Oak Tree

Eamonn is both correct and funny, as always. The official policy is "Two registered adult leaders, or one registered leader and a parent of a participating Scout or other adult, one of whom must be at least 21 years of age or older, are required for all trips or outings." That's from the Guide to Safe Scouting, which you can find at http://www.scouting.org/HealthandSafety/GSS/toc.aspx As a committee member, you would count as a registered adult leader.

Does BSA actually officially discriminate against gays and atheists in its hiring practice? I know they do so for their volunteers, but that's not the same thing. And Merlyn stated that they may not discriminate in employment. I'd be just as happy to see LFL spun off as an entirely separate organization. I'm not sure why BSA wants to keep it in house other than for numerical reasons.

I don't think you'll find this explicitly documented anywhere, but I would say that he should leave it on and just add the rockers. I believe the program is designed to end after rockers form a complete circle around the badge in 2010, so keeping the Cub Scout years on there serves to make it complete.

It's been awhile since I last posted the canonical list of reasons to follow the rules and reasons to use your best judgement. I've added a few more to each side as I've witnessed the arguments here. So here's the current list. Reasons why one might argue that someone should follow the rules: R1. Obeying rules set by legitimate authorities is a moral imperative in itself. R2. Rules are set by persons with greater knowledge and experience and thus should be followed. The rule is there to protect you and not following it increases the chances of a bad outcome. R3. It's important to show respect for rules in order to set a good example for others. R4. Breaking small rules will lead to less respect for more important rules. R5. If you agreed to follow the rules, you are obligated to follow them. R6. If everybody picked and chose what rules to follow, there would be chaos, and dumb people would ignore the wrong rules. R7. If you violate the rule, you may be punished. R8. If its ok to break a rule, its ok to break all rules. You either obey rules, or you dont. R9. If it's ok to break a rule, people will break rules just to do what's best for themselves. R10. Rules allow for consistency from time to time and place to place. It allows you to know what behavior is expected, to predict how others will behave, and how to interpret some results (e.g. what earning a rank represents.) R11. Not following the rule makes you more likely to be sued (successfully). R12. Following the rule is not a big deal. R13. If you voluntarily join a group, you should voluntarily want to go along with their rules. R14. Rules that come from God are good and should be obeyed by definition. Reasons why someone might argue that you should use your judgement: J1. The rule is unjust. (Favorite example - failing to turn over Jews to the Nazis and lying about it). J2. The purpose for the rule clearly does not apply to the particular situation. (e.g. A requirement to "take a number" when there is nobody else waiting.) J3. The rule is routinely violated and rarely enforced. (This is probably the true reason most people speed a few mph over the limit.) J4. The rule is silly. (Perhaps the fact that although it is shaped like a pocket flap, a Tot'n Chip is not supposed to be worn on the pocket flap of the uniform.) J5. The rule is inconsequential, and the consequences of violating it are too small to matter. (This is in the eye of the beholder, of course--perhaps wearing green socks that are identical to Scout socks, but without the red stripe, under long pants.) J6. The rule is inconvenient. (Ignoring two-deep leadership because a second adult wasn't available would be an example.) J7. You think you know better than the people who make the rules. (Taking scouts to play laser tag or paintball, maybe.) J8. Following the rule will cause one person to be singled out/embarrassed. J9. Other substantial negative consequences to following the rule (maybe, in Cub Scouts, one family's tent collapses during a rainstorm in the middle of the night, and they move in with another family who has a large tent.) J10. It's the spirit of the rule that matters, not the letter of the rule (maybe allowing a couple who has been together for 15 years, but isn't technically married, to share the same tent) J11. There is an overriding reason of a health or safety emergency (often comes up in these discussions, but is non-controversial in reality, as everyone tends to agree it's ok to break a rule to save a life) J12. The rules suck all the fun out of the activity. (maybe the rule is you have to listen to a one-hour safety lecture before firing a bb-gun.) J13. The rules, as written, appear to be bizarrely complex. J14. The rulemaker exceeded his authority in making the rule. J15. The rules are in service to a greater principle, and the greater principle is what matters (e.g. service to the kids). The spirit-of-the-law vs. the letter-of-the-law. J16. People in authority indicate the rules are flexible. J17. Freedom is a moral imperative in and of itself. Its best to give people as much leeway as possible in interpreting how rules apply to their lives. J18. The rule is utterly impractical (e.g. no driving after dark). J19. Other general principles or rules override the rule in question. (e.g. brothers and sisters can share a tent on a Cub family campout even though the G2SS says male and female youth may not share the same sleeping facility). J20. The person really does know better than the rulemaker, because of unique personal expertise, or insufficient time/attention paid by the rulemaker. J21. The rule is very general and does not (and can not) take into account all of the specific situations it may apply to. The situation may allow the rules intent to be achieved through alternate means. I think that most all of us live on some continuum where we might break the rules in some situations. What seems to divide us is where that appropriate point is.

