a prank, or hazing?

[desertrat77 1144]

The ability to bounce back from a experience that hurts ones' feelings is one of the most important, yet under-rated, qualities a human can possess.

 

Slights, put downs, insults, public humiliation, torment--real and perceived, intentional and unintentional--will happen in life.

 

Even if you keep the scouts in a protective bubble, they are going to become embarrassed at some point. If not as a youth, then for sure in college and the work place.

 

Gotta have thick skin, and learn to "turn the page." Unfortunately, the only way to learn this is by hard knocks.

 

There is a line between what's funny and what's not. Who decides? You and me. Each in our little corner of Planet Earth.

[Beavah 205]

Your examples are all part of program. As such, they are promoted, encouraged, and often required.

 

Yep, the OA Ordeal is part of da program. Yep, da OA Ordeal is also the only thing in Scouting that potentially meets the definition of criminal hazing in some state statutes. Nope, the fact that it's "in the program" is not a defense when someone brings a criminal hazing charge against yeh for an ordeal where a lad got hurt. Remember, no insurance coverage for intentional or criminal acts, eh?

 

Just because somethin' is "in the program" does not make it OK, correct, or guaranteed to be successful, eh? Remember da Program of '72? The Game of Life?

 

Being "part of the program" also doesn't change da results for the victim, eh? The victim of the impersonal, run-em-through, embarrass them in front of their friends, confine 'em to the wading pool camp swim check is far more ashamed and humiliated than the kid who held a bag out in the woods makin' snipe noises for an hour before gettin' high-fived and handed some S'mores. And Scoutfish is right, eh? Camp swim checks generate far more upset and complaints than camp pranks.

 

Dare I say forbidden? Yes I do.

 

Pranks are not forbidden anywhere in BSA program materials. They are apparently safer than paint rollers.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I am sorry guys, Beavah posted:

 

"OGE asks us then to view the two hours of candid-camera pranks shot all over Canada and dismiss 'em as cruel and unscoutly"

 

And I cant find it anywhere that I asked for people to do that. What is it called when you say something that is not true

[FScouter 24]

It's called "when you can't think of anything to support your position, then trash the opposing opinion instead."

[Oak Tree 15]

Oak Tree, I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

 

Are you asking if whether the opinion of a half dozen people has convinced me that all pranks should be forever banned in every scout unit across the land?

 

Are yeh asking whether I think that some pranks are inappropriate?

 

Are yeh asking whether I think that when lads do poor pranks that the proper response is to ban all pranks in a unit?

 

Are yeh asking whether I find Alan Funt and the modern Canadian candid camera pranks to be contrary to the Scout Law?

 

Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear in the way I phrased my question. I wasn't really asking any of the above items (especially the Candid Camera one :-) and I'd agree with your answers to all of them.

 

I think my questions would really be something more like:

If the acting SM from the OP decided to discourage the older Scouts from doing this prank, is he really thereby treating the younger Scouts as if they are "made of glass"?

 

As I read your statements on their own, without the context of the original post, I don't see much that I'd argue with. The thing that I see is that your statements that pranks can be ok, in the context of the original question, seems to be arguing that this particular prank is not at all inappropriate.

 

So in that regard, my question would be, do you think that the prank as described might be inappropriate? and would it be ok for the acting SM to discourage it?

 

I'm also testing a side bet with another poster as to whether you'd ever admit you might be wrong. In this case, I don't think I'm so much saying that you're wrong, but instead that the way you are choosing to argue your position is coming across in a way different from what you might intend.

 

And, in the interest of fairness, here are my answers to your questions:

 

Do you really feel it's appropriate to ban all pranks if one somewhere sometime went awry in the mind of one boy? No. If so, how is that any different from banning paint rollers or canoeing? Well, I'm not making that argument, but if I were, I think it would be that it's crazy to ban paint rollers and canoeing, because those things have a positive part in a good program, whereas pranks might not. Note again, though, I'm not arguing that.

 

Are yeh really claiming that all pranks, as packsaddle suggests, are violations of the Scout Law which have no place in Scouting or in a scout's day-to-day life, from Alan Funt on down? No.

 

Do yeh feel that when boys do somethin' inappropriate in a unit, the proper response is a unit-wide prohibition? No. So if, as BDPT00 points out, a lad has a bad experience at his OA Ordeal, we should prohibit OA Ordeals? An off-color skit means banning all campfire skits? No, and no.

