Beavah

Beav, that is the most ridiculous analysis I have read on this forum in a long time. Yah, well. I reckon I don't have any control over what people choose to ridicule, eh? And Beavahs are slightly ridiculous lookin' critters. For my part though, I was bein' honest in my reportin' and my observations. Not sure where depression comes in. All three lads were successful in completin' the badge and did just fine. They were good kids. My observation was just that the boys who relied on adult-provided and adult-driven systems were less likely to be able to manage things on their own, or adapt. I'm not sure why that's surprising, eh? That's a general principle of Scouting. This might be one of those things like different patrol structures. Until we try different approaches and see the outcomes from different approaches, it's hard to imagine anything different than what we've been doin'. Beavah

Yah, I'm all for the iPhone, though I haven't seen that in operation yet. But I don't think it would be da one for one replacement yeh envision. Point of technology is it enables yeh to work better. So I reckon da iPhone would just be an access point, with da actual records out in the cloud somewhere. I'm thinkin' that perhaps an example is worth a few more words. I counsel Citizenship in the World. Great fun. Usually see lads shortly before their Eagle BOR. Had three this past month. Scout 1 came from a troop I imagine to be like Eagledad's. The lad arrived with a blue card and a slightly out of date MB book. Scout 2 came with a MB.com worksheet. Scout 3 came with a notebook, a copy of the requirements, and a bunch of reference materials he had collected off the internet and from other sources. Of the three, Scout 1 was the least fun to work with. He had learned that yeh get by through careful compliance with an adult-run system. In workin' with boys, I like to take some examples from current events and specific nations, and work our way through 'em. Once perhaps with me leadin', then at least a second time with them leadin'. All of the requirements get covered along da way, but not necessarily in order. Lots of time a session can end with part of a requirement complete but another part not yet fully addressed. For Scout 1 that was hard, eh? He needed to get each requirement initialed. He had learned exactly how to process da paperwork, and could successfully navigate that challenge, eh? But he was less comfortable with the more ambiguous task of workin' through conversations about the badge and tyin' those to requirements himself. There was no spot on da form. It really threw him when da current requirements were a bit different than those in his book and numbered on his card. By contrast, Scout 3 was a lot of fun to work with, and engaged fully. He took notes for himself on where he was at in the process and what had been discussed and what he needed to follow-up on to understand or demonstrate his understandin'. He could truly manage his own learning, and clearly had a lot of experience doin' it. He was comfortable figurin' out what needed to be done and havin' his own system for keepin' track. Scout 2 was somewhere in between, takin' notes in da margins of his worksheet, but gettin' flustered by me talkin' about World Citizenship rather than talkin' about da worksheet. In the end, I signed a blue card for Scout 1 which he dutifully cut up and handed me my piece of (which I threw away, because I keep track in a spreadsheet). In the end, I signed the MB worksheet for Scout 2, because that's how his troop handles things. In the end, Scout 3 asked me to email their advancement chair with a cc: to him, and told me that's how he'd prefer to handle it and he could do the follow up. I offered to give him somethin' in writin' but he told me he preferred email since it was easier to keep track of. So in terms of actual outcomes, I prefer Scout 3. Scout 3 was able to manage his own learning, and advancement, and communication, without the crutch of an adult-mandated-and-supported blue-card paperwork system. That to me showed more growth and responsibility than Scout 1. As always, it just depends on your goals, eh? What do yeh want the lads to come away from Scoutin' being able to do? Beavah Edited to add, while leanin' back on da bar next to TCD... And I reckon if somehow Scout 3 didn't receive his badge in a week or two, he'd call up da email and go back to his SM and Advancement chair, no different than any blue card. