who I debate all the time. With Kyrin you need to have a solid well thought out argument. If you don't then a good bit of what you're going to run into is on you. And a lot of people get into debates without being fully prepared and without good arguments. And some times people simply post their personal beliefs in the open forums which I've already talked about needs to have more of a warning because the rules are less restrictive there (according to Ren). However, people with relatively well thought out ideas are able to appreciate Kyrin because it makes those ideas better when you have to actually work harder to prove them. I consider myself among these people.

And if a person gets discouraged and feels unwelcome because one person didn't accept their idea... then the whole system has failed them. Where was everyone else? Knights? Apprentices? It should never, and is never, up to one person to determine whether or not people are welcome. Therefore it feels to me more like Kyrin is a scapegoat.

I'm going to start by addressing your concern about "freedom of speech" mid way through your post.

In the U.S, we are afforded the constitutional right of public freedom of speech. The key word there however, is public. Private entities, organizations, corporations, etc are subject to a different list of legal restrictions. Because of that, public law does not carry over to freedom of speech within these organizations.

If I told my boss that I thought he was an overweight, bumbling oaf; with a propensity for inappropriate conduct and a disgrace to the department - chances are I would be justifiably and immediately terminated from my employment within said company. My public right to freedom of speech does not protect me from ramifications or reprisal in such a situation.

Similarly, individuals who choose to engage in church or other spiritual services are not immune to reprisal if they decide to voice opinions or beliefs that go against the foundation, belief structure, or culture within said organization,




The problem with Kyrin's activity in the forum is two-fold. Because of her repeated suspensions/expulsions within the temple, a lot of her posted content has been removed or otherwise lost due to associated posts with the account being removed along with her expulsion. Her most current account only dates back to mid September of 2018. That does not accurately reflect the total tenure she has had here, nor the entirety of her authored content.

So for your repeated requests to be provided with links, references, and reasons as to why she was banned; the reason why it cannot be provided to you in it's entirety is that said content has been removed or otherwise deleted from public access. This however does not erase the memory that other temple members have of her prior conduct here, nor it's impact.

As far as posting personal beliefs within the forum is concerned; the reason why we currently have special interest groups is to attempt and accommodate different belief systems which choose to incorporate elements of TOTJO Jedi-ism into their own practices.

Where it concerns forum debates, not everyone on the forums is going to have the same level of understanding or interest in the topics being debated. On top of that, there is a wide spectrum of different educational proficiency within our membership. Some of our members are still in the K-12 system, while others have graduated college with Masters degree's and academic honors. Other's have opted for trade based careers and as such, their knowledge is based more on physical and logistical approaches.

For members to attack each other on a repeated basis because an argument isn't well though out enough; prepared in a pleasing enough format, or sophisticated enough for personal tastes is something I have a difficult time excusing. As an occasional thing, it's something that warrant's a reprimand or criticism. When it's habitual however, situations such as the above (OP) occur.

Edit: It seems I overlooked one last part of your post. I'd hate for you to feel I ignored it, so I'll add that in here.

And if a person gets discouraged and feels unwelcome because one person didn't accept their idea... then the whole system has failed them. Where was everyone else? Knights? Apprentices? It should never, and is never, up to one person to determine whether or not people are welcome. Therefore it feels to me more like Kyrin is a scapegoat.

I suppose that could go both ways.

We could apply it to Kyrin feeling unwelcome because her ideas and conduct/approach weren't accepted by the membership or leadership within the Temple. We could also apply it to the multitude of past, present, and potential members who have either discontinued activity within the temple's forums, chose to limit their investment and participation here, or chose to abandon TOTJO entirely.

Many Knights, Apprentices, and members have spoken out on both sides of this issue; both in support of Kyrin, as well as against her. Again, referencing the above statement about U.S freedom of speech & public law; being that we are a church and place of worship, we are subject to different legal restrictions and expectations about how we operate.

Philosophically, I don't have an argument as to why organizations and governments should be allowed to operate within dictatorships or other tyrannically governments. Additionally, I am not in argument with you where it concerns that point.

Practically however. Not only is it not within only one person's power to ban or expel membership within the temple, it never has been. Prior to Knights being granted the privilege to vote on matters such as above; the council was relegated such decisions and voted on them accordingly. Even in that case, there were still multiple individuals weighing in on such decisions.

However, even if it was one members sole responsibility and function to decide who to ban or expel from Temple membership, they are still within their rights to do so. Just as the (catholic) pope is the highest tier of said belief structure, if TOTJO decided that Br. John, or other council members were to be relegated the sole and primary power of banning or excommunicating membership - they would be entirely within their rights to do so. On top of that, there would be absolutely no valid argument (legally) permissible as to why they should then be subject to charges or other proceedings for those decisions.

If you like ... again this thread was a option granted to A past member to leave a goodbye statement - prolly not what it has become.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/122619-free-will-and-free-choice#339705

Create your own post if you like about anything you like. It ain’t hard. Feel free to join others. Just a invitation really nothing more...

that begs the question of what this church would become if we all just slapped eachother on the back and agreed all of the time without questions or encouraging others to question/research for themselves..
Is that what we want Totjo to be?

What happened here had nothing to do with someone agreeing or disagreeing. It had to do with a level of very persistent and aggressive approaches, specifically for sport debate, toward people who were not here for such things, on top of numerous other issues, all of which had been pardoned again and again over years despite many people complaining as to why that is not fair to those who had been previously banned for less. Nobody is saying it is wrong to have a debates or questions. It's a matter of having a history of unnecessarily aggressive engagements which repeat again and again after numerous time-outs, warnings, mentoring, and walk-aways from those who have been offended by it again and again.

