Forum Courtesy: An Important and Timely Discussion

[LongHaul]

So Beavah am I to understand that what is being proposed is that the post refered to should have read something like;

 

After reading the post on courtesy and the request for sanctions against those found rude I have to wonder about some posts. Why would we report non criminal activity to our SE? Because that is what the YP Instructional video instructs us to do. While I know that following the rules is not high on the list for some how is telling new scouters that may be reading these forums to disregard what BSA tells them a good thing? The first scenario on the tape discusses a boy that reportedly has bruises and refuses to talk with his leader. The tape suggests that this information be passed along to the SE. Some forum members feel that they are better educated and equipped to handle these situations than some professional scouter but should we assume those new forum members are equally educated? Some will find this post to be a personal attack because it suits them. I am offended by forum members that have built a reputation as being well informed and having considerable experience, there by being seen as someone to be listened to by the newer members, telling others that some method of handling a possible YP issue is an acceptable response in direct opposition to what BSA says. Its not your responsibility to investigate. Comes right from the tape. If a forum member is going to take positions that are directly contrary to BSA policy please do it in a less condescending manner. Many of us bend or disregard the written rule but don't chastize those who follow the rules.

 

Would that have been more acceptable even if it appeared directly after the post to which it obviously refers? Is attacking what a forum member posts acceptable as long as no names or references to just which post the attack is related to are used or made?

LongHaul

[Beavah]

Would that have been more acceptable even if it appeared directly after the post to which it obviously refers? Is attacking what a forum member posts acceptable as long as no names or references to just which post the attack is related to are used or made?

 

I think "attacking" is probably bad form in general, eh? And I'm glad you recognize and admit that was really your intent.

 

But yes, removing personal references and addressing arguments is a good first step. The next step is actually to address the argument and not the person. Yah, and adding in an example, which helps clarify misunderstanding.

 

"The example I want to propose is a boy who shows up with persistent bruises, like the example used in the Adult YPT video. In such a case, I think it is important to notify the SE as the video suggests, because X, Y, Z." or "I had a case once with a boy who A, B, C, and here's how we handled it. The outcome was good, but if I were to do it again I'd do X, Y, Z"

 

to which I would have responded "Oh, I missed what you meant, because the first posting is about a boy running away or not on meds, and talked about non-criminal suspicions. If a person has a suspicion of child abuse or neglect, that is criminal and different rules apply."

 

I think the biggest change in tone that's needed on these forums is from "I'm right and others are wrong" to "this is the way our troop handles this, and here's what we've found."

 

Beavah

 

[LongHaul]

>>"I think "attacking" is probably bad form in general, eh? And I'm glad you recognize and admit that was really your intent.<<"

You don't see the inconsistency in that statement? You dont see how that can be interpreted as a personal attack on me? Asking if an attack without names is OK is declaring that a previous post was an attack? Because I see your post as an attack upon me should I therefore view all your posts on threads I have also posted to a personal attack on me? Please explain how your posts in reply to my post about NSP and FCFY were not attacks. I did not view them as attacks upon me personally but as attacks none the less, you dont like NSP or FCFY and are strongly opinionated about them.

When a person that presents themselves as having considerable knowledge and experience posts something it is received differently than posts made by those who have shown themselves to be axe grinders or single issue posters.  When a forum member that can be read in almost every area post something like; "The example I want to propose is a boy who shows up with persistent bruises, like the example used in the Adult YPT video. In such a case, I think it is important to notify the SE as the video suggests, because X, Y, Z." or "I had a case once with a boy who A, B, C, and here's how we handled it. The outcome was good, but if I were to do it again I'd do X, Y, Z", in support of their argument no one should cry foul? The video you refer to says NOTHING about persistent and that is the whole point being made. The video presents this as the first time the leader becomes aware of this POSSIBLE YP issue and asks what should you do? It goes on to explain what BSA says you should do.

 Try to follow your suggestions for a while in reference to the things I post. Do not refer to me or word your posts so that it would seem to a person that has never read any of our previous posts that you thought I was wrong. Word your post as if they were merely another perfectly acceptable alternative to go side by side with my perfectly acceptable alternative.

LongHaul

[Eamonn]

I really feel that this thread is going no where fast.

Yes I know it's in the Issues and Politics area!

So I'm going to close the thread.

Eamonn.