Forum Comments

[Kahuna 172]

I'm pretty new to this forum and I have enjoyed the discussions here very much. I've learned a lot about Boy Scouting in the 21st Century, having been out of touch in Sea Scouting for the past 10 years or so. Even though some threads deteriorate into personal arguments, that is pretty much a part of human nature and I'd rather see that than suppression of discussion.

 

Having said that, there is one aspect of forum conduct that I don't like and don't see the need for. No topic, it seems, can get beyond the second or third post without a, "Sounds like you are violating rule number 983-4(a)(2), section 23, which provides . . ." Or, "Have you considered that some people interpret the Scout Law to contradict everything you say your unit is doing?"

 

Obviously, one reason that people post here is to learn about scouting methods and also the important stuff like YP and safety that must be considered from time to time. Clearly, if someones posts that his unit is considering a nudist weekend with kegs of beer, it should be pointed out why this isn't, a) legal and b) a good idea. However, it strikes me that many of these rebuffs are gratuitous and may serve to deter people who otherwise would ask questions or pose thoughts from doing so.

 

Am I the only Scouter on the forum who has this feeling?

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Kahuna,

 

You are correct about your observations on reactions and responses from a very few individuals. It is most unpleasant and irritating when it occurs. There have been posts about this subject in the past especially asking some to be friendly and kind but it appears an impossible task. Most of us now ignore particular users to enhance communication and make for the kind of campfire setting that we come here to enjoy. Another strategy is to use the Delete, Backspace, and the Clear Fields options when it becomes overwhelming. Other times, some take a few days vacation to reorient their anger. If that doesn't work, a request for forgiveness will be in order and by then the problem will have reached a point that most won't return from.

 

It is just one of the quirks that virtual campfires are predisposed to have. People are not really looking at another individual on the other side of the fire, if they were and they said some of those things, then a real fight would ensue. Over the past few years, we have had some bumps in the road. I suppose we are to think of it as it not being personal but just business. It still feels personal and some have a talent to make it very personal.

 

FB

 

 

 

[cajuncody 10]

Yes, but in all fairness some of us come here to learn the rules we have overlooked and if we can get a simple "It is against rule xyz on page 123 of book a" it really helps to move things along quickly. But I do agree that sometimes it really stinks to hear that something we think would be great fun is not allowed.

Kristi

[dan 10]

I want to know the rule and where it is found. Not sure why anybody would not, unless they do not want to follow the BSA program.

[Hunt 11]

I think it can depend on how you say it. It's one thing to say:

"(By the way, an ASM shouldn't be serving on a BOR--only committee members are supposed to do that.)"

and something else to say:

"And why is an ASM serving on the BOR in the first place? Obviously, your adult leaders all need remedial training."

I'm not quoting anybody, but I think sometimes we see this divergence in tone.

I feel that as long as it's put kindly and diplomatically, it's probably a good idea for somebody to point these things out--after all, there are a lot of people reading these threads who aren't posting, and it's awfully easy for bad information to spread.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Well, back from a beautiful weekend campout here in the Midwest.

 

Thanks, Kahuna, for starting this thread. As Fuzzy said, there are those here who have urged the posters to try and be courteous and civil, even if they are passionate about the issue being brought up. Perhaps this thread will give us a chance to air this out a bit.

 

Kristi, I understand where you're coming from and agree that having someone be able to point to a BSA rule for you can save a lot of searching. My issue has been, and continues to be, those who comment back by not just pointing to a BSA rule, but feeling the need to add a "tone", either explicitly or implicitly, that comes out sounding like "any MORON know that BSA rule x forbids that". And, there are people visiting here that are looking for advice on how to handle situations that aren't looking for responses like "everything you need to know is in the Scout Handbook (you idiot)".

 

I've had mostly very pleasant discussions here, even with those who are very opposed to some of the views I've expressed. I've used the "ignore posts" option on just one poster, and that really did make a difference for me. Not sure what else can be done. I've suggested to the forum moderators that particular posters be asked to "tone it down" a bit; I don't know if they follow up on those kinds of things or not, but I assume that they do. Beyond that, this particular forum is one that's going to draw very passionate responses, and that's going to lead to sometimes unpleasant remarks being made. I think if most people try to rise above that and not respond in kind, eventually the tone will settle down. I'd hate to see the moderators outlaw particular topics known to cause response problems; this is the one forum that's been provided to talk about these kinds of issues. I think we also need to be kind of "self-policing", not that we can ban anyone, but if people uniformly respond back to an abusive poster to "chill out", that might be all we need.

 

I don't believe for a second that anything we discuss here is going to lead to changes in policy. It's not like BSA National is watching this forum and one day says, "golly, they're right. We shouldn't ban gays". This is just a place for interesting discussion. Not everything in BSA work is as black and white as some might think. So, while it's perfectly fine to be passionate in discussion, there's simply no reason to be abusive.