Proteus wrote:

that begs the question of what this church would become if we all just slapped eachother on the back and agreed all of the time without questions or encouraging others to question/research for themselves..
Is that what we want Totjo to be?

What happened here had nothing to do with someone agreeing or disagreeing. It had to do with a level of very persistent and aggressive approaches, specifically for sport debate, toward people who were not here for such things, on top of numerous other issues, all of which had been pardoned again and again over years despite many people complaining as to why that is not fair to those who had been previously banned for less. Nobody is saying it is wrong to have a debates or questions. It's a matter of having a history of unnecessarily aggressive engagements which repeat again and again after numerous time-outs, warnings, mentoring, and walk-aways from those who have been offended by it again and again.

Well I didn't say this is what happened here but appreciate your opinion.

Kohadre,

I'm hoping that you and I can come to agree on some things. However it may have looked to you as I was rabidly coming to the defense of someone and couldn't be reasoned with, it also looked to me like you didn't care and couldn't be bothered to show evidence of why this had to happen. I hope to clear that up.

If I told my boss that I thought he was an overweight, bumbling oaf; with a propensity for inappropriate conduct and a disgrace to the department

As far as free speech, you are correct; however there are certain cases where you absolutely can trash talk your boss as protected speech.
https://work.chron.com/can-trash-talking-boss-fired-28059.html

The National Labor Relations Act protects you when you complain about issues that affect employees besides yourself, such as unsafe conditions or the lack of raises for your department. The law even allows you to vent about your boss online, provided you are trying to improve or change your workplace. However, personal rants affecting only yourself are not protected.

So if Kyrin talks about corruption or unfair use of banning or other things that affect other people besides just herself, that should absolutely be protected; yea... even by private organizations. If you just said your boss was overweight that's one thing. But calling him out for inappropriate conduct? That's actually a good thing and is protected speech. Now if it's not true he could sue for defamation, but if it is true then a defamation suit would fail. Would you not agree so far?

The fact is that people ARE allowed to complain. That's part of what makes us a free society.

So for your repeated requests to be provided with links, references, and reasons as to why she was banned; the reason why it cannot be provided to you in it's entirety is that said content has been removed or otherwise deleted from public access. This however does not erase the memory that other temple members have of her prior conduct here, nor it's impact.

I hope you see the problem with this without me having to point it out. Without this evidence it becomes "he said she said". And there is a reason why we have a statute of limitations on most offenses. Prosecuting someone 20 years later is problematic and can be highly prejudicial. But the main problem is I didn't ask for the entirety of anything. I asked for the evidence of the actual complaint resulting in THIS ban. If said evidence exists I'd like to see it. It doesn't even seem like everyone on the Council has seen it which means they have no opportunity for oversight (which is bad). And if deleted then this is the same as claiming there was a murder and the defendant should be sentenced to death but all the evidence was conveniently destroyed. Lack of evidence for any reason should disqualify the prosecution, not the defense.

A number of people have been banned such that it caused members to leave (Brick for example). Imagine if any one of those previously banned people, without committing a recent offense were recently decidedly banned again. It would be outrageous. If you prosecute a drug dealer, caught red handed, and that drug dealer serves his time, pays his debt to society, you cannot then go and find him at his job and take him back to jail without a new offense and say "well he sold drugs before". Without an accusation from an injured party the reality is there is no offense and therefore no punishment should be considered. Am I wrong?

(also the 3 strikes law has been seriously problematic in and of itself and is quite unpopular as it creates unfair sentences for nonviolent offenders)

As far as posting personal beliefs within the forum is concerned; the reason why we currently have special interest groups is to attempt and accommodate different belief systems which choose to incorporate elements of TOTJO Jedi-ism into their own practices.

That is correct. And when you put those personal beliefs on the open forum it is my understanding that you, regardless of foreknowledge, have either wittingly or unwittingly put those beliefs up for debate. They do not have to be coddled, agreed with, supported, etc. Ren can correct me if I've got that wrong.

Where it concerns forum debates, not everyone on the forums is going to have the same level of understanding or interest in the topics being debated.

Which is why I have already advocated for a special separate forum and choose to work on creating a Jedi manual for debating with guidelines, rules of engagement, code of honor, etc. etc. (shameless plug) It is not Kyrin or anyone else's fault if such a place doesn't exist or if there is no clear separation between the "safe space" many want vs the alternative where adults can actually choose to engage or ignore topics and people at will. And why is this relevant if not that Kyrin violated this idea of a "safe space" when no such thing has been legislated into the Terms of Use for this site to our knowledge?

For members to attack each other on a repeated basis because an argument isn't well though out enough; prepared in a pleasing enough format, or sophisticated enough for personal tastes is something I have a difficult time excusing.

Show me the attack. Show me the injured party. If indeed there is a recent attack it should still exist somewhere. Kyrin is passionate by nature and in my Jedi path I need to control emotions not let emotions control me, but I see Kyrin mostly attacking ideas, not people. Maybe it has been different in the past, but we should be dealing with the Kyrin of the present. I've also seen evidence of restraint on Kyrin's part, especially in dealing with someone who wronged her in the past. And actually Kyrin has forgiven more than one person for personal attacks against her. But show me the attack. Show me the evidence. That's all I'm asking. Don't tell me I killed your sister and your sister is alive and well in Chicago.

