Pranks

[evmori]

Now that's funny asm1429, but you do realize there are those who I am sure will comment that what you posted is hazing!

[Twocubdad]

Love the pink panties gag. Our troop bought a pair of XXXXL jockey shorts, loaded them up with half a can of dog food, wrote the camp director's name in the waistband and left them at the flag pole. Watching the camp staff assemble and, one-by-one, realizing the drawers "belonged" the the camp director was a hoot.

 

But to my second criterial of hazing, neither joke played on a disparity in age, size, or perceived status between the victim and the perpertrator. Both the camp director and the SPL were in superior positions and, presumably, able to defend themselves. The same pranks, applied to a youngers, smaller kid would have been unacceptable.

[studentscout]

I tend to agree with Twocubdad. If you must pull a prank, pull it on someone who can bite back, not on a vulnerable person. I don't like the idea of pranks and I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question.

Beavah, you responded by merely stating your view as a victim. That does not address the issue. It merely is evidence that you are a good-humored and willing victim. But I have read some of your posts (you are prolific as well) and I see that you are an attorney. That could explain the side-step to avoid the issue.

If one of those pranks had been done to a tenderfoot who collapsed into tears, that would have been a real hoot.

I can speak from experience. A prank is pulled on a boy who reacts with despair and the older boys laugh. That is a what Twocubdad is talking about. When those boys repeat that or some other prank, it is no longer a prank but a mean-spirited, destructive predatory act. And it could be precisely the same action as the first one. Not funny. Not constructive. Does NOT build camaraderie except among the predatory older boys at the expense of the vulnerable ones. It is a mean deception meant to hurt and it does.

Do I need to ask the question again?(This message has been edited by studentscout)

[Beavah]

Yah, studentscout, da thread is not all about you, eh? I was respondin' to other folks like asm1429.

 

One thing that pranks can be very useful for is lightening up people (especially adults!) who are takin' themselves too seriously. I can imagine a few patrols in Kudu's troop who have heard the "must camp 300 feet apart" thing a few too many times decide as a prank to try to set up camp with every tent tied into one single tent stake. Pranks help us laugh at ourselves when we need to.

 

But da humorless fellows would no doubt launch into an angry lecture about LNT and patrol method separation and then send da SPL home for being disrespectful .

 

We're seein' April Fools pranks all over da net today. I was totally confused by Google being renamed "Topeka" until I heard da story of Topeka renaming itself Google, KS. I thought it quite funny. I suppose you would have taken it as a vicious insult to all of the residents of Topeka. Is Starbucks announcing a new half-gallon sized coffee inappropriate ridicule of coffee drinkers? I suppose both involve "deception" if yeh want to call it that.

 

I think yeh also can't judge by unintended outcomes either, eh? I've seen first year lads collapse in tears from everything from swim checks to gettin' spooked by the snake at the nature area. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do swim checks or must set a policy that first year lads aren't allowed to handle snakes because they might cry.

 

The art of a good prank is someone who intends genuine humor choosin' somethin' funny and creative. In da original case on this thread, the lads chose something not funny... in fact, downright mean. That's not a prank, that's being nasty. Sometimes a lad will genuinely intend something fun which is taken the wrong way. That's a learning experience for both the prankster and the person takin' it the wrong way. Learning experiences are our bread and butter in Scouting.

 

I honestly think da humorless adults who take everything seriously are worse for the program than the occasional prank that goes awry. Just look at da other thread with the CC who precipitated a whole big deal over pot-cleaning.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[DYB-Mike]

Studentscout, I believe your question was how can deception be a positive part of scouting?

 

Magic involves deception and I can tell you that our Cubs enjoy a good magic show.

 

A fake out is a deception, like in a game of bombardment when you make as if you were aiming for one kid and then suddenly turn and throw at another.

 

Any of the sight deprivation games like Blind Mans Bluff or Marco Polo involve deception.

 

Campfire tales of Three Fingered Willy and how he is still roaming the woods looking for his lost fingers (or something like that, I just remember the name from when I was a kid) are a deception, intended to send some chills down a boys spine.

 

At a Halloween Pack Meeting during a skit I suddenly pulled some realistic looking candy worms out of my pocket and began to eat them. That was a deception that the boys loved. Speaking of Halloween, arent costumes and masks a form of deception?

 

There are a number of skits that involve deceptions. The Invisible Bench is one of them.

 

All of the above are welcome deceptions at any pack or troop event and I could probably come up with more positive deceptions if I thought about it.

 

I would venture to say that the question should not be does deception belong in Scouting, but instead, does malicious behavior belong in Scouting? I dont think youll get any argument there.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

YIS

Mike

 

[CalicoPenn]

The Ordeal is not an initiation - it is a day of service and quiet reflection which preceeds the Ordeal Ceremony, which is an initiation. As such, the Ordeal, by itself, is not hazing. That's not to say that hazing couldn't occur during the Ordeal, but such hazing would be actions outside the constructs of the Ordeal. Limiting a candidate to a hard boiled egg, piece of toast and cup of juice for breakfast is not hazing. Tossing the hard boiled egg into a mud puddle and forcing the candidate to retrieve and eat it would be hazing. Observing a day of silent service (except for needed communications for safety or the like) is not hazing. Forcing a candidate to put a stick in his mouth for 20 minutes because he spoke is hazing.

