Added a new forum rule, #14

[ivar]

14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.

See the rest of the forum rules here:

https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/forum-rules.20973/

 

[Marbe2]

AMEN!

 

[Bad Pilgrim]

This

 

[Mary Doll]

Good decision!

 

[Joeninho]

Yes

 

[John Sikora]

Absolutely!!

 

[IngridF]

14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.

See the rest of the forum rules here:

https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/forum-rules.20973/

Thank you!

 

[J.Patrick]

I am so glad. Thank you!

 

[pat932490]

14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.

See the rest of the forum rules here:

https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/forum-rules.20973/

Perfect

 

[joecollins]

Excellent!

 

[David]

I am all for stopping attacks on people, certainly, is common horridness across the internet now .. but just to be clear .. there is a big difference between "who" and "what" ...

this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?
Thanks
Buen Camino!

 

[SBurgess]

Yes, yes, and another yes. Thank you, Ivar.

 

[Shazzza]

14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.

See the rest of the forum rules here:

https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/forum-rules.20973/

Thank you! Being a newbie here, I was hoping for wisdom and good vibes only.

 

[Kgaynor]

Thank you! Respect that everyone makes their way to Santiago as is appropriate for them.

 

[JFG]

14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.

See the rest of the forum rules here:

https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/forum-rules.20973/

Thank You

 

[Caomhin O Fearghaill]

14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.

See the rest of the forum rules here:

https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/forum-rules.20973/

yes

 

[WalkingLester]

Thank you

 

[peregrina2000]

this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?

This is the only pilgrimage I know of where people fight about the “true pilgrim” way to get there (though I admit my N is small). My neighbor just went on a pilgrimage to a holy site in her home country of India and there was no walking involved and lots of fancy hotels. But she went for exclusively religious purposes, shaved her head, and partook of many religious rites. She would be truly offended if someone told her she was not a pilgrim because she hadn’t walked to the site.

What the fight is really about on this forum, IMHO, is how tough do you have to make it on yourself to feel “authentic?” Those who went years ago may feel a certain sense of superiority for having had no pack transport and no private rooms, or they may have a sense of sadness that much of what made the camino special/unique 25 years ago was the way in which it forced you to be self-reliant, and the way it made you challenge yourself in a very safe environment, and the way in which it fostered a community in a risk-free and very welcoming environment. That experience is still available, but many choose to forego those opportunities and do it differently. That’s none of my business. It may annoy those who cling to the “old ways,” but no one has a lock on authenticity, it seems to me.

I think the statistics have clearly shown that those who walk for religious purposes constitute a very small percentage of the total, and that we have a big category of those who walk for self-discovery, unburdening themselves, community. It has only been in the last decade or so that the camino offered the ”bucket list” option — prepackaged, comfortable hassle-free trips. Many of us don’t want to take that option, but it is pointless to argue about it.

So, to answer @David’s question, I personally don’t see any upside to a discussion of who/what is a true pilgrim, no matter what the context.

 

[vernakeoho]

Bravo!!!

 

[ivar]

I am all for stopping attacks on people, certainly, is common horridness across the internet now .. but just to be clear .. there is a big difference between "who" and "what" ...

this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?
Thanks
Buen Camino!

I would say Yes. We do not need to get into any of that.

 

[Josefus]

Roma locuta. Causa finita!

 

[C clearly]

This rule focuses on the pilgrim vs non-pilgrim discussion. I think that our real point is to eliminate the value judgements that are stated or implied about other people's Caminos.

However, sometimes people see negative value judgements where none was intended. They may cry out "Shame! You are shaming me!" Then the first person gets upset and defensive.

Somehow we need to stop this destructive cycle of hurt feelings and anger on the forum.

Of course, the new rule is neither perfectly worded nor easy to apply. None of the rules are, but moderators try to reach consensus on our actions, applying the rules as best we can.

We will undoubtedly continue to receive complaints about inconsistency, censorship, judgement, hypocrisy, autocracy, cultural bias, and much more.

 

[David]

This is the only pilgrimage I know of where people fight about the “true pilgrim” way to get there (though I admit my N is small). My neighbor just went on a pilgrimage to a holy site in her home country of India and there was no walking involved and lots of fancy hotels. But she went for exclusively religious purposes, shaved her head, and partook of many religious rites. She would be truly offended if someone told her she was not a pilgrim because she hadn’t walked to the site.

