NJCubScouter

Great. And that is from a year ago. Yet another "stealth change" from National. But while it does seem apparent that they are in the process of eliminating "Venture Patrol" from the "official language", I still hold out hope that "older scout patrol" is just a description rather than an actual name. I'll pin my hope on the fact that in "New Scout patrol" the "S" in Scout is capitalized, while in "Older scout patrol" it is not. A slender reed to rest on, I realize. I notice that in the Troop Leader Guidebook the boys in the older scout patrol are described as "age 13 and older" while in Bryan's Blog the age group is "say 14 years and older." Which is it? Or does the "say" mean it is up to each troop? But then why not put that qualification in the Troop Leader Guidebook? ::Rolling eyes::

I think this hits it on the head. The coaches get away with the all-consuming practice and training schedules because the parents allow it, encourage it and sometimes even demand it. When I was a kid messing around clumsily with organized baseball, my parents encouraged it because they wanted me to have fun, get some exercise, learn teamwork and other social skills (that doesn't actually work when you aren't very good, but that's life), and maybe develop some athletic ability. Now, many parents have stars in their eyes about their fifth-grade son getting into the pros or at least getting a "free ride" through college on a scholarship. (Notice my "order" is the reverse of DuctTape's, there are many more college scholarships than there are spots on professional teams. I know of many kids from our high school who have gotten various kinds of scholarships, but of all the thousands of students that have graduated from the school over the 50+ years it has been there, I am aware of one (1) who became a major-league athlete (NBA.)) Scouting, and other things, get pushed aside fairly easily when a parent is focused on little Johnny making the pros so he (and his parents) will be set for life.

Hmm. If my troop had a Venture Patrol, I don't think I would be rushing to change the terminology based on that. It seems like a very odd way to announce a change in terminology, by sticking it in a glossary in the back of a book that most people don't know exists yet. Not to mention that "older scout patrol" is kind of an awkward term and it isn't capitalized in the one official publication in which it has been used.It is difficult to imagine National issuing an "Older Boy Patrol" patch. And we have seen examples before of National's left hand not knowing what it's right hand was doing. So if were me, I would take a wait-and-see attitude.

Well, just out of a general sense of orderliness, you might want to consider restarting ONE of those old discussions. We don't really need up to five different threads on hammocks going on at the same time.

When was THAT change made? And where is it written? And does that mean the "Assistant Scoutmaster - Venture" position and patch have been retired? (That was another recipe for confusion. I have seen people wearing that when they were not registered in the troop at all, and should have been wearing an Associate Advisor patch.)

Hmm, is there a rule that if you are in the business of selling hammocks, your business has to have two words in the title and the other one also has to start with an H? I count three in this thread so far.

If you are the CC, I think you talk to each one separately and try to find out what the problem is and figure out whether you can work it out - which may or may not include sitting down with them together, depending on what the problem is. If it cannot be worked out, then I guess the question is whether their disagreement is adversely affecting the troop (and specifically the boys), or they are keeping their disagreement separate from their responsibilities as leaders. If it is the former, you have to decide what action is appropriate, up to and including one of them having to go. If it is the latter, you live with it. If it's somewhere in between... well, you're there, we're not.

I guess I should 'fess up here. I am the moderator who hit the "approve" button for HoboHammock's first post, under the new system that is designed to weed out spammers before their posts are ever seen by the forum members in general. In looking at it now, I can only conclude that I read the first paragraph and it seemed to just be a post about who uses hammocks on camping trips. I guess I should have kept reading. At this point, however, I have mixed feelings. Any other moderator can come along and "take action", and if anyone else wishes to hit the "flag" button that is their choice, and then whatever happens happens. But my current inclination is to leave it alone. The subject is a camping-related topic and therefore Scouting-related. Technically it is advertising because it is seeking to sell a product from which the poster will receive the proceeds. But even in the first post there is some "discussion" in addition to the advertising and now it has provoked a discussion of the advantages/disadvantages of hammock camping, the impracticality of doing it in certain parts of the country, ways of doing it better, etc. etc. So on the whole I think this thread has probably become a "net positive" for the forum. So if that's the worst mistake I made this week, I'm probably in pretty good shape. HoboHammocks, I hope you will join in some of the discussions in the forum, but please do not post or link to any more promotional material.

Sounds accurate. And if the community's moral code can be "best practice results of trial and error", then for this purpose (moral codes) a deity is not necessarily required. Right?

On the question of who will have the last word when all is said and done, my money is on you, Stosh.

A particularly important question given the fact that under the new requirements (Jan. 2016), a candidate for the SCOUT rank will be expected to explain at least part of the organization of the troop. ("Describe how the Scouts in the troop provide its leadership"; "Explain the patrol method. Describe the types of patrols that are used in your troop." Of course that last sentence would be easy in a troop with no NSP or Venture Patrol, since there would only be one type.)

That is true of Internet forums in general, including this forum. I would say that this forum probably has a higher proportion of "quiet" departures, as opposed to those accompanied by "big announcements", than the average Internet forum. In contrast, on Wikipedia (which is partly an encyclopedia but also partly a forum, on the behind-the-scenes pages) there is a certain kind of departure commonly known as a "ragequit." I am not sure that we have had any (voluntary) departures that have quite reached that level of drama. Maybe a couple have come close, but none recently, that I am aware of.

