More rules . . .

[Eamonn 61]

So when are we going to change the Mission of the Bsa from "To make ethical choices."

To

"Follow the Rules of the Troop." ?

I have been around for a little while and have dealt with a vast number of boys. I like to think that in my own little way I have given them the opportunity to learn and practice leadership.

Over all these years I have never had a Patrol make up a set of Patrol Rules.

Yes there have been times when the PL has asked someone to stop doing something or asked someone to get something done.

Please note that he asked not ordered.

I suppose he could have gone to the PLC and had a full set of dos and don'ts listed in the minutes. He could have used these rules to get the job done.

I happen to think that this is not true leadership.

Eamonn

[Adrianvs 10]

"[The Scout Law] is not something that a boy can keep in his heart and mind every moment of the day Especially when hes being distracted and tempted by some outdoor fun with a bunch of rowdy boys.

 

The need that youve apparently have never witnessed before, is to address a bunch of boys whod rather have fun, which includes (on many occasions) not thinking about others before they act."

 

 

Let us remember that fun is not an alternative to or distraction from the scouting program. I don't think anyone consciously believes this, but sometimes we don't focus on the actual problems that need to be addressed. There are problematic consequences of rowdiness and outdoor fun, but these are not problems themselves.

 

 

I think that Bob's example of "no running in camp" is a rule. But the difference I see is that he takes the time, every time, to bring out the reasons that the behavior is not a good idea. This is the difference between "ruleism" and the guiding method. Scouts will break the rules in a rule-heavy troop. Scouts will behave innapropriately in a troop that doesn't have definate rules beyond BSA's. In both cases, the leader (youth or adult) will address the situation. Rules don't enforce themselves. You can shout "No running" or take a few extra seconds to relate the running behavior to its inappropriateness. I submit that the latter method works faster and more effectively than the former.

 

Another problem with rule making, as I have explained before, is that it doesn't work among adults as well. All adults are subject to the BSA rules, and that is fine. But troop rules, proclaimed by scoutmasters, can pose a problem. If a scouter is dropping his cigarette butts all over the campsite (BSA guidelines aside) I may tell him privately that it makes the campsite look bad, etc. If, as scoutmaster, I proclaim a new rule that only pipes and smokeless tobacco are allowed (again, BSA rules aside), then we have a different situation. Can you imagine the response? Tobacco products may be a bad example, as BSA rules have much to say on the issue, but the point remains.

 

When we control certain behaviors, it doesn't have to be a suggestion, by any means. It can be, and sometimes has to be, firm and unequivocal. But it isn't arbitrary and the "rule" is unlikely to be made lightly as the reasons for it are always in the forefront. In this way, both youth and adults are following the same guidelines (general and specific), and they can be the role models and mentors that they are intended to be.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"Remember, Baden-Powell's military background"

 

Back in B-P's day and especially in the British Army, things were very different than they are today. I wasn't there but based on my readings, the British Army officer viewed privates as deserters waiting to happen, the individual soldier was considered shiftless and dishonest. Commands to non-coms generally took the form of conversations but instructions to the other ranks took the form of shouting, often followed by insults.

 

 

[Hunt 11]

I'd like to throw one more element into this--maybe this is just semantics, too--but obeying fair and properly enacted rules IS a value. (A scout is obedient, after all.) That's why I obey the speed limit on my street, even though I think it's set too low. The rule about doffing your hat in the dining hall is another example of this--you might think it's a stupid rule, but you obey it out of respect for the tradition, or for the right of the camp to set its own rules.

Some rules have a clear ethical basis--no running in camp is an example, because the potential harm can readily be explained. I think it's a matter of semantics whether you patiently explain that it's an important rule or an ethical imperative--you're probably going to make the same points.

But something like whether electronics will be brought on campouts--while I question whether the adults should impose such a rule, I see nothing wrong with the boys making a collective decision for the good of the troop on how this will be handled.

What I find objectionable is the institution of rules that are designed simply to exert power over others, or to enact one person's preference over the collective interest. "As long as I'M Scoutmaster, there will be no Gameboys on campouts." I think the disagreement here is partly on what rules fit this description, and what rules don't.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

If a scout cant keep the 12 words of the scout law in his heart and mind, how will he remember the plethora of rules a troop might whip up?

[Rooster7 11]

Bob,

 

Going back to the topic at hand - Yes, we are supposed to find ways (i.e., use the methods of Scouting) to ingrain values and good character in the boys. However, as I said before, the desired end result does not happen over night. It's a process that may take years. Rules are a way of keeping order and ensuring everyone is kept safe, until those boys embrace that good character.

