The rules: interpreting and "interpreting" them

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

Thoughts of rule interpretation in the thread from which this is spun bring to mind the following question:

 

If BSA hired someone of supreme competence in language and logic to write advancement requirements and rules, would he be able to write those requirements so as to express the original intent with such specificity and clarity that even he couldn't later "interpret" them as meaning something not originally intended?

[Scoutfish]

NOPE!

 

Because it isn't the writer that is the issue, it's the personal interpretation of the reader.

 

You say waterbug, I say Palmetto bug, the exterminator says cockroach.

 

"It's a great, clearly written rule with no excpetions except.....

 

Great rule but doesn't apply to my situation because......"

 

No matter if that rule had a 24 page summary to cover every sitaution, somebody wouyld find a loophole due to a particulart prsonal reason.

[Scoutfish]

Besides, times where different back when that rule was written.

 

Kinda like how alot of what Jeasus said doesn't apply because that was before computers.

 

( I kid you not - I actually had somebody tell me that last one!)

[Twocubdad]

Here's a start, from one of my heros, Sen. Sam Ervin. I actually called home from the national jamboree in '73 to get updates on the Watergate hearings.

 

I forget the topic, but he was questioning John Ehrlichman about something and Ehrlichman asked him so Senator, how do you know such-and-such. Ervin got a bit flustered and yelled at Ehrlichman, "Because I can understand the English language. It's my mother tongue."

 

 

[Beavah]

Nope. Anybody who writes rules or laws depends on the good will and intelligence of those who read, interpret, and enforce those rules to do their part and not make the law or the lawmaker look stupid.

 

Can yeh think of a real law that has managed to be people proof? One that hasn't generated hundreds of pages of regulations or of case law from multiple trials and appeals? If so, then I can assure yeh it was a law that didn't matter in da first place.

 

In our system of law, of course, there is also da fundamental principle of equity, eh? That sometimes what is right and equitable has to modify or trump the common law.

 

Civil society depends on the belief that people will be good and honest about things for the most part, eh? And that they will rightly apply law equitably for both da common and specific good. That's why scoutin' exists in da first place, to teach young fellows how to use their judgment and behave honorably as citizens.

 

Only way I know how to do that is to try to show 'em how to use judgment and behave honorably, and give 'em some room to practice it.

 

Beavah

 

[SSScout]

I believe Humpty Dumpty might be a candidate for the postion of Director of Requirement Limitation and Deliniation:

 

"""When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."

 

 

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

I'm going to say no, no it won't. We have too many words in the English language with multiple meanings, and we give new meanings to existing words all the time.

 

The folks who wrote the US Constitution (it was not solely James Madison, contrary to popular belief) were very good with words and they started fighting over interpretations almost before the ink dried on the document (one of the first battles, interestingly enough, was also a health care mandate, a law requiring merchant marines to buy insurance, and one that was declared constitutional - I just find the parallels to today interesting from a "the more things change the more they stay the same" perspective).

 

 

[bnelon44]

GTA vs Requirements

 

Requirements are very specific

 

The GTA (policy and process) tries to stay out of the weeds and give different units different latitude. Mainly because we have so many different sizes of units sponsored by so many different types of sponsoring organizations. This makes the BSA a bit different than other Scouting organizations that are centrally controlled.

 

The BSA does have some definitions for terms though. For example a "unit leader" is defined as: "The adult leader of a unit is a Cubmaster, Scoutmaster, Coach, Advisor, or Skipper."

 

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/LOS/All.aspx

 

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

Well those are some good common-sense answers.

 

It appears the omnipotence paradox has no legs here.

 

 

but let's get this H. Dumpty candidate vetted before we rally round.

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

[packsaddle]

It's times like this that the deep, profound wisdom of Startrek is best appreciated:

For your listening pleasure!

[Basementdweller]

how many times do we have parents, boys and scouters on this forum splitting hairs for their own personal gain or to delay or deny as they see fit.

 

 

Until you put definite goals or expectations scouters will continue to interpret things like scout spirit and active in ways they see fit.

 

 

things like double dipping on service hours and requirements.....Again it is up to interpretation.

[Beavah]

scouters will continue to interpret things like scout spirit and active in ways they see fit.

 

Yah, good! That's exactly as it should be, eh?

 

Scouters are good people. They know the families and kids in their program. They know their communities and Chartered Organizations. Better than we do at least!

 

They should interpret and use advancement and da other methods in ways they see fit.

 

Beavah

 

[Basementdweller]

Beavah......You have read the forums....

 

 

How many times have we read of scouters looking for loop hold to hold the "Unworthy" back????

 

Spirit, Attendance, POR Performance, Crimes, Drugs

 

 

National could give us a rule such as

 

"Drug Conviction is an automatic disqualification for Eagle"

Or

Felony conviction is an automatic disqualification for Eagle

Or

In the Last year Scout must attend 50% of scheduled meetings...there would be a medical out of course.

 

But the

 

 

T

[Beavah]

Yah, yeh got cut off there, Basementdweller. And your last example is allowed by G2A, though I'm not particularly fond of hard percentages or hard rules like the ones yeh suggest.

 

I don't think the folks are comin' here for quite da reasons you suggest. I think they're comin' here because they have a situation where they feel Advancement Method isn't working for their unit and their Chartered Organization's goals. They've got cases where they don't feel that da recognition is lining up with the values that they want to encourage.

 

Generally speakin', they notice that when there are specific individual cases that are "off", but what they're really sayin' is "The Advancement Method as we have practiced it in our troop is not helping us reach the goals for kids that we and our Chartered Organization believe in".

 

That's a bad thing, eh? That's a unit chartered partner who is saying that the BSA program as they are practicing it is not living up to the BSA's end of the Charter Agreement.

 

So they're comin' to us tryin' to figure out what they're doin' wrong and how they can make better use of Advancement Method.

 

Dependin' on our individual background, we either imagine in our own heads that they are absolutely right and the kid must be a jerk off, or we imagine in our own heads that the kid is right and they are just jerks who are trying to hold the "unworthy" back. Or hopefully somethin' in between. But those are our hang-ups. What they're really sayin' is that for one reason or another Advancement isn't workin' for 'em, and they're lookin' for help.

 

Beavah