Beavah

Yah, BobWhite describes one way an organization may set up a troop committee, eh? But a number of other setups are possible which are also supported by da BSA program, eh? The real answer to your question might be "What do your bylaws say?" or perhaps "What has the method been in the past?" or "What is typically done in other programs of your Chartered Organization?" or finally "How does your COR want to handle it?" Yah, I agree with BobWhite, though, in that I'd generally encourage yeh to avoid a lot of voting, eh? Except when it's a vote that's simply an affirmation, in a small volunteer organization like a troop voting is likely to cause a lot of pain and hard feelings between people who need to be able to work together goin' forward. You votin' for someone is really tellin' someone else yeh don't think they're any good or will be any good at a task they want, eh? I also wouldn't recommend the "controlling CC" thing either, though, eh? That can cause a lot of problems too. But despite my advice, both the controllin' CC and open voting happen out there in some units with success, and in ways perfectly consistent with da BSA program. So big picture, yeh need to inquire how things are done in your troop. We can't really answer your question here. But if you're a CC/COR or lead committee member for a new unit or one that's rebuildin', come back with questions and we can all give yeh suggestions on how yeh might want to set things up for the future. Beavah

That takes 10-12 boys out of the patrol-method. The 4-5 troop officers and SPL/ASPL will "patrol" up together for camp chores, but will not be part of the patrol-method program other than the responsibilities they have accepted to support. After workin' so hard to develop patrol method, jblake, why would yeh make this modification? Yah, are yeh sure there's a good reason to take those lads out of the patrols they've come to feel a part of? Seems like they could still camp with their patrols, eh? Only their first task in their duty roster is whatever coordination task they have with other patrols. For the troop you describe, that seems like it would be a better fit. Troop positions as somethin' like jury duty. Somethin' a lad has to go do as a service sometimes, but he still goes home at night to his patrol. Beavah

Yah, Its Me. Good on yeh for takin' on a hard challenge, and startin' to have a vision for where you'd like to go. Now extend your timeframe a bit. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the journey is as much fun as the destination, eh? Think about gettin' there in three to five years. And think about enjoyin' the journey with the boys you've got. So there's gonna be some give-and-take, eh? That's good. Kickin' around ideas is how the boys eventually change their way of thinkin' about things. Better for you to specify goals than methods, eh? Tell 'em what you see at present and what you'd like to see, and let the discussion go for a bit. Maybe next year you are a Venture-and-Service patrol of 15-16 year olds (who get to do their own high adventure but also get to be "senior coaches" for the other patrols). Do some special trips for them that are challenging and build skills and a service-to-each-other mindset, eh? Then treat 'em like adults to help out with the rest of the guys. Maybe yeh also get two mixed-age patrols of middle schoolers who have fun and compete with each other. They want to mix in da NSP and feel the 3-person patrol is bad, so that might be where that goes, eh? Recruit a couple natural leaders from your 13 year olds or older 12 year olds for PL/APL in each. Take them with a few caring older boys on a special/fun/challenging TLT weekend to get things goin' by word and example. Maybe yeh get somethin' a bit different, and yeh run with that because it makes sense to you and your kids! As long as you're moving in a good direction and enjoying the journey, it should be a grand adventure. Have fun buildin' Rome, but not in a day! Beavah

if you attend certain events you WILL be told you MUST have the 'national uniform'. And should be prepared for the consequences if you don't... Yah, 3 months in da brig for you, lad! Or do yeh Sea Scouting folks still honor long-time traditions like flogging 'round the fleet? Beavah

Yah, da medical form thing is somethin' I wish national would clean up, eh? The forms are somewhat incomplete in terms of relevant health history, and the whole Class 1/2/3 thing gets a bit silly. The only difference between a Class 2 and Class 3 form is that younger folks as well as us old timers need a physical within the past year. (Yah, and da fact that the Class 3 form is in microfiche type font which is a bear to read if you're an old critter!). The whole thing could be simplified by requirin' a health history/permission slip every year, and a copy of the most recent physical with physician statement on activity limitations or special protocols. B

