Beavah

Yah, Rooster, Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction, not a documentary. Yeh might as well cite Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to justify believin' adults secretly turn into hairy monsters at night. As for Christianity, yes, man is fallen and needs God's grace. Doesn't change the conclusion. Our nature, from our very creation, is to be children of God, made in his image and likeness, established in friendship with the Creator and harmony with creation. Even before the fall, man needed to learn God's will and needed God's grace. It was by rejecting those things that we fell. So 'tis only natural , we need to accept God's grace to rise again. A teenager who becomes mouthy and rebellious hurts himself and his relationship with his parents, eh? That makes the parent work harder, give more, sacrifice more out of love. But it doesn't make the kid inherently bad. And we are all da children of God. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hannity.com?? Yah, I don't think "don't complain because it's worse somewhere else" is ever a convincing argument. I doubt any of us would say "don't respond to kids on outings who are swearing, some kids in other youth groups start knife fights." I think feedback and respondin' to perceived bad acts is a good thing, and how good citizens preserve any community they care about. I agree with pack, too. If the moderators don't consult with each other, develop a consensus, and/or respect each other's decisions, there is no diversity and balance of opinion. The thing is controlled solely by da one moderator who is the quickest on the trigger. B

the 'evidence' to reject the hypothesis that his view, his interpretation, is of equal merit to yours just doesn't exist, except in the form of personal opinions, again based on personal interpretations. Nonsense. Or at least no less than any other discipline. There's all da rest of da bible, eh? All the evidence yeh could wish for. Add to that contemporaneous documents and archaeological evidence and the long history of learnin' and writin' and commentary. Definitive experiment might be out, but little in real life can be decided by definitive experiment. Nuthin' outside a subset of da "hard" sciences. Even in da hard sciences, experiments tend to be messy, debated, and too expensive to be repeated very much. A lot taken on faith in each other and previously accepted principles. Mostly, though, all disciplines decide things by the debate of ideas and personal opinions and personal interpretations, eh? Has nuthin' to do with God. Just the way we humans do things. B

Yah, packsaddle. Sad story, eh? There is no end to the way some folks can delude themselves for personal ends. Religion is not the same thing as God, eh? It's man's effort at tryin' to understand God. There can be a lot of "fallible" man in it alongside the stuff which comes from God. My Master spent a good part of his life correctin' and chastisin' the religious men of his day, eh? Some of 'em killed him for it. But if you're fair, you'll admit that kind of self-interested man-made error creeps into every discipline. Look at da "Afrocentric" histories that make up imaginary Ethiopian prehistory from nearly whole cloth. Look at pseudoscience like Intelligent Design and da credentialed scientists that support it. Pointing to individuals or groups that ignore the proper tenets of their own discipline because of personal bias is a commentary on those folks' hypocrisy, sure. But it's not a comment on da value of the discipline as a whole, nor of the folks who practice the discipline more honestly. And if yeh think it is valid to critique all of Christianity based on da actions of a few but not any other discipline, then that's your bias, eh? Beavah

Why watch a movie when you can read the book? Yah, I reckon movies made from books are inherently evil. Rooster, mate, I think yeh got it wrong. Man is made in da image and likeness of God. That God himself became man, was friends with men and women, sent his Spirit out to abide in us. Yah, we're tempted. Yah, we're fallen from what we should be. Yet we strive to rise again. Man is inherently good. Beavah

So the best answer is to ignore moral issues (e.g. slavery, homosexuality) where many religions have radically changed through time, and just assert that they haven't changed? Yah, oops, I'll jump in on this one briefly, eh? On da issue of slavery, yeh remind me of folks who quote Boy Scout documents without understandin' 'em in a bigger picture, Merlyn. Yeh get the words right but the meanin' wrong. Da "slavery" of the Mideast of biblical times you refer to was more of a nature of indentured service or household help. More akin to what for us would be hirin' a live-in immigrant housekeeper. There's good ways and bad ways of doin' that, eh? So where it talks about that kind of slavery, the bible talks about da responsibilities of the master. "Slavery" is probably a poor translation, because there was no concept of chattel "ownership" of another human bein' the way there was in later times. Da relationship was master and servant, but not "owner." We just don't have a good English word for the practice which fits da translation. True slavery (in this case, internment camps of forced labor, still not "ownership") is addressed very early on in da bible, eh? God sends a prophet, and then a whole series of plagues, and pillars of fire and the wholesale slaughter of an army and the firstborn of the offending land to bring it to a forcible end. I reckon it's awfully hard to make a claim that that God or any religion which flowed from Him has ever been in any way in favor of what in modern times we call "slavery." Beavah

