Acceptable Pranks

[Stosh 3452]

My favorite prank is the rope under the tent routine. It will freak out even the most seasoned practical joker.

 

Stosh

[Beavah 205]

Ah, so many pranks, so little space, eh?

 

I was delighted one day to find that the scouts had lofted my camp cot 40 feet up a tree.

 

Was even more delighted when da following year they did the work to loft my entire tent, platform and all. That took some work!

 

I recall the lads who rounded up snakes for the scoutmaster's tent. Wow, did he howl! No snakes were harmed in the filming.

 

There was da Asian lad who brought some sort of Asian dessert on a campout. Sort of round dough balls that were eyeball shaped, filled with a ginger liquid of some sort. Used food dye to paint pupils and irises on 'em. Looked like eyeballs. Felt like what you'd imagine eyeballs to feel like. Bitin' into 'em, squished and released juice just like yeh might imagine an eyeball would. It was great fun convincin' each person to try eatin' an eyeball. Once again, da Scoutmaster was the best "victim".

 

Yep, that involves deception of a mild sort, but I don't reckon it causes any harm.

 

But here's a question for packsaddle and others: Did yeh ever play Risk as a lad? For a stretch a bunch of scouts I knew were into it. Risk generally involves players makin' "alliances" and sometimes breakin' those alliances. So if a trusting lad was playing the game and got beat because an alliance shifted, are we also to be shoutin' "unTrustworthy!"? If an older scout says "Oooh, nice!" and plays a bluff over his poker hand, is that unTrustworthy too, because a younger player got fooled by the bluff and lost all of his bet of cookies?

 

Yeh can make exactly the same arguments about those things as about shelf stretchers, and even end up with the same feelings, eh? Lots of young fellows get pretty upset about losin' a game. Only difference is it takes longer to learn poker than to learn to be observant about funny words.

 

Beavah

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.

I've answered yours but you seem to think those are the only ones that are important.

 

I've played Risk and poker. Risk is boring and I don't particularly like the way that the rules of the game allow players to 'gang up' on others. I don't play poker because I just don't see the fun in that either. It's a waste of time, IMHO.

But in both cases, if someone chooses to play, they probably are advised 'up front' of the rules and how the GAME is played.

 

But this is about scouting. And if you think games like Risk or poker are exemplary of scouting method, and instructive of the way scouts should help each other (helpful) I guess you really DO think that deception should be a part of the program and that scouting is where boys should learn how to refine their deceptive tendencies (trustworthy, loyal).

I admit, I could be wrong. Perhaps it IS just fine for an unsuspecting boy to learn from personal experience how betrayal can be a source of fun and enjoyment so that he can enjoy doing it to others in the future, perhaps as examples for a full and productive life. Perhaps this IS rightly a part of scouting culture.

[shortridge 184]

Beavah - How was the tent-in-a-tree accomplished? Just for information's sake, of course.

[SSScout 1615]

Pack and Beav:

 

There are three distinctions here:

 

I see the difference in the idea that in one instance (poker, Risk, other games of chance and skill) the players are there VOLUNTARILY, with foreknowledge and expectations that ALL involved are playing by the same rules (and expectations).

In the second instance (rope stretcher, Snipe hunt, smoke shifter, etc.) one scout (the "victim"?) has no foreknowledge, does not know that he is/will be the object of scorn and derision in being so DUMB as to fall for the setup.

In the third instance (tent up a tree, short sheet, snakes in tent) the victim also has no foreknowledge, but can be appreciative of the "trick" , if he is a certain type of person. I haven't quite decided what that type is, but I know there is one. Maybe the difference would be between the old crusty Scoutmaster and the newby Tenderfoot.

There is a difference nowadays . Some years ago, a fraternity would not think twice about putting their pldges thru all kinds of "pranks". Now, it is more often seen as childish and not worthy of an organization that prides itself on service to others, brotherhood and loyalty, academic excellence and , wow, even ecologic right thinking. ? Mmmm, now where have I heard that description before?

Such actions of the second type (now called "getting punked" ) might even be seen as a type of bullying. Putting the youngest Scout in his place. Make him know who's the boss. Make sure he knows how little he is appreciated, that there is very little he can do to "measure up".

 

I would not place Allen Funt's classic show "Candid Camera" in either of the above classes. These are (were) stunts calculated to demonstrate the foibles of modern America. Closing New Jersey. Talk to the mailbox. Carry my puppy. These MIGHT be under the third class, but not the second. I'd love to see reruns of those. The modern "Punked" shows are grotesque tries at the master's example.

The only "prank" I favor is the "Ugliest Man in the World" skit. But the it is best done with the knowledge of the victim, to avoid future problems.

