Is "Adding Requirements" the new/old buzz phrase?

[Eagledad]

I've been seeing a few posters squeezing in "no adding requirements" to their posts on subjects that have nothing to do with advancement. Is there something going on in this generation of troops that has led to these concerns?

I remember the phrase was kind of trendy about 20 years ago with the large influx of new scouters, but then faded off as units gained experience and went on about their business. We saw a post now and then of abuse, but not so much of just throwing it out there on nonrelated subjects as I'm are seeing now. What have I missed in the last 5 years that has changed?

Just an aside; As the scouters learned 20 years, not requesting something of a scout during the advancement related part of his scouting experience is next to impossible. Some troops add attendance requirements, some ask about skills experience. Some even say that wearing the uniform or repeating the Oath or Law at the BOR (I've even heard EBOR) is adding requirements. What I'm saying is that all of us are likely guilty of asking (adding) something of the scout that isn't strait out of the book. It's just a matter of how far we go with our hypocrisy, but if someone wants to leverage a protest,  you may find yourself awkwardly defending your request. 

Barry

[HelpfulTracks]

I frequently use "do not add requirements" and "do not subtract requirements." I also frequently use "read the requirements/what do the requirements say."

As a trainer I receive a great many questions about requirements. As a UC/DC I have involved in many disputes about requirements.

Off hand, and unscientifically measured, I would say that requirements issues, in one form or another, are a top 3 item I deal with. It is surprising when asked to go back and look at a requirement find that they have inadvertently added or subtracted from a requirement simply because they did not read it carefully.

[fred johnson]

Scouters love to argue how to do scouting.  Years ago I probably said no adding requirements because of things happening locally.  But these days I'm just worn out on certain phrases.  "adding to the requirements" is one.  "boy led" is another.  I'm sure I could find more.

 

[Eagledad]

Maybe it's all in how we explain it, but adding requirements wasn't a big discussion when I was a trainer. Discipline and uniforms seem to be the long discussions. Boy run had it's own discussion. It just seems odd to me that adding requirements has become hot. I was curious if the timing had something to do with a fear for the girls and their race to be Eagle.

Barry

[HelpfulTracks]

I don't get too much on discipline, unless you count how to deal with difficult Scouts, and there is plenty of that. Frankly, I get more about dealing with difficult parents by a large margin.

I don't get much about uniforms, but I also usually start training with a few points, one of which is I don't care for uniform police, but I do think it is important to model the correct wearing of the uniform. Maybe that heads off a lot of the discussion about uniforms.

I also talk about there is really no excuse for being sloppy. I deal with a number of units that do not have much if any money. They often have second or third hand uniforms. When a young man realizes that how he wears his uniform, even if it is just a shirt with jeans, is important, he takes on a whole new attitude of pride about it. It is fun to see.

Requirements issues are usually small ones that happen because adults don't fully read them. But they seem to happen frequently. Usually the response is "Oh, how did I miss that." My main focus on requirements is to make sure that all Scouts are doing the same work to reach the next level. I also don't want Scouts to get discouraged.

[Jameson76]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I've been seeing a few posters squeezing in "no adding requirements" to their posts on subjects that have nothing to do with advancement. Is there something going on in this generation of troops that has led to these concerns?

I remember the phrase was kind of trendy about 20 years ago with the large influx of new scouters, but then faded off as units gained experience and went on about their business. We saw a post now and then of abuse, but not so much of just throwing it out there on nonrelated subjects as I'm are seeing now. What have I missed in the last 5 years that has changed?

Just an aside; As the scouters learned 20 years, not requesting something of a scout during the advancement related part of his scouting experience is next to impossible. Some troops add attendance requirements, some ask about skills experience. Some even say that wearing the uniform or repeating the Oath or Law at the BOR (I've even heard EBOR) is adding requirements. What I'm saying is that all of us are likely guilty of asking (adding) something of the scout that isn't strait out of the book. It's just a matter of how far we go with our hypocrisy, but if someone wants to leverage a protest,  you may find yourself awkwardly defending your request. 

Barry

Interesting you add Oath and Law at BOR and EBOR as an added requirement.  We always have the Scouts start the BOR (and EBOR) with the Oath and Law, not as a pass/fail but as a way to set the tone.  Same for uniform, not required but encouraged.  Same for the handbook, though while not specifically required at the BOR it is needed.

Never a test, but they should be prepared to discuss their accomplishment and what they have gained from the advancment

[Eagledad]

15 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Interesting you add Oath and Law at BOR and EBOR as an added requirement.  We always have the Scouts start the BOR (and EBOR) with the Oath and Law, not as a pass/fail but as a way to set the tone.  Same for uniform, not required but encouraged.  Same for the handbook, though while not specifically required at the BOR it is needed.

Never a test, but they should be prepared to discuss their accomplishment and what they have gained from the advancment

Yep, and I’ve seen it protested as adding requirements more than once. That’s why I said that even the most passionate “adding requirements” gate keeper will find themselves being accused.

Barry

[DuctTape]

I also see the "it's adding to the requirements", when disagreeing with any decision or practice of the troop even when it has nothing to do with advancement. I think this is partly due to the (over)emphasis put on advancement. For many, it appears, advancement is the mission instead of a method. 

[fred johnson]

3 hours ago, DuctTape said:

I also see the "it's adding to the requirements", when disagreeing with any decision or practice of the troop even when it has nothing to do with advancement. I think this is partly due to the (over)emphasis put on advancement. For many, it appears, advancement is the mission instead of a method. 

I'm deeply involved in advancement locally and I advocate for my scouts to advance.  BUT, my real focus is to get the scouts out doing interesting stuff.  It's by doing interesting stuff that friendships are grown and the program thrives.  

