silver-shark

Hi Eric,

First off, as ASPL for your troop, this really isn't your problem unless you allow it to be, or you are the acting SPL for the campout.

This boy has a Patrol Leader. If his PL is doing his job, there is an advanced copy of the Campout Duty Roster that is reviewed, and agreed upon, by the attending members at the last meeting before you leave.

It will be fair, and everyone will have fun jobs to go along with the yucky ones. An example would be to let the boy the fetches the water start the council fire.

This PL will also know the strengths and weaknesses of his boys. Does the boy have a hard time getting moving in the morning? If so, he shouldn't be put on breakfast cooking. To do so is setting him up for failure.

What are his strengths? Is he a good instructor? Is he good with the younger boys? There are lots of things to do in addition to the typical Duty Roster type things.

The PL should have a talk with this boy, maybe including the SPL, prior to the next campout, to make sure that this boy knows what is expected out of him, and that when he doesn't pull his own weight, or his part of the patrol's weight, that everyone suffers.

The PL should explain that this behavior will not be tolerated, and if it continues, there will be an early departure for him from this campout.

During the campout, the PL should be pointing out the positive behavior traits that the boy is exhibiting quite frequently, to reinforce his expectations. Any critisisms should be handled in private.

After this, any problems that arise on the campout that the PL cannot handle on his own, should involve the SPL, and be in private.

If the 2 of them combined cannot rectify the situation, an ASM or the SM should be involved.

I tell our boys, that they don't want me involved, because chances are, someone is going home early, and won't be attending again soon.

Once this has happened, it is up to the Troop Committee to decide if this boy has a furture in the Troop or not.

"I think that BSA should consider a don't ask policy when it comes to this issue because of the extreme alienation of some supporting groups."

Hi boleta,

The BSA has already made this the policy. You can review the press release that confirms this at:

http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=mc&c=fs

Sorry about that Ed... I scrolled back up too far up when looking for the author to credit

"If the laughs and goes along with the walk the plank scenario - fine, but if he screams and cries out of fear or embarasment, then the leadership should allow him to allow the boy take on a different consequence that acceptable to the boy."

Hi kenk

As soon as the boy cries out of fear, or looks for a way to publicly back out, you've added more potential for ridicule here.

"I've seen kids that have been terrified to get up in front of people. Should we just accept that they are like that and see that they never have to get in front of a group, or should we encourage them to get over it through prodding, games, etc."

Good morning Ed,

We already have a positive way of doing this. It is called the Advancement Method. In this, boys are recognized for the good things they have done in front of others. It's been working very well for many years now.

Critisize a child privately and reward them publicly, and you have an ally for life.(This message has been edited by silver-shark)

Good morning Eamonn,

From one of boleta's recent posts...

"When I got mad and hit my child

"for his own good," I reconciled,

And then, I realized my plight...

Today I taught my child to fight.

When interrupted by the phone,

I said, "Tell them I'm not at home."

And then I thought, and had to sigh...

Today, I taught my child to lie.

I told the tax man what I made,

Forgetting cash that I was paid;

And then I blushed at this sad feat...

Today I taught my child to cheat.

I smugly copied a cassette,

To keep me free of one more debt.

But now the bills of shame must peal...

Today I taught my child to steal.

Today I cursed another race.

Oh God, protect what I debase,

For now, I fear it is too late.

Today, I taught my child to hate.

By my example, children learn

That I must lead in life's sojourn

In such a way that they are led

By what is done, not what is said.

Today, I gave my child his due

By praises of him instead of rue.

And now I have begun my guide:

Today, I gave my child his pride.

I now have reconciled and paid

To IRS on all I made.

And now I know that this dear youth

Today has learned from me, of truth.

The alms I give are not for show,

And yet, this child must surely know

That charity is worth the price;

Today, he saw my sacrifice.

I clasp within a warm embrace

My neighbor of another race

The great commandment from above.

Today, I taught my child to love.

Someday, my child must face alone

This world of fearsome undertone,

But I have blazed a sure pathway:

Today, I taught my child ... to pray.

Henry Matthew Ward"

This goes right along with, "Caught not taught", "actions speak louder than words", and my personal favorite, "Let your lives speak".

