What Is It Based On?

[OldGreyEagle]

it occurs to me, when I took Wood Badge for the 21rst Century, we did it at a Scout Summer Camp. Each patrol was at a Troop Campsite. Now, I admit I never did measure the distance between the sites, but they are large enough that we never did hear any noise from the adjacement patrols. It may well have been 300 feet, or close too, maybe more.

 

Kudu, you say

 

"You simply do not understand the purpose of Internet forums, John. They are a place to exchange ideas. You (and your nitwit fellow-travelers) lash out with personal attacks and you trivialize the great traditions of Scouting because your training does not allow you to think things that you assume the BSA no longer wants you to think"

 

If indeed the purpose of Internet Fourms is to exhange ideas, do you think the best way to exhange an idea is to smack the other person over the head with your idea while hurling foul insults at them? What about that approach makes the other person go "By George, he may have a point there?"

[Stosh]

It is always difficult to express one's ideas on a open forum such as this. The secure feeling of anonimity emboldens some because they know the other person out there can't punch them in the nose. But with this being said, a certain amount of courtesy is often dissolved in a misunderstood or not very clarified comment on the forum. If one can't make a significant comment on the forum in response to someone, it is far easier to discredit the person making the post than it might be to critique the comment. This always makes for a great flame on that person, the person gets away with it because they know their chances of getting kicked off the forum is slight, and they can walk away thinking they have done everyone a great service by trashing this other person's ideas.

 

I have been on internet forums for about as long as the internet as been around, am owner of many forums myself, moderated many others, and in scouting far longer than that. Although I know there are those who will trash my comments, but I also know there are hundreds of lurkers out there that can see through this kind of tactic and will retain some of my comments as useful for their situation. It really doesn't take much for sincere scouters on this forum to quickly notice those who are unfriendly, discourteous and unkind. They have been trained to do this with quick adeptness. After a while a person's comments are being read with a biased slant that no matter how hard a person tries to clarify their points, they will always be misread (sometimes on purpose) and the flames begin.

 

Stosh

 

 

[Kudu]

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

If indeed the purpose of Internet Fourms is to exhange ideas, do you think the best way to exhange an idea is to smack the other person over the head with your idea while hurling foul insults at them?

 

"Nitwit" is a "foul insult," compared to those against me in this thread?

 

And you think that you are a neutral moderator?

 

You should at least realize that they are trying to move the discussion from the nature of Scouting to a forum about me. Apparently you are all too willing to take that ball and run with it yourself. So should we now talk about you?

 

Or should we take the high road in such situations and ignore it? Or poke fun at the nitwit low road so that others identify it?

 

I dunno.

 

I do agree with Stosh's post, especially: "If one can't make a significant comment on the forum in response to someone, it is far easier to discredit the person making the post than it might be to critique the comment. This always makes for a great flame on that person...and they can walk away thinking they have done everyone a great service by trashing this other person's ideas."

 

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

it occurs to me, when I took Wood Badge for the 21rst Century, we did it at a Scout Summer Camp. Each patrol was at a Troop Campsite. Now, I admit I never did measure the distance between the sites, but they are large enough that we never did hear any noise from the adjacement patrols. It may well have been 300 feet, or close too, maybe more.

 

The exact distance is not the point, of course.

 

Until recently I thought that one Patrol per Troop Campsite was the standard operating procedure for all such outdoor Boy Scout Division courses (IOLS, WB, NYLT), and that every trained Scouter could draw from that common experience. Given the howls of outrage from the Troop Method chorus, I guess not.

 

Kudu

[Stosh]

Given my recent summer camp experience, I find it very difficult to not agree with many of the premises and problems that Kudu points out. I have tried very hard to establish a boy-led, patrol-method approach to my troop in a similar fashion as taught by WB, etc. However, in practice it would seem that there isn't really much support for the "program". It is as if the theory of instruction doesn't match the reality of execution.