 

As for the snide remarks - if you think that by making generalizations or by not addressing a specific person, you are not being snide to anyone, then you are sorely mistaken. Youre as guilty as the rest of us when comes to being snide, so please dont pretend otherwise.

 

OGE,

 

If a scout cant keep the 12 words of the scout law in his heart and mind, how will he remember the plethora of rules a troop might whip up?

 

Its not a matter of remembering the 12 points of the Scout Law. Im sure most Scouts can do this. Its a matter of knowing how to interpret the appropriate point or points of the Scout Law for every given circumstance. Many new and/or young Scouts are not going to be able to do this. Or, for some boys, it may be a matter in which they rather ignore the Scout Law. Rules give new Scouts specific dos and donts. They establish boundaries and consequences. No, rules dont accomplish the mission. But, without rules many troops would become dysfunctional and the work of the mission would become near impossible.

 

Consider this analogy A doctors mission is to heal his patient. Rules are the painkiller. Painkiller wont heal the patient. But until the medicine does its job or until the doctor performs the appropriate procedure, painkillers are necessary to keep the patients pain under control. And believe me, some Scouts can be a real pain when theyre out of control. ;-)

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[evmori 11]

I keep hearing voices!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[acco40 95]

This is only written partially in jest.

 

I tend to agree that many troops, Councils and individuals put up rules that are really not needed. The Scout Law & Oath should sufficed 99% of the time. One example of a rule that I don't think is necessary has something to do with "avowed" behavior. {Actually not necessarily behavior per se.)(This message has been edited by acco40)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Heh heh, Acco. That's different, of course. That's a rule we like, so the same standards don't apply. (For you literalists out there, the preceding was sarcasm. "We" does not mean Acco and I, but rather those persons who, even now, are no doubt drafting in their minds an indignant response to Acco's and/or my post.)

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"One example of a rule that I don't think is necessary has something to do with "avowed" behavior. {Actually not necessarily behavior per se.)"

 

"Avowed behavior" is behavior that the person has admitted so unless he is lying, it happened.

[evmori 11]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

THE VOICES!!!!!!!!!!

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[acco40 95]

FOG, look at where you put your quotation marks and where I put mine. I was an "avowed" heterosexual while still a virgin. My behavior did not define my sexuality. It is my understanding that BSA rule regarding sexuality does not distinguish between behavior and thought. If one recognizes their sexuality and happens to share that with others (as I just shared my sexuality with you, i.e. I'm heterosexual), one risks ouster by the BSA if it is not the "proper" one.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Oh goodie, here we go again. (That was some more sarcasm.)

 

Well, if ever there was a thread that cried out to be hijacked, it was this one. (I think Ed is already rehearsing scenes from "Poltergeist V: Jason Runs in Camp.) I don't feel so bad though, because the person who started this thread has also contributed to it's going astray.

 

To those playing the home version of our game, I am about to talk about the "gay issue," so avert your eyes if you wish.

 

So, FOG says:

 

"Avowed behavior" is behavior that the person has admitted so unless he is lying, it happened.

 

If I may speak for Acco, I don't think that's what he meant. And regardless of whether I am right about what he meant, the fact is that the "policy in question" is not necessarily about behavior. It is about status, or orientation. To confirm I am correct, I just looked up the word "homosexual" at www.dictionary.com. The definitions there speak of "orientation" or "attraction" or "practice" of homosexuality (that is, conduct.)

 

James Dale never described his conduct. I am sure the U.S. Supreme Court majority would have quoted him verbatim if he had. He said, in effect, "I'm gay." The guys in D.C. who wrote (or so legend has it) "I am gay" on their adult leader applications never said "and here's what my conduct is." They just said what they are. Now, the rest of us can fill in the blanks if we want, and in most cases we will probably be correct as to the implication of certain conduct. But conduct is not what the BSA is prohibiting. They are prohibiting announcing that one is oriented toward that conduct.

[Rooster7 11]

Arrrgh! Another thread turned into a debate on homosexuality. I have my opinion (see the previous 2,000 threads on this subject), but let's move on...This has been beatened to death.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster, didn't I see you write the word "Perspective" in huge letters in a post in this thread? Well, here is some perspective: "Move on" sounds a lot better when you are on what is, at the time, the "winning" side. (Not the side with the better argument, just the side that won the most recent victory.)

 

Also: You are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to get involved in a conversation you don't want to get involved in. As I indicated before, the "main line" of this thread has pretty much turned into the online-discussion equivalent of the night of the living dead anyway. Even Ed is screaming off into the night. So you wouldn't be missing anything.

 

And: It's really not a "debate" on homosexuality. As Acco raised it (only partially in jest), it's really a "debate" about consistency. And then it turned into a "debate" about how FOG misinterpreted what Acco said.