What the fight is really about on this forum, IMHO, is how tough do you have to make it on yourself to feel “authentic?” Those who went years ago may feel a certain sense of superiority for having had no pack transport and no private rooms, or they may have a sense of sadness that much of what made the camino special/unique 25 years ago was the way in which it forced you to be self-reliant, and the way it made you challenge yourself in a very safe environment, and the way in which it fostered a community in a risk-free and very welcoming environment. That experience is still available, but many choose to forego those opportunities and do it differently. That’s none of my business. It may annoy those who cling to the “old ways,” but no one has a lock on authenticity, it seems to me.

I think the statistics have clearly shown that those who walk for religious purposes constitute a very small percentage of the total, and that we have a big category of those who walk for self-discovery, unburdening themselves, community. It has only been in the last decade or so that the camino offered the ”bucket list” option — prepackaged, comfortable hassle-free trips. Many of us don’t want to take that option, but it is pointless to argue about it.

So, to answer @David’s question, I personally don’t see any upside to a discussion of who/what is a true pilgrim, no matter what the context.

and yet, you just did exactly that.
as for the 'fight' - I have never been aware of a fight over what constitutes a 'true pilgrim' in the sense of personal attacks, I must have missed those posts, or the moderators cancelled them (good) - it is clear from the pilgrim's office and cathedral that it is 'intent', not method, and who can know someone else's intent? don't you agree?

and, sorry, but it didn't answer my question. My question was whether 'who' also meant 'what' in this new rule.

Edit: Ivar just answered - there is to be absolutely no mention whatsoever of what a pilgrim is. Fair enough, I shall abide, though it will be difficult on a forum specifically about pilgrims and pilgrimage.

 

[peregrina2000]

and yet, you just did exactly that.
as for the 'fight' - I have never been aware of a fight over what constitutes a 'true pilgrim' in the sense of personal attacks, I must have missed those posts, or the moderators cancelled them (good) - it is clear from the pilgrim's office and cathedral that it is 'intent', not method, and who can know someone else's intent? don't you agree?

and, sorry, but it didn't answer my question. My question was whether 'who' also meant 'what' in this new rule.

See post number 20.

 

[Marc S.]

However, sometimes people see negative value judgements where none was intended. They may cry out "Shame! You are shaming me!" Then the first person gets upset and defensive.

Somehow we need to stop this destructive cycle of hurt feelings on the forum.

Thank you for the clarification. It was initialy not clear to me what was the added bonus of this rule is, while we have forum rule 1 (And in fact still struggle to see it. It seems the moderators set themselves a difficult task - to prevent that people are feeling hurt, although there is no personal attack or insult).

I am not trying to nitpick, but I am also not sure why the rule isn't simply formulated as: no discussion is allowed about who is a pilgrim and who is a tourist ? (similar to the forumulation of forum rules about religion, bull fighting etc.) as this is how I understand the rule.

Maybe it is because English is not my mother language, but I struggle to comprehend the meaning of the nuances in the current formulation.

 

[SabsP]

I am all for stopping attacks on people, certainly, is common horridness across the internet now .. but just to be clear .. there is a big difference between "who" and "what" ...

this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?
Thanks
Buen Camino!

I think I understand what you want to make clear @David . Unfortunately,semantics, cultural preferences, general view of life ( perspective ) seem to make it often difficult to engage in an adult conversation here. Humour and tongue in cheek are also often wrongly interpreted and of course the fact that we do not see the other ( non verbal communication ) does not make it easier.

Lately I use the ignore function here more often and it works fine for me. My motto : " Need to know versus want to know" ...

 

[good_old_shoes]

I have to agree with @David here.

This is a forum about pilgrims and pilgrimage. It is only natural that the question "what is a pilgrim?" comes up, especially because there are different definitions.

I find the general discussion about that to be interesting, as long as it is a more philosophical debate that allows different answers to the question. Different people have different views on the topic, and most answers are valid, and that can help to broaden your own view on it.

There is a difference between that and shaming people for "doing it wrong".