Yah, corporate reorganizations, gotta love 'em. This one seems to be still shakin' out. Even after Nashville I can't say things are clear yet. Though there's a fair bit of blood on the floor (42 positions eliminated...), it's a direction some folks have been advocatin' for a while. McKinsey & Co.'s recommendations were essentially pushin' Irving to become more like a regular NFP service association, eh? One who's primary focus is on member services. The new org chart is much more in line with that model. What will be challengin' is gettin' everybody who was used to thinking in the old system to realign our brains, eh? For example, there's no longer separate program divisions. One of the benefits will hopefully be that we close the rift that exists between programs which was in part reinforced by havin' 'em in separate divisions. I think that would be a good thing. Program materials support will come mostly under Innovation & Strategy, though components may tie in with marketing. Trainin' may come by way of Council Solutions - helping councils to provide better training, but fed from Innovation & Strategy materials and goals. That's not da way to think about it, though. There's no one-to-one map of old to new. But there is a refreshin' new focus on providing service to councils to help 'em develop programs and support units, rather than just providin' materials. It'll be interestin' to see if the national org. model gets reflected in the councils, eh? A marketing exec, a unit services/solutions exec, an outdoor adventure exec., etc. with correspondin' committees. That might be kind of excitin'. It would also put things like Advancement and Membership back where they belong, as components of unit service, eh? Beavah

But the Council cannot put on an event for just one pack. That would be a pack activity and the the G2SS says that you cannot have an archery activity at a Pack event. A swing... and a miss! Sorry, BW, but what makes somethin' a council event is sponsorship and supervision, not who attends. There are some council climbing directors, for example, who run weekend events on a signup/registration basis for troops and crews as council events (block off 4 weekends, let individual units sign up, etc.). It's also possible to arrange memoranda of agreement with the approval of the Region which makes a particular site a council-approved site for G2SS purposes (usually this involves an agreement over primary insurer, an inspection, and some agreement on instructor certification/protocols). I know of a council that has done that for a shooting sports club, for example. Lots of ways to skin a cat if you're creative and yeh are goin' to provide a good experience for kids. Lady_Leigh, no problem with da rock climbin' even for Tigers, as others have told you. I'd encourage yeh to work with a commercial establishment that has done a lot of kids' groups, and to be willin' to pay extra for staff, eh? Yeh want the kids to have a good first experience. One person from the pack should take Climb on Safely Trainin' just to be able to recognize the elements for havin' that good experience. For archery, you'll just have to tread carefully, eh? That one really takes a lot for cub-aged boys to have a good, safe experience with, which is why G2SS places the limits it does. Explore options with your council. If yeh can't work it out, you can still cross-market with the archery range. Get 'em to give you fliers good for a small discount for families to take their kids to the range on their own. In exchange, get 'em to agree to make Cub Scouting flyers (good for a discount on a pinewood derby car!) available to their young archery members and see if you get any recruits! Beavah

Hi Karen, This is a good question to ask your council Field Director or Business Manager. Go straight to the source, eh? Generally speakin', I think yeh need to think of this as an adult who voluntarily participated in a sportin' event and got hurt, eh? Them's the breaks, so to speak. They aren't necessarily entitled to havin' other people's kids and BSA donors pay for their health care. Coverage is really meant to protect registered leaders (who have to participate in events so that the kids can, eh?). The terms of the HSR supplemental health insurance coverage that units may purchase (and which a council almost always purchases for council events if the unit doesn't have it in force) do not cover regular parent participants except those bein' recruited as leaders like Pack212 suggests. My understandin' is that the BSA and insurer may treat this definition relatively loosely so as to include parents who are actin' in some necessary leadership/support role on a trip (like, for example, a parent who is actin' as the mandatory second adult for two-deep). The health coverage is excess to any other health coverage which may be in place. It's very low limits coverage as well. So given that he's got a low deductible personal health care policy, even if the insurance were in force it wouldn't be coverin' anything but his deductible. Probably not worth filin'. There is a small disability provision in the contract, but it only applies to registered leaders and so would not apply to this gentleman. Hope that helps, Beavah