Sometimes our actions are not enough though. Sometimes the things that we find offensive come from sources outside of our control. This is where an open relationship with our children really comes in handy.

When you have this, you can just come right out and say, "son, you might not know this about me, but I find that to be ___________(offensive or whatever), then tell him why, then do the most important thing that you can... close your mouth, open your ears, and listen to what he has to say about it.

Hi txscoutdad,

My first thought while reading this thread revolved around the the type of boy that would end up with "Suzzie". I tend to think that the mortified boy that Eamonn describes will not be caught dead with her, and that the boy that will, will be the "greedy looking for the free drink" type, or the "no guts, no glory" type that is seeking attention of any type.

With that being said, my impression is that the boys seeking this attention are doing nothing different than when they go out hamming it up for a skit. During a skit, they may be welcomed warmly or not. Positively or negatively.

The only problem that I see, is when you draw the rest of the troop into the negative consequence.

I don't see this as a negative/punishing consequence to the one craving the attention, but I do see that being the case for the remainder of the troop when it is added to them without their consent. Therefore, I would be opposed to that part of the game.

Keep the positives and negatives to the ones choosing to take the risk. (Choosing being the key word. Not forgeting to not take the risk like in singing for a lost item)(This message has been edited by silver-shark)

Without knowing all of the hows and whys of this practice... it seems very peculiar at best... and probably would be looked upon very unfavorably by the parents of a boy that compacted... and re-compacted... and re-compacted... over, and over, and over, and over..........

I don't have enough info to make an argument one way or the other.

All boys singing together, or individually (as in singled out)?

Sounds like great fun!

I can hear your enthusiasm shining through, even in your typed words!

Good morning Ed,

I haven't heard anyone say that a snipe hunt isn't hazing here. It is.

Eddy; Hey Johnny... I found your shampoo left in the shower again.

Johnny; Thanks... I'll need it again tomorrow. Toss it to me.

Eddy; Not so fast dude... first you must sing me... The Barney Song... in front of everyone.

Maybe there is a more positive way that your group presents this Ed, although for the life of me, I can't imagine what that would be.

I have a question for you though. If singing for lost items works... why does it need to continue? By now there should be no more lost items.

"silver-shark,

No negative consequences? What about a scout that decides not to go to merit badge class all week of SC. Does he still get his merit badge?

Is that not a negative connsequence?"

Hi txscoutdad,

First, you misinterpreted my satire of FOG's satire about negative consequences.

I didn't say there was no room for negative consequences. I said that there is no roon for adding negative/punishing consequences, such as singing for lost items.

Secondly, not receiving the merit badge that he should have, is the consequence of his actions, much like someone breaking or stealing an unattended item is the consequence.

I'm curious, would you have a boy sing the Barney Song for not going to that Merit badge Class? That would be adding a negative/punishing consequence on top of the missed opportunity.

Thirdly, it seems that the tools you're using to correct this situation are:

Pick up after yourselves...

PICK UP AFTER YOURSELVES...

I SAID, PICK UP AFTER YOURSELVES !!!

That's it... sing me the Barney Song and you can have it back.

Maybe I'm missing something in your particular case, but I see this approach quite often.

Seldom do you see the approach of:

FIRST TIME OCCURANCE

The Patrol Leaders remind their boys to pick up after themselves.

SECOND TIME OCCURANCE

Eddy; Hey Johnny... you got a second...

Johnny; Sure Eddy (the boy's PL)...Danny (the SPL)... What's up?

Eddy; I've noticed that you're having a problem remembering to take your shampoo with you when you leave the showers... It's kinda makin us look bad on our inspections. What's up with that? Are you getting distracted? Do you just not care? What?

Johnny; Well... I'm just not used to carrying all of this stuff around with me everytime I take a shower. At home, it just stays there till the next time.

Eddy; Well, I don't want to embarass you by nagging at you every time we go to the showers, or see you let the guys down on this inspection thing... so... what could you use as a remender to yourself before you leave the shower area?

Johnny; Well... I could set my toiletry kit on top of my towel as a reminder to fill it back up before I dry off each time.

Eddy; Great idea! I'll try to help you remember to do that next time we go to the showers. See ya later.