We could apply it to Kyrin feeling unwelcome because her ideas and conduct/approach weren't accepted by the membership or leadership within the Temple. We could also apply it to the multitude of past, present, and potential members who have either discontinued activity within the temple's forums, chose to limit their investment and participation here, or chose to abandon TOTJO entirely.

And which of those people do you want to retain? If a person has an idea, let's say they believe the Force is a person with thoughts and feelings and speaks to them in Russian. If they feel like people don't accept them because no one is like "yeah, I agree with you." whose fault is that? Who is responsible for their feelings? And how far do you go to retain that person? Do you go out of your way and say "hey I don't agree but that's an interesting idea you have"? You could. It might come off condescending but you certainly could. And maybe they feel enough support to keep saying it. How many times will they hear "that's interesting" before they get the message that no one accepts their idea? What should they do? What if they quit? Every religion has to decide what that religion is and what it is not. This includes Jediism. Jediism cannot even technically claim to be a religion if it is simultaneously "every religion" and "Every idea".

To my knowledge both you and Kyrin are grey Jedi. That's accepted here. You're an apprentice. Kyrin was an apprentice too which means someone thought she could one day become a knight. So are grey Jedi welcome here or not? Are grey Jedi methods welcome or not? Can grey Jedi become apprentices but never knights? Where is the line of incompatibility drawn as it relates to beliefs? And how much of said beliefs directly play out in behavior?

Practically however. Not only is it not within only one person's power to ban or expel membership within the temple, it never has been. Prior to Knights being granted the privilege to vote on matters such as above; the council was relegated such decisions and voted on them accordingly. Even in that case, there were still multiple individuals weighing in on such decisions.

That is correct. And at least one of Kyrin's bans was lifted/overturned due to lack of evidence. It doesn't matter how it happens. The process needs to be fair. I'm not convinced it was in this case and others thought it wasn't in at least one other prior case regarding the same individual. So what we don't want is a pattern of abuse of power, using/leveraging authority in order to deal with a person they cannot stand up to or deal with otherwise. It is cowardly and dishonorable.

However, even if it was one members sole responsibility and function to decide who to ban or expel from Temple membership, they are still within their rights to do so. Just as the (catholic) pope is the highest tier of said belief structure, if TOTJO decided that Br. John, or other council members were to be relegated the sole and primary power of banning or excommunicating membership - they would be entirely within their rights to do so. On top of that, there would be absolutely no valid argument (legally) permissible as to why they should then be subject to charges or other proceedings for those decisions.

You have just entered a range of hypothetical situations. If it was Bro. John the decision to ban would not have been made. So are you saying his word should be treated as equivalent to that of a wider body in which power is shared? Are you denying that the people should have any say in how they are ruled or judged? Is it truly all about ownership rights? I think the majority of us came here because we chose to come here to be part of a community. We didn't come here to be owned. Because as an owner is free to do whatever with their property, the people are also free to leave. And if Bro John wanted that outcome I don't think there would be a Council and if the Council wanted that outcome I don't think they would allow the knights to decide anything. So what we have, all hypothetical situations aside, is a system in which people are TRYING to balance power between the population and the authority of that population so that we can continue to be and grow as a community.

A parent can say all they like "I brought you into this world and I can take you out" but they really can't act on that threat because they don't own you. And you have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a member of the greater society. I can appreciate that you are trying to defend what you believe to be the greater good. I am too. You may see Kyrin as a threat to other members. I see the banning of Kyrin and other members as a threat to all members. And when power is concentrated it can be arrested and used for corrupt purposes. That's not an accusation. It is a possible outcome we should all be mindful of; especially those in power.

It is or should be a humbling thing to have power because it comes with trust. We trust those in power to do that which is the best interest of our community, not use that power according to their own agenda. In order to separate any possible agenda from what is the greatest good, I'd like to see the evidence of THIS case and understand why Kyrin was banned. I don't want to hear "Kyrin is incompatible" without a when, where, why, and how. Because that doesn't only affect Kyrin. It affects us all. Show me the crime, the injured party, the evidence, the witnesses, the investigation, the opportunity for a defense, and then a final decision taking everything into account (including biases). It could be one impartial judge or a jury of peers. There should always be a fair process or else no honest person can have faith in the decision.

ZealotX wrote: Kohadre,

I'm hoping that you and I can come to agree on some things. However it may have looked to you as I was rabidly coming to the defense of someone and couldn't be reasoned with, it also looked to me like you didn't care and couldn't be bothered to show evidence of why this had to happen. I hope to clear that up.

If I told my boss that I thought he was an overweight, bumbling oaf; with a propensity for inappropriate conduct and a disgrace to the department

As far as free speech, you are correct; however there are certain cases where you absolutely can trash talk your boss as protected speech.
https://work.chron.com/can-trash-talking-boss-fired-28059.html

The National Labor Relations Act protects you when you complain about issues that affect employees besides yourself, such as unsafe conditions or the lack of raises for your department. The law even allows you to vent about your boss online, provided you are trying to improve or change your workplace. However, personal rants affecting only yourself are not protected.

So if Kyrin talks about corruption or unfair use of banning or other things that affect other people besides just herself, that should absolutely be protected; yea... even by private organizations. If you just said your boss was overweight that's one thing. But calling him out for inappropriate conduct? That's actually a good thing and is protected speech. Now if it's not true he could sue for defamation, but if it is true then a defamation suit would fail. Would you not agree so far?

The fact is that people ARE allowed to complain. That's part of what makes us a free society.

So for your repeated requests to be provided with links, references, and reasons as to why she was banned; the reason why it cannot be provided to you in it's entirety is that said content has been removed or otherwise deleted from public access. This however does not erase the memory that other temple members have of her prior conduct here, nor it's impact.