[SR540Beaver 116]

I hear what people are saying, but trust me when I say that what you find here is pretty doggone tame. Go visit a few of the conservative political forums I frequent if you want to see people get really mean, ugly and nasty. This is triple G rated in comparison. Maybe that is why I don't find it as shocking as others. Still, I wish it didn't happen here at all.

 

Yes there are some who are well versed in the "rules" of scouting and can be very blunt about telling you how you too can be well versed in the rules if you will just do as they did and read the documentation. There are probably more diplomatic and polite ways to say it. There are also others who don't want to do the leg work and who see the "rules" more as suggestions than anything else and do what really "works" or makes sense for them. Many of these posters are long time posters and there is considerable history between their reactions to the other side's views. The main concern of the "rules" crowd is that you are getting advice based on someone's made up solutions as opposed to the program as designed by BSA. It doesn't take long to figure out which side is wrong and which side is right and which advice it is more wise to follow.

 

But I would agree, it would be nice if people wouldn't let others get under their skin and devolve a good informative thread and pleasant conversation into personal bickering.

[Kahuna 172]

I should clarify a bit what I am getting at. As I indicated in my original post, clearly some posters are either in obvious need of correction or they are flat out seeking it. My remarks have more to do with a sort of "gotcha" spirit I see in some posts responding to what people are discussing. I agree it's much better to clarify your sources if you are citing some BSA or local council policies as a reason not to do (or to do) certain things. I am a lawyer, after all :-) However, there's a lot more to Scouting than just policies.

 

FB and Prairie Scouter have pretty much hit my meaning, I think: it just seems that a little less "gotchas" and a little more old timer wisdom would strike a better cord. It's just my feeling that if I were a scouting newbie, I would be inclined to lurk more and post less if I thought I was going to get sort of piled on.

 

I've been in scouting for over fifty years (and you can work out how old and crusty that would make me), so I'm not much intimidated by any comments, but I just wanted to offer these thoughts for consideration.

 

Again, this is a great forum and a wonderful source of resources from some really experienced scouters and I appreciate the opportunity to be part of it.

[SemperParatus 1]

Palm trees waving in the breeze...the gentle lapping of the blue waves on the golden sand beaches...the warmth of the sun kissing my bare feet...the rustling of grass skirts...as I slowly fall away into deep slumber...

 

Boy, do I feel better. Thanks Kahuna!

 

I agree that some folks enjoy kickin in a little twist at the end of their posts just to add an ever-so-slight insult. I suppose it makes them feel a little better about themselves. A shame.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Ahh, the warm tropical breezes.....

Been there twice, stayed at a wonderful place called the Coco Palms, which has the chapel on its grounds that Elvis used in "Blue Hawaii". What a great place. It was pretty much destroyed by a hurricane sometime back, and I don't think it's been rebuilt yet. A shame. Now, that's my typical tourist view, and I'd bet Hawaii has many of the real world problems that we on the mainland have, but still.....Ahhhhhh.

 

Where was I?

[Kahuna 172]

Glad I could bring a little Aloha into your day! :-) Yes, Hawai'i isn't paradise, but it gets real close at times. We have a real nice Scout Camp up on the North Shore where a lot of mainland troops come for summer camp, btw.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

We have a real nice Scout Camp up on the North Shore where a lot of mainland troops come for summer camp, btw.

 

I am sitting here imagining the Troop Committee discussion that follows the sentence, "The boys have decided they would like to go to summer camp in Hawaii this year."

 

[Bob White 20]

Truly there is far more to scouting then rules, regulations and procedures. But if a leader doesn't at least know whats in the basic training and the handbooks then how can they possible figure out how they blend into a scouting program?

 

At some point if you have any hopes of delivering a "scouting" program you need to understand what the scouting program actually is. You cannot "tweak" an engine until you know what its parts are and how each of them function. In fact, unless you are familiar with how to use the keys you can't even hope to get it started properly.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Kahuna,

 

My 3 year old sat on my lap yesterday while we listened to the patter of the rain pouring down in our backyard. Both of us fell asleep there in the white wicker chair under the cover of our back porch. It was a pleasant, refreshing, deep sleep and it was a way to clear the air.

 

As we awoke and the rain stopped, the pollen flow began abruptly. My throat itched again and the mucous began back building in my nasal cavity. It was most unpleasant.

 

 

FB

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Kahuna,

Well, we HAVE been looking for a place for high adventure next year. I think that we'd have a sudden influx of leaders if we decided to come there

 

Regards what one of the folks above wrote, yes, for all of what we see here, it is fairly tame by comparison to some other forums I've seen. But, still......