[SSF]

Having a scout recite the scout oath and law does not constitute adding requirements. Demanding that a scout complete additional nights of camping, serve additional months as active or serve additional months, or redo, a six month stint n a POR constitutes adding requirements.

The other factor is the standard used in evaluating requirements, which might be wrongly perceived as "adding requirements" if the leader or MB counselor may be evaluating the scout to an unusually high and unfair standard. Standards should be reasonable, but that's a separate issue from adding requirements.

 

 

[Eagledad]

22 minutes ago, SSF said:

Having a scout recite the scout oath and law does not constitute adding requirements. Demanding that a scout complete additional nights of camping, serve additional months as active or serve additional months, or redo, a six month stint n a POR constitutes adding requirements.

The other factor is the standard used in evaluating requirements, which might be wrongly perceived as "adding requirements" if the leader or MB counselor may be evaluating the scout to an unusually high and unfair standard. Standards should be reasonable, but that's a separate issue from adding requirements.

 

 

You don't think so? Hmm, and what if the scout refuses to recite the oath or law during his BOR. Pass, fail?

What if the BOR (or EBOR) decide to start the review with the Pledge of Allegiance and the scout refuses?

Sound silly! Excepting for the the Pledge of Allegiance, I have seen these examples more than once. 

I don't ever remember hearing the phrase "adding requirements" while I was a scout. I do remember being asked to demonstrate a knot or two and show how to make a splint using my neckerchief. Hmm, was I abused! 

No matter what side we are on with Adding Requirements, I believe the adults have taken this horrible action so out of context that they have lost the perspective in the big picture of developing citizens of character and leaders of integrity.

I admit seeing the "adding requirements" used so much over the past few years with the intent to force power over someone that hearing the phrase makes me sick anytime I hear now. 

My example points out that any person using the phrase becomes an instant hypocrite because every adult has some personal expectation of the scouts that isn't directly prohibited in the manuals. 

If adults can't find a moral wrong for making request of the scouts, then maybe they should evaluate why they are personally offended. If the adult's request is for the purpose to achieve a personal objective (such as requiring Older Scouts to attend all SM Conferences on camp outs to force more older scouts to camp outs), then state why it's wrong without the cover of "adding requirements." 

Barry

 

[ValleyBoy]

I have been a member of many of my districts EBOR.  To my knowledge we have never turned down a scout for the Eagle rank that has come before the board.  We as a board know from reviewing the Eagle application and Eagle Project that the scout has completed the requirements for the rank of Eagle.  Yes we have had one or two paper Eagles come before the board but as long as there paperwork was in order and the scout did not state that he had not actually completed all the requirements for the rank of Eagle the scout has not been turned down by the board. 

[SSF]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

You don't think so? Hmm, and what if the scout refuses to recite the oath or law during his BOR. Pass, fail?

What if the BOR (or EBOR) decide to start the review with the Pledge of Allegiance and the scout refuses?

Sound silly! Excepting for the the Pledge of Allegiance, I have seen these examples more than once. 

I don't ever remember hearing the phrase "adding requirements" while I was a scout. I do remember being asked to demonstrate a knot or two and show how to make a splint using my neckerchief. Hmm, was I abused! 

No matter what side we are on with Adding Requirements, I believe the adults have taken this horrible action so out of context that they have lost the perspective in the big picture of developing citizens of character and leaders of integrity.

I admit seeing the "adding requirements" used so much over the past few years with the intent to force power over someone that hearing the phrase makes me sick anytime I hear now. 

My example points out that any person using the phrase becomes an instant hypocrite because every adult has some personal expectation of the scouts that isn't directly prohibited in the manuals. 

If adults can't find a moral wrong for making request of the scouts, then maybe they should evaluate why they are personally offended. If the adult's request is for the purpose to achieve a personal objective (such as requiring Older Scouts to attend all SM Conferences on camp outs to force more older scouts to camp outs), then state why it's wrong without the cover of "adding requirements." 

Barry

 

It's definitely shameful that some have abused the principle of not adding requirements. The topic had never come up while I was in scouts either. 

[Hawkwin]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

You don't think so? Hmm, and what if the scout refuses to recite the oath or law during his BOR. Pass, fail?

What if the BOR (or EBOR) decide to start the review with the Pledge of Allegiance and the scout refuses?

 

I would want to know, and would ask the scout why they refuse?

The BOR is not a "test." As such, I am not sure what the Board really learns by asking the scout, in a situation of extreme nervousness, to recite the oath from memory. If they get it wrong, does that reveal something about their character?

So, perhaps more importantly, what does the BOR accomplish by asking memorization questions? I think instead of asking a scout to recite something, ask the scout how they lived something.

Quote

 

8.0.1.1 Not a Retest or “Examination”

Though one reason for a board of review is to help ensure the Scout did what he was supposed to do to meet the requirements, it shall become neither a retest or “examination,” nor a challenge of his knowledge. In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of accomplishment. Remember, it is more about the journey. A badge recognizes what a young man has done toward achieving the primary goal of personal growth. See “Personal Growth Is the Primary Goal,” 2.0.0.3. It is thus more about the learning experience than it is about the specific skills learned. See also “Mechanics of Advancement: In Boy Scouting and Varsity Scouting,” 4.2.0.0.

 

 

[Jameson76]

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

What if the BOR (or EBOR) decide to start the review with the Pledge of Allegiance and the scout refuses?

 

That would lead to a somewhat interesting EBOR.  I guess the discussion would be "why?".  Not sure as a member of the EBOR that would preclude passing them on the EBOR.  I guess if the Scout chose to refuse to say the pledge, one or more of the EBOR members could at that point decline to continue to participate in the board if they so chose.  One form of protest is as good as another.  At that point the district could determine if there were enough members to continue, give the unit an opportunity to source more members, or reschedule.