packsaddle

Is Trail Life really floundering?

KenD500, kill switch? An affirmative response. I will begin to clear this thread and leave a followup message as a marker for future reference.

This is human nature. It was recognized long ago and just as an example there is this classic paper by Chamberlin (1890) who proposed a way to try to avoid these kinds of 'personal' entanglements. Science (old series) 15:92. Link to the text. It has been republished and reprinted over the years, and notably referred to by Platt (1964) in his paper on Strong Inference.

This is called a 'shot across the bow'. I hid this thread for a while because it was going beyond the bounds of decorum and I wanted it to cool off. When KenD500 asked about what happened to it, I explained and told him I would bring it back to life if he wanted me to and if the rules of decorum will be followed. So this is everyone's chance to show that they can discuss this topic with some decorum. Good luck. To KenD500, if you want this thread killed, I'll gladly do the deed.

Could you share some more details? How many boys (families) are in the pack? Are you urban, rural, suburban? Is your CO a church? LDS? How long has the pack existed? How did you have those leaders before they left, where did they come from? I agree with Skip, you have to do what's best for your family first. You for sure will burn out if you try to keep up this level of intense involvement.

As has always been the case for all of us. The rules of decorum have always existed but perhaps were not very clear and perhaps not applied as stringently as they needed to be applied. As was made clear to me by Bob White a long, long time ago when I was out of line, a person is not welcome to write or post anything they want. They are welcome to write or post what they want within limits. And in response to recent posts, Terry just made the limits clearer for all of us.

Who is 'us', Eagledad? While I understand that you feel the way you do, I want you to know that as far as I'm concerned, and I suspect other moderators as well, you are welcome here. I hope you can feel that way in the future. When I became a member of these forums the Dale decision was the hot topic. You don't show up as a member for another few years yet, and 6 or 7 years after the 'birth' of this site. But at that time, my recollection was that things were VERY one-sided and only a very few of us at that time were willing to take up for what we perceived as the 'underdogs' in this issue. Is THAT the fairness of which you speak? If so, that is a matter of perception. I can't tell you how many times I was invited to leave scouting to start my own organization. Same for others. Is that the fairness of which you speak? They made it clear that I was not welcome. It was explicit, not just something felt. I received this same sentiment from the council even later, after the UUA action. Yes, what those few of us saw as an inevitability actually came to pass, most of it, and more quickly than anyone had ever expected. Keep in mind that all we did was predict it would happen and speak in support of it here in these forums. Years later when I was appointed as a moderator I was as surprised as everyone else. I had been trained, dealing with the military, to be direct and clear and not to hold back on my thoughts. Do you think that the status of 'moderator' should somehow 'neuter' that person in a way that they are no longer able to express their thoughts? I don't. This may have little effect on how you feel but please understand that I also get PM messages and personal emails from other members from time to time that I am not hard enough and way too lenient with regard to this or that post or topic. And up until the last few weeks I probably have been. I apologize. The free and open discussion that I hold as an ideal went to a level that I had not expected. What you have observed in the last few days is the response. I can't speak for Terry. Rest assured that other than reports of software bugs or issues, there is very little exchange regarding discussions in these threads, any of them. Terry speaks for himself as do I. I recognize that there is no way to be in the moderator position without having criticism from those being 'moderated'. I'm good with that. Because there IS a balance between those who, like you, feel treated unfairly and those who think who think moderators are way too 'fair' in all this - or to put it another way, as long as the arrows are coming from all directions - I see evidence that 'moderation' is closer to middle ground than to some 'edge'. No one at any 'edge' is likely to see that. I understand how you feel. I've been there. So have others. I offer you, once again, words that were NEVER offered to me during those times. You ARE welcome here. And I hope you can feel that way in the future.

