DuctTape

I get what Stosh is saying. It isnt the boy who is infectious, it is the attitude and behavior. This does not necessarily mean a negative. A positive fun loving attitude can be infectious to the entire patrol. This is a good thing. An attitude of complacency and minimalism can also be infectious; not a good thing. It is not wrong, nor unscoutlike to express the fact that boys' attitudes and behaviors do impact those around them. In fact this is exactly why adult association is part of scouting, so our example may infect the scouts as well.

I am late to this party, my thoughts have been stated. The Oath and Law are sufficient. I only commented to give Props to MattR for the Alice's Restaurant reference.

Q, None of the instances you described either added or subtracted to requirements for advancement. Another thing to consider is how any of this is discussed with the boys. These processes and procedures, I mean. It appears many of these policies, and expectations are adult decisions. I wonder how the boys feel, and whether they were wven consulted, let alone make the decisions.

I am not makin an issue about it for any of my boys or parents. I am only saying here that in general it is not demonstrating Trustworthiness. There is a large gap between advocating and encouraging its use and waggin fingers at others. I am not in support of either. As a Scouter I am supposed to exhibit traits as an example, to me this means not poopooing lying, or even advocating for it on a public forum as it being ok. I will remain courteous and not say anything to any particular scout or parent. I will also exhibit trustworthiness by answering any question about young scouts using fB as I do not support it and why.

There are other social media outlets which handle it quite well. Some of which are actually linked to parents Fb accounts. It can be done, and is done. Regardless, condoning lying is not what I would do. We can agree to disagree that dishonesty ik ok in this instance. Little johnny can be in contact with grammy and aunt Bea without resorting to Fb.

Beavah, The law isnt the problem. If Fb wanted to, the TOS could allow younger than 13 y/o users. They don't. In fact the TOS explicitly states that no one under 13 can use Fb let alone sign up. It requires one to enter false personal information for an under 13 y/o, also a TOS violation. There are others who are prohibited from having accounts, and using Fb too. So this isn't an issue with the law, kids and parents ARE being dishonest. I do agree that calling them out on it personally is not productive. That is not what we are doing here. If a parent reads this and is offended by realizing their dishonesty, that is their issue, not mine.

I would agree with Beavah if the terms of use explicitly stated under age kids with parental consent, which I understand would be allowed under the law (poorly written or not). Fb is mandated to follow the law, but still may have additional restrictions. There are plenty of online forums and such designed for kids which allow for young kids to sign up with parental consent. Fb is not one of those. Thus, the scout is being dishonest by entering a false DOB and clicking they agree with the TOS.

Stosh, we are on the same page. What you call concerned budge is what I call encourage.

Hedge, I apologize. I thought I was being clear my response was specific to just one comment earlier. As to your specific issue, the PLs or TGs need only encourage, but not babysit. Advancement is the individual scout's responsibility, not the PL, TG, nor mommy. These others should encourage, and help provide the opportunities, but getting a book signed, or setting up a sm conference or bor is the scout's own responsibility. Definitely not an adults job. Do not do for rhe scout, what they can do for themselves. Some may not care about getting things signed off.

Q, I don't disagree. Scouting done well, with participation fullfilling most requirements will happen. Either TG, nor PL are responsible for others advancement any more than encouragement and help. Patrols can have on their meeting agenda a question about what fellows need to do what, and plan adventures which include those items. Of course if a scout does other things instead, he will miss out on both adventure and advancement. That is his choice.

I wanted to weigh in on the comment about advancement and requirements not meshing with the patrol adventures. Most t-fc requirements can be part of the regular adventures, and in many cases necessary to complete the adventure. Done "right", the requirements are met just by participating in scouting adventures, unless the troop/patrol uses pre-purchased doodads, drive-up only, etc... "camping", and not real adventures. Sure there are a few which require an additional focus, but if all boys need them, then an instructor can help, in a mixed level patrol those who already know can help. Scouting adventures and most of the advancement requirements go hand in hand, they are not mutually ezclusive (or shouldnt be).

I agree. I was only pointing out that there is no prohibition regarding ages of scouts as tent mates.

Iirc, there is no prohibition on scout more than 2 years apart sharing tents. I think it says "assigning... should be avoided". If scouts choose to share a tent, that isnt being assigned, nor is it absolutely prohibited anyway.

I missed the question was about the camp cooking, not the trail cooking. My apologies.

When one looks at the spirit of the changes, themes emerge. One being a distinction between cooking at home, at camp and on the trail. The requirements should, imo, be interpreted to give the boys the experience in all 3 aspects. If one interpretation allows a scout to skip "trail cooking" then, imo, this violates the spirit. A camp stove while lighter than ones kitchen stove is not a trail stove. A fire can be used at camp and on trail, and shows the most skill. Some areas fires are forbidden, thus only a lightweight trail stove must be used. Imo, this is not a 2 burner coleman, those stoves are for at camp not the trail. My 2 cents.

I see the problem as a lack of marketing direction at the National level. Irving has failed to define, and implement a vision which focuses on what makes bsa unique compared to all other organizations. Without that, all marketing done at the local level is haphazard. There are a whole bunch of burger joints around, what makes ours stand out? I would argue that the failure at the national level to ensure that all franchises implement a boy-led, patrol-method program has diluted the one thing which could be used to demonstrate what makes scouting unique. The brand is losing its luster, and that responsibility falls squarely on the big boys in tx to ensure.

I disagree. If the main mission of Scouts is to help the boys learn to make moral and ethical decisions, etc... Courtesy in language, dress, and action certainly falls within that mission. One might argue the values espoused within the Scout Law should have been taught earlier, yet we do not claim these values to be akin to Scouters being virtual parents. I see my role as complementing the values taught by the parents and community. The method of adult association allows me to be an example, so the boys see other adults demonstrating these values, and "common courtesies". I see this as part of our mission, as it always has been.

I think much hullabaloo about cursing is wasted energy. To me, the issue is nit specific words, their etymology, etc.. The real issue should be helping boys learn to speak eloquently as well as helping them understand how one speaks in polite company is a representation of themselves. Their choices of language are like a verbal uniform, it shows to others who you are inside. This is especially true when others know little about you.

Agreed. As I only have the 5th edition, it is what I use.

A reprint of the 5th Edition Scoutmaster Handbook.

I tend to think that in all advancement it is imperative that a boy demonstrate completion of all requirements, no more and no less. Most often, even in this thread, comments are about the boy demonstrating he follows the oath and law. O agree, and this IS one of the requirements; show scout spirit. Far too often this requirement just gets signed off as a rubber stamp. If this requirement actually meant something in reality, then I don't think this thread would be necessary.

"It is always interesting to watch the boys figure things out for themselves."

I think most rules and laws are a result of people not doing what they should be doing for the sake of safety or for ethical reasons. The larger group, bsa or society, then attempts to both qualify and quantify the desired behavior. As Beavah cotrectly points out, these laws and rules cannot be written to account for every detail in every circumstance, so more rules and laws are created. Also as pointed out the system has other checks and balances in an attempt to be equitable. The rules were not created to be followed for the rules sake, they were created because people weren't acting in an acceptable manner.

Our troop has a single necker. I am not a fan of it for a number of reasons, but it is a minor issue to me so I will not delve into it. However if it were up to me the troop would not have one, but each patrol would have their own.

I remember at one time the world crest patch was received when a scout participated in an international scouting event.