Your post suggestsw that that is what the program suggests and they you have a better way. It would appear that your methods are very close to thoise of the BSA yo just don't know that because you would rather see your way as right and the BSA as wrong. Yah, I think you're comin' at this with your own prejudice, BW. I didn't read anything in jblake's posts in this thread that suggests anything like you think it did. Rather, as you point out, jblake is properly usin' the patrol method and youth leadership in a way that's consistent with da best sort of scoutin'. He's defendin' the program by emphasizin' that youth leaders are and should be involved in discipline/conflict management. The two of you are in loud agreement. Beavah

In the past as in today, the majority of problems come from when people stray from the program, not from when they follow it. Nah, no evidence of that. Close as I can tell, the majority of problems come from the adult egos that shortridge mentions, eh? Whether it's parents wantin' their son to get an award at all costs, or a "my way or the highway" unit leader that thinks he's followin' the program and so can ignore or belittle other viewpoints. My guess, though, is that it's gotten progressively worse over time, eh? Parents seem to be more involved in negative ways, and have more of their egos invested in vicariously livin' their sons' lives. Might be partly because parents in our demographic are havin' fewer kids these days, so they have more time and energy to pour into each one. Self-reliance of the sort that scoutin' tries to teach tends to be an afterthought to some folks. B

Yah, easy there, BW. If yeh read my post, you will see that I did indeed mention Troop Guides, eh? And in much da way you suggest. But yeh lost me completely when in one paragraph you say that you see very little in what jblake does that conflicts with the BSA program, and then yeh go on to take digs at him for not doin' the BSA program. And then make references to punishing scouts, which hasn't come up anywhere. A might confusin', eh? Personally, I think all the scouters I've met are doin' their best to offer a good scouting program to kids, and it isn't particularly courteous or kind to imply otherwise. Yah, sure, each scouter brings in his own ideas and background to the game, eh? Often that makes scoutin' richer. Strength in diversity and all that, eh? Yah, sure, occasionally scouters' interpretations of things can be a bit off, too. Doesn't mean they aren't doin' their best, or aren't doin' good things for kids, or aren't doin' scouting. For example, one might suggest that somehow responses to behavior in a scout program should be devoid of consequences ("punishment"), except for the most extreme consequences of temporary or permanent removal from a unit. That would be a misunderstandin' of the BSA materials and program, and one that is not developmentally sound. Consequences for kids behaviors is a part of what all good youth and adult leaders do in a troop, eh? A PL and an ASM might well work as a team and tell Johnny that he can't play in the capture the flag game tonight because he hasn't finished cleanin' the dishes. Johnny may feel that he's bein' "punished" by his PL, but da reality is he's just experiencin' a consequence of his choices. As another example of a personal interpretation, a poster might suggest that da BSA approach to discipline is that an SPL focuses more on conflict resolution, while a PL focuses more on teambuilding (even though da PL's Handbook makes conflict resolution a PL task). That might work well for that person's troop, eh? In a patrol of peers, for example, turnin' to da (older) SPL for conflict resolution might be a fine way to go. That might not be followin' the BSA materials verbatim or understandin' 'em as clearly as perhaps they should, but I'd say they were runnin' a fine scout program if it worked for 'em. Same with a "tiered" approach, eh? That's an easy thing to understand for a SM who thinks in terms of hierarchies. It can make for a fine way to run a troop, even though it's a bit a departure from the more holistic approach suggested by da BSA materials. Yah, sure there's a point where someone crosses over da line, eh? Like hitting a kid. Up until that point, they're still doin' Scouting even if they're not doin' it exactly the same way we would. Beavah

Yah, it's always amusin' to read different folks interpretations of the program, eh? Everybody reads things in light of their own personal prejudices. Those who have a hierarchical view somehow read the materials as a "tiered" approach, while jblake and others who run successful programs think of it more as a "team" approach, eh? But certainly nothin' in the materials suggests that youth leaders aren't involved in discipline. Quite the opposite! In a boy-led patrol and troop, da youth leaders are the ones who are goin' to be dealin' with incidents and behaviors the most often. And that's an important part of the boys' learnin'. Where it gets a bit hard is with same-age patrol structures and elections sometimes. It's pretty natural for an older Troop Guide or SPL to handle discipline stuff, or for an older PL in a mixed-age patrol, or even for the natural "gang leader" that Kudu talks about in a same-age patrol. Where it breaks sometimes is when it's a group of peers and da natural leader isn't the official leader. A "rotated in" PL of a New Scout Patrol ain't likely to be able to handle discipline matters, and expectin' him to is really unfair to the lad. Especially since most of da discipline issues at that level involve conflicts over chores assigned by the PL's duty roster. I've always been impressed with youth leaders and discipline. For one, they know the "kid dynamic" better than the adults, eh? They know who the real instigators are, and how da kids act when no adults are watchin'. They also tend to be scrupulously fair, where adults have to work hard not to play favorites. Beavah

