Swords

[Krampus 696]

....someone complained to the CM.....

 

....about something they saw being done by a third person....

 

....In my book that's going behind someone's back.....

 

....Next time complain about the problem to the person one thinks is causing it..... after all they are the only ones that can fix the problem.  The CM didn't think it was wrong, but is being dragged into it by the person who refuses to face the problem directly and honestly.

Exactly @@Stosh. Both Rick and Ducttape seem to keep missing the lack of Scouting this person showed. When you don't talk to someone directly you're going behind their back. Don't know why that's so hard for them to see.

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

@@RichardB that could be.

 

It could also be that by not augmenting the syllabus, new scouters will read unwritten principles into the G2SS and as a result the most important part of the BSA program -- encapsulated in the first page of the guide -- goes untaught.

 

Interesting issue.

 

BSA says we are on our honor to "support and use the recommended literature, materials, and procedures as I carry out my training responsibilities."

 

Does one fail to support and use the recommended literature" by adding to that literature?

 

What is consistent with the "values" of Scouting if the BSA literature is, beyond any doubt, incorrect and inconsistent with other BSA literature?

 

Now for the tougher issue.  What if the "recommended literature" is simply incorrect - even teaching procedures that are contrary to law?  

 

 

I hate to say it, but I have found the last BSHB, "the recommended literature," severely wanting in regard to IOLS skills. It was so bad, I had to create a booklet from older BSA literature to supplement what the handbook had.

 

So what is right, using the current BSA information that is inadequate or incorrect, or adding to the course by providing additional material from older BSA sources?

 

Unfortunately being a leader in the BSA is not a "science" in the classical sense of the word, but rather an "art." One size does not fit all, and you need to adapt to the situation in order to provide the best program for your youth.

 

Best example of that for me is the New Scout Patrol and the First Class, First Year mentality. While I know of units the NSPs work, I know of units where they do not work. Mixed aged patrols, which was the recommended BSA model from 1910 to 1989, do work for those patrols. What should a leader do: continue using the current recommended model which is causing Scouts to get frustrated and quit, or change to a mixed aged model that keeps folks in the program?  What is better, force feeding Scouts S-T-2-1 skills so they can meet an arbitrary goal, First Class in a year, but they have no mastery of the skills, or have the Scouts take their time, "master the skills" as older BSHBs stated, and actually know what they are doing?

[DuctTape 1231]

Exactly @@Stosh. Both Rick and Ducttape seem to keep missing the lack of Scouting this person showed. When you don't talk to someone directly you're going behind their back. Don't know why that's so hard for them to see.

There is nothing to see, that is my point. The assumption being made is that the person went to someone and complained. We do not know thus as a fact. The op believes this to be what happened, and some are accepting this as fact, but due to op's own admission he has personality clashes with the other, we do not know for certain exactly what really happened.

 

It is entirely possible the order of events are how you et al believe, it is entirely possible a completely different irder of events took place. As I said before, I am loathe to rush to judgement without any evidence. Why is that so hard for you to see?

[Krampus 696]

There is nothing to see, that is my point. The assumption being made is that the person went to someone and complained. We do not know thus as a fact. The op believes this to be what happened, and some are accepting this as fact,

Actually, the OP says that "someone complained to the Cubmaster". That's no longer an assumption.

 

Did the complainant go to the person who performed the ceremony? No.

 

Did the complainant have BSA experience as a professional Scouter or super volunteer -- and thus should know better than to act like he did? According to the OP, yes.

 

Did the complainant treat the person who performed the ceremony in an un-Scouting manner by not showing him the common courtesy and respect he should have by addressing his concerns in private with the CM, CC and person who did the event? Absolutely!

 

Maybe in your neck of the woods having a conversation ABOUT someone instead of WITH someone is acceptable, but where I live that's considered rude, cowardly and down-right disrespectful. Add trying to influence an outcome to that mix and you have passive-aggressive bullying, full stop!

 

 

but due to op's own admission he has personality clashes with the other, we do not know for certain exactly what really happened.

 

Maybe I missed it, but where in the OP does he say he's had personality clashes with the complainant? 

 

 

It is entirely possible the order of events are how you et al believe, it is entirely possible a completely different irder of events took place. As I said before, I am loathe to rush to judgement without any evidence. Why is that so hard for you to see?

Because Scouters are supposed to handle things directly within the unit. I've had issues with people in my unit and I address them directly, as they do with me. If you and I were in the same unit I'd invite you for beers (or coffee), sit down and discuss our differences and how we can work together. I would NOT complain about you behind your back. If the unit supported you and I could not, I'd leave to find a place that fit more with my perspective.