Yah, I agree with da DRP, eh? I don't think the best kind of citizenship is possible in the absence of a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe. I think the Scout Law would be incomplete and insufficient without the 12th point, too. Merlyn's a good example of why, eh? Besides nitpickin' isolated lines of another's post, when confronted with an area of ethical challenge or decisionmakin', he always falls back on legalism. What is legal or "constitutional" in our nation? Problem is, chattel slavery was both legal and constitutional, eh? Relyin' on self, or on duty to nation, just ain't enough in my mind to build either character or community. Somethin' else has to be there that says "It might be constitutional, but it's still wrong". When faced with a challenge or even a threat to the nation where laws can be changed or "reinterpreted", it has to be possible to say "that doesn't matter. Torture is still wrong. Eavesdropping on innocent fellow citizens is still wrong. Makin' a profit without providin' a service is wrong." It's a fine thing for us to teach lads to be courteous, and kind, and thrifty and all that, eh? Yah, those habits will serve 'em well. But at some point in their lives, the habits of bein' kind aren't goin' to be enough. Bein' kind to someone might conflict with being thrifty. Bein' kind might also become destructive, when a person is more in need of "tough love." Whether it's in makin' big decisions or small ones, our young men are gonna reach the point where they face challenges in how to apply da other 11 points. They'll be tempted to choose based on their own interest. "What do I want?" They'll be tempted to choose what's in the best interest of their own family/tribe/nation. "What do my fellow atheists want? My fellow Democrats?" But that's not enough, eh? When they're out there, they need to be guided by somethin' bigger. Somethin' that gives 'em the willpower to sacrifice their own interest. Somethin' that gives 'em the courage to challenge even their own friends/family/nation. God. Da quest for Enlightenment. The goddess. Something. It was the religious folk who ran the underground railroads and fought the long fight against slavery, because their first duty was to a Higher Power. And it's telling that those revered in most religious traditions as saints and holy folk were ones who challenged people, challenged nations, yah, and challenged religions/religious folk on behalf of that Higher Power. Service beyond da self-interest of them and their group. Dat's the best kind of citizenship, I reckon. And it ain't possible, or at least it's much less likely, without Reverence. Beavah

Some things I've seen that have helped build relationships: * unit presents an annual report to CO board (which includes an intro remindin' 'em of ownership, etc.) * unit reaches out to provide support/unskilled labor/service for CO events or members. * CC or SM attend youth ministry team meetings. * CO pays recharter fees or some fraction. (I'm a big believer in this, eh? It's all make-believe unless you've got some financial skin in the game). * CO finances camperships * Unit puts "blurbs" or news items in CO newsletter/bulletin on a monthly basis. * Unit puts CO announcements / relevant events in unit newsletter/website/email list. * Unit holds "thank you"/get to know you luncheon for CO staff once a year. * Unit actively recruits from CO. * Unit plans and runs joint activity with other CO youth ministry activities (or other ministry activities, period). * Unit invites IH to fair-weather, local campouts. * Unit invites IH and other CO officials to all courts of honor and uses/recognizes them in some official way. * CO invites unit leaders to annual volunteer thank-you suppers. etc.

Yah, I'll only comment briefly on the age thing, which has been beat to death in other threads. I think games are only fun when they're fair, and that means that 16 year olds competing against 12 year olds doesn't cut it most of the time. Troops with same-age patrols tend not to use patrol competition very much, IMO. The other bonus is that adults, both parents and leaders, are far more likely to trust the older boys in a mixed-age patrol than they are a bunch of 12 year olds on their own. Trustin' a confident high school lad with leadin' a patrol hike seems "reasonable" - after all, a parent would trust him as a baby-sitter, right? And, to be honest, the older lads have the skill and maturity to really lead independently. So there's tradeoffs in da age thing, and yeh have to play around and decide what works for your group. I see the distance thing only as a simple (but effective) technique for breaking bad habits, like Lisabob's meddling adults. If each patrol is a good hike away, adults have to think about really preparin' the lads, and there's no convenient way to meddle a little here, a little there. Better, though, if the patrols are running an independent campout and the adults go home for the night, or the adults hike a different route, etc. I think the other thing with adults is that what scoutin' is proposing is very counter-cultural in these days of hovering parents. It needs quite a bit of up-front explainin' to parents. It also needs a lot more mentoring and reinforcing for adult leaders (who turn over frequently). There are times as a commish I have to duct tape adult leaders to a tree they get so nervous about havin' the lads on their own for more than 5 minutes. I reckon there's room for a lot more trainin' and coaching and techniques for practicing here, given how much we're asking adult leaders to "buck the culture". Puttin' it in requirements might help, too (participate in 10 separate activities, at least 3 of which must be independent, adult-free patrol outings...) Troop Leader Training should be focused around more intensive adult-free skill/leadership development. The role of a SM is to prepare his youth leaders for independent leadership. To do that, yeh have to start with makin' 'em personally independent. The historic notion of a First Class Scout was a lad who was a personally independent camper. In my experience, that's gotten watered down in a lot of units, so TLT has to take up da slack before it moves on to leadership. It's also an easier thing to get an adult to start by trusting his youth leaders/PLC with independent camping, and then slowly work up to "regular" patrols. Beavah

