Beavah 205 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Unfortunately, organizations have to create "rules" when the members of their organization can't seem to follow common sense. Yah, and this is a perfectly nonsensical way to make rules, eh? Yeh make rules for the broad majority. Rules and polices set the norms. Then yeh deal with the exceptions. Yeh allow exemptions for those who have the skill to do more, and yeh address the few lackin' in common sense by addressing 'em directly. When yeh try to set rules to prevent da most stupid things, all yeh accomplish is cutting program for the broad majority. Yeh won't stop the stupid things, because nature just comes up with a better version of stupid. Beavah Link to post Share on other sites
JMHawkins 15 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I agree with Beavah, you don't have to make rules when people do dumb things. You especially don't have to make dumb rules when people do dumb things. Suppose UPS has a driver who they discover is routinely driving recklessly. Do they ban those big brown vans for the entire corporation? No, they fire the idiot and let the rest of their drivers - the ones with common sense - continue to do their job. It's a sure sign that a bureaucrat is in charge when an organization starts trying to write rules to prevent anything bad happening even if people are doing dumb things. It never works, but the bureaucratic mind doesn't care about outcomes, it only cares about whether the proper rules were followed. If everyone followed the rules and some sort of disaster was the result, well, you can't blame anyone because they followed the rules. That's a good outcome in their eyes. Bureaucracy is not about avoiding bad outcomes, it's about avoiding blame for them. Because of that there are two terrible things about bureaucratic rules. One of course is that they stifle the energy of the organization, but the other is that they actual make catastrophe more likely because they focus what energy is left towards blame avoidance rather than accident avoidance. Link to post Share on other sites
Eamonn 61 Posted May 6, 2012 Author Share Posted May 6, 2012 Of course worse than the frivolous rules are the people who want to make a big deal, fuss and quote this unneeded twaddle. Little Lad gets mustard on his hot dog. He hates mustard and discards the hot-dog in the fire. - Not a big deal until some twit decides this is against something that someone decided needed to be in the Cub Scout Leader Handbook. Patrol has build a mighty fine and good pioneering tower that's eight foot high. Along comes the man with the book and the book says it is over the allowed height. I have yet to drop a Scout from five foot or a Scout from eight foot. I'm sure some of the more clever members of the forum can work out and tell me the difference in the impact of falling from either. Of course the height and weight of the Scout might have to be taken into account. With this in mind maybe the five foot rule is flawed? Maybe five foot is too much. It must be safer and better if before building a tower we weigh all the Scouts and measure how tall they are in order to arrive at a mean average. Any Lad that is deemed to be overly tall or obese would upset the calculations and he would be barred from tower building for life. He might want to go grab a hot-dog and not waste any of it. A great friend of mine was in the Royal Navy. For his sins he ended up on Ascension Island. He and a group of his pals were into ham radio. They built a aerial by lashing poles together. It went about 180 feet into the air. They were all very proud of what they had done until they received a letter from the Governor General of the island which read in part: "It is forbidden to have unsightly erections on Ascension Island." Of course I know this is a gray area -But I still think that it's funny. Eamonn. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Oh PLEASE, Eamonn, please tell me that there's a way I can get a copy of that letter! I will immediately post it on my 'Bulletin Board of Ill Repute'. Link to post Share on other sites
Basementdweller 608 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I become SM in about 9 months...... While I am entertained by the district politics and often flabbergasted at the results I will not participate...... When I am no longer needed at the unit level I will retire. I have no aspirations other than serving MY boys.....Introducing them to a world that is bigger than the next welfare check, facebook and video game. Link to post Share on other sites
Papadaddy 121 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Well, as long as it's not unsightly... Link to post Share on other sites
Kudu 186 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Eamonn writes: "Of course the height and weight of the Scout might have to be taken into account." No joke. Patrol "Grouping Standards" were perhaps the BSA's earliest attempt to replace Baden-Powell's Patrol System with "modern" leadership theory: "The height and weight standard is more scientifically correct than the age standard, although it has not been tested out enough to warrant any authoritative declaration in its favor. "If this method is used for grouping, the standards for athletic competition among the boys might be used, that is, all the boys of ninety pounds and under might be put together, the same being true for those under one hundred and ten, one hundred and twenty-five, and one hundred and forty pounds. "If height is used, boys of fifty-six and a half inches in height and classifying under ninety pounds in weight, might be grouped together. Also boys of sixty-three inches in height and coming within the one hundred and ten pound weight. "This standard will doubtless become the real basis of all groupings in the future, but as yet it needs more demonstration in order that the various classifications may be made accurately. " http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/1st/group_standard.htm Yours at 300 feet, Kudu http://kudu.net Link to post Share on other sites
perdidochas 658 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 BadenP, No rule against river tubing for Webelos on up. Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 My problem with the silly rules that you just KNOW will not be followed unless you are a mindless yes man... Once you start not following the silly rules, it is not so hard to simply not follow the good rules (like those in place for youth protection) After that probably any rule could be debated here as good or bad, but if you disagreed, but BSA made their policies with care, then you would probably grumble and follow them.. But, if you start ignoring the silly rules, (which I can understand people not following).. Then you start not following those rules that you don't like, but can see some point to (Like maybe LNT people may dislike the following, but can see why people are starting to move in that direction).. Then you might as well not follow the rules that slightly irk or rub you the wrong way.. etc.. Silly rules end up making a mockery out of any type of rules.. It all becomes meaningless drivel.. Link to post Share on other sites
Beavah 205 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 No rule against river tubing for Webelos on up. Ah, perdidochas, of course there's a rule. Yeh surely didn't think it was possible for da BSA to allow yeh to use your own judgment based on the kids and the river in question, did yeh? Cub Scout activities afloat are limited to council or district events that do not include moving water or float trips (expeditions). Safety Afloat standards apply to the use of canoes, kayaks, rowboats, rafts, floating tubes, sailboats, motorboats (including waterskiing), and other small craft,... Beavah Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2779 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 >>Turning a Scout upside down when they earn their Bobcat is okay if the Scout is comparatively small (1st or 2nd grader) and the parent has enough upper body strength (most fathers, some mothers) and if the Scout is comfortable with it. Now a single mother may have her 5th grader join Cub Scouts and it would be very difficult for most moms to invert their son for this ceremony - physically. So an organization, to prevent lawsuits (i.e. loss of revenue) protects itself by banning the practice altogether. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle92 110 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 What's worse is calling rules, "guidelines" as some folks are calling the new rules on tools and equipment usage. Link to post Share on other sites
Beavah 205 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 What's worse is calling rules, "guidelines" as some folks are calling the new rules on tools and equipment usage. Yarrgh! But that's all they are, matey. Naught but guidelines, the whole lot of 'em. As a unit volunteer, yeh work for a chartered organization, and the BSA is nowhere in your chain of command. The BSA publishes program materials on contract with the Chartered Organization, and those program materials are nuthin' but guidelines. B Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Maybe we ought to do like God does, limit the rules to just 10 of the biggies. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
Tampa Turtle 1011 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 "I bring you 15 --*crash*--no, 10 commandments!" Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now