The stuff in BSA resources is the distilled wisdom of hundreds of units from all over the country. Nah, that's not necessarily the case, eh? Or at least it's an awfully optimistic view of da writin' and publishin' process. I think where the BSA sometimes tries to do the "distilling wisdom" bit it runs into a very common problem with materials. The average of a bunch of opinions isn't necessarily that valuable, or even that good. Often times, one individual writin' with a depth of wisdom does a better job than a committee. Especially when it comes to coherence, as Lisabob points out. Yah, just look at the stuff by Green Bar Bill vs. some of our more "written by committee" documents! My point was different, though. I meant that generic responses from program materials designed for a whole country and multiple (very different) CO's and setups are sometimes not that helpful for the needs of a specific person or unit. Our goal should be to be helpful, eh? Listenin' and thinkin' first seems in order. I think when we do listen & think first, we see some things we wouldn't otherwise. While we know that there's no mention in BSA literature anywhere about cuttin' corners off of Totin' Chips or Fireman Chits, we all know that's a technique many troops use to give lads who need it an improvised reminder/warning. Done well, it works just fine. In my youth as a ski patroller, I'd occasionally cut a corner off a lad's lift ticket for bein' reckless. Didn't mean a darn thing, really, but it conveyed the message that skiing was a privilege that could be taken away - without havin' to go all the way, and usin' an easy-to-understand symbol rather than a lecture. Worked great most of the time . Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

As for the thread I started, and to which you refer, the reason I asked that question the way I did was because I didn't have a copy of the SM handbook or the SPL handbook available. I wanted to know specifically what those two books say about the disciplinary process and where to find hte info in those two books because we have an SPL and a SM who don't appear to know either, and they acknowledge that they need to know. Yah, I understood what you were askin' for in that thread, Lisabob. Da thing that caught my eye, though, was that none of the posters gave yeh what you were askin' for. Nobody responded with the information from the SM handbook or SPL Handbook, eh? One quoted G2SS (which is talkin' about behavior that affects safety, not general discipline), another gave his personal interpretation of what the "flow" should be. And then yeh said they were helpful. Yeh can understand my confusion . I reckon what was helpful was BW takin' the time to interpret a summary or synthesis across materials and personal experience, eh? In short, doin' the one thing yeh asked him not to do. I think if an SPL and a SM are havin' some issues with youth and discipline, yeh need to dig deeper, work with a CC and UC, and provide some really thoughtful assistance and support. Alternately, just stay out of it as a committee member, eh? Lots of learnin' happens by just workin' through things. Either way, that's how to be really helpful. But if da issue is just that they don't have those book resources and they want them, I'd suggest as a committee member yeh drive the 75 miles and buy 'em each a copy so they have 'em (or save the gas and order 'em online). Committee's job is to provide support and resources. Isolated quotes aren't much help without understandin' 'em in context, eh? I think every SM and SPL should have a personal copy of their respective handbooks. That' ain't got anything to do with discipline, though, just good support. I'd encourage yeh to look at other resources for 'em, too, like Mark Ray's The Scoutmaster's Other Handbook which offers a lot of practical ideas and applications. Beavah