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Eagledad, I think in your past practice yeh bound the paperwork/blue card task together very tightly in your mind with all of the other wonderful aspects of MB counseling, eh? That's quite natural, yeh took da tools we had back in previous decades and yeh worked hard to make 'em work, buildin' 'em into one system for your unit. That's a fine thing that most good Scoutmasters and adult leaders do. Personally, I myself like to hold back a bit, because I prefer slightly looser systems that the boys themselves build and re-build and tweak. I think real youth responsibility and leadership develop better when the boys get to build the system, not simply perform da tasks in the adult-built system. But some structure is a good thing, and I don't fault Scoutmasters who have enough vision and "ownership" to build systems like yours. I think, though, that it's a mistake to believe that anyone's SM-built system is the only one. What tends to happen in folks is that they see their approach as successful and are deeply invested in it as a whole. They can't understand how it could be different because "it works." In reality, though, there are some components of systems that are important, and others that aren't, eh? And some that even get in the way. Other good Scoutmasters can come up with different systems which work just as well or better. That's all I'm sayin'. I've seen lots of units use alternatives to da Blue Card Shuffle you describe. I'm seein' it even more often these days. In my humble opinion, they work better because the mentorin' relationships and approach that such systems support is more natural, and da nature of youth responsibility is more broad. You are correct of course - if those boys transfer in to your system, they'll be lost for a bit, and you'll likely decry their lack of knowledge of 1950s paperwork practice. Just as your lads would be lost if they transferred to another troop, wonderin' how people can possibly get anything done just by workin' with each other without paperwork. Lots of ways to skin a cat, eh? Sometimes it's just fun to push people a bit out of their old ways of thinkin'. I assure yeh that Scoutin' continues great guns long after units abandon blue cards. Da most natural thing for boys is if the MBC gives the lad the badge and award right there when he's earned it, eh? Instant recognition. Recognition comes as a result of da approval of your mentor, which is all the program really requires. Easy peasy. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... so let me keep tryin' to poke a stick at da hornet's nest. As NJCubScouter describes, lots of extra hurdles and stuff come to be because someone thought it was a good idea once, and then "tradition" expanded it and kept it in place well past its useful life. It seems like folks are mixin' up different things. Eagledad is describin' youth responsibility, but Bando is describin' how da paperwork system has adults who eliminate youth responsibility by havin' 3-year detailed backups. I agree with Eagledad about da value of boys pursuin' Merit Badges. Havin' to call and make arrangements to meet with a MB counselor is a fine thing, but it's got nothin' to do with blue cards. Arrangin' a buddy to join is an excellent lesson but also has nuthin' to do with a blue card. Yeh can keep all of da communication and confidence building that Eagledad describes, yeh can have all da real value of Merit Badges without triplicate forms. In fact, yeh can generally make it better. The reason for that is that da paperwork takes away from the quality of interaction. Have yeh ever watched most of those interactions carefully? Both the lad and the adult are focused on the card, and not on the task, and not on each other. The goal for the lad becomes to get da signature, not to fully engage, not to really learn. The time for the adult becomes to process the paperwork, not to mentor as much, not to explore. It makes da real value of the program weaker. Additionally, boys don't naturally keep up with administrivia and neatness, eh? That's a girl thing. So I've seen many a lad abandon or avoid da advancement process because they don't really care for the paperwork. Most of da justifications I hear for da blue card thing are like Bando's, eh? They are paperwork for paperwork's sake. If we don't have paperwork, well, then, paperwork could be lost and we wouldn't have da paperwork! Every one of those issues can just be worked through directly with a boy. In actuality, da more steps yeh have in da paperwork chain da greater likelihood it will get messed up. Right now we have a lot of steps in da chain, and therefore a lot of opportunities for missed communications and mess ups and boys just lettin' it drop because they're not interested. So yeh end up just workin' with a boy anyways. So the point is not to make da process easier on the adults. And the point is not to take away genuine growth opportunities for kids. The point is to move out of da 1950s and not give the lads an example of grossly unproductive systems that no modern business outside of da most inefficient government office would employ. Reduce the drag on da system to focus on the things that really profit kids. Lots of ways to do that, if yeh can get past "this is da way we've always done it." Beavah

Yah, well, Twocubdad. I reckon I like to clast some icons from time to time. NJCubScouter, there are all kinds of fine ways to handle youth recognitions, and they very well might vary between units of different sorts. I see that as a feature, not a bug. As to your council, I'm not sure why anybody would really want to add to the requirements and put a whole bunch of extra hurdles in a boy's way that really don't have much to do with scoutin' when yeh get right down to it. Unless they do it just to see TwoCubDad hurl! Beavah

