Jump to content

Council Relations

Discuss issues relating to Scout Councils, districts and working with professionals

648 topics in this forum

    • 23 replies
    • 1643 views
    • 11 replies
    • 837 views
  1. Council Charters

    • 11 replies
    • 903 views
    • 7 replies
    • 827 views
  2. Philmont Course

    • 4 replies
    • 748 views
    • 6 replies
    • 712 views
    • 6 replies
    • 951 views
    • 1 reply
    • 653 views
  3. Transfers

    • 1 reply
    • 733 views
  4. Cub Unit Commissioner

    • 5 replies
    • 843 views
    • 18 replies
    • 1285 views
    • 6 replies
    • 773 views
  5. Angry CE 1 2

    • 20 replies
    • 1850 views
    • 3 replies
    • 701 views
    • 8 replies
    • 1044 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Update 10/27/2020: Stating what we moderators thought was known - one scouter.com membership per person. We members of scouter.com, guided by the Scout Oath and Law,  generally enjoy an informative, robust , diverse discussion of scout topics.  But perhaps because of the times, technology, or personalities some specific policies need to be explicitly stated. Failure to follow the Scout Oath and Law, will result in a warning,  post moderation, or suspension. Posted videos, images, and links must pertain to the original post and respectfully move the discussion forward. Failure to do so may result in deletion or editing of the post, and in egregious or repeated instances, may result in a warning to the member. Members are expected to read and acknowledge moderator messages. If moderator messages are unread after 72 hours, the member's account will be locked until they [the member] acknowledges receipt and understanding.  Repeat violations will result in account suspension.  An Original Poster (OP) can  state in that first post "Only on-topic responses, please." Off-topic responses will then be moved or deleted by moderators.  Members are reminded that topics are discussions to inform, reflect and not arguments to be won.   When a discussion deteriorates into a stagnant endurance contest, a moderator may interject that both sides "Agree to Disagree" and instruct that discussion move on or  the moderator may lock the topic pending review. Members can "report" a topic or response which does not follow the Scout Oath and Law, by using the  "Report Post" feature in the upper right corner of the response. Posts which advertise products, services, or fund solicitations will be deleted and the member asked to  pm Terry-Scouter regarding paid advertising.  If a member of scouter.com would like to post content from unnamed sources, it may be acceptable as long as they understand that they are on their honor as a scout they are presenting factual information to the best of their knowledge they do NOT include personal or private identifiers (names,  identifying photos, titles, addresses, council name, etc.) One account per member.  Additional accounts will be disabled and that member will be subject to moderator action. A scout is Trustworthy. Members can report concerns about moderators by PMing SCOUTER-Terry.  These policies are in addition to the existing Terms of Service  below: https://www.scouter.com/legal/tos  
    • A success?  Well mostly. The modifications worked pretty well although the candidates stepping forward one at a time, quietly giving the admonition to Allowat, and putting on their own sashes took about 30 seconds each. In our rehearsal the "candidates" only took 15. Of course they already knew what to say.  So even though we skipped the song and only demonstrated the handclasp the ceremonies took longer than we planned. In addition the guides leading the first group of candidates somehow took a wrong turn on the trail leading to the circle of our lodge. Which delayed us 15? minutes right from the start.   Dinner was ready at 6:00,  but the second ceremony didn't end until 6:17 I'm not sure how long it took for the hungry new members to walk to the feast as I stayed at the ring setting up for the Brotherhood ceremony. The biggest issue turned out to be quite unexpected. We had guessed at 50 candidates divided into two ceremonies so the ring was made big enough to hold 25 candidates in a semicircle so that they all had a clear line of sight of the principals.  We believed this to be critical to allow them to see and hear the gestures and words of the speakers.   The actual number of candidates however was 72, so the two weekends before the ordeal enlarging the ring to accommodate 36 became a priority.  More cutting, raking, and bench building. But when the first group of candidates arrived at the ring there were only 31! Which meant that the second ceremony had 41. And THAT meant no matter which way any of the principals faced there was someone who certainly couldn't hear or see him very well.   I don't know why the groups were offset that way. I do know that the ring building crew was simply furious. All that work...And the rope only had 37 loops, six feet apart  The candidates had been separated into 7 work groups during the day so perhaps it was logistically easier to first send 3 groups, then later 4 groups.  But it certainly makes it much more difficult to convince scouts that the ceremonies are important and deserve excellence  when the "higher ups" clearly demonstrate that they care little and less.   Tired of shoveling water upstream, Oldscout  
    • I’d be right over. 
    • Trying this at home tonight to maybe fix for our adults.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...