Ken33xx

Do any of the meetings you attend use a 4 min. timer?

A lot of the meetings I went to in Southern Cal while on vacation use them even the smaller groups of 10-15. This seems to help to keep the meeting moving along.

Nothing worse than getting bogged down with three or more shares that go on past the 5 min mark.

I`ll be taking over a Saturday evening meeting which usually has between 8-12 members in attendance. I plan to take a vote about the using a 4-min. timer. Also if there aren't too many in attendance than you can share twice after everyone who wishes has done so.

Any drawbacks to using a timer?

anattaboy

Tie Club in Vegas prohibited sharing by those with less than 30 days when I was there in '07. The idea was "we already know this part of your story". I hated it but totally get it now.

anattaboy

Tie Club in Vegas prohibited sharing by those with less than 30 days when I was there in '07. The idea was "we already know this part of your story". I hated it but totally get it now. They also had a 3 min. timer.

mfanch

I would maybe propose a group inventory at the next GC meeting.

If group members are the cause of long shares, it can be addressed in the inventory. If visitors are doing it, then the chair at that meeting can redirect. It soon will extinguish the behavior.

That is what we did in our group. Now we have no more long shares and no timers needed. The chair rarely has to pipe in for long shares anymore. I guess word got around that we are no-nonsense and focused on the solution from alcoholism. I love that each group is autonomous and we have the traditions to guide us.

Music

I'm intrigued by the idea of a timer in a meeting. When I came to AA, the emphasis was on staying sober and an AA meeting was a safe place to be where one could speak freely without condemnation. I attend some meetings today where when the hour mark creeps up, people actually pass so the meeting can end at an hour. When I was drinking, I didn't have any concern for the length of time I sat on one bar stool, nor did I worry about the fact that I'd told my wife I'd only have a couple, and that I'd be home in an hour. If I walked into a meeting and saw a timer, I'd find another meeting.

Hawkeye13

I don't know--I think alcoholics are pretty self-centered.
I would resent not getting to share, or staying late, because somebody
chose to take more than the time they were allowed as part of the
general "rules" for everyone.

It seems like learning self-discipline and respect for others and their time
is part of the process of recovery.

IOAA2

Hi.
I would not mind a 5 minute timer because many who chair a meeting are sensitive and don’t want to ripple the waters by saying anything.
I also like the idea that if there is time left, use it a second time.

I know AA works by our sharing ESH but lets everyone have a chance if they want to. I also like the practice that asks if anybody has a burning desire? Often the best part of the meeting begins.

BE WELL

skg

Yeah, I have a control streak in me, too... Luckily, the only requirement in meetings I attend is the desire to stop drinking. One, in particular, removed all the clocks from the room so folks weren't watching the clock, planning their rebuttals. Ask me how I know that!

The more rules a group places on newcomers, the less likely there will be newcomers, in my experience. Removing the drink brings out some incredible character defects--and I gotta know they're still out there doing push-ups to remind me of how incredibly angry and sick I was. Sober up a horse thief and what's left?

If the newcomers to the rooms are going to get shushed--lovingly or not--they're less likely to keep coming back. If people had slapped an egg-timer on me at my first 300 meetings I'd be dead today because I would not have come back. Attraction rather than promotion isn't just a bumpersticker, it's a spiritual sign post. If you REALLY want to shut someone up, take them aside and ask if you can be their sponsor...

Longpasttime

Hadn't ever really considered this, but I totally agree!!

Ken33xx

As the chairperson if a time limit is agreed upon I will only do it if we use a timer. I don`t want to be in a postion where I have to decide who is speaking too long and who isn`t. Let a timer do that.

I`ve copied the timer info. sheet from a meeting I went to last week which is read the beginning and explains the sharing limit.

4-min. is enough time to say what you have to say. The tricky part is we`re a rather small meeting (8-12 ) so I`m thinking sharing twice is fine as long as everyone who wants to speak has gotten a chance.

Without a timer you get members who just babbling on and on. I mean if you can`t say what you need to say in 4-mins. then you're not going to.

Besides after 4-min nobody's usually listening anyway.

skg

But isn't expecting to share a self-centered in itself? If we, and I use the term 'we' intentionally to mean men and women who have done or are doing the steps, are to carry the message of a spiritual solution to other suffering alcoholics; if sharing our experience, strength, and hope is considered Service (12), then we share when given the opportunity. Not because we sit next to the chairperson and expect that the Open Discussion meeting be directed counter-clockwise so that I can quote the dang Big Book to prove I know the topic.

I try to remember that, at least in AA, the newcomers are the most important people in the room. And if they're making me sideways, there may just be something I can learn about myself--Spiritual Axiom and all that...

Ken33xx

I`ll watch the attendance for the next few weeks. Hard to justify the use of a timer if the meeting size is usually around 10.

I can always muck around on my cell phone like others do when someone drones on past the 5 min. mark

courage2

In NYC a lot of groups have a 3 minute timer. In my home group, we decided against it because it's a Beginners meeting. I think (and said so at the business meeting) that it intimidates newcomers. I've been to a group that uses a 3 minute timer, but starts sharing with those under 90 days and doesn't use the timer for them.