Yah, I think what SeattlePioneer is sayin' is that there's no real moral courage in sendin' a letter or a cheap tin metal back. If they're really takin' a moral stand, then the stand is "I no longer wish to be considered an Eagle Scout." That is a request which can be honored, by deletin' their name from da Eagle rolls and dropping their membership in NESA. Whether yeh choose to honor such a request depends a fair bit on whether yeh consider them responsible adults or little kids. Responsible adults, yeh honor the request. Little kids or adults driven by da emotion of the moment, yeh just sit on it figurin' that they'll come around sooner or later. Beavah

Yah, I'd think in terms of just a couple guidelines for the boys to help ensure patrol viability or whatever else yeh care about. That helps 'em structure their discussion and not miss da things yeh think are important. Could be things like Every patrol has to have at least 4 boys on every campout (or average 6 boys per campout)... helps set 'em up to think about participation levels, not just size. Every patrol has to have a mix of experience. We can't leave young fellows on their own. (if yeh do mixed age patrols and patrol competitions). Every boy has to have at least two boys that they are friends with / look up to. Not very many, eh? Just a few to offer a foundation or some sign posts for 'em. Beavah

Yah, I'd echo Eagledad's comments as well, eh? At the same time, when we work with kids, each kid has where he's at, and where yeh want him to be someday, and where he can stretch to right now. Don't challenge him to stretch, and he'll stagnate. Make him stretch too far, and he'll break down. Da key is to set da challenge at the right level so that he stretches fully; maybe succeeds, maybe fails, but he can at least see da possibility of success. It's no different for troops. Yeh have where yeh are. Yeh have where you want to eventually be. And yeh have where yeh can stretch to right now without things breakin' down. Your task is to keep your eyes on where yeh eventually want to be, but then to choose steps along the way that are an appropriate stretch for the boys and adults in your unit. You're startin' out on a hike, not teleportin' to the destination. Changin' a troop takes years. Now, if yeh find that when yeh put your boots to the trail three former leaders start arguin' immediately about the route or not lettin' yeh use da compass, then I reckon yeh had 'em the map and go back home. That might end up bein' the case for you, unless or until yeh work things out with your team. However everybody's seen what happens with a Star Trek transporter scramblin' up your molecules for a destination that's out of sight. If yeh try to transport 'em all at once to your destination without hikin' the trail together, you'll get a lot of folks who refuse to get on that crazy contraption. Beavah

Yah, unless or until da servant leader ethic takes hold, I'm not a proponent of Jungle Rules. I think yeh get da PLC together and have them work things out. Yeh can ask boys for their preferences on paper to help guide things. This avoids accidentally steppin' into some of da issues and traps yeh mention, TwoCubDad. Down the road, after yeh have a patrol structure and ethic set up, then the kids will self-manage. At the beginnin', though, it's a shared endeavor, with guidance. B

