Hawkwin

Order submitted. Will share the artist mock-up when it is done.

We looked at both "Valkyrie" and "Artemis" but she settled on Valkyrie. I preferred the mythic of Artemis more but it is her patch of course. As soon as she saw a winged heroin in armor with a sword, she was hooked.

39 minutes ago, qwazse said:

That's why BSA's official stance on them is that the Scout’s [totin; firem'n, and we may include swimming] rights can be taken from him if he fails in his responsibility.

Did you miss the part where the Whittling Chip can also be revoked? I will note that BSA official stance for the Totin IS NOT, "You may cut off the corner for an infraction." Perhaps the absence of that language is intentional?

https://www.scribd.com/document/361593410/510-033-17-BALOO

If the Cub Scout does not follow the rules as taught and as listed on the Whittling Chip card, the Whittling Chip will be revoked, no exceptions!• There is no such thing as “cutting a corner off” for infractions. The rules are followed at all times. The Whittling Chip card stays as a complete unit.

What is the rational for such an explicit prohibition?

41 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

Show me the evidence that a decades old practice has no basis for being effective. 

Only because I keep getting asked direct questions...

I asked for evidence in this thread that cutting a corner was effective. I asked multiple times if scouters thought that cutting a corner, in and of itself, was sufficient in teaching responsibility and/or correcting behavior. I don't think anyone replied in the affirmative. In every case, from what I recall, there was also the requirement to have a conversation with the scout. My theory is that it is the conversation, the interaction with an adult leader, that results in the change of behavior, not the corner being cut. As such, cut corners is neither necessary nor helpful and can be seen by some as either hazing or bulling.

45 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

Also, someone posted material from the BALOO training manual that corner cutting on Whittling Chip is not allowed, so this isn't hearsay. 

That was me. The hearsay was the fact that you started this thread by stating someone from the council said it also applies to the Totin Chip. We can't substantiate that claim currently but it would not surprise me since it is already prohibited for one type of card.

Lastly, but in a desire to not simply use an appeal to authority argument, it does appear both from my quote and you hearing from your council that this is a practice that is not supported by BSA. Perhaps it really isn't all about me and my lil ole opinion but more significant negative feedback BSA has received on this topic that lead to this decision. I really don't think they would move from a position of "no comment" in 2013 to a position of "no more" in 2017 if there was not a reason for it. Everyone posting that they don't see any harm in it doesn't change that fact.

What I don't get is if we can agree that it is already a banned practice for the Whittling Chip, why is it so outrageous that we would prohibit it for the Totin Chip?

10 minutes ago, Treflienne said:

Why do you think that the girls will want "girl-centric" or "girl-oriented" patches?

Because my cub scout daughter does. I doubt she is unique. She wanted something that would illustrate the unique nature of what she would be doing. Now don't get me wrong, she loved a bunch of different patches, especially the silly ones but when I suggested we look for a specific [but undisclosed] patch of some sort, her eyes doubled in size at the suggestion. Later that day, I overheard her telling her mom about just how excited she was about the idea of her potential patrol name and patch.

I will share the details once Class B finishes their custom design. I don't want to give away my royalties.

3 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

Class B girl-oriented patches should be fine.

Yes, but there are virtually none (which makes sense). I went through about 20 pages on three different sites and the one I linked above was nearly the only one I found. One other we discussed: http://tradingpost.classb.com/official-licensed-fire-breathing-ducky-patrol-patch/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5PTQ3q7Y2gIVzrXACh3vQgZVEAQYAyABEgInPPD_BwE We would call it "Tough Chicks Patrol " instead of "Fire Breathing Duckies Patrol"

I plan to send Class B a custom design or two and I would bet dollar to donuts both could be top 10 sellers by this time next year. I should request a royalty fee.

16 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

produce multiple fliers for the various constituencies?

I feel like we never put such announcements on paper and simply sent out emails. No reason to use both logos for both emails. Text is probably sufficient with a graphic representing the event without logos.

49 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Do people do that?  (I do realize there is a smiley-face there, but if there is a joke here, I am missing it.)

The irony is that I was looking just last week at GS patches in the hope that I could find one that my daughter might use next year for one of her ideas for a patrol patch. Obviously, there are not a high number of girl-centric patrol patches already in existence (though I did surprisingly find a Power Puffs Girls cartoon patrol patch called Cartoon Power on Class B - http://tradingpost.classb.com/cartoon-power-patrol-patch/ and I had to wonder which existing patrol would use such?!?).

I doubt I am the only scouter that would be considering such a solution. Now I know better.