Ken33xx

I doubt anyone would object to the 4-min rule be waved for someone new and at their first meeting. The meetings I attend don`t often get newcomers. It`s usually the regulars who take advantage of the unlimited share time. Not that anything offense or off-topic is said. It`s just some members are long-winded and can easily go off on an 8 min. jag.

CAPTAINZING2000

At the start of the meeting, we ask everyone to keep their shares to minutes or less until everyone has shared.

LBrain

I thought there were no rules in aa. ?

What about rule 62?

lycanlaz

i have a stutter so the idea that timers are used at a meeting has now made me never want to attend one =\

EndGameNYC

I'm of at least two minds on this topic.

I attended a smallish meeting for over a year that I truly enjoyed. There were folks with lots of good sobriety mixed with a small number of new people who often came and went. And then it started to change. After a time, a couple of old-timers dominated the meetings, and what they shared was more about warnings about what would happen to people/us if we did not remain vigilant in our sobriety. It got to be that people were "picked" to share in a certain order because they usually dominated the sharing part of the meetings. There were many times when only two or three people shared, and it always seemed as though it was the same two or three people, banging the same drum.

One guy told us about how great his sobriety was (eight years), another rambled on about God getting him sober (three years), sometimes reading passages from religious texts, and the third (seven years) talked about all the horrible things that will happen if you don't follow the Big Book. I took this up with the chairperson and others, but got nowhere. No, it wasn't my meeting, but most people, including new people, rarely got a chance to speak. It's an easy leap for me to believe that some new people rarely stayed because of both the content of what people shared and the amount of time in which they shared it.

What happened was that people stopped raising their hands when asked to share. There seemed little point since the order of sharing became "institutionally" prearranged. When new people were in attendance, they were often called on first, but they would eventually be shut out.

On the face of it, I'm opposed to using timers in meetings. Seems obnoxious and controlling. But I think it only seems controlling, and needs to be used with some discretion. If there is a time limit, and someone is talking about contemplating suicide, it's a good idea to waive the time limit. There might be some resentment about one person's sharing being more or less "important" than another person's sharing, based on time allotted, but we also need to learn how to manage resentments in addition to managing our time. And people who don't get to share because a couple of people use the time to make extended speeches will likely develop resentments as well. Like me. I worked through this for a long time and, as I suggested, it was one of my favorite meetings, but I eventually lost interest because I was hearing pretty much the same things from the same people every week.

Time management, I believe, is an important issue for many of us. Learning to manage our time within externally imposed limits is not evil. Nor is it a lazy way to escape doing it on your own. Though I understand that there are differences, people need to learn time management in terms of what they speak about in their psychotherapy sessions, job interviews and an array of other real-life situations.

Time is not an unlimited commodity. Life itself is time-limited, and what we do with our time here does make an important difference. And we rarely know exactly when the lights will go out. After the speaker(s) or reader is finished, there are typically around forty minutes, often thirty or less, for people to share. This is only one reason why cross-talking or discussions are discouraged in meetings, as a means of avoiding debates that may be important to only a single person in the room, while there are other people in the room who may be struggling with the kinds of things each of us here are struggling with. Not at all like SR, where there is virtually an unlimited amount of time to share. Too often, it isn't the timer, the chairperson or the unwritten "rules" of the meeting itself that are controlling, but the people who abuse the time allotted to them to speak, sometimes unwittingly. And I'm not here just referring to new people.

I anticipate that I may get some responses about my own humility, control issues, or even tolerance, but when the way in which a meeting is conducted does not offer me an opportunity to either learn something about my sobriety or to help someone else who is struggling, then, rather than use it as a learning experience in terms of, say, tolerance, I've no reason to be there. Life on its own provides ample opportunities to learn to manage resentments of all kinds, and situations that are not only unhelpful, but also potentially harmful. I hardly need to go searching for them. I wouldn't at all pressure a newcomer to continue attending a meeting because he or she got little or nothing from the meeting I've described.

Anyway, I quickly found a replacement meeting that is farther away from where I live, and it changed my outlook dramatically, and helped me to strengthen my sobriety, whereas in the other meeting I felt I was stagnating. After the speaker is done, we're asked to keep our sharing to under four or five minutes...I don't recall which. If you don't want to share, you didn't have to share. When there is extra time left, anyone could share. There are "core members," but the meeting also attracts new people who tend to stay. I didn't know it at the time, but it appears that it's always been a popular meeting. People get to talk about their stuff, and there's a great deal of mutual support. It's become my favorite meeting.

One more thing about timers...There are newcomers and others who are uncomfortable with sharing in meetings. Knowing in advance that there is a time limit attached to their sharing may provide some level of relief since they know they can say as little as is comfortable to share, or not share at all. It is for this reason, among others, that I don't endorse meetings in which it's a requirement for everyone to share. If I or someone else sees someone new at a meeting who doesn't share or who passes on sharing, we can easily approach that person when the meeting ends...get to know them and offer help, if needed.

findingout

My experience is that knowing how to end a share is a skill some people never master. Timers can help alleviate this problem and I like the fact that a timer applies equally to every person sharing, so there are no issues with playing favorites.

Boleo

In a way, you're right. However, there are rules set at the meeting level via a "Group Conscious".

One of the best meetings that I have ever been to uses a large sand-filled egg timer that runs about 4 minutes. They turn it on its side when your time is up but allow you another 30 seconds after that. They remove it from sight if a newcomer is speaking.