I hope you see the problem with this without me having to point it out. Without this evidence it becomes "he said she said". And there is a reason why we have a statute of limitations on most offenses. Prosecuting someone 20 years later is problematic and can be highly prejudicial. But the main problem is I didn't ask for the entirety of anything. I asked for the evidence of the actual complaint resulting in THIS ban. If said evidence exists I'd like to see it. It doesn't even seem like everyone on the Council has seen it which means they have no opportunity for oversight (which is bad). And if deleted then this is the same as claiming there was a murder and the defendant should be sentenced to death but all the evidence was conveniently destroyed. Lack of evidence for any reason should disqualify the prosecution, not the defense.

A number of people have been banned such that it caused members to leave (Brick for example). Imagine if any one of those previously banned people, without committing a recent offense were recently decidedly banned again. It would be outrageous. If you prosecute a drug dealer, caught red handed, and that drug dealer serves his time, pays his debt to society, you cannot then go and find him at his job and take him back to jail without a new offense and say "well he sold drugs before". Without an accusation from an injured party the reality is there is no offense and therefore no punishment should be considered. Am I wrong?

(also the 3 strikes law has been seriously problematic in and of itself and is quite unpopular as it creates unfair sentences for nonviolent offenders)

As far as posting personal beliefs within the forum is concerned; the reason why we currently have special interest groups is to attempt and accommodate different belief systems which choose to incorporate elements of TOTJO Jedi-ism into their own practices.

That is correct. And when you put those personal beliefs on the open forum it is my understanding that you, regardless of foreknowledge, have either wittingly or unwittingly put those beliefs up for debate. They do not have to be coddled, agreed with, supported, etc. Ren can correct me if I've got that wrong.

Where it concerns forum debates, not everyone on the forums is going to have the same level of understanding or interest in the topics being debated.

Which is why I have already advocated for a special separate forum and choose to work on creating a Jedi manual for debating with guidelines, rules of engagement, code of honor, etc. etc. (shameless plug) It is not Kyrin or anyone else's fault if such a place doesn't exist or if there is no clear separation between the "safe space" many want vs the alternative where adults can actually choose to engage or ignore topics and people at will. And why is this relevant if not that Kyrin violated this idea of a "safe space" when no such thing has been legislated into the Terms of Use for this site to our knowledge?

For members to attack each other on a repeated basis because an argument isn't well though out enough; prepared in a pleasing enough format, or sophisticated enough for personal tastes is something I have a difficult time excusing.

Show me the attack. Show me the injured party. If indeed there is a recent attack it should still exist somewhere. Kyrin is passionate by nature and in my Jedi path I need to control emotions not let emotions control me, but I see Kyrin mostly attacking ideas, not people. Maybe it has been different in the past, but we should be dealing with the Kyrin of the present. I've also seen evidence of restraint on Kyrin's part, especially in dealing with someone who wronged her in the past. And actually Kyrin has forgiven more than one person for personal attacks against her. But show me the attack. Show me the evidence. That's all I'm asking. Don't tell me I killed your sister and your sister is alive and well in Chicago.

We could apply it to Kyrin feeling unwelcome because her ideas and conduct/approach weren't accepted by the membership or leadership within the Temple. We could also apply it to the multitude of past, present, and potential members who have either discontinued activity within the temple's forums, chose to limit their investment and participation here, or chose to abandon TOTJO entirely.

And which of those people do you want to retain? If a person has an idea, let's say they believe the Force is a person with thoughts and feelings and speaks to them in Russian. If they feel like people don't accept them because no one is like "yeah, I agree with you." whose fault is that? Who is responsible for their feelings? And how far do you go to retain that person? Do you go out of your way and say "hey I don't agree but that's an interesting idea you have"? You could. It might come off condescending but you certainly could. And maybe they feel enough support to keep saying it. How many times will they hear "that's interesting" before they get the message that no one accepts their idea? What should they do? What if they quit? Every religion has to decide what that religion is and what it is not. This includes Jediism. Jediism cannot even technically claim to be a religion if it is simultaneously "every religion" and "Every idea".

To my knowledge both you and Kyrin are grey Jedi. That's accepted here. You're an apprentice. Kyrin was an apprentice too which means someone thought she could one day become a knight. So are grey Jedi welcome here or not? Are grey Jedi methods welcome or not? Can grey Jedi become apprentices but never knights? Where is the line of incompatibility drawn as it relates to beliefs? And how much of said beliefs directly play out in behavior?

Practically however. Not only is it not within only one person's power to ban or expel membership within the temple, it never has been. Prior to Knights being granted the privilege to vote on matters such as above; the council was relegated such decisions and voted on them accordingly. Even in that case, there were still multiple individuals weighing in on such decisions.

That is correct. And at least one of Kyrin's bans was lifted/overturned due to lack of evidence. It doesn't matter how it happens. The process needs to be fair. I'm not convinced it was in this case and others thought it wasn't in at least one other prior case regarding the same individual. So what we don't want is a pattern of abuse of power, using/leveraging authority in order to deal with a person they cannot stand up to or deal with otherwise. It is cowardly and dishonorable.

However, even if it was one members sole responsibility and function to decide who to ban or expel from Temple membership, they are still within their rights to do so. Just as the (catholic) pope is the highest tier of said belief structure, if TOTJO decided that Br. John, or other council members were to be relegated the sole and primary power of banning or excommunicating membership - they would be entirely within their rights to do so. On top of that, there would be absolutely no valid argument (legally) permissible as to why they should then be subject to charges or other proceedings for those decisions.