 

I had 16 boys in a 40 person campsite at camp and couldn't get my boys more than 20' apart from each other. If I'm going to set up a boy-led, patrol-method program for next summer's camp, I will need the whole camp for the whole week all by myself. I anticipate 50-60 Webelos cross-over scouts added to my 25 I have at the present time. This means I'll ideally have approximately 75-85 boys attending which I believe is larger than the last WB class taught at the camp. If I were to suggest setting it up in WB fashion, I am almost certain the very first comment from the camp/council staff will be the suggestion to consolidate patrols into the sites and fill them to their recommended capacity.

 

The frustration arises in the fact that there is more pressure against the curriculum of WB than there is support for it. I think this might be some of the concern from the more traditionalist scouters out there. It may also be one of the reasons why so many of the well-intended SM's finally give up and go back to troop-method scouting.

 

I guess with all the hype for boy-led, patrol-method out there, there should be a more orchestrated effort to support units that would like to give it a sincere try. It shouldn't have to be a SM's job to educate more than just his boys about the benefits of BL-PM scouting.

 

I think that about the only thing that other scout traditionalists and I don't match up exactly on is the principle of Servant Leadership. I am under the premise that SL is the basic building block upon which leadership is built and not just "part of" a bag of magic tricks that teach leadership skills. I guess the only difference I see might be that SL is an attitude and Leadership Development methods are the tools that enable that caring to work within the various groups. It works for me and my groups because the leadership is more readily accepted by the members if they know that their leaders are genuinely concerned about their welfare and development and not just using manipulative management techniques to get the job done. This is why I use the dynamics of the troop staff supports the Patrols rather that directs them. The first and often time only question they ask of themselves is: "How can I better assist the patrols be better at what they do?" My troop officers never think in terms of what the PL's need to be told to get the job done. For me the PL is the highest ranking office. One doesn't tell their boss what needs to be done, they offer their services to help them accomplish their tasks.

 

Stosh

[Kudu]

jblake47 writes:

 

This means I'll ideally have approximately 75-85 boys attending which I believe is larger than the last WB class taught at the camp.

 

Baden-Powell wrote that he was only able to get to know 16 Scouts well enough to guide them, but (he said) since most Scoutmasters were twice as good at Scouting than he was, he recommended that Troops be no larger than 32 Scouts. It looks like you will be at more than five times Baden-Powell's personal limit with only five original "older" trained Scouts. Keep us up to date on your efforts!

 

jblake47 writes:

 

If I were to suggest setting it up in WB fashion, I am almost certain the very first comment from the camp/council staff will be the suggestion to consolidate patrols into the sites and fill them to their recommended capacity.

 

One benefit of 75-85 Scouts is significant economic clout. You should be able to negotiate a win-win arrangement with a flexible summer camp somewhere. Shop around to find one that is open to how you (the customer) want to set it up. Remember that the summer camp staff may not have any idea of how WB is set up, and you may be the expert consultant here.

 

Kudu

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Lets not change the subject Kudu, do you think your style in pointing out the foibles of the BSA to its proponents is the best way to have people think about your issues?

 

On Friday, June 20 in this thread you posted:

 

"As chance would have it, I recently landed in a Council where we will be able to structure the Patrols the same way. It is surprising how many of you attended Wood Badge where presumably the Patrols were all crowded together on a single parade field."

 

I posted the Wood Badge course that I took had single patrols set at Troop Campsites and then you tell me that this is standard procedure. If this is the norm, why would you presume that many of us who took Wood Badge were crowded together on a single parage field.

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Stosh]

I totally agree that 16 people is a long stretch to take care of for any adult, and for a boy it is way too many! Thus I have structured the troop so that no one person is responsible for more than 7-8 boys. I feel this is a decent number for any aspiring youth leader to handle. I will concede that the reason most troop are limited to 30-35 scouts is because that is about how many a single adult-led program can handle. It takes a veteran SM to run a program that big. If it was a policy that the Cub Master had to run the whole program, the numbers in Cub packs would drop dramatically as well.