Danny just gives a thumbs up and says "great" before they walk off.

There probably won't be a third occurance, because you've now helped him find a tool to help deal with not only this, but also a tool to deal with similar situations like this in the future.

"It also tells the Scout there are consequences for his forgetfulness."

Hi Ed,

"Nope, there aren't supposed to be negative consequences anymore."

Hi FOG,

No guys... it tells the Scout that you are adding negative/punishing consequences to his forgetfulness.

The true consequences are that the item will be stolen, broken, or not usable when needed.

Train him how to avoid THAT, and you have not only won the battle, but given him a tool to use for the rest of his life.

Good morning FOG,

What you call, "changing the definition", I call further clarifying the definition as you drag it off on a tangent.

The bottom line in my posts has been that there are more positive ways of handling this situation.

Unfortunately, most adults do not know how to do this, because they were brought up in this type of negative-reinforcement environment, and are just continuing what they already know.

Negativity breeds negativity.

A positive-reinforcement approach will breed positive results.

The BSA knows this, and has been practicing this for many years.

It is unfortunate that they had to clarify this with their No Hazing Policy.

From dictionary.com

Hazing

"1. To harass by exacting unnecessary, disagreeable, or difficult work.

2. To harass or annoy by playing abusive or shameful tricks upon; to humiliate by practical jokes; -- used esp. of college students; as, the sophomores hazed a freshman."

"unnecessary", "abusive", and "humiliate" seem to be the key words in this definition, but this ultimately leads to an emotional injury in many people's minds.

Snipe Hunt = Hazing

Singing for lost articles = Hazing

Boxing = Not Hazing, unless you forced them to do it.

Chearleaders = ...now all I can think about is cheerleaders

Hi FOG,

I'll be more to the point.

"So if one Scout finds it humiliating to be brought up in front of his peers to recieve his advancement recognition that is hazing and should be discontinued?"

No.

I believe intent is a the key word missing, along with the rest of boteta's missing paragraph, in your hypothetical question.

Hazing is something that is done with the INTENT of purposefully injuring an individual, be it physically or emotionally.

This is not the intent of the Advancement Method within scouting.(This message has been edited by silver-shark)

Hi FOG,

Even the shyest boy knows the difference between being praised for an accomplishment, versus being punished by having to sing a baby song in front of everyone to get an object back.

The latter being something that scouting has never been about.

Scouting is not about what a boy CAN'T, or SHOULDN'T do, but about what he CAN, or SHOULD do, and finding positive ways to reach a boy's goals.

There are no negatives in the literature presented to the boys. Scouting isn't about, "You CAN'T. or SHOULDN'T leave your things laying around." It's about, "Here's why you SHOULD take care of your things, and let's find a way that you CAN do it."

"There are kids who will lose stuff, no matter how hard they try and will hate the humiliation of singing to get it back. Ok, the answer some may think is learn from your past mistakes, but what about those who can't. Whose short term memory has as many holes in it as a sponge. You aren't doing anything other than providing entertainment for the troop."

You really hits the nail on the head OGE.

I used to be one of those guys that felt this would help the boys, but since have figured out that you seldom get a positive result from a negative-reinforcement approach like this.

If we truly want to help the boys overcome this problem, we will help them find positive ways of preventing it.

The first time this happens, take the boy aside, and through a breif period of reflection, help him find a solution that appears to be his own. That way he has ownership of the solution and a vested interest in it.

This could be as simple as helping him realize that if he doesn't put things away when he's thinking about it, that it won't happen. (ie mess kit, day pack, canteen, hat, etc... gets misplaced) Gentle reminders from time to time will also help with this.

Have a particular place in his pack for certain things, every time he goes camping, so that he can see what's missing when getting ready to go home.

In extreme cases, he could have a check list to go over, to make sure that everything he brought with him goes back home.

Remind him what "Thrifty" means.

If this happens repeatedly, have a chat with him and a parent as soon as you get back, so that they can help to find a solution.

A positive approach will give him the tools he needs to avoid this for the rest of his life, not just in scouts. Humiliation won't.

Hi NJ

I'm still trying to figure out what your problem is with the policy.

