Interesting topic came up....

[desertrat77]

 

   @@RichardB would have to let us look behind da curtain to be sure, but I expect that there's a correlation between da BSA's financial position and da willingness to authorize new sports or other activities (punkin' chunkin') with limited safety data.  

 

Beavah, with all due respect to Mr. RichardB, the last few times he provided links or supporting documentation from National, it didn't work so well.   Weaknesses and loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

 

Not blaming him personally.  I don't think he did it on purpose.   I think he and his fellow pros are in the unenviable position of having to carry Irving's water...which is part of their job, true, but Irving is famous for issuing poorly written/disjointed policy.

Edited May 24, 2016 by desertrat77

[Krampus]

Beavah, with all due respect to Mr. RichardB, the last few times he provided links or supporting documentation from National, it didn't work so well.   Weaknesses and loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

 

Not blaming him personally.  I don't think he did it on purpose.   I think he and his fellow pros are in the unenviable position of having to carry Irving's water...which is part of their job, true, but Irving is famous for issuing poorly written/disjointed policy.

 

Let's see the data on the correlation between the use of SuperSoakers and teenage gun violence, or the use of water balloons larger than a ping pong ball and larger, more acute injuries during water balloon fights.

 

There's just some decisions that cannot be supported with any amount of data...and that is why BSA's policies are laughed at quite often.

[desertrat77]

Let's see the data on the correlation between the use of SuperSoakers and teenage gun violence, or the use of water balloons larger than a ping pong ball and larger, more acute injuries during water balloon fights.

 

There's just some decisions that cannot be supported with any amount of data...and that is why BSA's policies are laughed at quite often.

Agreed.   The water gun/balloon decisions had all the earmarks of the "sedentary scouter" syndrome.  

 

Think about the last time you were at a high-energy scouting event:  water gun fight, no-rules water polo at camp, etc.

 

Those in the game:   completely committed and having fun.  

 

Ninety percent of the bystanders:   keeping an eye out for things that may cross the line, but otherwise smiling and understanding the enthusiasm of the participants.

 

Ten percent of the bystanders:   aghast, appalled, unsure, worried.   They themselves would never have been involved in such a free for all, and if they had their say, the event would have never happened.

 

Well well well...that ten percent now works at Irving, and they will have their say....

[Stosh]

How do you think they find those qualified for Irving employment? 

[Krampus]

How do you think they find those qualified for Irving employment? 

 

I think the issues of BSA having their head in the sand with regard to accepting needed change has to do with their organizational culture and willingness to accept change. I think the other part has to do with ivory tower syndrome you see in many non-profits. If they got out more and listened --  and were willing to accept real change that the members want but organizationally the professionals may not want -- they might embrace real change.

[Stosh]

I guess they missed my presentation on taking care of your boys....

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

@@Stosh, a $1M liability umbrella ain't that much anymore, mate.   Especially not if yeh have a car full of kids (and perhaps yeh hit another car full).   It's certainly not being "over-insured".

 

Talk to your insurer and consider goin' up to at least $2M.   Yeh can usually do that without special underwriting, and it doesn't usually cost that much more.  One of da things it does is help make sure da insurance company pays for better lawyers for your case.

 

Yeh also realize that an umbrella liability policy doesn't protect yeh against stupid people, right?  It protects yeh when you happen to be da one who was stupid!

 

Beavah

[Stosh]

No, my umbrella policy protects me against stupid people.  I have liability insurance for when I screw up. 

[Tampa Turtle]

I don't have a problem with an organization doing all they can do to protect themselves, but there comes a point where one can "protect oneself" right out of the business.  I'm not saying BSA is doing this, but it seems eerily like it to me.

 

What are non-BSA programs doing to protect themselves?  Are they cost effective or even feasible?  I dunno, that's why I personally over-insure myself.

 

And when one gets right down to the nitty-gritty of the situation, anyone can sue anybody for any reason.  They may not win, but it's gonna cost ya a wad of cash to protect oneself.  Like the Good Samaritan laws.  You can be sued for doing something and you can be sued for not doing anything.  That's why I have a $1M umbrella policy that says, I am insured $1M against stupid people.  Although I have never been in a serious car accident, I still carry $1M personal injury on anyone riding with me so I'm protected from the other stupid people that find it necessary to be on the road at any given time.  Driving is the riskiest thing I do because a lot depends on the "other person". 

 

Is it worth it financially to place all one's eggs in the BSA insurance basket?  Not me. 

Stosh I have similar protection and history. Ironically it also makes you more likely to be sued.

[Stosh]

Stosh I have similar protection and history. Ironically it also makes you more likely to be sued.

 

That's where the CYA attitude comes in.  I may play it beyond the scope of BSA's policies when I'm with my church youth group, but I'm not stupid enough to toss out the safety issues involved.  The being sued is one thing, losing the case is quite another.  If I do what a prudent person would have done, I can't lose.  If I'm negligent, I won't win.  I do have control of the issue, I have no control over being sued.

[TAHAWK]

"They" is not a monolith.

"They" say a "lock-in" watching movies is a "weekend campout."  "They" are happy with that policy.

"They" say it is not - that you sleep under stars or canvas or it's not a "campout."

Bubbles at B.S.A.

[TAHAWK]

Just found this at Andy's place:

 

"Dear Andy,

I’m concerned about a Scout in our troop trying to put together a “Capture the Flag†war game under the “disguise†of it looking like an orienteering activity. Is there a definitive BSA rule I can refer to, so that we, the adult leaders, can stop this kind of military activity-type stuff once and for all? This same Scout is always pushing questionable activities, like paintball, for instance. He’s been told many times that these aren’t Scout-appropriate activities, but he doesn’t give up. He waits until he thinks he won’t be overheard and then urges the younger Scouts to say these are what they want to do. How do we put an end to this sort of stuff? (L.J., ASM)"

 

Alas, poor lamb, he went to the wrong place:

 

"Capture The Flag is hardly a “war game.†It’s actually an elaborate variation on the game of Tag, and it’s been played by Scouts for generations (I played it over 50 years ago, at Scout summer camp). There’s nothing inherently “military†about it, and it can be lots of fun because it’s based on teamwork and strategy as well as physical ability (lots of running!).

 

As for paintball, as long as there are no human or other living targets (or simulations of same), paintball is a BSA-approved activity. Bull’s eye targets are completely permissible, but that’s where it stops. There’s no shooting at one another, under any circumstances.

 

As for this Scout’s deviousness, this can stop if a general announcement to the entire troop is made about the kinds of activities they can choose to do, and those they’ll need to go somewhere else to do."

[Stosh]

Chess is a war game.  One can't get any more violent than that.  I wonder how long it will be before they ban that in scouting?

 

King and Queen - rulers of the army

 

Bishops - add a religious flavor to justify one's aggression.

 

Knights - duh! the cavalry

 

Rooks - The siege towers

 

Oh, my, how politically incorrect can one get.

 

And with black and white sides, it harbors a definite racial bigotry to the whole thing.  We won't even begin a discussion on the caste system of the pawns and the social injustices and inequality that involves

Edited May 25, 2016 by Stosh

[Krampus]

ROFL, so ins't ALL firearms and ranges sports training "training for war" activities?

 

This "ASM" wouldn't last 5 minutes in a Texas troop.

[Beavah]

No, my umbrella policy protects me against stupid people.  I have liability insurance for when I screw up. 

 

Yah, hmmmm...

 

May I make a suggestion to yeh?   Sit down with your insurance agent and have him explain how an umbrella policy actually works.

 

Beavah