 

In a situation where there are two older Scouts giving a younger Scout a bottle of urine and having that Scout try to get another younger Scout to drink it might be considered a form of initiation and therefore hazing. What's worse, and something that seems to be missed is that in this case, if indeed the older Scouts did pressure the younger Scout into this, then there are two victims, muddled because one of the vicitms is also a perpetrator. The Scout given the bottle to drink is a victim of the other 3 Scouts, and the Scout coerced into giving the bottle is a victim of the 2 oldest Scouts.

 

Though the punishment of the younger Scout is appropriate, I don't see how it is appropriate to let the older Scouts off with no consequences, if they were, in fact, the instigators.

[Twocubdad]

We could -- and have -- debate the definition of hazing for a long time. It's like Potter Stewart's line about pornography, it's hard to define but I know it when I see it.

 

I have no doubt that when your two boys, Beavah, wigged-out at the nature lodge or during swim tests, you did everything you could to reassure them. If they were really upset, you probably removed them from the group to avoid further embarrassment. I'm sure they were not called out for further redicule or embarrassment. Had some draped the snake around the kid's neck or left the swimmer in the water struggling while everyone laughed at their reactions, the thread here would be about how to remove such a leader from the program.

 

But more to the point, neither the swim test nor the nature exhibit were set up to ferret out kids with phobias and have a laugh at their expense. The same is true of OA ceremonies. Nature exhibits, swim tests and the Ordeal are valuable parts of the program which have been planned, thought through and executed to make sure they are safe, positive experiences for the participants. Borrowing again from obscenity case law, all three have redeeming Scouting value.

 

And I do believe situations should be judged on unintended consequences. Not that I'm trying to turn this into a law school exercise, but pranksters take their victims as they find them. I load up a guy's hair brush with peanut butter, only to discover he has a severe peanut allergy, I'm in deep stuff. That it would have been hilarious had some else used the brush is no defense. We make that very point when we do our skits on bullying and hazing. Adolescent boys are terrible judges of consequences. That part of their brains simply haven't finished developing. One of the biggest problems with practical jokes is the can turn on a dime and spiral out of control.

 

One of my best SPLs had a squirrel get in his stash of snacks one year at summer camp. He then spent the rest of the week building a series of silly, Rube Goldberg squirrel traps which never had a chance of working. The rest of the troop had a great laugh at his expense. One day the SPL found five gallons of acorns dumped in his bunk. Later someone carefully lined up a row of peanuts from his tent back to the squirrel's tree. Someone else built a SPL trap, a 6-foot snare baited with a Snickers bar, as if the squirrel was trying to trap him.

 

I've been the butt of more Scout skits than I can remembers. I don't mind, it's part of the gig. The best one I've seen lately is The Scoutmaster Hunter where a kid does a Steve Irwin/Crocodile Hunter imitation looking for Scoutmasters -- "Ooooo we've got at fat one here. You can tell he's old by the small wooden beads around his neck. The round thing here is called a 'coffee cup.' Scientists aren't sure, but believe it is part of a mating ritual...." It's a riot.

 

All of which is to my point that one of the key differences between funny and cruel is the choice of the target. Beav, I think it was you who wrote that a good prank helps us laugh at ourselves. Right, but the key word is OURSELVES. Not the weaker kid who makes an easy target.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, da point of bringing up OA is that overbroad definitions of hazing, like some folks were advocating here, are dangerous to liberty. Like all overbroad definitions of criminal acts.

 

Knot Head, it doesn't matter whether participation is voluntary. In some of the states that have hazing statutes, they expressly exclude voluntary participation as a defense against the charge.

 

Calico, since participation in the Ordeal is required for membership, I don't think your notion that only da ceremony is initiation cuts the mustard. Restricting food and requiring labor as part of an initiation meets da definition of hazing in some states. If yeh ever have a kid hurt by such things (diabetic; tired kid injures himself with tools; kid becomes hypothermic, etc.), I reckon there's a chance a local DA looking to make a name for himself would bring the charges. And besides being a PR nightmare, those are criminal charges, eh? Yeh have to defend those yourself.

 

OA is much closer to da legal definitions of hazing than this incident is, which is why we should refrain from such broad definitions.

 

No arguments with what yeh wrote in the last, TwoCubDad. I think you're sayin' the same thing EagleDad and I am, eh? The intent of the prankster matters, as does the nature of the prank and how (and to whom) it's done. Same as any other ethical choice, eh? We could say the same about first aid. The intent of the caregiver matters, as does the nature of the care, how it's done, and to whom it's done. There's good first aid, and poor first aid done with good intentions, and bad first aid, eh? No different for pranks or anything else.