Yah, I'll spin this a different way, eh? Are your fundraisers fun? Are the youth leaders and youth responsible for choosing 'em? For planning 'em? For executing 'em? Are your patrols strong, and do they stay patrols even for fundraisers? I agree with everybody that there's a limit on what you or your CC can do here to influence parents, eh? But there's a lot your youth leaders can do to influence the boys directly. Peer pressure can be a wonderful thing. But only if the fundraiser is really the boys', so they feel right about leanin' on a lad who isn't pulling his weight in the patrol. Beavah

Yah, this thread went in a different direction, so I'm just goin' to briefly comment on OGE's original question. No change. CO's are responsible for adult leader selection as it is right now, and are (solely) responsible for the deeds/misdeeds of their leaders right now. BSA only acts as insurer of COs, it does not select or supervise unit leaders and therefore has no duty of care. If BSA is named in a suit solely involving unit activities/unit leaders, they are routinely dismissed as a defendant during pretrial motions. Besides, even in da most conservative and uneducated parts of da country, it's hard to imagine prior sexual preference (hetero or homo as opposed to pedo) ever bein' allowed as a component of a negligence claim. So a move to "local option" has zero legal effect. The liability is always on da CO, regardless. The practical issue is that we run a lot of joint events, eh? Camporees, jamborees, summer camp, OA, MBC's that work across different units, etc. That means that even if a CO sets its own standard consistent with its values, looser standards by other CO's inevitably mean that their kids will be "exposed" to leaders with different values. I reckon that's da sticking point for a big portion of our membership, especially for cub scout and younger boy scout aged youth. There's a real and understandable interest by parents and values-minded CO's not to be exposin' their lads to "alternative lifestyles" at least until they're old enough to be prepared for such things. Beavah

Therefore, government institutions like the US Army, Public School systems, Department of Education, etc. should not charter BSA units.... It really doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with the above, it is fact. Nah, not at all! I'm not sure "fact" can ever be applied to the legal system in any case, bein' an ongoin' human construction as it is. But this statement is definitely one of opinion, not fact. Da reality is that we as a people, and our "legal system", are strugglin' with the role of government and religion, eh? We do fund religious entities all the time when it serves a public purpose. School vouchers for parochial schools are running, legally, in several major cities. Public monies fund scholarship at all kinds of private and religious universities, and fund research and "overhead" at those same institutions. Many if not most charity hospitals are religious and are heavily funded by public dollars. Both major presidential candidates intend to expand government-religious partnerships, especially in urban areas. Da issue of whether we the people, as government, should fund these things is a public policy question, eh? And public policy is decided by voters and elected representatives. It is perfectly alright for da State of Ohio to launch a parochial school voucher program even if some people are of the opinion it's unconstitutional. They did, and da courts ruled it's just fine. If anything, the trend in legal thought is that funding of religious entities passes constitutional muster when it serves a legitimate secular purpose. "Some entanglement" does not necessarily rise to the level of "excessive entanglement" used as a First Amendment test. It also depends a lot whether yeh think of things being a "grant" or more like "bidding a contract." If a religious organization or entity is best positioned to serve the needs of a large group of people, why not let 'em have the contract? Merlyn, I did enjoy da whole "Boovah" bit, eh? What are you, like 10 years old? Yah, yah, it's fun and it gives us all a rush to put on a mantle of self-righteousness, shout louder, and call da other side names. But hasn't that 1960s style of public discourse gone out with George and Hillary? I reckon we're all lookin' for some more maturity and mutual respect in our political discourse these days, eh? Beavah

