# Am I an arse?



## David612 (Feb 9, 2021)

Gents, 
Forgive the crude title and following rambling post.
At a recent meeting I found myself particularly frustrated with the lacklustre delivery of work, after one year of not meeting no one had learnt any new charges fluently, delivery was disjointed and at times unintelligible and still the standard occurrences of every meeting still needed prompting.
I feel that at some point simply refusing a brother a charge or an officer position is the correct thing to do for the benefit of the candidate- it’s not about excluding that brother but rather preserving the initiatory experience for the candidate.


Am I being an arse? Taking it too seriously?
How would you tackle this?


----------



## Glen Cook (Feb 9, 2021)

David612 said:


> Gents,
> Forgive the crude title and following rambling post.
> At a recent meeting I found myself particularly frustrated with the lacklustre delivery of work, after one year of not meeting no one had learnt any new charges fluently, delivery was disjointed and at times unintelligible and still the standard occurrences of every meeting still needed prompting.
> I feel that at some point simply refusing a brother a charge or an officer position is the correct thing to do for the benefit of the candidate- it’s not about excluding that brother but rather preserving the initiatory experience for the candidate.
> ...


Are you in a position to deny an officer position or to not assign a part?


----------



## David612 (Feb 10, 2021)

Yes,I am.


----------



## Winter (Feb 10, 2021)

An honest assessment of of degree proficiency is important in order to provide the most meaningful experience for the candidate. Find a half dozen Brothers willing to commit to making a degree team for your Lodge.  Do something, anything, if it might help inspire change.  There are resources out there. But poor degree work is the worst disservice we can do to our candidates. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Keith C (Feb 10, 2021)

In my Lodge there undeniably some Brethren who struggle with the work, but I make sure that anyone playing a role in a Degree Conferal is proficient.  Do mistakes happen?, yes none of us are perfect, but generally the work is done well.  This means that perhaps someone who holds a specific Chair for our Stated Meetings has some other role in Degrees.  We also have a rehersal where we go through the entire Degree work no farther out than a week before the Degree, so we KNOW everyone knows the work.

I am a little confused with you saying that you do have control over who plays what role, but you do not seem to acknowledge any part in the lack of proficiency of those who had been assigned various roles.  It is important that Brothers are taught and proved proficient in the Labor of the Office before they are put in the Chair of that office.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Feb 10, 2021)

I have to agree that it is kind of frustrating and sad to watch someone get advanced through the chairs that struggle with their part at each station when simply opening and closing the lodge and then watch them do the same as Master.


----------



## Glen Cook (Feb 10, 2021)

David612 said:


> Yes,I am.


 Thought you said in Reddit that you volunteered to do a part but the offer was declined.


----------



## David612 (Feb 10, 2021)

Glen Cook said:


> Thought you said in Reddit that you volunteered to do a part but the offer was declined.


 some parts are for designated officers so I wasn’t ever an option to fill a role for another officer, plus with the role I was in, that would have been quite odd indeed.


----------



## David612 (Feb 10, 2021)

Warrior1256 said:


> I have to agree that it is kind of frustrating and sad to watch someone get advanced through the chairs that struggle with their part at each station when simply opening and closing the lodge and then watch them do the same as Master.


Honestly I couldn’t bear that for a year, I think there are plans to circumvent this happening but it’s not the right thing to do for a particular brother either.


----------



## Glen Cook (Feb 10, 2021)

This is your edited post:





David612 said:


> some parts are for designated officers so I wasn’t ever an option to fill a role for another officer, plus with the role I was in, that would have been quite odd indeed.



It is a change from :

“You need to reread it, I said that I offered to do all of the charges, however some parts are for designated officers.
I suppose I could offer to do all the officer roles though that may be a little odd.”

You had replied “Yes” to my question above asking if you were in a “position to deny an officer position or to not assign a part?”

Why did you allow them to be officers and to take these assignments?


----------



## David612 (Feb 10, 2021)

Glen Cook said:


> This is your edited post:
> 
> It is a change from :
> 
> ...


Because of the reason quoted above? I can’t do everything. And officers have been in roles for years, I can stop it happening again but I can’t remove them.