Yah, yeh all seem to have had some fun conversations while I've been gone, eh? Still writin' from the field, but figured I'd chime in on the latest. It's funny how this forum seems to attract one-time posters with gripes about their unit on a regular basis. Must be because it's easy to find. I remember once a young lad asked me how to make nitrogen triiodide (a relatively easy to make contact explosive). Yah, I suppose I could have answered his question with a technical response from a book, eh? A bit of anhydrous ammonia, a bit of iodine... I'm just not sure I would have been doin' him any favors. To my mind, the same thing applies when someone comes and asks how to axe their Scoutmaster. Dat's the scoutin' equivalent of goin' out and playin' with explosives. As often as not folks are gonna get hurt, program is gonna suffer, kids are goin' to be lost to scoutin' for sure and there's a good chance a whole unit will come apart. I just can't see where givin' a technical book response is helpful. Yeh need to sit down with people and talk about what da issues are and how things are set up in that unit. CO might be a strong church or institution, a supportive but disconnected group where da SM has all the social capital, or a disorganized PTO whose rotating presidency is currently sleepin' with a disgruntled ASM. The right answer, the one that serves kids and program the best, often ain't the correct answer given as the ideal in the guidebooks. Same goes for youth discipline, eh? (Lisabob's other book answer thread). That's another one of those "playin' with explosives" things when it gets beyond the youth leaders and Scoutmaster. All kinds of potential for things to run off the rails. And there just ain't a single book answer which is helpful or even accurate. If a lad sets fire to a tent at camp, who handles the discipline? Well, golly, it might be law enforcement & the courts, it might be the Camp Director escortin' the lad to the gate, it might be the SM, it might be the lead adult for the unit who is present, it might be da SPL who confiscates the lighter and makes the lad report himself, it might be the boy's parent, it might be da CO, it might be the committee, it might be a subcommittee of the committee that's charged with those things. Not only is the book answer probably not the right answer, it probably isn't the correct answer either, eh? Seems like if we want to live up to our Oath to help other people at all times, we have to take some time to listen and learn the need that is behind their questions, eh? And respond to that need. Givin' someone a real answer requires more than 8th grade literacy and a manual, eh? It takes experience, judgment, and wisdom. I figure that's why, like NeilLup says, mature folks seek out others for answers and perspective. In their heart they know they need more than a one-line quote and contact with Authority. And that's why our fellow scouters (in person or in a forum like this one) are so valuable a resource, eh? Beavah

Interestin' first post. Welcome to da forums, commissioner. Yah, an award is somethin' which is given, not loaned, eh? Sometimes I think it's odd to ask others to do somethin' we aren't willin' to do ourselves. I believe that anybody who truly believes can put their money on the line, set their auction preferences to search for such things on an ongoin' basis, buy 'em up with a nice high bid, and return 'em to da BSA, eh? That way an Eagle or his family who needs the money gets a fair value for their property, and da commissioner or any of da rest of us can feel good about protectin' the Eagle Scout insignia. That's a fine thing for someone to do who really cares about such things. Lots better than askin' da government, da auction house, or da BSA to do it for us. Personally, though, I spend my money on tryin' to help kids in the program do things like go to camp. Memories and lessons learned bein' a better investment than silver or gold, eh? If we're not willin' to shell out for it personally, I'm not in favor of involvin' others. I personally don't believe that we should be required to relinquish to an online auction house our private personal history, so that they can verify whether each person is "worthy" to bid on any particular item (only college graduates are allowed to buy college rings or textbooks, eh? )... or that an auction house should release our personal information to a third party so that da third party could determine whether they like the fact we're buyin' somethin' they sold years ago. The unintended consequences of a nice thought can make it not so nice, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, MichaelOA, good question, eh? JASM is one of those "open, ambiguous" positions, eh? Different troops use JASMs differently, and in many cases da best troops tailor the role of each JASM to the person and what the troop needs at the time. Just like with adult ASMs, each takes on a different role. So a lot is just goin' to depend on your unit and your SM, eh? And your own interests and strengths. I personally think your SM's got the right of it. In order for a JASM to really feel like and act like and be treated like an ASM, he has to physically move to the adult side of da fence. Participation as a fellow ASM in adult meetings is important. Especially the "informal" meetin's that happen in the "adult camp" over coffee or breakfast or whatnot. That way you feel like you're a real ASM, the other ASMs start to treat yeh like a fellow ASM, and da youth leaders begin to see you as an ASM. Most JASMs are former SPL's and strong youth leaders, and if they continue livin' with the youth they tend to take away from the experience of the new SPL for a while... everyone still turns to them, eh? And it's hard to think of your tent-mate as an ASM, eh? Da more yeh hang with the kids, the less they'll see you as an ASM. Rules aren't da place to start when you're thinkin' about this, but in answer to your rules question, you're still a youth member. You can sleep with another youth, but yeh can't share a tent with an adult member. At da same time, all things in balance. If some of the other youth leaders like the SPL are your peers at school and your friends, there's sure to be times to spend hangin' out or hikin' with them or whatnot. As Neil mentions, if you've got a Venture Patrol / Senior Patrol / Leadership Corps / Old Scout Patrol, yeh might split your time with them and your ASM duties. That gives yeh practice wearin' two hats, which sometimes happens in the real world, eh? "I'm your friend for that, but for this I'm an ASM..." That can be challengin'. Overall, though, JASM is IMO da last step on da road to becoming an adult ASM. We adults on campouts have a different kind of fun, spendin' time with each other and watchin' / helpin' da youth members succeed. It's harder in a lot of ways, because our "wins" depend on gettin' other people to grow and be their best, not just our own skill. It's not for every youth, eh? Some are best left as SPLs and TG's and QM's because they enjoy and are still growin' in those roles. But if you're ready for that last step, JASM is da role yeh should be in. Beavah