 

Why give this Scouter a pass on his treatment of the person who did the ceremony? Agree, let's not jump to conclusions, BUT when you don't show someone common courtesy within your own unit, yeah, you're (not you, but the guy who complained) going to get both barrels from me.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Krampus

[DuctTape 1231]

I agree with you IF it were true the person actually complained. We do not not know if this actually happened. We have a small snippet of one persons story. I am not giving a pass on the persons behavior, I do not know what their behavior was.

[Krampus 696]

Is there a rule against using swords in Cub Scout ceremonies? I did a great knighting ceremony in February, but someone complained to the Cubmaster, so I couldn't repeat the ceremony this month. The Someone used to be a professional scouter at the area level, retired. His grandson is in my pack. He knows everything there is to know about Scouting. Which is annoying because I think I know everything there is to know about Scouting.  If it makes a difference: yes, it was a real sword, but no, it was not sharp. That is: the blade had no edge. I had about as much chance of accidentally hurting this boy with this sword as I did if it had been a baseball bat. That might be a good idea: a knighting ceremony with a baseball bat! What do you think?

 

I agree with you IF it were true the person actually complained. We do not not know if this actually happened. We have a small snippet of one persons story. I am not giving a pass on the persons behavior, I do not know what their behavior was.

 

A Scout is Honest. Since the OP is a Scouter and he says so, that's good enough for me.

 

The fact that this guy did not come to the OP directly is dishonest. There's no proof that there was any disagreement between the OP and the complainer as you stated above.

 

If the complainer didn't go directly to the OP then he's guilty of not acting in a Scouting fashion. Done.

 

I *do* wish you lived closer to me...I am getting thirsty and could use a good Belgian beer to help convince you.

[desertrat77 1144]

I think Krampus' analysis is correct.

 

Also, though an internet forum is not multi-dimensional, I've always observed Howarthe's posts to be polite, professional, and informative.   I trust her word as a scouter.

 

@@Krampus -- Belgian beer?   Something we can all agree on!

 

I think RTs and other scouter-centric meetings would be far more conducive if a cooler of beer were available to all who wanted to partake.   Not to turn the proceedings into a toga party, but good way to unwind at the end of a long day and perhaps promote conversation.   Alas, the rules will not permit

Edited March 24, 2016 by desertrat77

[TAHAWK 1420]

Are we having a conversation about the "complainant" rather than with him?  

 

I have no problem with having a conversation about someone based on facts assumed to be true.  How else can someone come here for advice?   But all parties need to acknowledge that different facts will produce a different outcome.  It's all theoretical, is it not?   If X, Y, and Z are true, then what are the opinions. 

[Krampus 696]

I think RTs and other scouter-centric meetings would be far more conducive if a cooler of beer were available to all who wanted to partake.   Not to turn the proceedings into a toga party, but good way to unwind at the end of a long day and perhaps promote conversation.   Alas, the rules will not permit

 

Depends. We hold our unofficial meetings at a local watering hole, sans-Scout gear. Just a few adults having a beer that happen to also work volunteer at our troop. Coincidence? 

 

Are we having a conversation about the "complainant" rather than with him? I have no problem with having a conversation about someone based on facts assumed to be true.  How else can someone come here for advice?   

 

If the complainer was at a place I could go directly to him and have this chat, I would. I'd invite him for a beer/coffee and ask if he'd like to be the Insect Study MBC because he's obviously got an arthropod somewhere.

[Stosh 3452]

I hate to say it, but I have found the last BSHB, "the recommended literature," severely wanting in regard to IOLS skills. It was so bad, I had to create a booklet from older BSA literature to supplement what the handbook had.

 

So what is right, using the current BSA information that is inadequate or incorrect, or adding to the course by providing additional material from older BSA sources?

 

Unfortunately being a leader in the BSA is not a "science" in the classical sense of the word, but rather an "art." One size does not fit all, and you need to adapt to the situation in order to provide the best program for your youth.

 

Best example of that for me is the New Scout Patrol and the First Class, First Year mentality. While I know of units the NSPs work, I know of units where they do not work. Mixed aged patrols, which was the recommended BSA model from 1910 to 1989, do work for those patrols. What should a leader do: continue using the current recommended model which is causing Scouts to get frustrated and quit, or change to a mixed aged model that keeps folks in the program?  What is better, force feeding Scouts S-T-2-1 skills so they can meet an arbitrary goal, First Class in a year, but they have no mastery of the skills, or have the Scouts take their time, "master the skills" as older BSHBs stated, and actually know what they are doing?

 

And so the fuzzy logic creeps into the conversation.  How much adjunct material is allowed before it becomes heresy?  I've been accused of such on the forum and it would be interesting to know at what point the scales tip as too much.  Too much boy led, patrol method?  Is there such a thing?  Teaching too many knots?  Going out camping too many times?  NSP's that just miraculously turn into regular patrols after a year or so?  Does it really matter whether paper ballots elect the PL or the boys do the Rock-Paper-Scissors method?  As long as they're happy who cares.  If they aren't happy they just do something else that might work better.  But they can do it at any time they choose, they don't have to wait out 6 months of poor leadership until the adults allow another election.  PL runs the show in the patrol, the troop SPL?  not really needed unless there are 3-4, maybe 5 patrols needing support.