You're just taking the Scouts out of the process. How can that possibly be a good thing? Nah, we're just taking all of the middlemen out of the process, so that there's as direct a connection between the boy's learning and his recognition as possible. That's not takin' the lad out of the process, it's takin' all the adult gobbledegook out of da process. In fact, I'm not sure why, on completion of a merit badge, the MBC should not issue the lad the badge on the spot. When yeh have met da expectations, yeh deserve the recognition. That's the best way to go in terms of personal growth and character development, because it makes da connections between those things and recognition clear and close. No need for a lick of paperwork or computer tracking program at all, eh? Or, if yeh like, da lad has a precious MB completion card that he can take care of and put in binders and pet at night for all those who care about Permanent Records. Still no need for Blue Cards. Easy peasy. I reckon we adults just make things way too complicated. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Easy, there, TwoCubDad. I'm not sure yeh really want to elevate paperwork to the same level as recognizin' kids for their achievements at a Court of Honor, or with badges on their uniform. It's possible and quite rational to dispense with one but keep da other. Paperwork is just paperwork. Recognition for workin' hard and accomplishin' things helps reinforce those behaviors we want boys to develop. Most businesses have long since dispensed with old paper time-punch cards. I don't reckon they've dispensed with pay. In da Advancement Method I know, the Scout Learns, the Scout is Tested, the Scout is Reviewed, the Scout is Recognized. I don't remember "The Scout scurries about keepin' track of pieces of paper in 3-ring-binders". It's not really a part of Advancement, or at least it needn't be. What's more, it has all kinds of other problems, like bein' harder on ADHD boys. Now, I'm not suggestin' it's wrong to write things down. I'm just suggestin' that all that needs to be written is the minimum necessary to keep track, and that keepin' track is probably best done in whatever way those keepin' track prefer. That's probably not usin' someone else's form. If all da long blue-card shenanigans yeh write about are really necessary in your unit, that's fine. I'm just suggestin' that perhaps for most other units it doesn't have to be so. There might be better things for kids and adults to do with their time. I've been part of units bigger than 61 youth without needin' any of that. A call or email to the Advancement Chair works just fine. Da old troop rank progression posters in the meetin' hall work as well, too. There are lots of other ways to handle things that are easier and perhaps teach better lessons is all I'm sayin'. Which is perhaps why none of this paperwork stuff has ever been required by the BSA. I think you're mostly foolin' yourself into thinkin' that the two boys you mention are learnin' real responsibility and life lessons. Maybe they are, maybe they're not, but I think most often it's an excuse we tell ourselves when we recognize that if we were the boys, we'd be callin' da whole experience a royal P-I-T-A. A patrol is only 6-8 boys, and da Patrol Leader or Troop Guide signed off for most of First Class, right? And like a good Patrol Leader he's keepin' track and encouragin' his members to advance, right? In fact he probably did da last signoff before sendin' the lad off for his SM conference. So it sure seems to me that lad with the missing pages can just bring his PL over to say "Yep, he's ready for his BOR". Seems like a youth leader who knows and encourages his men is learnin' more responsibility than a kid tryin' to keep track of cards. Just thoughts for the campfire is all. We adults tend to multiply procedures over time, eh? Sometimes they just need to be pruned. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

You seem to think that the girls will not, should not, be affected by that. That they will simply shrug and move on to a different "extracurricular activity". Nah, I think it will be mildly disruptive for 'em. Some will continue with a troop that meets somewhere else, some won't. Some of those who continue will fade. My point is a different one, eh? It's an institutional point of view. Despite da current girls feeling disrupted (and the extent of that feelin' I expect will depend more on da attitude of their parents), it will all blow over in relatively short order. Without access and visibility, after a few years there won't be much GSUSA involvement from da parish and parish school. A few scoutin' families will continue with non-parish-associated troops, da rest of the girls will do other things. Unless, of course, the parish offers an alternative program itself or in partnership with another organization. In which case in less than 5 years that will be da girls' program that almost all scouting-interested girls participate in. Yah, yah, in an *unusually* strong GSUSA program with *unusually* vociferous parents, it might continue for a bit longer, until those parents' kids age out (or da parents pull 'em from the school). That'd be rare. I feel for da congregation, though. They've been cut off from easy access to their cookie suppliers! Beavah

it will make those girls feel like they have been betrayed by their church, and their school. My suggestion to those girls would be to remember that those Troops are YOURS. Not your parent's, not the pastor's, but YOURS. Stand up for yourselves.

