Jump to content

Equipment Reviews & Discussions

Discussions dealing with equipment topics (tents, lights, packs, boots, stoves, etc.)

356 topics in this forum

    • 10 replies
    • 1192 views
    • 22 replies
    • 1613 views
    • 13 replies
    • 796 views
  1. Tarpe Diem

    • 4 replies
    • 595 views
    • 12 replies
    • 601 views
    • 4 replies
    • 477 views
    • 12 replies
    • 897 views
    • 4 replies
    • 547 views
    • 9 replies
    • 564 views
    • 5 replies
    • 491 views
    • 4 replies
    • 1106 views
    • 13 replies
    • 1628 views
  2. Stoves for Philmont

    • 6 replies
    • 928 views
  3. BSA tents on sale

    • 2 replies
    • 793 views
  4. Good Idea

    • 1 reply
    • 525 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • How many days are you going for? I just discovered today that day passes are possible even for cub scouts. I think we may take the drive, but not sure how many days to go for. I was thinking 2. Or maybe 3? Any thoughts on this from anyone.  
    • I guess I'll carp about a couple other things as well: One is that the lack of specificity of things like "show evidence" leads to people being willing to sign off on requirements like that, without the scout actually doing what the requirement intends.  I can "show evidence" of 10 different kinds of native plants with a handful of soil and leaf-litter from the forest floor.  I can actually do what the requirement intends, and explain something about why the evidence supports there being at least 10 different kinds of native plants represented too, but the typical scout or adult signing off, isn't going to ask me to demonstrate that I actually have some knowledge of the topic, they're just going to say "yup, that's evidence" and sign my book.  We can't "require more than the requirements", but we can darned well require that they actually can convince us that they've met the requirements. Second, neither you, nor your senior scouts need to be able to do the requirements, for your scouts to satisfactorily complete the requirement.  Part of the meta-requirement inherent in the requirement, is that they learn the material necessary to complete it.  That doesn't mean that you need to teach it to them.  In fact, it's almost certainly better if you don't.  It's also almost certainly better if your senior scouts don't.  What your senior scouts should be teaching them, is "this is how you go learn the material", not the material itself.   If you, or your senior scouts teach them the material, you deprive your scouts of the opportunity to learn how to learn.   Teach them how to learn, and then let them come back and convince you that they learned.  You'll know it when they've learned enough to complete the requirement, whether you can do it yourself or not.
    • The OA is already signaling a return to the original ceremonies.  Weren't there principles in the black robes at NOAC?  This is one of a few items in the trading post referencing the original three tests,   https://tradingpost.oa-bsa.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=2018-E-003.
    • Regarding the Arrow of Light ceremonies, I think the packs around here just used the same ceremonies that they have used for years.  While the OA lodge said that the new script (skit?) was available, there was no push to use it. Packs did their ceremony. Arrowmen shot arrows in uniform with sash. Boys were happy. Parents were happy. OA helped out. If Den leaders were somehow forced to use the new script, then there is no role for the OA, and the thing would be done in ten minutes.
    • That's what I'm thinking.  Create a ceremony that doesn't include the NA references.   You could even take a script from one of the existing ceremonies and rework it so that it's done in a way that doesn't make the NA references.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×