When asked point blank, "When is the best time to avow anything of a sexual nature to 11 to 18 year old boys, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, or a combination of them?" your answer was, "The answer is, of course: Never. It is not appropriate for Scouters to discuss their "private" lives with the Scouts."

Additionally, you seem to have a thorough grasp on the true "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" mentality of the policy.

So...If the BSA isn't asking... and a scouter should "Never" reveal things of a sexual nature... What exactly is your problem with the policy?

"...there are certain kinds of immoral actions or lifestyles that are so bad that anybody who does them should not be a scout leader."

Good evening Hunt,

This statement is what those opposed to the BSAs Policy apparently hear, or read into what the policy is saying.

This could not be further from the truth. Nowhere in the policy does it state that homosexuals cannot, or would not be good leaders. Thus, the don't ask don't tell mentality.

The problem doesnt occur until their sexual preference is avowed, according to the BSA Policy. (Avowed meaning, affirmed, stated, confirmed, declared, acknowledged, admitted, self-confessed, asserted. According to MSN Encartas Thesaurus)

Please refer to the following sites of the BSA to learn more about what their actual position is on the subject:

http://www.scouting.org/media/values/newsletter/0102/survey.html

http://www.scouting.org/media/values/newsletter/0102/points2.html

http://www.scouting.org/media/press/020206/index.html

http://www.scouting.org/media/values/fact.html

You also ask why not at the local level with the CO, regarding avowed homosexual leaders. Consistency in the overall moral program I would imagine.

Additionally, I dont know if Catholics have a stricter standard regarding divorce or not within their program, but I do know that LDS Troops do have stricter standards for some things that they have been allowed to initiate at the Troop Level.

P.S.

I agree with your view of divorce, but feel that there would be more people opposed to this way of thinking than you might imagine.

1. BSAs study of peoples views on homosexuality reveal a roughly 2/3 or higher percentage that find [avowed] homosexuals as not being considered proper role models. (According to the policy they would have to be avowed)

2. You have the potential to lose Jewish people right off the top, because Moses allowed for the Israelites divorce by The Law, and they would still be following that.

3. You would end up with a lot of people crying, well what about in abusive situations, or adulterous ones, or or or It is not nearly as cut and dry to as many people even view homosexuality.

By no means am I saying that this would not be the good and proper fight, but that it would be a more difficult one.

Hi Guys, great ideas!

Our winter camping trips always end up being car camping. The best way we've found to keep the boys off of the cold ground is to bring along a few bales of hay to spread between the ground cloth and the tent. No matter how much they roll, the hay stays under the boys.

For myself, after a car accident a couple of years ago I had some trouble with my back, and after trying a cot and still having moderate discomfort I decided to try a sleeping pad. I had heard good things about the self inflating pads and discovered one that tapers, thicker at the head and back, ranging from 3" down to 1" at the feet, cutting down the weight for backpacking significantly. After using it her first time on a trip with us, my mother in law insists on sleeping on it when visiting our home every time now, instead of a bed.

NWScouter,

If I'm hearing what you're saying,you seem to be saying that there is some level of importance, within the scouting program, for boys to be made aware of the personal sex lives and beleifs of the Scouters, and that it might even be to their benefit.

You also seem to be saying that they have already been exposed to many such things by the age of 18, (keeping in mind that most scouts fall into the 11 and 12 year old category) so what does it matter.

Is this what you are saying, because this is what I continue to hear in your words?

"C'mon, silver-shark--what he means is that some religions, including some flavors of Christianity, don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, and thus they would not see the need for a ban on avowed homosexuals. Surely you understand this?"

Hi Hunt,

I'm not sure if you are trying to spin what I have asked, or if I have simply not made it plain enough, so here goes:

1. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that homosexuality is immoral / sinful

2. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that people that temp and entice others to "stumble" into this lifestyle are guilty of additional sin.

3. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that a role model that states either directly or indirectly that something is acceptable, is all that is necessary to cause a child to "stumble" into an immoral / sinful act or lifestyle.

Are you, or is anyone, 100% certain that I am wrong about this?

Are you, or is anyone, willing to gamble their eternal soul on this?

How about the eternal soul of a child?

Ultimately, this is what I am talking about.

