ATTN: COUNCIL; Updated Doctrine Proposal

Proteus, I've not addressed you up to this point.

From my perspective, you haven't really sided with either side of the "should we or shouldn't we" discussion. You're still weighing the options and your verbiage reflects that.

For those that have come out with verbiage which polarizes as certain way- my goal is to get them to provide a real debate so that everyone on the floor can get a good idea of what the pros and cons are. I'm dismissive of weak stances that are easily written off as "I don't want change" because that's going to get us no where. And let's be honest, the "but this doctrine got us to where we are" is "I don't want change", It's amongst the weakest of defenses- and we can do better.

On the contrary, I'm one of the people who have been in official discussion about the doctrine needing updating. My verbiage is giving a suggestion on how we need to make sure we get the foundation right when we do.

Fair enough. Your engagement in this thread has come off more neutral than anything.

I don't disagree with you- in general getting people to move and discuss things will always be a difficult task. I'm still very hopeful that will happen in this thread.

Random Side Note: It's actually discussions like this one on the doctrine that have caused me to gain considerable respect for political positions in government. I imagine they all go through the same frustrations of trying to change or update our laws.

I find it disingenuous to conflate "I don't want this change" with "I don't want any change".

You say "I don't think", but what I'm hearing is: "I don't want change."

What does this say about you, that you read this negative perception into other people's words when they are apathetic about something you have taken as your personal quest, to make a change which affects everyone here? Do we not deserve a say whatever that may be, without being interpreted so harshly?

6) A Jedi seeks self-honesty, seeking the inner workings of their motives. They are mindful of their thoughts, limitations, and ego.

15) A Jedi is wary of attachments, both material and personal, recognizing that such lead to emotional entrapment

And, crucially,

18) A Jedi bears the responsibility of integrity to the Jedi Path at all times, knowing that hypocrisy is their worst enemy.

Why not seek a more positive, inclusive and constructive attitude when approaching the community with your suggestions? Perhaps the reason you did not get engagement before now, something bemoaned elsewhere in the thread, is that people simply don't care much for the suggestion of updating the doctrine. Perhaps people were open-minded enough to be wowed by whatever emerged, only to find, now, that they don't see a lot of additional value in what's been proposed?

Just thoughts to consider.

Not at all. Look at the words again- there are people advocating for no change based on “we all got here because of this”. That’s not an advocacy for looking at the possibility of change- it’s specifically against change.

I’m neither an optimist nor a pessimist. I recognize there are people in this thread and the other who are willing to at least entertain the idea. I also recognize that there are those who actively are reluctant to entertain it.

It’s easy to see what I’m saying as an outright hostile attack. Hostility isn’t my aim, getting quality engagement is.

This thread should return to the topic though. We’re getting sidetracked.

Sorry, but that's just more of the same, and I disagree this is a "sidetrack" - this is the crux of the issue. Some don't want this to change, and before enacting that change I think you need to address that.

We gather here under nothing but the shared doctrine - that is, the core of what this place is, and what brings people here, and what we do here, is contained in the doctrine.

A change could be to add something to the doctrine. A change could be to remove a chat room. A change could be to increase the number of sermons, start a new forum for recipes or bring in a weekly video chat with the Council.

There are any number of changes which do not invalidate that "we all got here because of this", which is in my estimation something meaningful and important (and worthy of the respect of not simply being discarded on a whim), yet which you are all but disregarding - as I say, you are being disingenuous to suggest not wanting to change this specific thing means never being open to any change in any way.

I happen to think this change is a bad one with limited value and significant risk to the people the doctrine is for, and the negativity which is transparent in many responses to this thread is not helping change my mind.