You have just entered a range of hypothetical situations. If it was Bro. John the decision to ban would not have been made. So are you saying his word should be treated as equivalent to that of a wider body in which power is shared? Are you denying that the people should have any say in how they are ruled or judged? Is it truly all about ownership rights? I think the majority of us came here because we chose to come here to be part of a community. We didn't come here to be owned. Because as an owner is free to do whatever with their property, the people are also free to leave. And if Bro John wanted that outcome I don't think there would be a Council and if the Council wanted that outcome I don't think they would allow the knights to decide anything. So what we have, all hypothetical situations aside, is a system in which people are TRYING to balance power between the population and the authority of that population so that we can continue to be and grow as a community.

A parent can say all they like "I brought you into this world and I can take you out" but they really can't act on that threat because they don't own you. And you have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a member of the greater society. I can appreciate that you are trying to defend what you believe to be the greater good. I am too. You may see Kyrin as a threat to other members. I see the banning of Kyrin and other members as a threat to all members. And when power is concentrated it can be arrested and used for corrupt purposes. That's not an accusation. It is a possible outcome we should all be mindful of; especially those in power.

It is or should be a humbling thing to have power because it comes with trust. We trust those in power to do that which is the best interest of our community, not use that power according to their own agenda. In order to separate any possible agenda from what is the greatest good, I'd like to see the evidence of THIS case and understand why Kyrin was banned. I don't want to hear "Kyrin is incompatible" without a when, where, why, and how. Because that doesn't only affect Kyrin. It affects us all. Show me the crime, the injured party, the evidence, the witnesses, the investigation, the opportunity for a defense, and then a final decision taking everything into account (including biases). It could be one impartial judge or a jury of peers. There should always be a fair process or else no honest person can have faith in the decision.

At the repeated requests of the council and temple clergy, I'm not going to continue (publicly) debating you on the issue of Kyrin.

If you would be interested in carrying on this discussion via PM, I would be happy to continue with you. I've agreed with other statements and arguments you've made within temple discussion, so I don't think it's impossible for us to reason with each other.

Also, if you wish to start or otherwise continue a separate discussion on the philosophy and application of public freedoms; I would be happy to participate in that as well.

In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination within religious, political and other structures.
In the separation of religion and government and the freedoms of speech, association and expression.

Is what the doctrine says jedi believe in.


It's not so much about whether US law protects free speech in private organizations or not, it is about whether kyrin prevents speech, association, expression or freedom of conscience and self-determination at totjo.
Having witnessed the popularity of the public 'psychometry' thread and the cemetary-like ambience of the knights-only thread, all i can conclude is that kyrin and the other lower ranks encourage speech, association, expression, freedom of conscience and self-determination at totjo, while totjo knights do not.

As to the knights who claim kyrin (or others) attack people here, I urge to take a quick look at the knights' forum. See for yourselves who likes to talk about people instead of ideas, how much it happens, and where it happens. See for yourselves how many times someone gives you an opportunity to do something productive only for it to be turned down in favour of another round of 'blame the scapegoat'.

Here's the irony of this thread ultimately started by a comment from Ren. No knights have submitted any evidence....

No knights were required to, there is a 20+ page thread if reports and discussion and questionable behavior some of which were submitted by myself in a moderator only section in regards to kyrins behavior, there is another one even on top of that. Then to add to this it was council that asked for a vote from the knights not the other way around, if there is any blame for a "lack of evidence" it's from council.

It's a spin on words from Ren, there's evidence up there, there's more that could easily be gatherered if someone with appropriate access would devote some time and effort into researching with an unbiased mind, but I doubt there is such a person available.

ren wrote:

In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination within religious, political and other structures.
In the separation of religion and government and the freedoms of speech, association and expression.

Is what the doctrine says jedi believe in.


It's not so much about whether US law protects free speech in private organizations or not, it is about whether kyrin prevents speech, association, expression or freedom of conscience and self-determination at totjo.
Having witnessed the popularity of the public 'psychometry' thread and the cemetary-like ambience of the knights-only thread, all i can conclude is that kyrin and the other lower ranks encourage speech, association, expression, freedom of conscience and self-determination at totjo, while totjo knights do not.

As to the knights who claim kyrin (or others) attack people here, I urge to take a quick look at the knights' forum. See for yourselves who likes to talk about people instead of ideas, how much it happens, and where it happens. See for yourselves how many times someone gives you an opportunity to do something productive only for it to be turned down in favour of another round of 'blame the scapegoat'.

*mic drop*

.

So if Kyrin talks about corruption or unfair use of banning or other things that affect other people besides just herself, that should absolutely be protected; yea... even by private organizations. If you just said your boss was overweight that's one thing. But calling him out for inappropriate conduct? That's actually a good thing and is protected speech. Now if it's not true he could sue for defamation, but if it is true then a defamation suit would fail. Would you not agree so far?

The fact is that people ARE allowed to complain. That's part of what makes us a free society.

No argument so far, I concur with the above. If Kyrin, or any other temple member openly addressed what they saw to be corruption within the temple; said speech should be protected within the confines of the temple. However, I will add that I personally believe reporting such acts to temple officers should be done prior to the creation of public threads.

I also agree that membership should be allowed to voice complaints or concerns about temple decisions, permitted that said complaints don’t escalate into personal attacks.