I understand that it is difficult for moderators to deal with those discussions and making sure it doesn't end up being personal or people being offended. I also understand that the new rule will make it easier to moderate the forum and keep negativity at bay.

I'll of course stick to the rule, but I still think it's a loss for a forum about pilgrimage to not allow to muse on what is a pilgrim in any way.

 

[SabsP]

I have to agree with @David here.

This is a forum about pilgrims and pilgrimage. It is only natural that the question "what is a pilgrim?" comes up, especially because there are different definitions.

I find the general discussion about that to be interesting, as long as it is a more philosophical debate that allows different answers to the question. Different people have different views on the topic, and most answers are valid, and that can help to broaden your own view on it.

There is a difference between that and shaming people for "doing it wrong".

I understand that it is difficult for moderators to deal with those discussions and making sure it doesn't end up being personal or people being offended. I also understand that the new rule will make it easier to moderate the forum and keep negativity at bay.

I'll of course stick to the rule, but I still think it's a loss for a forum about pilgrimage to not allow to muse on what is a pilgrim in any way.

You write it much more eloquent than I did .Thank you!

Let us not forget that we can also use the pm-function to communicate with the more likeminded and those who are open to a philosophical approach of all things Camino.

 

[Marc S.]

I'll of course stick to the rule, but I still think it's a loss for a forum about pilgrimage to not allow to muse on what is a pilgrim in any way.

That is not how I read it. The rule allows musing about what a (real) pilgrim is, as long as no general statements are made about certain groups being touristst.

I (luckily) do not make the rules. But the spirit of the rule seems to me (and rightly so): No generalisations are to be made about the motivations and behaviour of people because they way they arrange their walk, whether they carry their own backpack etc (and whether they are on a bicycle, which country they are from etc.)

 

[good_old_shoes]

That is not how I read it. The rule allows musing about what a (real) pilgrim is, as long as no general statements are made about certain groups being touristst.

I (luckily) do not make the rules. But the spirit of the rule seems to me (and rightly so): No generalisations are to be made about the motivations and behaviour of people because they way they arrange their walk, whether they carry their own backpack etc (and whether they are on a bicycle, which country they are from etc.)

It was clarified that no discussion about the topic is allowed at all.

Edit: Ivar just answered - there is to be absolutely no mention whatsoever of what a pilgrim is. Fair enough, I shall abide, though it will be difficult on a forum specifically about pilgrims and pilgrimage

 

[WalkinRon]

This is the Camino de Santiago Forum.
We are all members of this community.
Every one of us.

 

[Marc S.]

It was clarified that no discussion about the topic is allowed at all.

I know. But I refer to the rule as how at it is stated in the Forum Rules - no clarification is given there. In future people will just read the Forum Rules. (Sorry, I have a legal background and just read rules the way they are formulated, and I only read a clarification when it is given together with the rules) And from the way Ivar formulated his post in this thread I am not sure if he speaks on behalf of all moderators.

Btw The rule also speaks about real pilgrims, not pilgrims, and I do not know if this terminology is chosen delibaretely. It could mean it allows discussion about the pilgrim concept, as long as we avoid the (imo indeed tiring) terminology of real pilgrims and true pilgrims.

And the rule also allows for a discussion about what a pilgrimage is / what going on a pilgrimage means for someone, as these are different subjects than who is a pilgrim (or not).

Mods. Sorry if I am being annoying. But - although maybe it does not seem that way - I am trying to be constructive and I just like rules to be as clear as possible - I think the proposed rule is primarily about avoiding generalisations (see my post 29) and I think it would be clearer if this is reflected in the formulation of the rule.

 

[trecile]

It could mean it allows discussion about the pilgrim concept, as long as we avoid the (imo indeed tiring) terminology of real pilgrims and true pilgrims.

And the rule also allows for a discussion about what a pilgrimage is / what going on a pilgrimage means for someone, as these are different subjects than who is a pilgrim (or not).

Yes, this is how I interpret the spirit of this new rule.
I don't want new members to be turned off from the forum (and the Camino) by suggestions that they will not be considered pilgrims or accepted on the Camino because of some choices that they make for their Camino.

This is something that concerned me a bit before my first Camino.

Not only that, but there are many who walk the Camino who don't think of themselves as pilgrims at the outset, and they have just as much right to be on the Camino as anyone else.