In addition, I'm skeptical an BSA IT solution can be implimented well. Well, there is that I'm findin' it a bit remarkable how much adults in da program cling to the paperwork. I doubt you'd find a single youth member who supports it. I've certainly never had an Eagle candidate at his Eagle BOR come forward and say "I really learned about responsibility from having to keep track of 150 blue card segments and 500 lines of signatures and initials." Boys learn real responsibility in da program through campin' and cookin' and hikin' and planning and leading and workin' together, not by keepin' track of paperwork. Real responsibility, eh? Not bureaucratic busywork. The point of Advancement Method is to provide recognition for real learnin' and effort, not for paperwork tracking. Advancement Method works just fine without a single signature bein' accumulated anywhere. The Gold Standard for documentation is not a scrawled, rain-soaked, illegible signature on a chewed up piece of blue cardstock or da tattered pages fallin' out of a poorly-bound handbook. The Gold Standard is what the scout is able to do. If he's able to do what his uniform says he is able to do, then I reckon he has learned real character and responsibility. Everything else is just silly adult malarkey gettin' in da way of da kids' program. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm... He among you who would lead must be the servant of all, eh? I wonder what your adults would say to a patrol leader who just sat and watched and perhaps occasionally gave orders or instructions to his patrol mates. Sometimes, perhaps, it might be appropriate. When folks are learnin' and practicing how to do it, havin' to do it on their own or with some verbal coaching can be important. But in that case, da Patrol Leader is still engaged with the task, eh? Most of the time, I reckon you'd expect da patrol leader to lead by example. Either pitchin' in or doin' somethin' else of benefit to the group. No different for adults, eh? Leastways, not if yeh respect your youth leaders and they respect you. Beavah

Yah, welcome back ScoutingRediscovered. If yeh search through old threads, you'll find long treatises on same-aged vs. mixed age patrols. Da BSA used mixed-age patrols for most of its history, and many of da most successful troops out there still do. So don't trust everything yeh read. Same age patrols are a bit more like school or like cub scouts, so they are familiar to kids and parents. Mixed age patrols put da older, more experienced boys in leadership roles and some of da middle kids in guiding roles and give da newest kids the sort of independent adventures that can only come when yeh have some more experienced support. There are successful troops that run under either system, of course, and that use an in-between system where they use a New Scout Patrol for a bit and then those boys join mixed-age "permanent" patrols. I think da amount of structure or guidance da adults provide in patrol formation depends a lot on where the boys are at, eh? The less experience with service leadership they have, and the less experience with patrol method they have, the more yeh need to work with the senior youth leaders to build some structure for the group. Unlike jblake and some others, I think patrols should be pretty "permanent", and should not be reforming, switching, shifting or any of that stuff except in very unusual circumstances. The boys learn the most when they have to work through their difficulties with each other and learn how to work with each other, eh? They won't get that if they get to shift whenever they want or cherry-pick in different ways. So I generally see shifting patrols as a sign of troop weakness. For a patrol to be a real home, a real "gang", yeh join it for the duration, eh? Once a Killer Beaver, always a Killer Beaver! Beavah