Twenty years. Egad! It's really been that long. OK, well, I guess it doesn't make me feel as old as my grandsons do, lol. Yes, I would like to see some kind of special celebration...I'm just at a loss for how something like that would happen or be structured. My suggestion would be for someone to start a new topic in the Program or Announcements forum for a discussion of how to do something like this. The whole 'virtual' concept is what clogs my thoughts, kind of like time travel or that sort of thing. A very, very long time ago I started a sort of humorous comparison of everyone's forum personalities (a roast of sorts) in which different members (back then) were assigned roles found in the book, 'Dune'. There were the members of the Bene Gesserit and many of the other personalities and I think a few of those members are still around somewhere (Eamonn, you listening?). It was kind of fun for a while. There was one of us in particular who wielded the gom jabbar with a flair. As I remember, no one got tagged as Baron Harkonnen. Something like this might work again, maybe based on...who knows....it has to be something most of us can relate to and which has lots of characters...I guess we could make some up if we wanted to - Gunsmoke? Monty Python? Walking Dead? (sorry about that last one...thinking about the 2016 election). Or it could be a combination - House meets The Cardassians? Anyway, the new thread might be a way to collect odd-ball ideas like the one I had.

I would have to know (and I mean really know, personally) that person before I would cut any slack at all, even after 20 years. This one of the few absolutes I have in my life and some of you know the reason why. A drunk is a hand grenade with the pin pulled. The only question is when or where they'll 'go off' and whether or not people get hurt or killed. For me this is 'end of discussion'. For me, it means no leadership if I can possibly prevail with the CO, and so far, no friendship. I know it seems hard and unfair. But that's that as far as I'm concerned.

Hope they come to their senses.

Stosh, why do you attend that camp?

This is a particularly touchy subject for me, the DUI thing. If National doesn't care about DUI but they DO care about check fraud, I have a big problem with National's decision. To me they have it completely backward. As for your question about where to draw the line, I don't know. I doubt that anyone else here does either. My guess (worth the paper it's written on) is that "sever all ties" means no training, no leadership. That's all.

I've met a couple here and there. I was hoping to meet OGE on one of my trips to NY but his unexpected passing, well...I'll really miss him. Went camping with one forum member and his unit and was glad to have provided a much needed downpour for the entire trip, lol. It always seems to rain when I'm with someone on the trail, almost never if I'm solo. I met one with whom I had numerous arguments on these forums for years before we met. We had a great time and a great outing. Turned out we had far more in common than our differences in these forums indicated. It really helps to be able to see the eyes and expressions and actually hear the tone and inflection of voice. You get far more from a real conversation than this social media stuff that masquerades as 'social' interaction. It allows us to see the other person as a real human being rather than some text that suddenly appears on the screen. Edit: And Vicki, if you're still out there someplace, I'd love to meet you and let you yell at me some more about my 'sexist claptrap', lol. As it is, I can depend on my wife for that criticism...and she's pretty good at it too.

I agree. Up to the counselor...for low impact fire as well..the context is also important. I have never had this problem with Cooking MB but several notable times with Environmental Science MB. In those cases, I merely asked the boys about what they had done to complete all of the requirements. They were honest about it. I asked them if they felt good about it and if not what did they think was the best way to correct the situation. They collectively decided to actually complete the requirements, which they did. Afterwards I asked how they felt about the whole situation, how we had all handled it, and they had very thoughtful and insightful responses. I am proud of those young men.

We've had a few of those boys as well. One had mild regrets later but they mostly were there for the camaraderie and adventure. They were excellent Life Scouts too, when they turned 18.

Here's the thing: the OP mentioned in the first line a "financial type crime". What kind of financial crime warrants banning someone's presence as a parent? If this person had been convicted and spent prison time for murder or some other kind of really violent crime I could see it...but money? I'm just curious about what "sever all ties" really means and under what circumstances?