I was completely serious when I asked, When is the best time to avow anything of a sexual nature to 11 to 18 year old boys, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, or a combination of them?

and, I would be interested in hearing more about these other religions that feel that peoples sexual orientations are the business of 11 to 18 year old children, or anyone else for that matter.

It is no longer just about consensual sex between adults when children are made aware of it.

Hi NWScouter,

I would be interested in hearing more about these other religions that feel that peoples sexual orientations are the business of 11 to 18 year old children, or anyone else for that matter.

You've PEAKED my curiosity.

Goodmorning Fat Old Guy.

I can see how some people could have slightly differing views of how to interpret the passage that you are referring to, in Matthew 5:28.

The thing is, that all one has to do is wholeheartedly repent and turn away from this way of thinking. I'm sure that this is what Jimmy Carter has done.

The avowed homosexual however, is not only continuing to justify in his or her mind that their behavior is acceptable, thus continually refusing to repent, but they are attempting to drag other people down with them when they try to justify this.(This message has been edited by silver-shark)

"I get the distinct impression, from the way you have asked the "question," that you asked it to make a point rather than to get an answer. But I'll answer it anyway. The answer is, of course: Never. It is not appropriate for Scouters to discuss their "private" lives with the Scouts."

I'm not trying to pick on you personally NJ, but trying to make a point about the way that some folks look at things like the Scout Oath and Law.

Your response to my question seems to indicate that as Scouters, (people that are to live by the same set of standards as the boys, namely the Scout Oath/Promise and Scout Law, OR HIGHER) it is not acceptable to avow anything of a sexual nature to OUR Scouts in the form of a discussion, but that it is OK to avow things of a sexual nature to children inside or outside of scouting in this age group, or slightly older, in the form of a newspaper interview, or by handing out information at a ralley.

This seems to be inconsistent with the manner in which Scouting came to the U.S. Without the mentallity that Scouting is a way of life, allday, everyday, the unknown scout would never have helped William Boyce all those years ago.

I'd be interested to know how many people in or out of the Scouting age group were reached by James Dale's message, of a sexual nature, not merely avowing his homosexuality, but tempting others to either embracce or accept HIS preferred, sexual, lifestyle.

I, and many others have a problem with this at multiple levels.

First, as a Christian, I beleive that the Holy Bible is the Word of God, given to man by Himself, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, throughout the history of mankind. Further, that it is the absolute Truth and our roadmap to eternal life.

Second, if one were to remove all references to the sins of sexual impurity, or sexual vice found within it, such as homosexuality, fornication, adultery, prostitution, etc... it would look like a big hunk of swiss cheese. The Bible clearly teaches us that these things are immoral/sinful, and that unless a person repents and turns away from these things they will not have eternal life.

Thirdly, Jesus gives a very stern warning against leading others, especially children, into temptation in "The Gospel According to Matthew 18:6, when He says,

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in and acknowledge and cleave to Me to stumble and sin [that is, who entices him or hinders him in right conduct or thought], it would be better (more expedient and profitable or adventageous) for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be sunk in the depth of the sea." Verse 7 goes on to say, "Woe to the world for such temptations to sin and influences to do wrong! It is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the person on whose account or by whom the temptation comes!"

With his temptations and enticements to sin or explore sin in this sexually impure/immoral manner, I personally believe that James Dale, and others like him are no better than a barker outside of a strip club in the seedy part of town enticing you to "Come on in and enjoy the show."

Do all people in Scouting believe as I do? No.

Has the BSA gone after homosexuals, banning all of them from it? No.

The BSA doesn't have a problem with homosexuals until they AVOW their homosexuality, thus stating either directly or indirectly that they find it to be a morally acceptable way of life, thus being a contradictory role model to MANY within the Scouting Movement.

Does this mean that I hate or dislike James Dale or others like him? Of course not! I don't want anyone to miss out on the opportunity of eternal life, but there is a price tag associated with it and that price tag is repentance. Through God's Grace (which He freely gives even to sinners) there is no sin that can't be forgiven if the sinner sincerely repents and turns away from the sin.

If Christians disliked or hated sinners we wouldn't let them in on this, we'd merely let them flounder their fleshly lives away instead of spreading this message.

Climbing down from soap box now,

silver-shark