It's not up to me or anyone else if someone considers themselves to be a pilgrim, it lies in the intent of each individual.

 

[gmarten]

14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.

See the rest of the forum rules here:

https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/forum-rules.20973/

Thank you.

 

[Marc S.]

It's not up to me or anyone else if someone considers themselves to be a pilgrim, it lies in the intent of each individual.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you aim to say with your post.

But when we say that being a pilgrim is connected with someone's intent, we are sort of adressing the question who is a pilgrim or not, because we seem to define a pilgrim as someone with certain intentions. I don't disagree with this, but in my reading of the proposed rule I am not sure if we are allowed to make such a statement.

 

[dougfitz]

I think it would be a great pity if this rule were to be used to muzzle discussion on what pilgrimage is rather than retain what appears to be a focus on whether the way that some members and others are undertaking their pilgrimage allows those individuals to be labelled in some way.

It seems unfortunate to me that this rule is required. I know that I reflect regularly, not only when planning and undertaking a pilgrimage, but in the course of my day-to-day life, about my motivations for undertaking those pilgrimages I have and intend to undertake. I have been greatly helped in framing this reflection by the discussions that have taken place over the years on the topic we are now going to censor, some of which have indeed become heated, even vitriolic. It is unfortunate that it seems we, as forum members, have not managed the robustness of this discussion to avoid offending or deterring others. It will leave new members, should they wish to reflect on this themselves, without the benefit of the views of other forum members. They will face these when they walk or ride in many cases, and will now do so less well prepared than they might have been.

 

[WalkinRon]

I agree with @dougfitz . In addition to answering my question, I don't mind if the responding member attempts to educate me. I welcome this!

However, I think the problem is that not all appreciate it.

 

[Chizuru]

Good rule. As a pilgrim who has used a company and luggage transfer, carrying an umbrella, hairdryer, and kettle!, I was often made to feel that I was less worthy of being called a pilgrim and my journey dismissed as a mere tourist, but I was well out of my comfort zone. I pushed myself beyond the limit, learned much about my true nature when the going got tough, and walking 25 km days for 10 days straight with severe tendinitis certainly is doing it tough, and I am proud of my achievements. I still keep in contact with my lovely Camino Family that we gathered along the way, and I look back in amazement that I hauled my not-very-sporty body 500 miles across Spain. When I hear the song, 'I would walk 500 Miles', I feel a deep connection and a strong urge to walk 500 miles again! Camino France 2024 or 2025!!!

 

[dick bird]

And from the way Ivar formulated his post in this thread I am not sure if he speaks on behalf of all moderators.

He does, and since you have a legal background, I am sure you are familiar with the principles of the Chatham House rules.

 

[Nick B]

"I'm a real pilgrim, so is my wife....."

 

[Marc S.]

He does, and since you have a legal background, I am sure you are familiar with the principles of the Chatham House rules.

Okay, fair enough. I know the Chatham Rules and I also know that people sometimes accidently forget them (and are reminded by others about this). Hence the deletion of a recent post, I guess. But well, nobody understands what I am referring to anyway

I totally understand moderators have different opinions about matters, and the formulation of the rule is probably a result of these discussions and some form of compromise.

Meanwhile I am just not sure if people:
- are allowed to use the word pilgrim,
- should just avoid the words real pilgrim and true pilgrim
- are allowed to reflect on what being a pilgrim or being on pilgrimage means to them,
- are allowed to refect about the meaning of these concepts
- should just avoid the mentioning of the word tourist
- need to worry about being accused of hurting other people's feelings when there is no breaching of rule 1 and no generalisations are made about groups of people

 

[peregrina2000]

Ivar just answered - there is to be absolutely no mention whatsoever of what a pilgrim is. Fair enough, I shall abide, though it will be difficult on a forum specifically about pilgrims and pilgrimage.

That is not what Ivar said.

You said:

this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?

Ivar said yes that’s right.

Removing the debate of true pilgrim vs tourist to the “what” from the “who” accomplishes nothing to end the sniping that we see now.

Clearly, the new rule prevents us from saying – Mary Jane, I don’t think you’re a Pilgrim, because you are using pack transport.