[sailingpj 18]

"I wasn't physically harmed. But my understanding of 'Trustworthy' was permanently modified. You might argue that this was going to happen anyway, that life is hard and we all have to learn how to deal with betrayals and I would agree. But is Scouting where you want this lesson to occur? Or in as trite a manner as this? "

 

This is the only question of yours that I have not directly addressed.

 

A) I don't see anything posted in this thread as even close to a betrayal. Betrayal is when some lying bastard cheats on your mom while she is out of town, not sending someone off to find something that actually exists.

 

B) I am talking about High School students here. They tease each other, make fun of each other, and just in general have fun together. This sort of thing is part of their fun.

 

I would also appreciate it if you would not resort to personal attacks on my character. All I have done is ask questions so that I can understand your position better, and explained both my position and the circumstances that have led me to believe that my position is correct for me and my ship.

[sailingpj 18]

I like those distinctions SSScout, however I am curious about what you think of your second category when the pranks are being played between people that have known each other for 6 months - 20+ years. So instead of the mindset being "lets see how dumb the new kid is", the mindset is "I wonder if I can get my friend to fall for this."

 

I personally see a vast difference between the two trains of thought. While I would never engage in the first one, my friends and I are always thinking about the second.

[packsaddle 753]

Sorry sailingpj, my comment was directed to Beavah, not you. I evidently didn't make that clear enough. He still hasn't answered my question.

But since you attempted, I'll respond. To you, sailingpj.

Just because YOU think that the concept of betrayal would not apply to YOU in those situations, does not mean that another person would not feel betrayed. Even if, as you say, high school students commonly practice these things on each other, how are you so certain about what exists in the minds of others? How do you know with such certainty that there are none of them who feel badly from these interactions but who take efforts not to show it because they know it would only invite more such interactions? You don't. You can't know for sure what is in the mind of another.

 

I can show you sincere people who do not do these things to each other. They live full lives. But they don't 'get' things like sarcasm, for example. In fact when outsiders use sarcasm they merely become confused, possibly hurt because they are confused. I call these people 'happy' and full of peace.

 

SSScouter, I think I can go with what you say about the first and second types. If you know 'up front', then it may not be the same level of deception, or at least not an unexpected one.

 

I'll take it up to the top and on this day at Soul's Midnight, call on the ultimate standard of human life for comparison. I will take the challenge if anyone cares to make it: Make me a list of pranks pulled by Jesus on other persons, and I will show you the deceptions in them. All of them. List the pranks and tell me who was pranked and what Jesus did to do it. Make me the list.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Scoutfish 16]

"Just because YOU think that the concept of betrayal would not apply to YOU in those situations, does not mean that another person would not feel betrayed. Even if, as you say, high school students commonly practice these things on each other, how are you so certain about what exists in the minds of others?

 

Great copmment!

And I agree with it completrely.

 

But also, just because you consider somthing to be a betrayal and that you were don a horrible wrong does not mean everybody else willfeel taht way too.

 

From my experience working with people, being around people and also just happening to be a person myself, I can say that in 99 percent of the cases, the victem will laugh as he realized thatr he went througfh a ceremony that he only went through because he was accepted by the group as one of their own.

 

You ever notice the difference between those who laugh with you versus those who laugh at you?

People tend to prank those they like or vget along with and ignore those they don't.

 

And let me ask this: After all tese years...even knowing that people did something as a fun initiation prank( in their minds because that is what they intended) - do you not now see they were not trying to cause you harm?

 

Sure, things do not always go the way we plan. We might say a joke and end up nobody thinks it's funny. We might try to make a snide comment but nobody really put weight behind it. W sometimes try to be deep or clever and it doesn';t work.

 

WE try to compliment a woman and instead, insult her.

 

But just because it turned out one way doesn't mean that's the way we intended it to turn out.

 

And just becaue you don't like the turn out or just because you saw it in a negative light doesn't mean everybody else will too. It could just be you!

[shortridge 184]

For the record, Candid Camera closed Delaware.

[DeanRx 69]

As long as it causes no bodily harm and no property damage and is done in good fun, I see no problem with a prank.

 

Can it skew a youth's view of "Trustworthy" - Hmmm maybe, but its a cold hard fact of life that people will try to trick you. Now, would you like to have that epiphany at scout camp by being the butt of a joke that turns you into "one of the guys" and really causes no harm, or have it be later in life in a business dealing in which you get swindled for a few thousand dollars because you we're too trusting?

 

The point of scouting is to make boys into strong men.