This thread is spun from da parent thread to provide a fun place for Kudu, BobWhite, and anyone else interested in explainin' to others (patiently!) how to develop the patrol method in their troops to the point where they are regularly hiking and camping as independent, essentially adult-free, small groups. I ask as a favor and a courtesy that this thread be kept to instructional stuff, ideas, and Q&A. I ask particularly that it not be used to critique either BSA training/materials or unit leaders perceived as "weak" or such. Different ideas that help folks move toward better use of Patrol Method should be welcome without (too much) debate. Beavah

His attitude exceeeds his aptitude. Yah, that may be true, eh? About all of us I reckon . But honestly, you two really do agree on the program, just not the relative value of current BSA trainin'. You blame the people, he blames the trainin', but yeh both agree that the outcomes aren't often what we like to see. I reckon both trainin' and people are to blame (i.e. you're both right), but I think yeh need to think different about trainin' and materials. There's a difference between learning and training. It takes a lot more time, effort, experience, and repetition to actually learn somethin' than can be provided in a training session or a book. Yah, sure, yeh introduced the concept to some of this audience six years ago. But it needs repetition, mate! Especially since this ain't da same audience anymore. Lots of new folks! So I'm invitin' you and Kudu to collaborate on somethin' we all care about - real Patrol Method, real independent patrol camping. Rather than blamin' anything or anybody... teach! Take positive action rather than negative! Give examples from da good troops you mention. Repeat things in different ways as often as necessary to help other Scouter.Com readers truly understand. I challenge yeh both! Help other people at all times! Beavah

Yah, this topic just never seems to get tired, eh? And Merlyn remains our one-song wonder. Just to correct a few points here and there... Public schools discriminate all da time. They discriminate on ability. They discriminate by handicap and race, providin' lots more resources to some than others. They discriminate in a "separate but equal" way by gender when it comes to sports. A public body like a school board has discretion, eh? It is free to do what it feels best for its kids and program, includin' chartering a BSA unit. Until there is a controllin' case on point, there is nothin' demonstrably "illegal" about it... and even then, the school board can still charter a BSA unit to contest the point of law if it so chooses. In every case, this is the public body's choice, voiced by elected representatives. BSA has nuthin' to do with it. So it's just silly to blame da BSA. If yeh don't like the choice of a school board, elect a new one. Mirlyn, yeh use math (2+2=4) as an example, but you and I both know that you're playin' fast and loose there, eh? Move the topic to history/social studies, or literature, or even art/music and then yeh can't avoid the fact that excludin' a religious viewpoint fundamentally changes the nature of the topic. Heck, some churches even have doctrinal statements about economics! So truth is, eliminatin' a religious perspective on those aspects of knowledge and culture is real discrimination. It's givin' kids a worldview devoid of God. I think it even hurts atheist kids' education, because it doesn't give 'em a full understanding of the viewpoints out there! Put in reverse (do unto others...). How would yeh feel if your kids were only taught a religious perspective? Well, that's how believin' parents feel when their kids are only taught an irreligious perspective. Again, I think it's fine to have a "wall of separation" - provided da resources controlled by the government don't effectively make that a means for discrimination. About 3% of the population are atheist, eh? So when da government only controls 3% of GDP instead of 40+%, I'll stand right by yeh and demand a wall of separation. Until then, I think you're askin' me to provide a welfare subsidy to your irreligious position, eh? Beavah

Yah, this thread is a funny one, eh? Kudu, I don't think yeh realize it, but BobWhite is one of your allies. He's one of da few and the proud who really believe in independent patrol campin'. But your style of argument tends to drive away even your natural allies sometimes (though it us fun to read with a beer and popcorn). BW, yeh have to admit Kudu has a point, eh? How many troops out there are really doin' independent patrol camping anymore? And yet that really is patrol method, isn't it? If a patrol isn't doing any independent patrol campin', yeh have to admit that they're not really followin' the program. (He's also right about National Forests, BLM lands, and most state forests, eh? I reckon only in da parks would yeh find an age restriction, and only if there were a problem). So the question is why they aren't followin' the program and doin' independent patrol campin'. Some of it is fear and overprotective parent syndrome, fer sure. In a few places the legal trend of overregulatin' young folks might make it inadvisable. But what of the rest? Yeh have to admit, TLT and NYLT really don't teach a lad how to lead an independent patrol outing, and one mention on page 28 really isn't the same as the extensive discussion in the old Patrol Leader's Handbook (and SM handbook for that matter). We old timers recognize that the essence of patrol method is independent patrol campin', but where are the young adult leaders learnin' that? I think Kudu gets way too caught up on the whole 300 feet bit, too. But I think his point is this: the test of whether you're really doin' the Scouting Program correctly is whether your patrols can and do camp independently, far enough away from adults and each other so that there's no "cheating". I'm with you, the distance doesn't really matter, it's the independence that counts. But yeh have to admit, it's a good "test" he proposes, and even a reasonable ethic. If patrol method is really important to us, perhaps we should be reservin' 5 well-scattered sites rather than one big one, eh? It'd be fun for both of you to team up on a different thread and challenge all da SM's here on Scouter.Com to run real, independent-camping patrols and talk about the benefits of usin' the Scouting Program properly that way. Beavah