 

But there is no need to run the program under such constraints, boy-led, patrol-method allows for the dissemination of leadership and as long as no grouping exceeds 7-8 people, things will always remain in managable proportions regardless of how big the overall unit becomes. Again look at the Cub design, can a pack take on 3 new dens overnight? Sure 36 new boys and hardly a hiccup. 4 dens? Sure 48 new cubs overnight? Piece of cake! What one doesn't understand is that the CM coordinates dens, he doesn't run them, the DL's do. Well in a boy-led, patrol-method unit, it works the same way so size isn't the issue anymore. The only difference I would envision is the patrols limited to 8 whereas a den could possibly be 12-15 depending on the experience of the DL. Obviously adults can maintain the group better than an aspiring new PL.

 

Stosh

[Kudu]

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

Lets not change the subject Kudu, do you think your style in pointing out the foibles of the BSA to its proponents is the best way to have people think about your issues?

 

I don't watch broadcast TV unless I happen to hear about a program somewhere else. It was not until their third or forth seasons that I discovered some of my favorite programs including "24," "Rescue Me," and (just a few weeks ago) "House M.D.". So now as previously with "24" and "Rescue Me" I am watching the DVDs of the past seasons of "House M.D."

 

For those who are not familiar with the program, the title character Dr. Gregory House is played by Hugh Laurie, the English comedian of "Fry and Laurie" fame (Laurie played Prince George and Lieutenant George in "Blackadder").

 

The character "Dr. House" is based on Sherlock Holmes.

 

That is the kind of humor that I enjoy and yes, OGE, I find useful for looking with fresh eyes at widely-held common assumptions.

 

The BSA is funny because of one simple irony: The Traditional program was destroyed by the 1972 progressive (liberal) success in dumbing down the Advancement, Outdoor, Patrol, and Uniform Methods to the absolute lowest possible denominator, to make Scouting inclusive enough for the "urban youth" demographic.

 

Now 36 years later because the BSA embodies the significant real-world application of policy against Girls, Gays, and the Godless, social conservatives circle the wagons and blindly defend the progressive 1972 invention of Leadership Development (and its intentional destruction of the Patrol Method), just as (until last year's Switchbacks) they defended the "deeply-held values" represented by forcing boys into the 1980 dress-designer Uniform.

 

Social conservatives and their liberal masters: What is not funny about that?

 

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

On Friday, June 20 in this thread you posted:

 

"As chance would have it, I recently landed in a Council where we will be able to structure the Patrols the same way. It is surprising how many of you attended Wood Badge where presumably the Patrols were all crowded together on a single parade field."

 

I posted the Wood Badge course that I took had single patrols set at Troop Campsites and then you tell me that this is standard procedure.

 

I wrote that "Until recently I thought that one Patrol per Troop Campsite was the standard operating procedure for all such outdoor Boy Scout Division courses (IOLS, WB, NYLT), and that every trained Scouter could draw from that common experience. Given the howls of outrage from the Troop Method chorus, I guess not."

 

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

If this is the norm, why would you presume that many of us who took Wood Badge were crowded together on a single parade field.

 

Um, because when I suggest that Scout Patrols be separated in the same way as our Patrols were at Wood Badge, most Wood Badgers howl that this Traditional Patrol Method has not been used in a hundred years.

 

Kudu

[Eagledad]

>>I think that about the only thing that other scout traditionalists and I don't match up exactly on is the principle of Servant Leadership. I am under the premise that SL is the basic building block upon which leadership is built and not just "part of" a bag of magic tricks that teach leadership skills.

[OldGreyEagle]

Kudu,

I find I am trying to come up with an explanation that will resonate with you and am lacking, I blame me(This message has been edited by OldGreyeagle)

[Kudu]

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

I find I am trying to come up with an explanation that will resonate with you and am lacking, I blame me

 

Why not talk about something more interesting, like your personal experience with Baden-Powell's standard of 300 feet between Patrols, and how that is different from Patrols crowded together?