 

Yah, kids' and adults' judgment when they're new to anything isn't always the best. Good judgment comes from experience which comes from bad judgment and all that. You're goin' to get the occasional poor prank the way yeh get the occasional poor PL leadership or the occasional adult who can't handle a mouthy teenager with grace and humor.

 

But occasionally poor PL leadership doesn't mean we should never let youth lead, eh? And occasional poor judgment in pranks doesn't mean they should be universally banned either.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[asm1429]

A not very Scoutlike prank gone bad.

 

Happy April one

 

[Beavah]

LOL. Yah, good one. Very apropos to the discussion. I really enjoyed this:

 

[studentscout]

Beavah, I have no idea what you're talking about with the Kudu thing. I agree that the hazing idea is peripheral to the thread topic and I'm sorry I was baited by evmori into a comment.

The thread is about senior scouts giving a bottle of urine to a younger scout who was told to get someone to drink it. Great fun by clean-cut American youth, I suppose, NOT, but that's what the thread is about.

It isn't about me. It isn't about you and a bunch of old guys yucking it up, either, and your attempt to minimize it with your comparison to Google's 'Topeka' banner, is that really how little concern you have for a prank like this?

It's about that young boy and the very similar situation I mentioned in which law enforcement became involved.

 

Mike, thanks. I caution you that scary stories at night and Halloween things can just as easily terrorize some children. I've seen it happen. Your point is well taken. But I am focused on pranks like the one that started this thread, misdirections not withstanding.

[DYB-Mike]

Studentscout,

 

I dont think any of the posters are yucking it up over the incident that started this thread. Initially, the debate was over the extremity of the punishment (and everyone agreed there should be punishment) and who should be punished.

 

Things have kinda gotten sidetracked over the hazing prank debate.

 

I think what Beavah and the others are trying to say is there is nothing wrong with a little fun. I dont know your role in Scouts, but Im primarily a Cub Leader and fun is the secret ingredient that keeps the program fresh and the boys interested. Some pranks (to use your term deceptions played on others) fall into the realm of fun, but many do not.

 

This brings me to some wise words that I read on this thread: you have to take each incident and judge it individually. Short-sheeting is not the same as coercing a younger boy into giving another boy urine to drink.

 

Another thoughtful comment was that boys in their preteens and early teens really dont think things through and may not fully realize the consequences of their actions. I look at my soon to be 13 year old son and say you got that right!

 

You cant throw the baby out with the bathwater. Should I not tell ghost stories at the campfire because one or two boys may be upset? Is that fair to the majority to deny them a fun and traditional camp activity? What I can do is be observant and take the appropriate action if I see a boy that appears to be getting unnerved. And yes, like you, I have experienced these situations.

 

You also cant confuse a one shot prank with constant harassment aimed at specific targets. Even that gets gray. Ive seen incidents where something silly happens to a scout and it becomes a running joke. For the most part its harmless, but a good leader needs to be observant and know when to pull the plug if by chance things get out of hand.

 

Just like in judging people, you cant paint with a broad brush; each incident is unique and should be judged by the circumstances and intent.

 

YIS

Mike

 

[DYB-Mike]

By the way, Studentscout, Kudu is a poster on this Forum who endorses traditional scouting and he has stated that the key to promoting a boy lead troop and the patrol method is to have each patrol camp 300 feet apart as suggested by Baden Powell.

 

YIS

Mike

[Beavah]

Yah, studentscout, sorry for da allusions. Kudu is/was a sometime frequent poster who was a bit of a one-issue-wonder like Merlyn. His issue was his view of "traditional" scouting and ranting about how the BSA has departed from it. One of his mantras was that patrols must always camp at least 300 feet apart from each other.

 

Threads tend to naturally morph and change focus over time, like any conversation. This thread started out talkin' about the incident you describe, and my and others' early comments focused on it. I think you and I and most everyone else was in agreement, eh? The lads involved deserve serious consequences. My comments on that remain the same as they were on Page 1 of da thread.

 

But da thread has moved on, to discussions of the meaning of hazing, and to the appropriateness of pranks and jokes more generally. So some folks have shared truly funny pranks, and others have talked about how not all pranks are bad, and some have steadfastly maintained that all pranks are bad. Some have called this "hazing", some have shared various definitions of hazing, some have talked about whether an OA ordeal meets da definition of hazing.

 

All useful conversation among friends, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[CalicoPenn]

Well Beavah, I'll take you at your word that the Ordeal may meet the legal definition of hazing in some states. But that leads me to wonder if the people defining it that way are still traumatized by what they had to go through to have their Bar Mitzvah, which is also an initiation. A pretty fair number of my friends who had a Bar Mitzvah have said many times that Hebrew studies, which is required in order to have a Bar Mitzvah, was pure torture. Surely something that is pure torture as part of an initiation rite would be considered hazing.