I hope you see the problem with this without me having to point it out. Without this evidence it becomes "he said she said". And there is a reason why we have a statute of limitations on most offenses. Prosecuting someone 20 years later is problematic and can be highly prejudicial. But the main problem is I didn't ask for the entirety of anything. I asked for the evidence of the actual complaint resulting in THIS ban. If said evidence exists I'd like to see it. It doesn't even seem like everyone on the Council has seen it which means they have no opportunity for oversight (which is bad). And if deleted then this is the same as claiming there was a murder and the defendant should be sentenced to death but all the evidence was conveniently destroyed. Lack of evidence for any reason should disqualify the prosecution, not the defense.

Warning: Spoiler!

A number of people have been banned such that it caused members to leave (Brick for example). Imagine if any one of those previously banned people, without committing a recent offense were recently decidedly banned again. It would be outrageous. If you prosecute a drug dealer, caught red handed, and that drug dealer serves his time, pays his debt to society, you cannot then go and find him at his job and take him back to jail without a new offense and say "well he sold drugs before". Without an accusation from an injured party the reality is there is no offense and therefore no punishment should be considered. Am I wrong?

Again, I don’t have any argument with the philosophy or reasoning in your above quoted post.

As you’ve mentioned, Kyrin and myself would identify as “gray” Jedi. Fortunately, the philosophy within said code is not significantly different from the one TOTJO operates upon. However, shortly after Kyrin’s last return to temple affairs; she adopted a more Sith based code.

Again, not very problematic in itself since we have many temple members who lean more towards a sith based philosophy.

The bigger problem with Kyrin’s return to temple affairs; was her public announcement of a position she referred to as a “Jedaii Ranger”. In doing this, she inferred, implied, or otherwise stated that it was her position to work behind the scenes; holding membership accountable.



At this same time, she also publicly stated that she had absolutely no commitment to TOTJO doctrine or philosophy; nor did she have any intention of continuing to participate with or contribute to the temple community.



Then, on top of that; she began to publicly promote her own Jedi community. As long as I’ve been at TOTJO, outside links that drive membership away have been explicitly prohibited.



For these reasons alone, Kyrin could have been justifiably removed from the community.

Again, I’ll apologize that I have to stop here. Your post is extremely long, and difficult to read through. Not that you have to, but encasing different paragraphs in spoiler tags would help to make it more readable.

Tellahane wrote: No knights were required to, there is a 20+ page thread if reports and discussion and questionable behavior some of which were submitted by myself in a moderator only section in regards to kyrins behavior

I think this is why these threads are important although it may not seem so. I'm not blaming you or other moderators who are following orders to the best of your ability. I'm sure you saw things, as a moderator, that you thought warranted disciplinary action and you were in the position to do something about it. But it's like the moderators are the "cops" of the forum. It can be a thankless and unenviable position and so I think you for being a moderator.

With that being said, "cops" (in general) can sometimes abuse their power. Other individuals can also abuse their power by making false accusations, statements, etc. Over the last year I've seen police called for the most ridiculous reasons because some person simply didn't like another person: a little kid selling lemonade, a kid mowing the lawn, people having a BBQ at the park, kids swimming. Most of the time the police come (because they have to) but do nothing, but other times, if the bias of the officers are in line with the biases of the accusers, people can die. A young boy was shot by police playing with a toy gun in a park. Someone was shot playing with a toy rifle in a Walmart.

The truth is you can only blame the cops for a percentage of each death. The other percentage has to be the accuser. For me, these aren't simple mistakes. These are injustices. The system should be constantly trying to improve itself to protect the population from its own power being unjustly applied. In the US the right to bear arms protects the right of the people to have an militia against the government. Why would the government itself allow this? Because checks and balances are what makes the system work for the most people. And justice is another concept that we have to constantly strive for.

When we question any system... it should be to check it.... to see if there is a way to improve it. Make it better. So thank you for doing your job. At the same time I want to see if we have clearly stated and fair rules that were broken so that you have clear laws to enforce without much interpretation. Because if you interpret a law to mean X, and another officer Y, and another officer Z... then now you have a system where it simply depends on who the officer is and so every person isn't equally treated under the law. Lady Justice has a blindfold for a reason.

Some police officers tend to violate people's rights because 1) they believe it is within their own rights as an agent of the law and 2) because in their experience certain people do bad things more often than others. etc. I've been a victim of this myself. If my father hadn't shown up at the scene I would have gone to jail for a crime I didn't commit because the officer presumed my guilt rather than my innocence. It is therefore up to the population to put pressure on lawmakers (in our case the Council) to support officers with proper training, including deescalation tactics, and make sure jobs are done without discrimination or indiscretion. I'm talking about real police but obviously as a metaphor for moderators here who are "security officers". Bad policing can stem from bad legislation or training. It can also stem from fear, as many officers are either afraid for their own lives more than those they are charged to protect, or afraid of some other outcome they don't want to see happen. Bad policing can lose the favor and esteem of the population. People stop working with the police, stop reporting criminal activity because they're more worried about the criminals or innocent bystanders being executed, and people eventually start becoming hostile to the police and then eventually the government that allows the police to abuse the power given to them by the people.

So when I ask for evidence (not even the whole history but the most recent complaint), when I ask who the injured party was, who brought the complaint, who proposed permanent ban, witnesses, investigation, methodology, etc. I'm trying to, as a member of the community, ascertain if my community that I love is being fairly treated. If a permanent ban is the ultimate punishment you can issue I want to know that the ultimate has been done to make sure it was the only possible outcome. I've seen members lose their cool before. I've seen good posters get banned. I've seen at least one instance of a ban overturned from a lack of evidence. I've seen people quit this whole website, not because of posters but because of an overuse of authority or "immoderate moderation". I've seen tons of people quit or step down from positions. And I understand everyone is trying to do their best but it seems like there needs to be a bit more flexibility and clearly set expectations.