Phrasing that in the “ what” format you propose would do nothing other than change the post into “I don’t think true pilgrims use pack transport.”

I think that a lot of the comments in this thread have thoughtfully pointed to discussions that we want to continue and to encourage. What this rule is hoping to do away with is the sniping from those who can’t resist suggesting that extrinsic features of your Camino, such as pack transport and sleeping in hotels, turn your internal Camino into a tour rather than a pilgrimage.

 

[dick bird]

Okay, fair enough. I know the Chatham Rules and I also know that people sometimes accidently forget them (and are reminded by others about this). Hence the deletion of a recent post, I guess. But well, nobody understands what I am referring to anyway

I totally understand moderators have different opinions about matters, and the formulation of the rule is probably a result of these discussions and some form of compromise.

Meanwhile I am just not sure if people:
- are allowed to use the word pilgrim,
- should just avoid the words real pilgrim and true pilgrim
- are allowed to reflect on what being a pilgrim or being on pilgrimage means to them,
- are allowed to refect about the meaning of these concepts
- should just avoid the mentioning of the word tourist
- need to worry about being accused of hurting other people's feelings when there is no breaching of rule 1 and no generalisations are made about groups of people

I don´t have a legal background, but as I understand it, new laws have to be tested in court so that a judge or judges can pronounce on how they should be interpreted, and when they do this they pay attention to the original purpose of the law as well as a literal understanding of its wording. In this case, our intention is to try and stop some of the unedifying and often hurtful comments we get where members start to take offence at and respond aggressively to other members´ sometimes tactless and ill-thought out comments. You have asked some pertinent questions here. We will try to address them as soon as possible.

In the meantime, can we ask everyone to act with common sense, patience and tolerance and refrain from any comments that might reflect on other forum members (which includes moderators BTW).

And thanks for everyone´s support and understanding.

 

[JennyH94]

Ivar - it’s a really good rule - thank you for implementing it - especially in light of a couple of recent threads where some of the posts simply weren’t in the spirit of the Forum. These sorts of comments give rise to division and negativity rather than inclusion and goodwill, and have had me shaking my head in dismay.

A long time ago I made a promise to myself that I would only post comments which were kind and helpful and perhaps give other Forum members a smile when a humorous thread was posted. Any thoughts I might have where I think my post might not be well received, I keep to myself or might share them via a PM with some dear Forum friends who “get” where I’m coming from - you know who you are!

I love the goodwill and the generosity that’s here, in the main, on the Forum - long may it continue.

Cheers from Oz -

Jenny

 

[KathyRugg]

I see walking the Camino as a representation of living one’s life. Why would I judge anyone on how they want to live their life? There are so many paths to follow and while my choices are good for me, someone else may have other goals/concerns/issues/desires. Everyone makes their choices based on what is right for them. Who am I to judge other people’s choices? Buen Camino to all.

 

[truenorthpilgrm]

What this rule is hoping to do away with is the sniping from those who can’t resist suggesting that extrinsic features of your Camino, such as pack transport and sleeping in hotels, turn your internal Camino into a tour rather than a pilgrimage

Likewise, the sniping from those who use pack transport (NOT out of medical need) or plan out every night’s accommodation in advance, stating their Camino is more relaxing, immersive, better, etc, than folks who prefer to (mostly) wing it or carry packs. There’s simply no way to gauge this statement.

I’ve seen that attitude float around the forum more than a few times, so hopefully the rule will quell both sides.

 

[grayland]

The end seems nearer……

 

[Pathfinder075]

And if the various camino organisations ban pilgrims from using albergues if they use pack transport and categorise them as tourists? Since it seems like that is the current push. The eradication of the so called disney camino.

At the end of the day it's your board, you pay the bills, you make the rules. So I will just follow them.

 

[Kirkie]

In my young days, a friend's granny told me the best diet was to sit well back from the table.
On the open forum, I try, mostly, to sit well back from the keyboard.
Saves me grief . And everyone else as well.

 

[dick bird]

various camino organisations ban pilgrims from using albergues if they use pack transport and categorise them as tourists

Unfair and untrue. Some albergues and organisations running albergues apply (and this is not recent) a policy of not accepting unaccompanied luggage of any type. This is because it puts an unfair burden on the hospitaleros. They do not categorise people who use pack transport as anything.