 

Part of that life lesson is to learn not to fall for BS and have a healthy skepticism at times. Best to learn that in a controlled environment that provides no long term damage to the youth's mental state or pocketbook.

 

Bottom line - kids tease and get teased. Adults lie and get lied to. I'm not suggesting we should encourage deception, but it IS part of life and we need to arm kids to sniff it out and respond appropriately.

 

To me, its kind of like trying to do away with bullying. Its a nice setiment, and a good goal. But what kids REALLY need is to be taught life skills on HOW TO HANDLE getting bullied, because it will happen at some point in their lives. Having skills to deal with the situation is what BSA supposedly is about.

 

We also need kids to learn to laugh at themselves... take a joke, play a joke. I have been in scouts, ROTC, and active duty Army as well as other faternal organizations. The bottom line is for most people (well males at least) - there is a bonding element to going through a hazing (opps non-PC word) event in which you emerge out the other side as a tried and true member of the group. BSA even has some of these types of things in their program (albeit watered down). What is the OA ordeal? What is high adventure? Its a crucible of sorts.

 

Part of the crucible is learning not to take yourself so seriously and laugh with and at others when humorous things happen. Guys flip each other sh*t plain and simple. Learn to deal with it or you're going to have a hard time living as an adult male in this world.

 

Sometimes, yes - boys will be boys and its best to learn how to be one of the boys to get along in life... its not fair, its not right - but it is an undeniable truth of life. Our choice is do we acknowledge that it happens and prepare youth for it, or pretend it doesn't happen and attempt to change the behavoir?

[BDPT00 41]

The 'logic' I'm seeing here is ludicrous. Saying that hazing is good for boys because it's part of life is akin to saying sex is part of life, so let's make sure we have our Venturers get some good practice in a safe and controlled environment. Sex and pranks. Good for life.

If it's good for our Scouts, please point it out to me in the Scoutmaster Handbook. Trying to convince those who don't approve of pranks is a waste of time, just as is trying to convince those who think they know better that it's risky. We can't control every unit ... just our own.

BDPT00

[Beavah 205]

Yah, packsaddle, not sure what question you're talkin' about. The last was my first post in this thread, eh?

 

I have a friend, a Jesuit canon lawyer who I've worked with on occasion. We have a standin' lunch once a month just because I love arguin' with the fellow. Catholics are funny critters, and I confess I've even pranked him on occasion.

 

He once told me a tale about a deaf priest who used to do masses for deaf folks in his area. One time he got transferred or was visiting a different part of the country, and did a mass. Now, I never knew this, but apparently there are "accents" in American Sign Language, and sometimes signs have different meanings in different parts of da country. So in his sermon, the fellow was signing away, and part way through the whole congregation's attitude changed and became very hostile. A few walked out, and at the end, most left in a huff.

 

It turns out that the sign for "virgin" as in "Virgin Mary" where this priest was from actually had a colloquial meaning of "woman of ill repute" in the area he was doin' the service. So he had been talkin' about Mary being a prostitute for most of his sermon.

 

In that way, there can always be a difference in meanin' between what one person intends (and in his mind is actually sayin' or doin'), and what another person hears or interprets from that. So yep, sometimes one lad might think he's playin' a competitive game like Risk, and the other lad can think he's in an alliance with this cool older boy that is then crushed and betrayed. Sometimes a person can be doin' unto others as he would have himself be done unto, because he enjoys receiving good pranks, and so in turn does one to someone else, only to be surprised when it is misinterpreted. That's not sayin' that Risk is bad, or that pranks are wrong. That's sayin' that since Babel we haven't always communicated perfectly.

 

Jesus was a frequent user of puns. He from time to time made fun of his apostles, gave 'em nicknames, was even pretty pointed with 'em and with others. I reckon he had a fine sense of humor and joy. Yeh should perhaps get to know him better, packsaddle. I reckon you'd like each other.

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter 24]

Cool. So Jesus was a prankster, eh? Sent Peter out on a snipe hunt. Har, har, har.

 

Reminiscent of Godwin's Law. We see now a corollary of sorts to Godwin's Law. When you cant think of anything else to support your position, invoke Jesus or God for support. And then accuse the other of being a heathen. Im convinced.

 

[gsdad 59]

I was sent for a left handed smoke shifter my first year at Boy Scout summer camp in 1984. I came back with a #10 poked full of holes on a wire rope. I wasn't harmed by it and was applauded for my creativity. As long as nobody is physically or psychologically harmed, or humiliated, what's the harm? I often wondered where the cranky, no fun Scouters of my youth went when there were not at camp. Reading this fourm has answered that. Has society become such that harlmess pranks are now looked at as damaging to a young person's soul?