Rooster, I think you're strainin' at gnats, eh? Why worry about tour guides when the government licenses public school teachers and dictates curricula very much along da lines of the examples you give? B

Yah, gotta agree with GW here. I just don't get adults who treat kids' programs as some sort of exercise in da scams of contract law. Makes me wonder if their kids get what they want most of the time by filin' a bogus complaint and then holding out in "settlement negotiations" until the parent gives in. Scouting, like parenting, ain't about signatures. It's about character and doin' what's right. For the boy's sake as much as anything it's necessary to "get to the bottom of it" and bring a resolution. Otherwise either his troop mates will spend years thinkin' he's a liar and a cheat (all the way to Eagle...), or his troop mates will learn from him that it's best to lie and cheat. Neither is a good outcome. Neil, I think you're right, it's a darn easy requirement. But us old folks sometimes forget it's a scary requirement. Unlike swimmin' a certain distance, it's somethin' they haven't done before. Of course at this point the requirement isn't the issue, it's the honesty. I will say I like Lisabob's idea . B

"Nowhere does the BSA say it will remove from membership a scout who says he does not believe in God. " Now Merlyn, I know this is your favorite horse to beat, eh? But yeh have to understand the way things work, not just what's written. BobWhite and others aren't lyin' to yeh. We are all closer to the BSA than you are, and we're bein' honest. Perhaps this will help. There are a lot of laws on the books, eh? But in our system of jurisprudence, there is not an obligation to enforce every one. Law enforcement officers have discretion in what they choose to file. District Attorneys have discretion in what they choose to prosecute. And, ultimately, chief executives have discretion in what they choose to pardon. Yah, we have a policy on the books that says that atheists may not be members. That in no way determines when those with responsibility choose, at their discretion, to act in support of that policy. By and large, in my experience, the BSA has been wise and prudent in how it handles youth members strugglin' with issues of belief. Internally, there has always been a distinction made between youth and adults especially. There is no obligation on anyone's part to toss a 9-year-old like acco's son who declares himself an "atheist" after a personal tragedy, or expel a teen who is figurin' out his own beliefs by tryin' on different views for size. At most, there's a bit of a push for clarity before we award our highest rank or a lad becomes an adult. But if it's someone who is tryin' to "make a statement" or hijack the organization, then naturally and properly we say "no" to that, eh? And sadly, that seems to be the approach of some avowed atheists. I've always wondered what Scoutin' for All would do if a whole mess of us conservative types applied for membership but refused to agree to SfA's mission statement. Yeh know, teachin' kids that only Believers could be the best kind of citizens, insist on prayer services on each campout, eat babies and all that other wicked stuff we do. Would yeh let us hijack your agenda? It'd make great news headlines too, eh? "Scouting for All isn't really for All!" At least FOX would pick it up . And, like you, we could use those cases for lobbyin' and fundraisin'. Beavah

While I like your idea for trying to move the committee meeting I don't like, nor do we have, standing times for BORs. They are all Scout initiated and then the Advancement Chair sets them up. Yah, acco, I agree with yeh. I much prefer units to set up BORs when lads need 'em rather than doin' the once-a-month thing. Just my service-minded prejudice I guess. I think it's OK for units to do the once-a-month thing, though. Some boys get spoiled by havin' adults at their beck-and-call like hovering parents. It can be good for 'em to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them, and that they need to plan their work to fit in with other people's schedules, eh? If you're havin' trouble with committee members bein' willing to give time, that can be one way to try to balance it is all. Back to yard chores! B