OGE, yeah, sorry, I may have taken your point and run with it to an extreme you never intended. Just a little reductio ad absurdam argument on my part. But I agree you didn't say that. Although, your second argument seems a little different, more like #R5, "If you agreed to follow the rules, you are obligated to follow them." Your argument has a slight nuance to it, though. I may add it to the list. And Bob's going with "R2. Rules are set by persons with greater knowledge and experience and thus should be followed." Gold Winger, a game isn't a bad analogy, but I think the game analogy breaks down in that games have referees. If you pick up the ball and run with it, they blow their whistle and stop you. BSA pretty explicitly doesn't have any referees. I guess it's more like sandlot baseball, where the two teams can agree on some variations in the rules (e.g. ghost runners, or fly balls to right field are outs, or other ways to adapt the game to fewer players). But they're still playing baseball. Likewise, I agree with the point that it's good to know the rules for a board game before you play it. But it's also true that people play all kinds of variations on Monopoly, and still call it Monopoly. Money in Free Parking? (http://www.playagaingames.com/games/monopoly_home_rules) I don't think anyone complains that all these people "aren't really playing Monopoly"

I have no doubt that your source is authoritative, Beavah, buy why on earth would they remove laser tag from the on-line G2SS list of unauthorized activities but still say that it's unauthorized when asked about it? Talk about your mixed messages... Whoops, looks like it's back in the prohibited list on-line again. Ah well, missed my chance to go tag people with a weapon facsimile.

We have the chaplain's aide plan a short worship service for the troop.

OGE makes argument #R8, that if you don't follow one rule, you don't feel like you have to follow any. (http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=156126#id_156215) I find this very much to be a straw man argument. The idea that you use your judgement in appropriately applying rules does not mean that you feel no responsibility whatsoever for the rules. "So, sir, you were exceeding the speed limit. Don't feel that the law applies to you? Do you steal, slander, and beat your spouse as well? No...? I don't know if I can believe you...you clearly don't think that laws apply to you."

John, I think that Beavah may indeed find this to be seriously objectionable, but I think it's interesting that you don't see any written colloquialisms in his post. It may be that you've just been reading him too long and don't notice them now. :-) "contacts 'em" "Da plaintiff" "filin' the $5M suit" "da witnesses" Long live colloquialisms.

I agree with Scoutmomma that the hygiene hypothesis is the leading contender. There are a couple other ideas postulated as well, including an increase in peanut consumption by pregnant and/or breast-feeding women, and a much higher prevalence of peanuts in so much of the prepackaged food that we eat. See this BBC story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2487769.stm At any rate, the increase doesn't appear to be just in your imagination, nor merely an increased awareness of the allergy. It looks like there's a real increase.

The knots that have two different colors are definitely easier to catch than the knots where the two ropes are the same color. It can be really hard to catch those. When I said it wasn't "as easy to catch", I meant that you actually have to read the patch in order to catch the error. Most errors I see are fairly major misplacement of patches that could be spotted from across the room.