 

[Pathfinder075]

Unfair and untrue. Some albergues and organisations running albergues apply (and this is not recent) a policy of not accepting unaccompanied luggage of any type. This is because it puts an unfair burden on the hospitaleros. They do not categorise people who use pack transport as anything.

I was referring to the thread from either last month or the one before about the various amigos that control a handful of albergues. it was the one that basically came across that if you didn't walk in the door carrying your pack, you should stay at a hotel instead. The reasoning as I remember was to stop the camino becoming essentially a tourist experience. By there view, a pilgrim carried his own luggage and if a person could afford to forward luggage, then they could afford to get a room in a private albergue or hotel.

I don't remember the exact day it was posted, but i think Rebekah posted something about there being a meeting regarding it.

Maybe I misread the thread.

Quick edit. This is the thread and article I was referring to. I think it actually refers to pilgrims with suitcases, so is maybe different.

https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/camino-frances-federacion-to-ban-suitcases-in-their-albergues-11-albergues-affected-by-this-rule.80564/

Las asociaciones del Camino de Santiago prohíben las maletas en los albergues que gestionan sus asociaciones, once en total

Las asociaciones del Camino de Santiago acuerdan ser "beligerantes" con los "atentados" contra la ruta jacaboea

www.noticiasdenavarra.com

 

[dick bird]

Maybe I misread the thread.

https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/camino-frances-federacion-to-ban-suitcases-in-their-albergues-11-albergues-affected-by-this-rule.80564/page-2#post-1137770

This was the thread. It announced that FICS would no longer accept suitcases, whether carried or otherwise. This is different to not accepting transported luggage. The organisation I am connected with has just made it very clear that no pilgrim must be refused entry however they are carrying their belongings, whereas no unaccompanied luggage of any type was to be accepted. A pilgrim is quite free to pick up their backpack/suitcase/plastic bag or whatever in full view of the hospi and walk in so long as they and their luggage stay together.

 

[David]

That is not what Ivar said.

You said:


Ivar said yes that’s right.

Removing the debate of true pilgrim vs tourist to the “what” from the “who” accomplishes nothing to end the sniping that we see now.

Clearly, the new rule prevents us from saying – Mary Jane, I don’t think you’re a Pilgrim, because you are using pack transport.

Phrasing that in the “ what” format you propose would do nothing other than change the post into “I don’t think true pilgrims use pack transport.”

I think that a lot of the comments in this thread have thoughtfully pointed to discussions that we want to continue and to encourage. What this rule is hoping to do away with is the sniping from those who can’t resist suggesting that extrinsic features of your Camino, such as pack transport and sleeping in hotels, turn your internal Camino into a tour rather than a pilgrimage.

Peregrina200, that is incorrect as he did not say "yes, that's right"

in response to my question

this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?
Thanks
Buen Camino!

He replied with a clear "I would say Yes. We do not need to get into any of that."

Which means absolutely no discussions on what a pilgrim is.

I am not against protecting members from being insulted or attacked (why would I be?) and therefore there needs to be rules to protect against that, I just think that the new rule 14 is incorrectly worded as it is not clear at all. This is not just me as you can see by other posts ....

So, adhering to Rule 14 - what if a new member comes on, says they are here because they are drawn to Camino and have started planning and want to have a God driven deep pilgrimage and what is the best or traditional way to do that ... with this new rule we are not even allowed to answer!

 

[dick bird]

Which means absolutely no discussions on what a pilgrim is.

Not exactly. The new rule refers to discussion about what a real pilgrim is. A subtle but important difference. If you want to mention, describe, even discuss what you think the word ´pìlgrim´ means, you are at perfectly at liberty to do so. But as soon as you start suggesting that some people walking the camino are, for whatever reason, not ´real pilgrims´, then you have crossed the line because that is what has caused all the fuss and that is what we want to avoid, as I am sure you do too.

 

[David]

@dickbird - then the new rule is incorrectly written as it isn't clear ... it could, for instance, have an explanatory that states that the forum believes that all who go to Camino, for whatever reason and in whatever way, are pilgrims, therefore it is against the rules to judge whether they are pilgrims or not - or something like that.