----------



## Glen Cook (Feb 11, 2021)

David612 said:


> Because of the reason quoted above? I can’t do everything. And officers have been in roles for years, I can stop it happening again but I can’t remove them.


Your jurisdiction doesn’t allow removal of officers?


----------



## coachn (Feb 11, 2021)

David612 said:


> ...Am I being an arse? Taking it too seriously?
> How would you tackle this?


1) Maybe
2) Maybe
3) Realize it's not about "ritual"; it never was, is, or will be.  It's about being with your Brothers and accepting them for who they are.  The work" is just an excuse to be with them since most guys don't do "relationships."

BTW - How you "treat" these "sub-performing" ritualist, especially in front of candidates, is a direct message to candidates as to how they will be treated.  Is that the message you want to give them?


----------



## Glen Cook (Feb 11, 2021)

coachn said:


> 1) Maybe
> 2) Maybe
> 3) Realize it's not about "ritual"; it never was, is, or will be.  It's about being with your Brothers and accepting them for who they are.  The work" is just an excuse to be with them since most guys don't do "relationships."
> 
> BTW - How you "treat" these "sub-performing" ritualist, especially in front of candidates, is a direct message to candidates as to how they will be treated.  Is that the message you want to give them?


I would suggest the BTW is the most important part of the statement.


----------



## Keith C (Feb 11, 2021)

Glen Cook said:


> I would suggest the BTW is the most important part of the statement.



Absolutly.

Firstly you shouldn't put someone in a position to fail.  If they don't know the work, don't have them try to do it "live."  

If they DO know the work and "mess up" in the delivery realize - 1) We are all human and make mistakes. 2) It wasn't intentional. 3) The candiatate has NO IDEA what it was supposed to be.  Over reaction to a mistake is a major part in lessening the Candidate experience, demoralizing the Brother who made the mistake, and instilling an attitude of not wanting to participate by others who fear they might make an error someday.


----------



## David612 (Feb 11, 2021)

Keith C said:


> Absolutly.
> 
> Firstly you shouldn't put someone in a position to fail.  If they don't know the work, don't have them try to do it "live."
> 
> If they DO know the work and "mess up" in the delivery realize - 1) We are all human and make mistakes. 2) It wasn't intentional. 3) The candiatate has NO IDEA what it was supposed to be.  Over reaction to a mistake is a major part in lessening the Candidate experience, demoralizing the Brother who made the mistake, and instilling an attitude of not wanting to participate by others who fear they might make an error someday.


To clarify I don’t react to, comment on or correct bad delivery in the lodge as it isn’t my offical role to correct these brethren.
While I agree that the candidate won’t know if you miss a line, they know something isn’t right when the DC needs to read the work and the presenter repeats after him- there is no shame or problem missing a word or line, it shows they know the vast majority of it, the issue is when they know none of it.


----------



## coachn (Feb 11, 2021)

Little known fact (to some) - Ritual is actually read in a quite a few jurisdictions elsewhere...


----------



## David612 (Feb 11, 2021)

coachn said:


> Little known fact (to some) - Ritual is actually read in a quite a few jurisdictions elsewhere...


Well aware of this fact, my jurisdiction mandates the ritual to be memorised, with the exclusion of the chaplain who may may read  portions of scripture.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy (Feb 11, 2021)

I'd like to nitpick on the title of this thread.

"Am I an arse?" refers to someone's general personality. For instance, "I am generous" would refer to a personality aspect.

"Am I being an arse?" would refer to a specific situation. For instance "I'll give you a C- and I am being generous".

In this case, I find that "Am I being an arse?" is a better title for this thread as it refers to a specific situation.

While I find that you're quite tightly wound up on this matter (you catch more flies with honey than vinegar – and incidentally even more with faeces, but that's a separate story), I do think that actions should have consequences. Stocks and pillory in the town square may be too harsh a punishment, but what if the forgetful brothers had to serve dinner, wash the dishes and clean the toilets while wearing a French maid outfit? Would that be too much of an officers' mess or public school tomfoolery?


----------



## coachn (Feb 11, 2021)

David612 said:


> Well aware of this fact, my jurisdiction mandates the ritual to be memorised, with the exclusion of the chaplain who may may read  portions of scripture.