David, I've seen that already but not, I suspect, in the context you are thinking about. I've seen (counting through memory now) about a dozen, at least a dozen times that a leader in both cub and boy scout units have suggested a different faith as superior somehow to the faith that a boy's family currently followed. It has happened to me and my children as well. For my children, on a couple of occasions when they politely declined, they were informed that they were "going to go to hell" as a result. Do you think these 'invitations' came from persons from 'liberal' faiths? This kind of nonsense is not something new and I've seen it all my life. I admit I was surprised when it 'emerged' from unit leaders but it did.

ScouterRob, would you like the title of this thread to be changed to: Two Eagle COH For One Scout?

Edit: Eagledad, I hope that in the coming weeks you can feel differently about this site.

Do you have any idea what standard was not met? I've never had any experience with anything like this. But to me, "...sever all ties..." is very strong language and it makes me wonder what standard, not met, can result in that language.

Is this really the way the insurance works?

Welcome to the forums! First let me congratulate you for working with the cubs. To me the cubs are the best part of scouting and I'd go back to working with them any time. (this might also have something to do with having grandchildren not quite the same age yet). I was CM for quite a few years. There are a couple of things I learned that might help you with your question about keeping them active and involved. There are two aspects of that. First is the broader aspect of 'active and involved' in all pack levels. This is something the den leaders must do and they can get ideas from roundtable or other leaders or, these days, off the scouting web sites. But assuming you're thinking about the pack meetings in particular: don't let them go longer than one hour total. Get the awards done quickly and make sure the little guys get all the recognition they deserve. Then I used to plan way ahead for pack 'programs' in which different things were done both as a presentation kind of format AND a participation kind of format. Examples of the most successful of these was bringing in a local firefighter to demonstrate different kinds of fires and how to put them out safely. They boys really paid attention and asked all sorts of questions. Another example was having a local guy who deals in reptiles bring some of his living specimens in. The boys learned a lot about reptiles and then they got to handle live snakes (many times to the horror of some of the parents and delight for the boys). Another time was a program about camp food (and they got to help prepare a couple of things and then EAT them), then there was the time we had den contests for knot tying or some other outdoor skill, and the time that we had relay races (it was a rainy day and crab soccer really burns up the energy). And after the contests and programs they always knew that there would be cupcakes or something like that waiting for them at the end. Enthusiasm comes naturally for boys that age so all you really have to do is allow it to happen and prevent it from becoming too destructive, lol. Good luck and enjoy this experience while you can. It will be over way too quickly.

I could go ahead and delete this duplicate thread but Eamonn is a moderator himself so if he wants to delete it, he can.

I guess my most vivid memories are not from the council camp (which is now part of a big gated 'community' on the land near a big lake). Rather, my best memories are the real summer camps in which the troop packed up a pickup and trailer full of gear and we headed into the mountains for an variable amount of time, usually about 10 days but sometime a couple of weeks. Those trips (with no MB involvement whatsoever, only adventure) are the ones that made lasting good memories of other scouts and places which, in some cases, I doubt I'll ever see again. Those were times in which the only structure was making the meals, doing some rank advancement stuff, and going on the hikes. Later, as an adult volunteer, I have been involved with taking the unit to the council camp in this part of the country. I wish I could say that that experience has left the kinds of memories that Eamonn has mentioned but nothing can take the place of those long summer adventures, so long ago.

Skeptic, I knew there were gay leaders, even gay professionals, back in the '60s - never heard of any 'scandals' though. I don't remember anyone making objections about it either. I don't know how to cite something that comes from personal experience and definitely not if I didn't even know about it at all (reference to the so-called 'perversion' files). I first learned of the existence of those non-public files in these threads. The old policy to which I referred was the exclusive membership policy that was never mentioned when I first applied as a volunteer a few decades ago. I don't know how to produce a citation for not knowing about something. But on that fateful evening when the DE aired the 'dirty laundry' at our B&G, I did become aware of 'the policy'...but just the tip of the iceberg regarding the controversy surrounding it. It was only after I learned about the shameful and cowardly action by BSA toward the UUA that I began to question BSA decision-making at the national level.