DuctTape

I likely posted this anecdote before in uniform threads. I apologize in advance if I have. When my father was in scouts, neither he nor the other boys had much money. They saved, earned what they could for camping gear. Most of it was made by them, including their "uniform". Each boy made an armband of fabric which had the troop # and a patrol emblem. They wore it over their regular clothing. Since all the boys in the patrol had the same armband, it was uniform.

I never completed my Eagle Project. I thought I had, the council accepted my report. It turns out, what I thought was my project wasn't. 20 years later I was in the area where my project was. I noticed that others in the community had continued the conservation project I began. My project was not the organizing, planning, and leading a group of boys for the 100 hours of work we did. I realized decades later, my project was was showing the community the value of conservation, and how to be a part of it. My project continues to this day, I hope it is never complete.

There are PMs here? I feel left out, no one has ever messaged me.

I agree with you IF it were true the person actually complained. We do not not know if this actually happened. We have a small snippet of one persons story. I am not giving a pass on the persons behavior, I do not know what their behavior was.

There is nothing to see, that is my point. The assumption being made is that the person went to someone and complained. We do not know thus as a fact. The op believes this to be what happened, and some are accepting this as fact, but due to op's own admission he has personality clashes with the other, we do not know for certain exactly what really happened. It is entirely possible the order of events are how you et al believe, it is entirely possible a completely different irder of events took place. As I said before, I am loathe to rush to judgement without any evidence. Why is that so hard for you to see?

The story does not include any description of the actual conversations between any of the parties. Nor the circumstances in which the conversations were held. To conclude that one acted in a certain type of manner with zero knowledge of the conversation or circumstances is the assumption which I find pre-mature. There are many many ways all of this could have actually transpired, some of which could be described as you believe. Other possibilities could be completely different. For all we know, the person never actually complained. It is entirely possible they were asked their opinion about the ceremony and gave it. I am not suggesting this is what happened, but it is a possibility, thus it is premature to say he went behind someones back. We know very little, almost nothing of what actually happened. You could be right, but I give people the benefit of the doubt until evidence proves otherwise.

Stosh, I agreee with you. However if a troop "needs" to have the adults on the trek, keeping them at a distance is best IMO.

Age restrictions instead of competency perpetuates adult led trips with kids in tow. A better solution, although the insurance and legal dept at hq would shudder, would be to promote patrol camping with the PL truly in charge. With adults farther and farther away the more competent a Patrol and their PL, the more advanced the excursion will become. The boys' competencies in outdoor skills provide the boundaries instead of artifucially using age. If adults have concerns about a patrol's backpacking trip for example, there is no reason 2 scouters cannot hike and camp apart from the boys at a distance close enough for an emergency, but far enough away that the boys are unaware of the adult presence.

Agreed. Enough with the indoor classroom scouting. If this is how adults are trained at the council or district level, it is no wonder why the adults do the same at the troop level.

We do not know what really happened is my point. It isn't about labeling the behavior, it is about ascertaining the actual behavior in the first place.

As you said, assuming the above points are correct. We have almost nothing to go on about how the complaint went down, the op has alluded to a personal issue with the person, so their take is already biased. Thus with almost zero evidence of what actually transpired, it is ill-advised to conclude the person behaved in a bullying manner. In order to, one must assume facts not in evidence.

I disagree with the labeling of everything as a PC movement. While I agree that a better way of handling something is a more direct approach to the person, again we don't know the whole story. There are multiple ways the the story could have transpired. The assumption that ir was someone with ill-intent acting in a cowardly manner is not evident. The op did mention who it was, and there appears to be some history regarding differences between who knows everything. That history certainly plays a role. My entire point is that most comments here have been based on people assuming the worst. In my experience, people often project their own prejudices and intents on to others in absence of the truth. Back to the pc-movemement label. I believe this is being used as a distraction to enable those who speak or act in a manner which they choose but expect others to be silent. Protesting, or disagreeing with someone else's speech or actions is the cornerstone of the the freedom which youcrspouse. Some want to have their say, and no one else; and if someone does speak against it the label of "you are just being pc" gets tossed out. If someone says or does something offensive, that is their right. It is also my right to say so and to express my beliefs just as much as it is theirs. Good people can disagree and have enlightening conversations to increase our collective understandings of each other. Labels, name calling, and refusing to engage in a respecful dialogue does not promote understanding, and in my opinion is unkind.

Stosh, I hear what you are saying and I agree to a point. In this situation, we do not know why the person expressed concern. I personally do not have a problem with the idea of the ceremony, but we were provided with few details nor do we know what the real complaint is. Many are projecting their speculation of why the person complained even to the point of calling them a bully. This is wrong. Good people can disagree on specifics and what or how things should be done. Expressing that disagreement is not bullying, nor is it intolerant unless as you point out it is based on hate, or in my opinion the enabling of malice.

I think the bully term is being used rather inappropriately. To use it to describe anyone or anytime someone complains or tries to dissuade, makes light of true bullying. While I think I inderstand the reason one might choose to use it in this situation, it really falls short of what is considered bullying.

I said in the other thread, the key word is trust.

I see the distinction between leadership and management as two words, trust vs compliance. Leaders trust and have the trust of the others. Managers comply and and ensure compliance.

IMO there should not be NSP, same-age patrols, nor mixed-aged patrols. There are just patrols. When we label them a certain way we interfere with their construct. The boys pick up on the labels so even when put to their own devices will use those adult labels as parameters in their decisions. Thus, I never use any of the labels, I just refer to them as patrols.

Federal law "allowing" isn't the same as "required". The GTSS has an exception for those who are "required".

The UC corps working together like a patrol. No surprise it would be more effective. Plus maybe when the adults use the patrol method themselves they might be able to effectively nurture it in the units.

But again you are ascribing "this self indulgence" to those who lean liberal. I am stating that this is not unique to one side or the other. Your description of the liberal agenda shows your bias, so I understand. I just happen to disagree. I see it on both sides.

The issue is not partisan. It is parental, on both the left and right.

I have noticed that bsa has transitioned from using the term boy-led to instead youth-led, or scout-led. This signals a change has been considered and the change of vocabulary was intentional. While I agree with an inclusive BSA in regards to all other aspects, I do believe it should remain Bsa.

Some good ideas. I think I will suggest your idea that at the next camporee, we have an area for adults to do training. It will also keep them away from interfering with the boys.

I have noticed the same thing Stosh. I would also add an idea that the adult training have more scouts as trainers. Imagine IOLS or OWLS being instructed by star-life-eagle scouts.

I also blame organized kids sports. With adults organizing everything and acting as the umpires, referees, etc... kids dont get the chance to mix up their own teams at the playground, or neighborhoid park. When johny has to go home, teams used to just swap players to keep it even. When a dispute started, "do over" was a common means to address it. Without these playful opportunities and deference to adults in all manners, it is no wonder they do not debelop any dispute management skills. Well actually they do... they learn quickly that the adult is the only one to decide and they cant make their own choices.