Yah, yeh seem to be really holdin' on to this one, Rooster. I don't reckon any of us are goin' to convince you otherwise, eh? But I'm stuck on da problem of, if we are God's creation, how we can be inherently bad? God cannot create evil. If God so loved the world that he sent his son, how can we be inherently sinful? God cannot love sin or evil. Just ain't possible. I reckon part of da problem is you're usin' a really awkward translation, eh? What keeps gettin' translated as "sinful nature" in your text is more properly "sinful passions" or "self indulgence." Perhaps yeh need to read footnote [a] . In each case, Paul is referrin' to our temptations, and that part of us which is tempted. Da passage in Romans is about adultery, for example, though it's all a part of a broader theological argument Paul is makin' in response to da circumcision debate which was being waged in those scattered early Christian communities, eh? Yeh have to read the whole text for a bigger picture. "I tell you solemnly, unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3 Doesn't sound like Jesus felt children were inherently bad, eh? Indeed he goes on: "See that you never despise any of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven are continually in the presence of my Father in heaven.... for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs!" Matthew 18:10; 19:14 Only later in life do our choices, good and ill, come home to roost. But good people are possible, eh? "There is no rotten tree that produces sound fruit.... a good man draws what is good frome the store of goodness in his heart." (Luke 6:42-45). So the Master certainly believed in good people. And he even called people "blessed", eh? "Blessed are the poor in spirit, theirs is the kingdom of heaven..." I reckon da only people Jesus ever got truly angry with were the religious folk who kept condemning their fellow men as sinful or inherently bad, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, lots of troops throughout da midwest mobilized for the floods and bad weather, eh? Some to help with sandbaggin', some to help with evacuations, some to help staff emergency shelters or provide food. I reckon another way troops mobilize is to help with a smaller emergency, like a family emergency affectin' one of da troop members. Providin' emotional support, respite, food, labor, companionship, job contacts, money for bills, etc. I know one troop/crew with a bunch of youth trained as Skywarn spotters, eh? They get mobilized for any potentially serious bad weather. Of course we do have some specialty units, especially crews, that perform auxiliary search & rescue functions on a regular basis. If the troop isn't plugged in to this sort of thing and wants to be, best bet is to contact your county's emergency/disaster response team, through da county administrator, sheriff, or Red Cross. Beavah

And this is so easily avoided. Governments merely need to stop breaking the law. Nah, come on pack. Dat's way too simplistic for you. When schools and governments and other folks get sued in these kinds of things, as oft as not it's a tactic. A way of askin' "how serious are you?" Sometimes a way of expressin' a personal disagreement. Sometimes a way of tryin' to avoid da harder work of convincin' voters and elected representatives to their way of thinkin'. Remember, the public entity doesn't usually think it's breakin' any law, but it does think it's properly representing the community. Public entities deliberately passin' a law so as to challenge a standing precedent are pretty rare. And when that happens, IMO it's a good indicator that the court has overstepped its bounds and short-circuited rather than supported democracy. B