 

So, from the comments, it would seem to boil down to: "Whatever it is you're doing is wrong and whatever I'm doing is right."  So in order to clarify things, whatever it is that whatever you're doing for whatever reason whatsoever, it's wrong and whatever it is whatever I'm doing for whatever reason whatsoever, it's right.

 

Hmmmm, I'm going to write that down, that's profound! 

[desertrat77 1144]

@@Krampus, as I reflect on the past, I used to attend unofficial gatherings in the desert.   Beer, steaks, cigars, large fires.   And everyone attending was a registered adult in our troop.   Another coincidence?

[TAHAWK 1420]

If every SM can make his own rules, what does "right" mean?

[gumbymaster 98]

Without actually being there it is always hard to provide an informed judgement, so please take my comments with the appropriate healthy dose of salt.

 

In of itself, I do not think that going to the cubmaster instead of the person doing the task is going behind a persons back, nor do I view it as a violation of the scout oath/laws as some have suggested.  Would it be better to have gone to the ceremony leader directly - probably (although it does sound like they may already be a history where where maybe that would not be a good idea). 

 

Timing could have a lot to do with it.  Rather than interrupt the ceremony with "is that a good idea?", talking quietly with the cubmaster so as to not disturb the event might have been even more courteous and kind.

 

Or maybe it is someone ingrained with a notion of chain of command.  It would be normal to talk to a "supervisor" or a person or known responsibility for things like health and safety.  Maybe the complaint really was more of a concern raised to the CM, and the CM may have magnified the degree - we've all played telephone - we all know how this happens.

 

Personally, when I was the cubmaster - I would rather have (and would have invited) people to bring their concerns to me, so I could evaluate or reevaluate if the activity needed immediate revision, or just discussion at a later time.  I like to run interference for my leaders - in @@Stosh's words - I like to take care of my people, and if that means running interference for leaders doing an activity and then discussing it with that leader afterwards - I've got a tough skin and can take it.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

Did the complainant go to the person who performed the ceremony? No.

And we know this how? You are reading something into the OP's post that I am not. He never explicitly says the complainer went behind his back, only that he went to the CM. True, he doesn't say anything about the complainer speaking to him, but he leaves a lot out.

 

I'm not assuming that the OP is behind dishonest, just incomplete.

 

Without actually being there it is always hard to provide an informed judgement, so please take my comments with the appropriate healthy dose of salt.

 

In of itself, I do not think that going to the cubmaster instead of the person doing the task is going behind a persons back, nor do I view it as a violation of the scout oath/laws as some have suggested.  Would it be better to have gone to the ceremony leader directly - probably (although it does sound like they may already be a history where where maybe that would not be a good idea). 

 

Timing could have a lot to do with it.  Rather than interrupt the ceremony with "is that a good idea?", talking quietly with the cubmaster so as to not disturb the event might have been even more courteous and kind.

 

Or maybe it is someone ingrained with a notion of chain of command.  It would be normal to talk to a "supervisor" or a person or known responsibility for things like health and safety.  Maybe the complaint really was more of a concern raised to the CM, and the CM may have magnified the degree - we've all played telephone - we all know how this happens.

 

Personally, when I was the cubmaster - I would rather have (and would have invited) people to bring their concerns to me, so I could evaluate or reevaluate if the activity needed immediate revision, or just discussion at a later time.  I like to run interference for my leaders - in @@Stosh's words - I like to take care of my people, and if that means running interference for leaders doing an activity and then discussing it with that leader afterwards - I've got a tough skin and can take it.

I have to agree with @@gumbymaster here. There is a lot of context we simply don't have.

 

The point I've been trying to make in all this, is to give the complainer the benefit of the doubt, and assume Scout like behavior unless we are giving clear evidence to the contrary.

 

I *do* wish you lived closer to me...I am getting thirsty and could use a good Belgian beer to help convince you.

Now that sounds like a really good idea! A nice Belgian style wit. There have been many times when I wish I could actually sit down with many of the forum members. This place is a great resource, but a lot of nuance is lost compared to face to face communication. Plus it would be a lot of fun to simply hang out and put faces to the people here. And sharing good food and drink with good people while sitting around a camp fire? It doesn't get much better than that!

[desertrat77 1144]

 

Now that sounds like a really good idea! A nice Belgian style wit. There have been many times when I wish I could actually sit down with many of the forum members. This place is a great resource, but a lot of nuance is lost compared to face to face communication. Plus it would be a lot of fun to simply hang out and put faces to the people here. And sharing good food and drink with good people while sitting around a camp fire? It doesn't get much better than that!

Well said!