Someone losing their temper isn't a crime. In a world were the leader of the free world is a man who says "grab em by the *****" I'm not saying it isn't wrong, but it shouldn't be treated as a crime. There has to be a distinction between personality and actual crime. There has to be a distinction between someone getting offended and someone being offensive and being offensive to the level of an actual crime. And there has to be a distinction between "I think" this person has committed a crime and "I know" this person has committed a crime. I don't care if there are 10 pages of complaints about me. If I post 10 times more than someone else then there are 10 times more opportunities for someone to get offended or someone to dislike me or someone to misinterpret something I said. Therefore the people who post the most are obviously going to be subject to the most scrutiny. Does that make us worse than the people who don't post at all? If the only way to be safe is to post less or not at all then it defeats the purpose of having a forum.

When someone who posts a lot gets banned it's different from someone who hardly ever posts or someone who only post things that are self-promoting or hateful. You don't miss those people. But if someone who posts a lot goes missing it can bring conversations to a crawl or even a screeching halt. And if I don't have anyone to debate with then the forum loses a lot of value for me. There's no point in preaching to the choir. Dissenting opinions others might consider "incompatible" are actually very useful in exploring the validity of your arguments. Otherwise, we're just saying "our beliefs are right and anyone who disagrees can be censured". I don't like churches like that. I like beliefs that can be tested through examination and why should it not be public and transparent? I don't want to have beliefs that cannot stand up to any kind of scrutiny. And I value the opposition of people like Kyrin, Gisteron, and others. Some people like that whole "everyone say amen" thing and they feel good simply co-existing with people who agree with them and there's never any conflicts. That's not me. If there's a worthy debate then I want to be part of it. If people just want to believe something without considering how they could be wrong... I'm just not interested in that and to be honest I feel pity for those people. I'm not against making a "safe space" for them, but doing so at the cost of rigorous examination and debate, to me is a sin.

I want to thank participants and moderations for splitting this thread. Good form . I was told to stay away from all “Kyrin “ chat and talk. The pastor has better things to do with it’s time I’m told. Most times I’m a good soldier and listen some times...I’m a good soldier and do as needed.
Smiley face
There is a list of “infractions” I’m not sure will be available or not . The huge problem we had truthfully is the shimming of the rules. The back handed breaking of the rules - the insults of people obviously frank and yet - as a place of free speech we can’t tell others NOT to. Free to be too free. As in other posts - there does come a time and a moment when too much is too much and there does come a point where harm is created rather than help. Over two years of undermining rules and skirting around them in a “civilized diss “ or a grey way of telling people off... is hard to act upon. That was the problem mainly - it was never the concern of a belief and a idea but the actions and behavior. There are other forum platforms that tolerate and expect this type of communication , we don’t... at least we try not to. Behavior is what gets people banned NEVER their ideas or belief. How they act and say - that’s what we often go on. I hope we can learn from what has happened and continue to grow as a community. We are never perfect people but we try as much as possible to create a place of growth. Your wrong for your belief is a way different statement than say - try this or read this and tell me what you find. The words “your wrong” could possibly be a Jeddist worst fear... but that’s just me in my practice. Evidence ... isn’t always evidence like truth isn’t always truth to two different people. If you want to see something - relatively can play a huge part in seeing what your looking for as well as individual focus. Have we made mistakes as a Order and as individuals - I can only speak for myself and only will ever - yup - will we make more - will I make more - yup. Count on it - BUT - count on me to be able to review and meditate and learn from them and to apologize when I am wrong AND find ways to make it right. On said subject - I feel we can learn from this and keep the Temple in the upright position as soon as we apply what - we have learned and move forward.

Kohadre wrote: Again, I don’t have any argument with the philosophy or reasoning in your above quoted post.

As you’ve mentioned, Kyrin and myself would identify as “gray” Jedi. Fortunately, the philosophy within said code is not significantly different from the one TOTJO operates upon. However, shortly after Kyrin’s last return to temple affairs; she adopted a more Sith based code.

I don't know whether or not that's true because I've never seen Kyrin say or advertise this. So I have to put an asterisk on it until verified. And I will ask Kyrin directly.

Kohadre wrote: Again, not very problematic in itself since we have many temple members who lean more towards a sith based philosophy.

The bigger problem with Kyrin’s return to temple affairs; was her public announcement of a position she referred to as a “Jedaii Ranger”. In doing this, she inferred, implied, or otherwise stated that it was her position to work behind the scenes; holding membership accountable.

After nearly 4 months of being unfairly banned here I was reinstated at the temple. It's been 15 days since that reinstatement and I have used that time to catch up here. What I have found is shocking, first and foremost the creation of psuedo-scientific position that has no basis in reality. But that is a secondary issue. The primary purpose of this post is one the council has asked me to undetake. That of conflict resolution, particularly with zenchi arisaig.

And so I wish to begin that dialogue here, now as a jedaii ranger. A position i have continued to pursue, and eventually achieve, even though I was denied access to my journals here without recourse to regain their access by council. I have since negotiated with them for access to the forums but in light of the methods employed I will never again post a lesson here in journal form. My journals have been recreated at another location and that link is in my signature. So feel free to browse them as you desire.

With all due respect, I see some flaws in your interpretation. I understand your preference for the spoilers tag but I'd rather not miss or have to click on a link to see proof of the accuracy of your assertion.

