Missing HB = no BOR

[SR540Beaver 116]

Yeah Ed, it does. At some point the boys have to step up and be responsible or accept the consequences of their actions. It is a leasson they need to learn now before they get off to college or a real job. You can forgive the SPL skipping a campout because he doesn't like the rain, but his employer isn't going to put up with it. You can accept a shortcut of giving a boy credit for sitting thru a MB class and signing off on it, but his professor won't. You can tell him he is responsible for seeking sign off on his advancement and getting it recorded in his book and then bringing that book to SMC's and BOR's or you can give him a mulligan for forgetting or not doing so. He will accept that as the standard instead of taking responsibility.

 

We are facing an issue now of advancement minded parents wanting their kid's hand held thruout the process. We typically receive 15 to 20 new scouts a year. We have 3 TG's and 3 ASM's that work with this group. We hold their hand in the beginning and pull back little by little over about 9 months before they move to regualr patrols. When the boys do their SMC for Scout, we explain the whole process of SMC's and BOR's and wearing a full uniform and having their book with them. We also explain that while we will walk them thru this process, they will increasingly become responsible for their advancement and it will be hands off by 1st Class. The boys seem to accpt this. The parents on the other hand keep coming to us asking about signing little Timmy off for this and that and concerned that he isn't whipping thru advancement and wanting to know why no adult is sheperding them thru the process like we did last year. Funny thing is, we have all this on paper and pass it out to the new parents each year. We also tell t hem to have their son come see us because he is responsible for his advancement.

 

Now, all that being said.....we do keep a watchful eye out and give a nudge here and there for guys that either seem lost or oblivious to reality.

 

We are preparing boys for life as adults. Letting them breeze thru and giving them a participation award isn't the way to do it. It won't serve them well when they become adults.

[evmori 11]

I don't think anyone is advocating letting them slide through. I know I'm not! All I am saying is requiring a Scout to bring their handbook to a BOR is adding to the requirements!

[Lisabob 13]

Just another thought. In my son's troop, boys ranked Star and above can sign off on most T-2-1 requirements. Checking the books at BOR is also a check on whether that responsibility is working out well for any particular boy. Sometimes we get boys who either don't understand, or don't take seriously, the right to sign off on requirements and that needs to be addressed.

[Kudu 186]

Twocubdad, what exactly have you yourself contributed to this discussion that hasn't been said a thousand times before?

 

#1 -- Scouting is adult-run ("I will allow there is some element of discipline and teaching responsibility here").

 

#2 -- Scouting is an office job ("Would you show up for a job interview without your resume or application?").

 

#3 -- Scouting is school ("Maybe you could keep your handbook in your school bookbag").

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

Kudu -- have you heard the old story about the prisoners who were in the same cell block

 

Oh? How many times have I already quoted the Owls Patrol Leader informing the Scoutmaster that two of his Patrol Members are now Second Class Scouts?

 

How about the example of what happens without Boards of Review, where the advancement standards are such that the worst Patrol Leader in the entire Troop still manages to organize his own eight mile hikes for eight months?

 

I submit that these examples of actual "boy-run" Scouting are so new to most of us, that they can serve as analogies to the "bigger picture" just as fresh as images of "lost keys" or "underwear."

 

The reason for your personal attack is that you simply do not have an answer for any of the questions that I present, so you hold my personality up for ridicule as if it is self-evident (for instance), that members of an organization with the stated Aims of "Character" and "Citizenship in the Nation" should simply ignore an obvious violation of an Act of Congress and type out the so-called "Mission Statement" 9,980 times (according to Google).

 

To be fair, I will concede that you have indeed come up with a more descriptive term for the BSA Mission Statement than I ever have: "Number Two"

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[Mafaking 10]

 

Its threads like this one that keep me hooked on these forms.

 

What a good thread.

 

It also screams out for a parody topic. Something Like:

 

Missing BO = no HBO

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

That would be a #6.

 

No, Kudu, it isn't a personal attack at all. It was a sarcastic means of noting my weariness at the constant criticism of the modern program. No different from your sarcastic responses to Daddy-O in his thread.

 

I'm not attacking you personally. I don't know you. Why can't anyone express an opinion of your posts without you accusing them of making it personal? Even when you complain about alleged personal attacks against you, you turn that into a swipe at Wood Badge. You want to debate specifics? Show me the page in the Wood Badge syllabus where we are taught ad hominem attacks. Oh please.

 

Since part of my objection is to hijacking thread, I'll spin this off to another conversation.

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

I spent about two hours last night writing the initial post on a debate of Kudu's traditional methods vs. the current program. When I hit "submit" it disappears and I got some server error message. The post was totally gone.

 

Time allowing, I'll give it another try, but not right now.

[Kudu 186]

OK, let the record show that TwoCubDad brought up Wood Badge three times before I responded.

 

Ad hominem attacks are one of the only three possible outcomes when Wood Badge Logic encounters traditional practices such as a Patrol Leader telling the Scouters in a Patrol Leader meeting which of his Scouts are now Second Class.

 

Presumably the Patrol Leaders require the adults to be in full uniform, to bring their handbooks, and to respect their authority.

 

ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

 

Perhaps Wood Badge could add it to the syllabus in a "Recognize, Resist, Report" format:

 

Recognize: "Am I angry?" "Am I using the word 'you'?"

 

Resist: Compose your posts using software that allows you to save them overnight and review them later when you are calm (This has the added advantage of not seeing your posts dissolve when you hit "submit" on the quirky Scouter.Com server).

 

Report: Use "me" statements rather than "you" statements to report your feelings: "When I encounter ideas that contradict Wood Badge it makes me feel 'weary' and 'sarcastic'." Likewise, when others attack your personality to distract everyone away from your ideas, simply report objectively "This is an ad hominem attack."

 

Let the healing begin!

 

Kudu

[Knot Head 10]

This is a good answer and I agree.

 

>>In another situation, I may try to make a point with a Scout, but I would still continue the board. "You've done really well tonight and we're passing you with flying colors, but you know we can't officially sign off on your badge until we're able to review the requirements in your handbook. We'll put things on hold until next week. Bring us your handbook and it will only take a minute or two to finish the board of review."