Yeah... and our ritual mandates that we do the Work that is specified in it... but in all fairness, when was the last time any one lodge officer took the time to  dress down a Brother for ...

not applying his twenty-four inch gauge on clearly displayed mismanagement of his time?
not using his common gavel do divest himself of clearly displayed vices and superfluities?
not circumscribing or subduing his clearly overtly displayed and unmanageable desires or passions?

not being fair, equitable or assuring the playing field was level?
not being unbiased in his choices and decisions in business, lodge, family and life?
not being moral in activities inside and outside the lodge?
not spreading the brotherly love one should expect from a "master"?
If you're going to get upset about not following things as they are prescribed for us by the playwrights of our ritual, being proficient in what we are directed to do and generally toeing the party line, why stop at memorizing and regurgitating ritual?


----------



## David612 (Feb 12, 2021)

coachn said:


> Yeah... and our ritual mandates that we do the Work that is specified in it... but in all fairness, when was the last time any one lodge officer took the time to  dress down a Brother for ...
> 
> not applying his twenty-four inch gauge on clearly displayed mismanagement of his time?
> not using his common gavel do divest himself of clearly displayed vices and superfluities?
> ...


I’m not suggesting we stop at memorising the work.


----------



## David612 (Feb 12, 2021)

TheThumbPuppy said:


> I'd like to nitpick on the title of this thread.
> 
> "Am I an arse?" refers to someone's general personality. For instance, "I am generous" would refer to a personality aspect.
> 
> ...


Tbh I am tightly wound on it, I just can’t fathom why one would opt to take an officer role or deliver a charge with no intention of learning it, it boggles my mind.
It seems to me the thing to do is just dedicate yourself for the things you volunteer for and do your best or excuse yourself from those responsibilities.


----------



## coachn (Feb 12, 2021)

David612 said:


> ...It seems to me the thing to do is just dedicate yourself for the things you volunteer for and do your best or excuse yourself from those responsibilities.


Ah!  Integrity!  

Something that you would think would not be lost to members of an organization who pride themselves on _being true to one's word._


----------



## TheThumbPuppy (Feb 12, 2021)

David612 said:


> Tbh I am tightly wound on it, I just can’t fathom why one would opt to take an officer role or deliver a charge with no intention of learning it, it boggles my mind.
> It seems to me the thing to do is just dedicate yourself for the things you volunteer for and do your best or excuse yourself from those responsibilities.



In principle I agree with you. But you've got to work with these people. Unless you decide to cut your losses, say goodbye, and change lodge. If you were to talk to them with your current incensed state of mind, you'd probably make things worse and I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up in the wrong.

Rather think of your goal and ask yourself what you could do to influence your brothers. Ideally you'd get them to renew their commitment and agree on a course of action. Perhaps try to raise the subject at the next meeting, but don't make it a crusade. For instance, ask if anybody else had noticed that the quality of the rituals has decreased. After a few agree, ask what "we" could do to improve this situation. Never raise your voice or give way to an indignant or confrontational attitude. 

Don't expect it to get it all solved in one meeting. At the following meeting ask your brothers is they had some thoughts about improving the quality of the rituals and whether some of them had started some new habit to help their memory. And you carry on at the meeting after that. If there are some improvements, give credit where credit is due. Softly, softly, catchee monkey.

Alternatively you could just smack them on the back of their head every time they forget a line. : )


----------



## Keith C (Feb 12, 2021)

I am still at a loss at how to assimilate this:



Glen Cook said:


> Are you in a position to deny an officer position or to not assign a part?





David612 said:


> Yes,I am.



With this:



David612 said:


> Tbh I am tightly wound on it, I just can’t fathom why one would opt to take an officer role or deliver a charge with no intention of learning it, it boggles my mind.



If you are in the position to deny someone an Officer's Chair or Not assign someone to a given role in the Work, WHY would you not assure their competency BEFORE they are put in the position to fail as dramatically as you state?

To be blunt, either you are not in a position to decide who does what, or you are not evaluating the ability of the assigned Brethren to do the Work they are directed to perform.


----------