Yah, bigbovine, yeh have hit on another truism of Scoutin'. Left to their own devices, the lads are more comfortable and confident in the woods than the adults, and will choose to go with lighter-weight gear. If yeh let youth leadership run it's course on this stuff, they'll all sleep or cook in lightweight backpackable flies that they can stuff in a day pack, take anywhere, and you'll never have to tow a trailer again. Kudu I think has somethin' on his site about lightweight campin' for patrols which does a comparison between what you do and what a lightweight group looks like. If your adults can't wrap their brains around that, then at least consider losin' the MegaTarp. Buy some smaller tarps and separate cook stuff for each patrol, and get da adults out of their way. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... I reckon it's hard to comment any further on this thread without treadin' a bit too far for me. But let's play a game of hypotheticals. One might guess da closest IRS advisory letter to the point is this one: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/02-0041.pdf I'm not really sure that such an advisory is necessary, since da issue seems fairly clear, but da advisory a nice point of reference. It is of course correct that da determination of fraud or tax evasion or any other violation of law or regulation requires a finding of fact, and that will necessarily depend on da particulars of the circumstances. That is what da advisory letter states, but it does it in a careful way which is tryin' to say that the default is that this is use of scout accounts is not allowable, but that, perhaps, maybe, it may be possible to construct circumstances in which this would be OK, hypothetically. What kinds of constructed circumstances could potentially past muster, hypothetically speakin'? Well, one would perhaps look somethin' like my ScoutTokens notion. In that case, da emphasis is on da educational and character-development purpose which is central to da NFP mission, the individual benefit is only incidental, and da connection to actual dollar funds is at least one step removed. In what kinds of circumstances would the violation be clear, and scout accounts definitely not pass muster, hypothetically speakin'? Well, one would perhaps consider a case like what fauxc described initially, where there is a sense that those who work fundraisers "don't get rewarded like they should" and the intent is to reward fundraiser participants rather than use da funds to further the NFP mission. A savvy observer might guess that such an admission would be strong evidence of intent to violate da law and regulations in settin' up scout accounts. All this of course only addresses da tax issue. Beyond that, there are still issues of fundraisin' fraud that would need to be addressed at the state level, among other things. Given how hard this stuff is to navigate across jurisdictions, and how complex and mired in trade language da tax code in particular can be, in my humble opinion it's not somethin' that amateurs doin' internet searches should attempt. If yeh really absolutely positively feel that your unit must create and operate scout accounts in da way that fauxc suggests, then yeh absolutely should have a sit-down with your chartered organization and its legal counsel to discuss the matter and get help navigatin' rough waters. Now, nuthin' that yeh hear from an anonymous furry internet critter like a Beavah should ever be taken as legal advice or opinion, or anything other than stray electrons bombardin' your eyeballs. If yeh want real advice on matters like these, find a real tax attorney or other qualified counsel in your own neighborhood pond. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, bnelon44 and CalicoPenn raise good questions about ebooks, eh? I confess I haven't jumped on that bandwagon yet, and I haven't seen too many scouts yet with ebook readers. Where I have seen 'em, it's more of a high school and college thing; mostly iPads. Are folks findin' that more kids are usin' the ebook Handbook? And does da thing work on the smartphones that it seems more kids have and use on a daily basis? B

Yah, here I am a northerner actually agreein' with JoeBob. I actually really enjoy Chik-fil-A. Much more to my taste than Kentucky Fried Bird Parts. But then LisaBob lives over there in that funny state where they must cook things in motor oil sometimes. B