 

Did yeh refuse to watch Candid Camera back in the day? Nah. Would yeh walk out on the Canadian version I linked to? Tell your parents it was inappropriate for scouts to watch because it glorifies violations of the Scout Law? Or did yeh sit down and say "Wow, some of those were really clever!" and note how they all ended in smiles? No, no, and yes. One difference is that I know that Candid Camera talks to the people afterwards and gets them to sign releases that allows Candid Camera to televise the episodes. Everyone on the TV has expressly agreed to be publicly humiliated (or more likely, they don't think it's actually embarrassing or humiliating.) Now that I think about it, that might actually be a good test for a prank. If you are willing to film the prank and the Scouts (both prank-er and prank-ee) would likely be happy to show it to their parents, then it's probably ok.

[Beavah 205]

If the acting SM from the OP decided to discourage the older Scouts from doing this prank, is he really thereby treating the younger Scouts as if they are "made of glass"? do you think that the prank as described might be inappropriate? and would it be ok for the acting SM to discourage it?

 

Yah, the OP never came back to describe the supposed prank, eh? All we had were a few rumors that older scouts may be planning somethin' that amounted to making odd noises. I found it hard to comment on that beyond what other folks had already said. My comments were in reply to other posters.

 

I'd trust the SM's judgment, eh? He knows the boys involved, and I reckon he also has a good sense for da source of the "rumors". So the answers would be "No, I would not presume to question da SM's judgment" , "there was no prank adequately described so I wouldn't make a guess as to its appropriateness", and "it may well be OK for the SM to discourage it, or it might not be the right call. That would depend on havin' more information."

 

My general inclination in such a case would not be to confront the older boys, though, based on what we know. I just don't think as a matter of good character yeh judge people based on vague rumors, and that's what you're really doin' if yeh start intervening or lecturing those boys at this point. Besides, I like to see judgment play out, eh? Lots of ideas get kicked around, but most of us then apply some filters to the ideas we generate before we act. I'd want to give the lads time and space to exercise their own filtering. So personally, I'd be inclined just to stay up and keep an eye out. I tend to be a bit of a late owl anyways.

 

No, I don't think that makin' noises outside of someone's tent is "hazing" or "bullying" or any of that sort of thing, leastways not unless yeh know the boy(s) in question are particularly fragile. And I'm just fine with helpin' a few of the first year lads pull a better version on the older boys the next night.

 

And no, I don't reckon I'm always right, and I've admitted that several times around these parts. Mrs. Beavah of course would say I'm never right, but that I just get lucky every now and then. Mostly I just don't comment on threads where I don't know anything, like most of Cub Scoutin'.

 

Besides, in this thread like so many, I don't think there is a right or wrong, eh? I'm honestly not arguin' for or against pranks, though I'm fine with 'em. What I'm really arguin' against is people bein' so black-and-white judgmental. I'm arguin' against da self-righteous, quote-da-rules, ban-the-activity, everybody-who-disagrees-is-in-favor-of-abusing-kids routine.

 

I reckon by now just about everybody here knows that I'll always take da other side of such an argument.

 

Now, as an aside, I reckon the propriety of gossipin' behind people's backs and makin' side bets about their character or tendencies is left as an exercise for the reader. My experience is that folks who like that sort of gossipy stuff never grow out of it, and never really see it for what it is. There's a reason why by and large da youth who commit suicide because of bullyin' do it not because of being beat up or pranked, but because of the quiet insidiousness of negative gossip and the way it changes social dynamics for 'em.

 

So in da grand scheme of things, I'm OK with good pranks, eh? I'm also just fine with a troop that opts to prohibit snipe hunts. But the negative gossipy stuff I have little patience for and generally put a swift end to. That I don't believe belongs in Scouting. A bit of venting is OK, but I reckon we all know the difference.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Stosh 3452]

Or what's worse is when the parent is in on the prank.

 

Stosh

[Oak Tree 15]

Now, as an aside, I reckon the propriety of gossipin' behind people's backs and makin' side bets about their character or tendencies is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

Actually, I agree with you on this one (and yep, I did note the smiley that went along with it). In general, I'm a big fan of openness. I find this an effective way to deal with leaders. I don't want to say "Now, don't tell Bob that I said this, but ...". If another leader comes to me and says "I don't like the way Bob is doing things", then I'll say, let's get Bob over here and discuss it.