My son was once the patrol cook and planned a campout with no fruit whatsoever. An ASM told him he had to add fruit to every meal. He added an apple per boy per meal. With six boys and five meals, that meant he purchased thirty apples. They ate exactly zero over the duration of the campout. Now, all the apples came back and eventually got eaten, so they didn't go to waste, but it was an interesting exercise in meal planning. What you describe is partially common in our troop. Some patrols always buy too much, while others come out just about right. There is usually a little bit of "yukked up" food, but most of it is still usable and goes home with someone. We dole out all the extra food while we're unpacking, so all the parents and Scouts get to see the leftover food. I don't know if this helps reduce waste or not, but it doesn't sound like as big a problem in our troop as it is in yours. One other difference is that we don't give the boys a budget. I would have initially thought that this would make our guys more likely to buy extra food, but I guess it could also be that your boys feel like they should spend all the money that they've been allotted.

Technically, you are correct. From the description, I would guess the gentleman is both a troop committee member and a commissioner. And probably he didn't want to buy two shirts, so he just combined the items on one. According to the Insignia Guide, the Arrowhead Honor is "Worn only with a commissioner badge of office." Definitely a uniforming libertine. But when I go to Roundtable, I find it difficult to find very many uniforms that don't have errors, and this is an error that isn't as easy to catch as some others.

Ok, here's how I would handle it. It sounds like you've already done all the first steps correctly. I'd talk to both the parents and the boy, after making enough personal observations of the problem myself (i.e. it's not just what the other boys are saying, it's what you have personally experienced). I'm surprised that they continue to deny it, when you are all just reporting what you think, but some people are fairly blind when it comes to their own situation, and typically pretty defensive about their kids. Is it really so bad that you do feel that you can in good conscience force another boy to tent with him? If so, I'd tell the parents that. And I'd follow through - tenting alone isn't a big problem. Lots of boys in my troop seem to prefer that anyway if it's an option. You also need to think about what would be an acceptable solution. Does he need to shower every evening? Even on trips where there is no convenient shower? Is it deodorant? I'm not sure what would actually fix the problem in this case. But if it's as big a problem as you indicate, you need to sit down with the parents and come to an agreement that everyone can live with, including you and the other boys in the troop.

Yes, BSA has the answer. It's all in the video "A Time to Tell". These requirements are a (not-so-subtle) encouragement for troops to use the video as part of a troop meeting, or in some other venue.

emb021, yeah, I got your example and I agree with you. I guess it's more of a philosophical question - what authority gets to declare that the ACP&P is incorrect? John-in-KC proposes the most reasonable response - that the rest of the literature provides a check, and you go with the preponderance of the evidence. "Scripture checks scripture" is a reasonable analogy - although that mostly deals with interpretation. It would be rare for many Christians to say "this verse is wrong because it's contradicted elsewhere in scripture." Whereas it's completely fine for us to say "this sentence is wrong in the ACP&P." And Bob - thanks so much for the upbeat and encouraging tone you set on these forums. Makes me look forward every day to social interactions with my fellow Scouters as we all do our best.

emb021, thanks for explaining your understanding. I think that makes sense, although it is in general hard to tell under what circumstances we'd have to accept that the ACP&P is wrong. Bob White's description of how the sentence meant exactly the opposite of what it appeared to say - that was something that didn't make any sense to me. Your description, that the ACP&P simply has it wrong, is much more reasonable to my mind. And your position makes some sense. But can the ACP&P really be wrong? Or is it right by definition? The funny thing is, both Beavah and I tend to argue in favor of using good judgement and would never actually complain about this in real life. It's just always good to know what the "official" answer is before you go about applying judgement on top of that.