Yah, I have to concur completely with BobWhite and FScouter here, eh? Holdin' Committee meetings simultaneously with troop meetings is an awful idea. Seems to come out of cub programs where the parents have to be there for the meetin'. IMO it shows a lot of disrespect for the unit leader and the program. Worse, it really compromises the communication between the key supporters of the program - the youth leaders, the unit leader, and the committee. If for some reason yeh can't get a committee to meet any other night, I'd say cancel a troop meetin' one night every other month and put the committee meetin' on the "off" night. On the alternate months the committee can show up at the regular meetin' to hold Boards of Review, and a small amount of critical business could be conducted right after. So yeh have regular committee meetings on the last Monday of odd numbered months and BOR's with a bit of committee business on the last Monday of even numbered months. Alternately, try meetin' somewhere with food . Sometimes if yeh make a committee meetin' a bit more social it helps. Beavah

We can save lives and property 100 years from now or 500 years from now by what we choose to do today. Don't build or re-build in the flood plain. Yah, gotta agree with F and OGE here, eh? As a taxpayer who doesn't live in a flood plain, it sure gets my goat when my dollars are used repeatedly to encourage morons to rebuild on a flood plain or hurricane coast. Rule should be yeh get federal funds to help only if you rebuild somewhere safer. If it weren't for the loss of human life, a part of me was wishin' that New Orleans got hit again the followin' year. Just to get people to move out of houses and businesses that sit below sea level on a hurricane coast. B

Yah, that Beavah, he sure types slow! Especially when Mrs. Beavah keeps interruptin' him with some new chore as needs to be done that minute! B

Golly day! Is this thread still goin' on??! It's entirely true that a lad does a service project to benefit a local community agency, not a project for his troop, the OA, his council, another council, a scout camp in Iowa that got hit by a tornado, or any other group within the "sphere" of Scouting. It's a project where we want the lad to reach out to meet needs he finds within his community at large. It's almost entirely false that he can't/shouldn't wear his uniform in performing the project, and entirely false that BSA general liability coverage does not apply. In fact we routinely issue insurance certificates and list benefitting organizations as additional insured on BSA policies in support of lads who are doing their Eagle projects. Many organizations now require proof of insurance before they'll allow the work to proceed. Some councils require Local Tour Permits to be filed for Eagle project work, which should put to rest da uniform question and other questions about whether it's a scout activity. Now, might some local district folks encourage people to think about it in the way BobWhite suggests? Sure. The lad is doing a project to benefit a local agency, and it's appropriate for folks to think about it as being his independent project. Just the same way we want patrols and patrol leaders to be independent, eh? It's a good thing to emphasize so that we adults don't get in the way too much. But just like we review and approve the boys' independently developed calendar of activities, we review and approve a lad's Eagle project proposal. Whether it's the troop annual calendar or the Eagle Project, that review and approval makes it a Scoutin' activity. Otherwise I reckon a lad's project could use ATV's to take boys out with chainsaws to clear a new trail, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, as always, it's best to be a bit nuanced in our advice, eh? Rmeissler, BobWhite is correct that the guidelines on individual activities are often contained in the G2SS, and that the "unauthorized activity list" is a good thing to check. On da other hand, whether or not you should file a local tour permit for a trip to putt-putt golf depends on your local council. It may not be a requirement (despite what other documents imply). And da local tour permit does not require that you bring a copy of G2SS along on a trip. That would just be silly. At the moment, the game of "laser tag" remains an unauthorized activity (even though it doesn't use lasers) because National has created a new undocumented prohibition against "wargames". As far as I know, the status of laser tag remains under review, with a recommendation from the Health & Safety Advisory Committee to remove the prohibition. In any event, nobody is gonna throw a lad out of the Boy Scouts if he plays a game with a laser toy during your trip to putt-putt. That's just foolishness. At most your unit commish would have a word with da SM on the side and remind him of the rule. Unauthorized activities mean just that, eh - unauthorized for use in a unit scoutin' program. They aren't prohibitions on the activity for either the scout or the Chartered Organization. You do raise an interestin' issue. When a troop runs an activity like a trip to an amusement park, a service project with free time at da county fair and whatnot, it's become very likely that paintball and lasertag and such are going to be readily available activities. Shy of placing a guard at those activities, what's a troop to do? The troop didn't organize a laser tag trip, they organized a service project to the county fair. I reckon da rest of the world has moved on past us and decided that those things are fine for kids, eh? Beavah