In fact, were we to all accept that all who go to Camino are entering into an 9th century pilgrimage and therefore all are pilgrims this problem (of attacks and insults) might just go away.

 

[DoughnutANZ]

In recent posts I have deliberately stopped using the word pilgrims and pilgrimage.

I think that the various Caminos provide an excellent environment to test self reliance and I would like to be able to continue advocating for that.

Is this permitted if I don't mention pilgrims and pilgrimage?

 

[dick bird]

@dickbird - then the new rule is incorrectly written as it isn't clear ... it could, for instance, have an explanatory that states that the forum believes that all who go to Camino, for whatever reason and in whatever way, are pilgrims, therefore it is against the rules to judge whether they are pilgrims or not - or something like that.

In fact, were we to all accept that all who go to Camino are entering into an 800 year old pilgrimage and therefore all are pilgrims this problem (of attacks and insults) might just go away.

Precisely. If everyone were to accept that anyone and everyone walking along the camino to Santiago is a pilgrim, then we wouldn´t need to spell it out in a rule.

One small point: 800 years? That would mean that Santiago became a pilgrimage destination around 1223. By my calculation, 1200 years would be nearer the mark.

 

[VNwalking]

Precisely. If everyone were to accept that anyone and everyone walking along the camino to Santiago is a pilgrim, then we wouldn´t need to spell it out in a rule

Sadly I don't think it's as simple as that, @dick bird. The reason this is such a 'thing' is that not everyone along the way is a pilgrim - these days there are relatively few genuine pilgrims who are walking to the Shrine of St James. But there are many of us walking for other reasons, ranging from spiritual to touristic. And if the heated posts here in past threads are any indication, there is distain on both sides of that continuum.
So...we have a rule.

 

[dick bird]

Sadly I don't think it's as simple as that

For me, the bottom line is ´don´t tell other people they aren´t a real pilgrim´.

 

[henrythedog]

Modern society is grappling with issues of self-identification more fundamental than the subject of Rule 14; and there is a valid debate as to whether the majority need to accept a small minorities right to choose without comment or criticism.

I see the purpose of Rule 14 as akin to the rule about religion and bull-fighting. There are strong and deeply-held views on those topics which are based on personal choice and on which discussions descend rapidly into chaos. I entirely understand why the forum is not the right place to discuss those matters.

The only other forum I participate in is dedicated to former members of the British armed forces. Whilst moderated, the general standard of discourse could be fairly described as verging on the obscene. Even so, they operate an unmoderated sub-forum (clearly indicated as highly likely to offend) on which more controversial topics are allowed.

 

[William Garza]

You all love the Camino.
out there?
You are absolutely...
Equal.

Who a person is? Is irrelevant
What a person is? Is irrelevant
Why... is irrlevant.

If you have to ask who,what or why..are you 100 per cent present in your journey?

Rule 14 is a simple rule..
Share the road
Give right of ways gracefully in the spirit of shared expereince
walk your own way.

Questions work themselves out if you walk far enough..you empty yourself and fill yourself.
Why be a killer of joy by questioning some persons motivation?

 

[Peter Fransiscus]

You are absolutely...
Equal.

We are Human, but as a Human we are all different.

 

[dougfitz]

these days there are relatively few genuine pilgrims who are walking to the Shrine of St James.

I think statements like this demonstrate the very case that the rule is needed.

My view is that I have no idea whether or not someone else is a pilgrim, although I might have in mind certain behaviours that might indicate whether or not they are a pilgrim walking on the Pilgrimage of St James or Peregrination Jacobea with a genuine intent to meet the requirements for a Compostela. If I were a hospitalero, I might want to take a view on whether someone is seeking accommodation under the conditions of the Credential. One way or another, I don't presume to be able to determine their motivations and intentions just from observing their behaviours. So I don't know whether they are pilgrims or not, just that they have or have not done the things required by the Cathedral to be awarded the compostela or some albergues for being welcomed for the night.

 

[dougfitz]

If you have to ask who,what or why..are you 100 per cent present in your journey?

If I am asking those things of myself, yes. Otherwise, ...

 

[ivar]

Thank you for good feedback. Let me talk this over with the moderators so that we can come up with a solution that works for as many as possible. Will close this thread for now.