 

So, for the same reason, I'm not really taking side bets behind Beavah's back. I'm admitting it right up front.

 

At the same time, though, I reckon that all of us who post on the forum need to recognize that people are going to form opinions about us. All of us who lead youth need to recognize that the youth are going to go home and talk about us. Some people might even not like us. Just goes with the territory.

 

But I do try to encourage my leaders not to "gossip" about the Scouts. It's an easy trap to fall into - sitting around the campfire after the Scouts have gone to bed, and talking about how one of them has terrible behavior, or one of them seems to be totally uncoordinated, or whatever. But things that you say like this have a way of getting back to the Scouts. So I do try to encourage everyone to say things that they'd be happy to say to the Scouts directly.

 

And besides, it wasn't really a side bet. I may have exaggerated a little on that point. :-)

 

Still, I'd be happy to meet up with you and discuss all the other forum members. Hard to resist.

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

Well I hope some of you are happy. Every time I go camping the Snipes are over-running the place. I can only hope when they hit the Everglades the giant pythons eat them.

[Beavah 205]

Still, I'd be happy to meet up with you and discuss all the other forum members. Hard to resist.

 

Always like meetin' fellow scouters, but I'll pass on the discussin' others bit. Not hard for me to resist at all; it's never been my style. Love chattin' about issues, but not about people, except perhaps when plannin' a party or tryin' to help someone havin' a rough go.

 

B

 

[Stosh 3452]

Wisdom from my mother:

 

Little people talk about other people.

 

Average people talk about things.

 

Big people talk about ideas.

 

 

Stosh

[Oak Tree 15]

Big people talk about ideas.

 

Smile. Yep, I got this one covered. I'm definitely a big person. Even bigger than the guy who is intimidating PepperSammy over in the Cubmaster Problems thread. I'm all about ideas.

 

I'll pass on the discussin' others bit.

 

I've got to work on my body language. My smiling good-natured attitude just isn't coming through entirely correctly.

 

Even while discussing ideas, people come up every now and then. I just can't resist things like "Lisa'bob does a great job of giving reasonable responses" or "Don't you love the way Beavah writes?" Or even, "Stosh's advocacy of a pure boy-led troop, followed by his subsequent dismissal, presents an interesting advocacy dilemma. How far do you recommend going in that area?"

 

Plus, I know that every now and then you do at least mention other forum members, even if it's not a big part of your contribution....

Dang! Where's Kudu to jump in and say, no, no, all this talk of multi-tasking is just newfangled management woodbadge BS.Right after I was agreein' with BobWhite on his reformulation, too. Then he hits me with R1, R5, and R3, plus his typical "lets make this a personal dig" twist, eh?That moderator, in my personal opinion, tends to be one of the few here who take sniping potshots at other posters I do know that I've learned a lot from a number of folks here, eh? Good ideas, good perspective that have helped me in my work on behalf of scoutin'. Eagledad, Lisabob, jblake, scoutldr, Eamonn, Oak Tree and many, many others. Yeh all know who yeh are!Yah, yah, we also have Merlyn, of course, but we keep him around as our pet troll.

 

That's all I'm saying. When you get together with people to talk about ideas, you can still find it convenient to come back to your common point of reference - including referencing those who advocate some of those ideas.

 

Now I'm off to try to lose some weight and become less big.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Regardless of big or small, I find it disquieting that we give someone a pass who totally misrepresented what another person said

[FScouter 24]

Well OGE, we were told you are "not normal or healthy" and need a mental health professional to resolve it. Guess that's not considered "discussin' others" since it was pointed directly at you, eh? Not a potshot either, unless you're a pot.

[dfolson 70]

So as the OP, I have to say this has strayed a bit.... Since I had only rumor to go from, I said nothing to anyone and just kept my eyes and ears open. I did suggest to the SPL, ASPL, and TG that they should take the new guys under their wings and work on advancement with them. The second night almost everyone slept together in the shelter they built in the woods some 300 yards off from where my tent was. Next morning I received a message from the TG (he slept in a tent) that they didn't want to get up until someone came and took a picture for the Troop records. Overall it was a great team building weekend. I will attribute the rumors to unfiltered comments that were not truly meant.