In literature, good fiction is good because of its believability. Balderdash. Good fiction is good because it tells an interesting story... usually, that involves heightening or exaggerating specific elements. I'd hate to see yeh throw out all science fiction, fantasy, most of Shakespeare, all of Milton or Dante, etc. What yeh have in Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction which happens to align with some folks' prejudices. Kind of like a Michael Moore "documentary" But if you find Lord of the Flies so unbelievable, perhaps you could expound on how you believe these boys would have behaved given the same circumstances? Pretty much the same way we do as adults, but probably more just. Kids have a heightened sense of "fairness." They'd establish social customs and roles that fit the economics of their situation. Whats in ones heart thats the source of good and bad. And if there's not good in our hearts, what would ever motivate us to seek God? If we agree that apart from God, we can do no good I reckon I don't know what yeh mean by "apart", Rooster. When are we ever apart from God? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. - Psalm 139 God gave us free will precisely because he looked upon his creation and found it to be Good! Perfect goodness shares the ability to choose and create and do good. It is fruitful and multiplies! Any time we do good we do good independent of God, mate, because free will makes us independent. It's our choice to do his work and glorify his name. But even in our most abject wickedness, we are never apart from God. Beavah

does this mean that the ACLU can out spend the defendants (for legitimate charges) because they will be assured to be paid if they prevail? Practically speakin'? Usually. If you're a city/town/school board/private entity tryin' to defend yourself, you're lookin' at quite a bill (especially if things go to appeal). That's money that yeh lose even if you're proven right. Money that you can't use to pay your police officers or teachers. ACLU or other special interest legal firms don't have to pay police officers and teachers, eh? Litigation is their business, not a side show. And unlike the defendant, if they win, it's free - and they get to use that case to raise more money. If they lose, they can still use da case to raise money. So for an advocacy firm, there's little downside to pursuin' a case of interest. To da public entity, there's almost nothin' but downside. That's why most don't fight, eh? Hard to tell your voters yeh had to cut half the fire department in order to defend the Christmas Tree, even if you prevailed. Now, when they're actually suin' da federal government (and to a lesser extent, some state governments), it's a bit different, eh? The feds can pick our pockets for the defense. Budget/staffing can still determine what the government chooses to fight, but the playin' field is a lot more even and can often be skewed greatly in favor of the government. What's a few million dollars out of da federal budget? These are the "underdog" cases which merit reimbursement, IMO, not the others. B

I'm asking about Beavah's remark about "a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe" and whether, TO HIM, such a duty REQUIRES a deity. My belief is pretty consonant with da BSA's,eh? It requires a legitimate object of / system of reverence, which calls the individual to personal effort/change/sacrifice/enlightenment/advancement/holiness. Of course, I believe that an honest and true seeker who pursues such a course will inevitably be led, in this life or the next, to that which I name God. So, "yes" in da most general, but "no" in (what I suspect is) the narrower way yeh mean the question. B

How do you propose that the moderators get consensus? Yah, this ain't rocket science, eh? Is this really that hard? Has nobody ever worked a job where yeh had to collaborate with other people who weren't constantly available? Yeh discuss in advance the "standards" usin' real-world examples to build consensus. Where yeh have time, you discuss with others before takin' action on somethin' that would be considered a "judgment call". Where you choose to act (or not to act), you let the others know and they should respect that and not interfere in da individual case, but anyone can raise it for a discussion among yourselves if they feel it merits it. And then yeh hash that out until there's a consensus. When yeh get feedback, positive or negative, yeh share that and discuss it. Feedback from someone who was a "witness" rather than an affected party should be taken especially seriously. If an individual moderator is directly involved/has a personality conflict/ is just runnin' hot, he/she should recuse themselves and trust the review and judgment of the rest. Yeh don't "agree to disagree", yeh hash it out until you have re-established consensus. Each moderator should be able to easily understand the actions of another (without askin' them) and be able to explain the standards to anyone who asks. In my experience it takes precious little effort to build consensus for somethin' as simple as forum moderation in this type of forum. I can't help but thinkin' that not doin' so is just lazy. B

But the DRP specifies that belief in a deity is required, while a "duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe" does not require a deity. So do you agree with the DRP that this duty must come from a deity? I think the meanin' of the DRP is best interpreted by the BSA, eh? The words we use are "duty to God," but we freely welcome Hindus (gods) and members of Buddhist sects that are ambivalent about deity. In any case, a Scout is Reverent.