Raining and mid-30s. Hmmm. I think I might skip that one. Seriously. That can go beyond miserable into dangerous. It might depend on the attitude of the boys in the troop (how gung-ho they are) and the plans for the trip (where can they warm up in an emergency). But in a good steady rain, it can be hard to keep dry. At any rate, I would definitely bring along one set of dry clothes, kept in a ziplock bag in the backpack. Especially socks. It's really going to depend on the forecast, though. The last winter backpacking trip I went on, I wore six layers on top, ending with my rain coat. Long underwear, polyester T-shirt, long-sleeve shirt, hoodie, fleece jacket, rain jacket. Kept me more than warm enough even in single digit temperature. If it's a cold rain, you need something that works really well at keeping the rain off. Rain top and rain pants. And a couple layers underneath that. If it's not raining (either single digits or sixties) you don't have as much need to have spare clothes, but I'd still bring along the socks. I like rain coats that can double as warm coats. Also one warm fleece layer. The only spare shirt you might need should be one polyester-type. No spare pair of jeans. Sorry for the shotgun advice (all over the place, as I read back over it). Best of luck to him. It sounds like fun.

Yeah, Michelle, I'm not sure what we'd do if someone told us they didn't use email...maybe we'd all stand around and shake our heads at the relic from an earlier era. Yes, I realize that's a function of our location (high-speed internet readily available) and demographics (lots of I/T workers and generally high incomes). And yes, we'd actually figure something out. Probably we'd ask the den leader to make sure that they communicated with the parent. If it's just one family, it's easy enough to make that phone call. It gets harder if there are 10 or 15 families without internet. Then I suppose we might have to figure something else out. But even dial-up people can receive email regularly. And it might depend on why they say they don't have email. We're pretty unapologetic in saying that we run on email and you need to be on the list.

I agree with everything Beavah says. Just for reference, the BSA Fieldbook says to use 25% of bodyweight as a maximum. But the actual effectiveness of that limits varies tremendously from boy to boy. Small backpacking stoves are great. As a rule, the really pricey stuff just saves small amounts of weight and isn't worth it for Scouts. Especially when they are trading off durability for weight. You don't need the 900 fill down bag, or the titanium spork, or the lightest possible version of anything, really.

I've seen various references that talk about how Sea Scouting is part of Venturing, like a sort of specialized crew. In some places it seems to indicate they are almost exactly a crew (e.g. they can all earn all the same awards), and in other places it seems very different. So, as a simple basic test for this, can there be two separate units Ship 123 and Crew 123? Or can there only be one Venturing unit with a given number? I know there can be Pack 123, Troop 123, Team 123, and Crew 123, but the same CO could not then charter, for example, a second pack with the same number. So would a ship in that case be a second Venturing crew that requires a separate number?

The only conceivable reason for this statement Since the Quartermaster Award is a Venturing recognition, it may be earned by any young man or young woman registered as a Venturer is to indicate that you don't have to be registered in a ship in order to get it. But congratulations, Bob, on the most tortured reading of the day. I know the irony is lost on you, but the rest of us do find it odd that you normally quote the regulations at everyone else, but twist them to your own liking when they disagree with you. I would find it very odd for the Quartermaster Award to be earned in a crew, but hey, since we're arguing over the letter of the rule, the answer seems pretty clear. Please, whatever you do, don't admit you're wrong. It would be so inconsistent.

We tell the boys things at meetings, to make sure they know what's coming up. But all official communication occurs over the email yahoo group. There are usually several emails that go out as we approach each event, reminding people about it - listing who is signed up, when they need to be there, what they need to bring, etc. That's pretty much it. We don't do anything paper. No newsletters that go home (although the SPL, CC and SM send out periodic emails with info and calendars), no permission slips, no phone calls, no individual emails.

Well, Bob, I think GNX Guy knew what it was... I haven't taken the training. But Kahuna found it to be pretty useful: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=113579#id_113587 Eamonn and CNYScouter were talking about going: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=180799#id_181097 And seabear recommended it: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=106275#id_106348 It looks like it's offered what, about once per year per region? So about 120 people take it each year? Fairly select group. http://www.seascout.org/for_leaders/adult_recognition/adult-seabadge.html From the description, it sounds a lot like Wood Badge, but aimed at Sea Scouters. But I'd be interested in hearing actually experiences as well.

Our lodge also requires medical forms for anyone in attendance. But I don't think permission slips are generally required. Our unit doesn't require them. Our lawyers tell us that they aren't helpful from a liability point of view anyway.