[Stosh]

I wasn't able to get more than 20' between my patrols this past summer because of the camp setup, but when two PL's came to me asking for advice on how to control one boy from one patrol bothering a boy from the other patrol, I suggested BP's 300' rule.

 

Being unable to physically manage the problem, they did put up a twine "fence" between the two patrols and that solved the problem of the bothering. It didn't solve the problem of "Permission to Enter" followed by "Denied" that echoed for the next couple of hours. :^)

Surprisingly it worked well to separate out the patrols in a contrived manner.

 

Stosh

[OldGreyEagle]

Well Kudu I admit I have no experience with having patrols camp 300 feet apart, and I wouldnt have known it unless you mentioned it.

 

I do, however, have experience with self-appointed passionate saviors of the Scouting program who beleive the best way to sway the opinions of the masses is to insult them, belittle them and pretty much let them know how inferior they are to you and how much scorn you have for the way they do things. I do have experience with posters who can view any topic and turn into a diatribe against some specific program in the BSA even though clearly that was not the intention of the original poster nor is it remotely on topic.

 

I have often asked such a passionate scouters that while I admire his/her knowledge of the program and their dedication to the cause of scouting if they really think their approach will engender support for their position. The odd thing is, the scouter rarely if ever responds, instead off they on a tangent, carrying on about what is wrong with the BSA, the Troops, Councils, ect. I wonder what it would take to have them examine how others see them and perhaps their presentation of their position gets in the way of people accepting or even bothering to learn about their position. As Marshall Mcluhan said, "The Medium is the Message". If a person comes across as hatefull and condescending, its hard to beleive many people will respond to the message that person espouses.

 

[Kudu]

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

self-appointed

insult

belittle

inferior

scorn

diatribe

tangent

wrong

hatefull

condescending

 

OK, so if I hang out with a bunch of fuzzy-bunny Den Leaders for three long weekends of Wood Badge to learn "21st century" business manager techniques, I can become a non-judgemental person like you?

 

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

Well Kudu I admit I have no experience with having patrols camp 300 feet apart, and I wouldnt have known it unless you mentioned it.

 

Well, as Marshall Mcluhan said, "The Medium is the Message"

 

My point was that you DO have experience with having patrols camp 300 feet apart (the "medium").

 

My guess is that you don't want to talk about that because you know that 21st century buisness manager skills dumb the Patrol Method down to the Cub Scout level, causing most Boy Scout Patrols to camp very close together. Therefore to prove you are loyal to Wood Badge you must not encourage Patrols to camp 300 feet apart, even though it was the medium of camping that you yourself experienced at Wood Badge.

 

Marshall McLuhan also said,

 

"Everybody experiences far more than he understands. Yet it is experience, rather than understanding, that influences behavior."

 

If Kudu was all sweetness and light, would your own experience convince you that 300 foot Wood Badge Patrols are close to what the BSA once defined as "Real Patrols," and squeezing Patrols close together is the Den Method?

 

Just curious.

 

Kudu

 

[Stosh]

I have always encouraged the WB style of separated patrols and it does work better for patrol autonomy and reduction of adult intervention. I also have consistantly fought an uphill battle to accomplish this for the boys at various times when dealing with district and council level events. Very little teamwork, group dynamics and commaradarie can happen when the patrols are constantly mixing and interacting with members of other patrols. This dynamic is very common in all aspects of society when businesses use the off-site meetings, schools use in-service meetings, churches use retreats, etc. etc. Why does it seem so foreign to working with boys on the unit level? No school can operate effectively if all the classes are always gatering in the gym for assembly level class learning. Basically I would be delighted if the districts, councils and individual units were to adopt the WB approach of separated patrols.

 

Stosh