Yah, read and re-read Eagledad's post, eh? Patrol spirit comes from facin' challenges together and bonding as a group. A strong patrol spirit troop never, ever re-arranges or re-combines patrols. That's a problem I have with NSP's and age-based patrols, because they set up a need to recombine. Now, chaoman45, yeh haven't really shared numbers of boys and numbers of patrols and ages, eh? That might help us. I think in da modern world of youth schedule conflicts, yeh sometimes have to go with a bit bigger patrols than were recommended in da BSA's historical documents. The goal should be given average attendance yeh will never have a patrol below 4 in the field (minimum number for independent hiking), and you'll average 6-8. That might mean patrol sizes of 10 or so, dependin' on the kids and your area. Then yeh need to find some good, relatively high-attendance PLs and take 'em out on some special trips to train 'em and steadily improve their skills and leadership over a period of time. Make it real, make it special, make it fun. Then yeh need to introduce a bit of patrol competition and other challenge. As patrols succeed, yeh need to offer da chance at more challengin' patrol-only outings here or there. This takes a bit of time, but da thing to understand is that patrol identity and spirit are natural things, eh? As long as yeh set up the environment properly, the boys will naturally build those things on their own without bein' told to. What did the PL do if, say, a couple of members stopped participating? Call 'em up and bug 'em! With a limit of 6-8 and a few only go on 2 campouts a year that PL might want a different mix. It sounds like if a PL takes on a scout the PL has him for the duration. What's that duration? Like I said, I'd tend to go with a higher limit. But I think if yeh really have some boys that only go on 2 campouts per year that your Patrol Leaders are goin' to tell yeh that they don't really think those boys are scouts or patrol members. That's the point the PL and the SM sit down with a lad and help him to make a choice about whether he's goin' to commit to Scoutin' or go do somethin' else. If a lad showed up for only 2 games a season he wouldn't be on any team that I know of, eh? What happens to scouts that don't or rarely participate? Yeh drop 'em from your roster and yeh go recruit more boys who really want to be in Scouting. See above. What happens to scouts that are not wanted because they never help out? Some kids get a reputation. Hopefully this is a way to teach them something so I'd like to do this. Yeh develop a culture of "Roses & Thorns" sessions, where it's a safe place for boys to raise issues with each other. Then yeh see the PL and the boy's peers tell him frankly that his laziness really ticks them off, and they expect better. Da patrol is the ideal place for positive peer pressure. What happens to scouts that are not wanted because they're socially awkward? If a scout doesn't have friends then it may be hard for him to get into a patrol. Yah, that's a potential downside to jblake's free-for-all. There are other ways to handle patrol choices, though, where da PLs work through some of those issues. Da biggest thing is to develop a sense of service leadership in your Patrol Leaders, and do a bit of SM nudging here and there. "George, you're our best PL, and I think you're up to the challenge of really helping Billy come out of his shell. Billy really looks up to you, too..." Does the PL need to come up with some sort of plan or goal for his patrol before he goes recruiting? If yeh do the PL-recruitin' thing, don't muck it up with adult stuff like that. The kids will work it out. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, bnelon44, that was a subtle change in the G2A that nobody anywhere is payin' attention to. Talk about a bizarre step backward! Blue cards are still for all practical purposes an optional record-keeping device, and a relatively poor one that is steadily fading. Da most common thing around here seems to be usin' some form of the printed requirements page from one of da online or other tracking providers. It's more useful because the lad can actually read da requirement on the sign-off-sheet instead of tryin' to figure out what 3(f)(2) is on the blue card. That's especially true when da requirements might change so now the Blue Card requirement numbers don't line up with da new requirement numbers, and nobody kept da old book. What's required for completion of a MB is a registered MB counselor indicating that a MB is completed. If some dingleberry in da council office insists on blue cards because they forgot that their role is to provide service and not be a bureaucratic road block to kids and units, then I know units that just have da AC scrawl up a blue card to satisfy da bureaucrat. The actual in-unit process, though, does not use blue cards. Last I polled around, just under half da camps were not usin' blue cards, and every one of 'em was happy they weren't. I think da number not usin' 'em is higher now. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, silly people. John and Jonathan are two different names. Jonathan sometimes shortens to Jon (but not Johnny). John nicknames out to Johnny or Jack. Jonathan is Old Testament in origin and more common among Jewish folks. John is of course New Testament and more common among Christians. Da tradition in many native / first nations / aboriginal peoples is in many cases to save naming until puberty, when what we would call a nickname in Scouting becomes a true name for the young man. Sitting Bull, Runs-like-deer, etc. Seems to me that what chaoman45 is doin' is a pretty exact parallel to da naming norms common in many cultures, and caricatured by da OA. So yeh might ask a parent why they are so prejudiced against native American people as to consider their cultural practice name-calling and bullying. Beavah

Nah, chaoman45, no book is required. Da book pages are just a convenient recording aid for those that want to use it. Or a not-so-convenient recording aid, since either the lads don't bring it on outings or da things look like Eagle732 suggests after just a few trips out. Of course, your troop or your Scoutmaster can decide that da way they will keep track of things in your particular troop is to use the book. That's the troop's and the SM's prerogative, so it may be da proper way in your unit. I'd say that's probably the most common way, still, but mostly out of inertia. I do know some troops that don't use the book at all and just use an online system like Scouttrack or TroopMaster or whatnot. I did used to know some troops that just used those little requirement signoff booklets that National used to sell, or just used the big advancement poster/chart thing as da official record, posted in the scout hall where everyone could see. Beavah

Yah, badenP, I don't think we really disagree. Da legal situation is as I have described. Da practical situation is largely as you have described. Mostly that's because of da conflict-of-interest problem that the BSA situation sets up, plus the fact that BSA execs by and large have never taken any real training in law or business. They generally only have internal BSA training, which conveniently omits stuff that da rest of the world would teach. Da moral obligation is as both of us have described, but alas it is a rare person who acts ethically in da face of systems and a threat to livelihood which are set up in a way that normalizes unethical behavior. B