Well, I honestly thought this topic had died a natural death but then someone asked me a question and I felt it would be discourteous to not respond.

I will try to clarify my position one last time and then let the thread go into the ether. Besides, this entire thread (and my participating starting on page 3) is based entirely on hearsay from the OP. We don't know if any of this is even valid.

Most of the arguments in support of cutting the corner have relied on various subjective reasoning. If each scouter can subjectively decide what is or is not hazing/bullying, then we have no real standard - and it is wide open to abuse. If one scouter thinks it is OK because the card cost $0.19 but would object if the cost was $5, where as a different scouter would not object until the cost was $10, then we again have a subjective standard where by it will be considered inappropriate by some and OK by others. I again prefer a more objective standard when it comes to things as serious as a potential violation of YPT. If scouters of good conscience can't agree on a standard that would be "too much" then the best and only objective standard is "not at all."

45 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Sigh, it doesn't look like questions from one who wants to be converted, but on the outside chance ...

Of course not, I am attempting to do the converting, after all.

28 minutes ago, perdidochas said:

Why are you so against the idea of cutting a $.19 card as a warning?  

The cost of the card is a Red Herring. Would you change your position if the card cost $200? If you would, then you have to admit that cutting a corner is still not proper, regardless of the cost.

As stated up thread, cutting a corner is unnecessary and does not accomplishing anything on its own. As you illustrate, you still have to have a conversation. Can you cut the card and walk away, assuming you did your job? Could you have a conversation without cutting the card and have a different result? Perhaps cutting the card doesn't accomplish what you think it does if you can't do only that and get the same result.

I also don't see any relevance to knowing whether or not a scout, now 17, may have used a knife in an unsafe manner when they were 11. We don't care if a scout, at age 17, violated some aspect of safe swim defense when they were 11 as long as they behave correctly now. I can't think of any other practice in BSA that results in the damage - even as something as minor as cutting a corner - of a scouts personal property. Confiscation, yes. Damage, no.

Flip the question around, why are you so for it? What do you think would happen if you still had the same conversation but without cutting a corner? And why stop at a corner? If minor damage of scout property is such an effective means of corrective action and re-education, why not patches? Toss trash on the ground, get the bottom quarter of your Outdoor Ethics patch cut off. Get caught not being Reverent, cut off the left quarter of your religious emblem.

At some point, most scouters would likely object to the damage or destruction of such property and if you object to one, how can you allow another - on such subjective grounds as cost? If $0.19 is OK, what amount isn't? At what cost does something become hazing or bullying?

I feel a little more pride today:

We are the Boy Scouts of America. When inaccurate stories appear in the media,

we will take the higher ground. We will apologize for and correct mistakes. We will

correct significant inaccuracies in courteous fashion. We applaud the efforts of all

who serve youth. We will speak positively and support the efforts of all other

youth-serving organizations.

--------------------

1 hour ago, John-in-KC said:

My one thought is "separate but equal" in the honor camping organization will see National fighting in the court of public opinion on a Title IX lawsuit

Title IX doesn't require things be coed or even equal, it only requires entities that receive federal financial assistance not discriminate on the basis of gender. Schools easily accomplish that requirement while still having a boy's only football team and a girls softball team, for example. I don't see how a person would even begin to have any standing to file a case under Title IX.

5 minutes ago, SSF said:

So what would you regard as a good indicator

Considering the fact that the vast majority of the comments are flippant, uninformed, and many others are little more than, "why  XXXX girl scouts", I would avoid trying to gauge anything based on such comments. If you want a good gauge, probably enrollment numbers in a year or two would be a better estimate.

10 minutes ago, SSF said:

Maybe all those comments expressing opposition were written by imaginary people...yes, that must be it...the people opposed to girls in scouting are imaginary.

I don't think anyone implied that those individuals don't exist, just that they likely are not representative of any greater sentiment.

I will note though that if you look at the comments in the aggregate, 77% are self-described as neutral and only 19% are negative. Pretty good result for a comments section if one wanted to try and extrapolate some larger point based on such.

Just a guess, but the content may have been too adult-led and not so much boy-lead. When my son was PL, he complained on more than one occasion that he didn't do anything at the PLC meetings (not every time, but more than once).

If his input is not being actively solicited, he probably just sat there the whole time and listened (while being bored). Ask him what contributions he made to the meeting and if anyone asked him any questions. That might give you more insight.

21 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I believe this is being done to ensure separate SPL/ASPL/PL/APLs.

Agreed, but absent separate leadership, It looks like troops can be basically coed from all appearances and functionality (just not on paper). I would even imagine that if you have both troops on a camp out, they could even share their adult leadership for YPT requirements.

