numbersnerd

Somewhere a member of the G2SS police is losing their mind.

As much as you may want to believe the content of this article, Buzzfeed's veracity and journalistic integrity is seriously in doubt.

But you should only be stored in there after being cleaned via the 3 pot method...

Ok, that makes SOME sense, just makes it unnecessarily confusing. Agreed about keeping them in the same den. Why kill the enthusiasm and camaraderie?

I'm generally skeptical about them as well, but my oldest is interested in going to an out-of-council one because my nephews are going (it's in their council). Only a few hours drive and he'd get to hang with his cousins, meet some other Scouts, and camp in a patrol with some new guys (yeah, an overnighter MBC, who knew?). I don't know that he's all that interested in the offerings to be honest. So if it's a more a camporee than an easy patch grab, I'm inclined to let him go. I think a lot of it has to do with context, the topics, setting, and quality of instruction. The last being the biggest

https://www.scouting.org/Home/CubScouts/Parents/Awards/advancement.aspx The Wolf rank is for Scouts who have finished first grade (or who are 8 years old). Personally I thought it would have been 7 yrs old in that most 2nd graders are in that range. Might be best to consult your UC and see what the options are. Odds are they will work to find a way to retain the Scout, especially if they have completed year in the program.

Much like replacing facts with emotion, replacing objective standards with relative ones never ends well. The end result is a morass from which it gets increasingly difficult, then impossible, to extract yourself from.

Scoutbook is pretty to look at, but cumbersome to navigate. As simple as it is to get info INTO Scoutbook, getting info OUT of it is painful. Reporting options are minimal. And that a generous assessment. "Reports" can be designed, but not printed, shared, exported, or otherwise used beyond viewing on screen. The user forum has a thread that is currently 140 pages long on reporting requests and complaints. The general response is to use a third party Chrome extension that basically does a screen scrape and export that to Excel. Scoutbook covers the basics, but not much else. Like most things N

Not a uniform item... We moved in the late 70's and in the rafters of the basement of our new house were two things. A 4-ft tall wooden obelisk with hand-carved and painted merit badge emblems and names of the patrol members that made it in the 1930's. It had about 30 years of dust on it. It happened that one of those names was the current SM of the troop I was joining. I brought it to my first meeting and it stayed in a place of honor in the Scout room thereafter. His shock at seeing it again was priceless. I can only imagine the effort it took to make it. Truly wonderful. The

And that, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story. Even though it feels like 6 pages of posts to the payoff is a bit much, it's good that you had a productive conversation. It's easier to understand the COR's position now, but if you had that info to begin with, you probably wouldn't have even needed to ask the question here. I guess the main lesson is: communication is paramount. Even though it isn't the type of troubled troop that people run away from, it's going to be a tough sell to basically spin up operations again. I agree that more details about the previous disagreement sho

Oh, I get that. It just that his stance, like the one the OP is getting, appears to be more about protecting turf than serving the best interests of the boys.

I guess if you're talking about using resources such as money and equipment, you might have a point. But volunteers? Like the leaders? It just comes off as as petty if you would tell a DL he can't take the den, as a DL, to another CO's troop meeting. Which is what it sounds like the OP's original question was about. So it appears we have some differing opinions on that.

There IS a difference between a) advocating for a particular unit and b) restricting choices to one unit. Just as it would be if the CM or DL didn't give the CO's troop an opportunity to make their recruiting pitch to the boys. Either way, placing that kind of limitation on it is just plain wrong. But think about this: if the troop has no scouts and the Scouting adventure requires a visit to a troop meeting, how is that accomplished? And yes, the troop visit, in addition to the adventure requirement, is a recruiting opportunity. Usually the entire den goes together to work on the requirem

To echo that, troop choices do shift over time. Our pack had the same situation: most, if not all, Webelos went to a troop that had long been the destination for Webelos. Then there was a small splinter to another troop, and the same the next year. By the time our group got to that point, their visits made it clear: the de facto troop was not only facing competition, it was eliminated entirely from consideration. Every Webelos said, "No way", and preferred the troop that had been getting small numbers from our pack. The entire AOL patrol went to one troop together. The next round was similar,

In short: No. Scouting is a voluntary activity. Allowing for the freedom to choose the type of Scouting experience they want is part of it. Scouts (and parents) are allowed to choose what unit they want to be a part of. Not every unit is going to be a good fit for every boy and vice versa. In fact, BSA makes it pretty clear that level of comfort is a key consideration in deciding what Troop Webelos are going to join: By the time Webelos Scouts are ready to cross over, they and their families should be familiar and comfortable with the youth and adult leaders of the troop, their role

Common courtesy would dictate that if you are going to present something as a rule, it should be a rule, not a nebulous, unreferenced concept. And have it where anyone using the board can see it. Impersonation? That's a pretty strong accusation. If someone was using a false moderator "title" to persuade, dissuade, or otherwise influence others, that might amount to something. But thus far there is nothing to indicate that was the case.

Documentation for this and other rumors, err, rules is located where?

Making excuses for past behavior and the enablement of inappropriate adult intervention in the program does nothing to alleviate the problem and only models that behavior for those observing. In other words, creating the practice sets bad precedent. Excusing it will only lead to it's continuance and further erode the purpose and effectiveness of the program. "Children" will only grow up as quickly as adults let them. Limit those opportunities and it stunts that growth. By defending the mindset that they are children instead of them as individuals ready to grow into adults, the die is cast

Or that!

Quadruple the time commitment for YPT? Yeah, that'll increase participation. Might mollify some helicopters, but even choppers can only hover for so long.

So the iconic yellow neckerchief is only for kindergartners? Interesting to see if the feedback will be, "What, no yellow like when I was a kid?" I'd be cynical once finding out to enjoy that traditional combination of blue and gold would require signing up at 5 years old. Ugh. If it has the traditional Cub Scout emblem on it, I'd be tempted to make yellow the standard Pack neckerchief until Webelos. That way parents are only on the hook for a new hat as a distinguishing element for each program year.

It will be interesting to see if the already thin commissioner corps downsizes once girls are in. How many DC's don't subscribe to the new policy and will decline the honor? How many adults that agree with it will have the time to devote to being a DC if they're trying to build a girl unit?

Could or should it have been posted in the other thread? Perhaps, but there's been some bleed over between the two and the references are much closer here. But I posted that for many reasons. One because of the size and depth of the impression the initial post made. Then the play nice post was so incongruent with that. And it highlights something I fear is likely: the introduction of a double standard. Comments made by one gender are interpreted differently when uttered by the other. As it is now, boys are on equal footing because, well, they are all boys. The introduction of girls into t