I think it is best if we do not toss around the names of other posters, especially those who have left and are not around to respond. I think BD is entitled to a little leeway on this, since this was his "final post." There's also nothing wrong with wishing BD well. But otherwise, this forum is for talking about Scouting. I would also point out that in the past few weeks, at least two "regular posters" (besides BD) have left this forum, one of whom was a moderator, and if we go back to the beginning of August, at least one more regular poster has left. All left for different reasons, if a reason was even given. And if you go back more months and years you will find that people are leaving - and joining - this forum all the time. Like any other group, either on or off the Internet. (I myself once left this forum for about two years, although I didn't know I was leaving at the time I left. One day I didn't look at the forum and a day turned into a week, a month, a year and then about two years. Then I came back.)

Best of luck to you and your Scouts, and thanks for what you do for the young men in your community.

Well, wait. Was he an ASPL for at least three months after the date of his EBOR but before his 18th birthday? And did he do at least a "satisfactory" job? If so, it seems to me he passed the leadership requirement, regardless of whether he spoke with the SM beforehand or not. ASPL is not just a position of responsibility, it is also a leadership position. (Although "ASPL of camping equipment" sounds like "title inflation" for Quartermaster.)

Welcome to the forum, and congratulations on Wood Badge!

That's probably where I got the idea from... not to mention that Third is one lower than Second. But I doubt "Third Class" would go over very well in Scouting today. Not that I think it matters, because I don't think the BSA is going to create the additional badge that I am speculating about. By the way, in looking at the above graphic of the current rank patches... is it just me, or do the Eagles on the Tenderfoot, First Class and Life patches appear not to be Bald Eagles? I just noticed that. (I'm letting the silver one on the Eagle patch go, since it is not trying to be the same colors as an actual Bald Eagle.)

I guess I understand the symbolism behind changing the color of the fleur-de-lis from the brown "outline" to the full-fledged fleur-de-lis in "gold." I know there is an ECOH script that has been used at some of the ceremonies in our troop that goes through all the ranks and discusses the symbolism of each patch and how it reflects what the Eagle candidate actually did along the way, and the idea of the (old) Scout badge was that it was just an "outline" created at the beginning of the Scout's "journey", to be "filled in" as the Scout learned and grew while progressing through the ranks. Whether that symbolism for the Scout badge was intended by National, I was never sure. This apparent change indicates to me that perhaps it was intended and that the conversion of Scout to a "rank" is symbolized by the fact that the fleur-de-lis is no longer just an outline. It sounds good, anyway. What I would have preferred, however, is that they keep "Scout" as a joining badge, with the "old" patch, and if they wanted to create something between the joining badge and Tenderfoot, that gold fleur-de-lis would work well as a "step up" from the brown. What they would have called that new rank, I don't know. I suppose they could have called it Tenderfoot, and what is now the Tenderfoot rank/patch could have been called... Third Class? I suppose that would not have sat well with a lot of people. It also would have ended 105 years of the Tenderfoot patch looking pretty much the way it does now. Oh well, what's in a name.

Stop with the personal comments. Focus on the issue, not other posters. Now.

If there are two chartered units, there are two CC positions. They can be held by the same person, but they are separate positions. The fact that they are being treated as one does not change that. I believe you said earlier that you are recruiting separate members for one of the committees so the committee membership will no longer be identical. That sounds like a good idea.

SY, if that is the case, the application should not have been submitted to council without your signature. Do you know whether it actually was submitted to council, and whether it was approved by council? I ask whether it was actually submitted because I have seen a couple of situations (including one involving me) where a new leader signed and handed in an application to the CC or his/her designee and, unbeknownst to the applicant, the application sat in someone's briefcase for a couple of months, with the person Scouting happily along thinking they were registered.

If the crew is chartered, there must be a CC, at least on paper. Right? (That would be a true for a troop and I assume a crew is no different in that regard.) As for the rest of it, I think the main issue is that the Advisor was not properly appointed, if that turns out to be the case. As for the transgender issue, I'm not sure what to say. Assuming such a person were properly appointed, I guess if everybody knows that the person is "biologically male" but presents herself as female, it is up to each person to decide whether to be a member of the crew. I do not think there is a National policy on this. Interestingly, while it may be an issue for youth members in the Boy Scouts (since you have to be a "boy" to be a Boy Scout, it may not technically be an issue in a crew (since either gender can join) or for adult leaders in any unit (since either gender can be one.) (And yes I realize that a lot of people might not be satisfied with the "technically" part.)

I agree with DavidCO's approach. There is nothing wrong with having a conversation and trying to turn it into something positive or at least trying to make the parent understand how things work. I think that is part of the SM's (and CC's) job. And just because the parent asked for an hour doesn't mean the conversation has to take an hour. If it is handled as David suggests, the conversation will go where it will, and maybe it will take less than an hour, and maybe it will take more than an hour. At the end of it you could have a new committee member who is helping rather than taking up your time, or you could have a parent pulling her son out of the troop, or anything in between. But that's her choice. All you can do is try. On some of the other comments, could this parent be handling this better? Sure? Should she have expressed her concerns in the email? Should she have been more courteous? Yes and Yes. But she didn't. It is possible that she is not a very nice person. But we don't get to select the parents, we just have to deal with them, courteously, and try to get them to understand how things work.

Welcome to the forum, Ann! As you may have noticed, we have a section specifically for questions and comments about Cub Scouting, so feel free to share your questions and thoughts about the program.

Does she intend that her son at least participate in the conversation?