She made reference of "pursuing" a position in a more official capacity. Until then she is acting unofficially. This is really no different than what I'm doing, by working on a manual for Jedi debating which I will "pursue" official sanction for. I may fail in doing so, but I do think it is important and would have already come in handy. People who agree with my project have supported the idea. Just like, after seeing her own words and motivation, I support her Jedi Ranger initiative where as before I had no idea what it meant in her signature. This is really no different from any citizen of any country or organization having an idea and working towards official acceptance. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. To me, having ideas is not a crime and is better than having nothing to offer. Also, posting and questioning people in full view of public forums is not exactly what I'd call "behind the scenes"; certainly not as behind the scenes as my own project is.

What is Jediism
Jediism is the religion of those who regard their Jedi practice as a religious vocation. Jedi observe a metaphysical entity called the Force and often practise meditation. Jedi beliefs at this Temple are outlined by our Doctrine and developed through participation in our training programmes.

The Temple is welcoming and you do not need to be religious, or even a Jedi, to accept our Doctrine or participate in our training programmes or on our forum.

official misspellings aside, this quote is an official statement and guideline of this website and forum. There is nothing in our doctrines about reiki, or any other form of energy work. You can have these beliefs outside of being a Jedi (as I will quote below) but membership shouldn't be trying to change Jediism, or TOTJO, in order to include these other things; especially not without a much broader consent of the council and membership. Because that's like denomination saying "we don't believe in the Trinity" and then because of a few people suddenly saying "we now profess belief in the Trinity". And that is a real example btw and the #1 reason why I left that denomination. If you agree with a change then it wont upset you. However, if you came back and TOTJO was like "yeah... the Jedi must end so we're now Temple of the Cobrala" you'd probably not be pleased.

Kohadre wrote: At this same time, she also publicly stated that she had absolutely no commitment to TOTJO doctrine or philosophy; nor did she have any intention of continuing to participate with or contribute to the temple community.

Yes of course I would. A Jedaii Ranger is a defender of freedom and a seeker of truth. I think this is a greater cause than that of service to others and I believe that was always supposed to be the original charter of the Jedi, but somewhere along the way it got corrupted. Even though I call myself a Ranger now, I still consider myself a Jedi as well. However In my path I have come to a place where I realize I do not subscribe to TotJO denominational philosophy. When I first came back I had actually considered continuing my training, however after the recent announcement that this temple would endorse pseudo-scentific principles with the creation of a "pastor of Energy Healing" I decided that this place had strayed to far from what I believe and hold to be true for me to continue in any sort of honest way.

"denominational philosophy" does not equate to doctrine. I don't really like cake. It's not nasty. I just don't care for it. My kids know that. Yesterday, one of them offered me a piece of her cheesecake. Why? Because cheesecake isn't entirely the same thing. I love cheesecake. Denominational philosophy is Kyrin's way of basically saying that we have to defend TOTJO doctrine and not allow everything under the sun to be presented here as Jediism. Because the last thing we want to see is Jediism turn into something laughable. Honestly, I've already been laughed at simply for the name Jedi. But I couldn't even face my family if I also couldn't defend TOTJO's doctrines. And don't deny anyone's right to hold other views and other beliefs but that's different from forcing those beliefs to be part of TOTJO. This is exactly why watchmen on the walls are needed and pretty much every religion has them.

Kohadre wrote: Then, on top of that; she began to publicly promote her own Jedi community. As long as I’ve been at TOTJO, outside links that drive membership away have been explicitly prohibited.

Warning: Spoiler!

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/47-Journals/118237-kamikeedi-temple-of-the-resurrected-order-of-the-je-daii?start=10#334520

For these reasons alone, Kyrin could have been justifiably removed from the community.

Actually, not at all. You're posting a reference to Kyrin's PRIVATE journal. If TOTJO had the technical ability, no one would even see your private journal except you and the knights. The spirit of this forum is that it's supposed to be private. They're journals, not a discussion forum. So if you're reading people's private journals its more so because TOTJO can't stop you from doing so. Journals are your space to say whatever you want. Therefore, its not a public advertisement in the slightest. Furthermore, your Journal is what knights use primarily to decide who to offer apprenticeship to. So you're posting there with the knowledge of being judged primarily by people in authority. If you were doing something wrong that would be the last place you'd want to put it as well as the least visible spot to advertise. And I would highly recommend you refrain from posting a link to someone's private journal. I don't know if that actually violates and rules but I think it breaks the spirit of the journals being private. If you want to post a link to your own private journal I think that's fine because you're allowed to invite people to them.

another official statement/guidance:

How to Join TotJO
Jedi here fulfill the following criteria:

A belief in the Force. The Force resides within you, surrounds you and flows through you.
Acceptance of our teachings and Doctrine. These serve as spiritual guidance for Jedi. You may hold other spiritual convictions along with being a Jedi.
A completed Membership Application.

Ren - from the rules of the journals forum:

- Masters, Senior Knights or other high ranking members may wish to post in your journal to offer guidance, help with your studies or encourage you to go further. However, journals are not discussion forums. Please refrain from posting in people's journals unless invited to do so.
- Remember that the ultimate goal of your journal will be to make an impression, let your ideas be known. A Master may then take you as his or her apprentice once your Initiate Studies are over. Even if you have finished your exercises, you should regularly update your journal with your thoughts on current events or even revisit and expand previously explored subjects.

If Kyrin had thoughts on the grey path where else were those thoughts supposed to go if not her own private journal? And are you saying that what you share in a private journal should get you kicked off the site? All of these sound like slippery slopes. And I have still yet to hear anything prosecutorial in regard to recent bad behavior. So that's what I'm still waiting for.