While this solution appeals to me personally, I still think this is a bad solution for BSA. This is starting to appear to be just what many here feared BSA would become. We need to have clear enough distinctions that we can continue to support the decisions of those troops that wish to remain boy-only. The more we support them in their decision to remain boy-only with clear boundaries on what BSA4G will be, the greater they will support BSA4G since it doesn't directly impact them.

8 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Can't speak for instructors, but BALOO is clear
page 45

Scooped!

6 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

they're the same troop.  national can say the troops aren't co-ed all they want, but every brick in the foundation they're building is for turn-key co-ed troops.  

As someone that supports BSA4G, I also agree. Might as well simply carry the structure of cub scouts (single gender den/patrols) over into such Troops if they are going to be allowed to have the same leaders, committee, CO, meeting space, opening and closing ceremony, troop number, etc. This is looking like a distinction without a difference. The only thing that makes them different at all would be their scout leaders. Everything appears it can be fully integrated - so how is that really any different than simply having gender-specific patrols?

2 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

the National Council issued debt

When it comes to the issuance of debt, such entities can do a lot of creative things. Nothing would necessarily (absent some written rules against such) keep them from simply issuing new debt to pay off the balloon payments. It can be rather easy to kick that can down the road if need be.

Now interest rates are likely to be much higher then so the debt service is likely to be more expensive if they do that.

19 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

So apparently another gem to come out of new Baloo course material

Was this the online course material or the new in-person course for 2018?

3 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

Yeah - Feminism spent decades excoriating men for having men-only spaces and now here we are, almost 50 years later and women now want their women-only spaces.  I'm sure I have a reputation as one of the most liberal people in this forum but I have to say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander - open up those women only spaces or you're no better than the men you criticized for years.

Meh. I am right there with you but I am not bothered by the idea that some women might want a woman only coworking space. There are male-only version(s) of this too (Nomadic Thinkers is one, not sure of any others).

But that being stated, NYC is investigating these women-only spaces for gender bias: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/29/women-only-coworking-space-the-wing-is-under-investigation-for-excluding-men.html

We do but not consistently. We appear to leave it up to the scout (good practice but results in a higher fail rate). I reviewed my son's a few weeks ago and he was missing many camping nights. The troop does not have their own master list so the only authoritative reference is their log.

9 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

That being said, I'm not going to play uniform police

Yes, this inquiry is more for the sake of my scouts and what they should properly do and not for my own authoritarian desires.

11 hours ago, qwazse said:

Who told you that equipment decoration was not a miscellaneous patch?

Various official and unofficial references.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/Universal_and_Nonunit_Insignia.pdf

"equipment decoration, not for uniform wear."

http://www.scoutinsignia.com/tmppatch.htm

"Temporary insignia: This consists of badges, pins or other items which does not fall into the advancement, position or title, Jamboree, unit, personal achievement, service, tenure, aquatics, or equipment decoration insignia catagories.

...

Aquatics emblems (Mile Swim, Aquatics Instructor, Boardsailing, SCUBA, BSA Llfeguard, etc.) are NOT worn with the uniform and are NOT "temporary insignia." They are worn on the swim trunks/outfit of the Scout/Venturer/Scouter.

Equipment decoration (the large 4-6 inch emblems representing National High Adventure, training (National Camping School, Philmont Training Center, National Youth Leadership Experience (NAYLE), National Junior Leader Training, etc.), including the 50-Miler and Historic Trails Awards, along with the Paul Bunyan Axman Award and others, may be worn either on the backside of the red (or blue) jac-shirt or on personal camping equipment or blankets. Those items are not "temporary insignia" and therefore cannot be worn on the back of the merit badge sash or anywhere on the uniform. .

-----------------

There were a few more sites (didn't bookmark them) that basically stated the same thing as above.

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I’m curious how National will respond.  

Hopefully backtrack.

I have been able to find only limited references to the term "Equipment Decoration" and what is included in such, like the 50-Miler, Paul Bunyan (and other skill-based patches), and the Historic Trails. What others would be included in this?

Is there an easier way to know what is an Equipment Decoration patch and what is a miscellaneous patch?

I ask because apparently equipment patches are supposed to go on equipment (e.g. backpacks and swim trunks) and not the back of the merit badge sash, as miscellaneous patches may. I tried the following but it does not clarify:

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/Universal_and_Nonunit_Insignia.pdf

Would Outdoor ethics be misc or equipment? How about the National Outdoor Awards? High Adventure? Nova? Previous JTE?