a prank, or hazing?

[Beavah]

Oak Tree, I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

 

Are you asking if whether the opinion of a half dozen people has convinced me that all pranks should be forever banned in every scout unit across the land?

 

The answer is no.

 

The answer is no for the same reason that I don't believe all paint rollers with extension poles should be banned in all scout units across the land, even if one person somewhere once upon a time was somehow seriously injured by a paint roller. No matter how poignant the tale and how raw the emotions after 40 years. If yeh want to convince people, present some real data, not competing anecdotes.

 

Are yeh asking whether I think that some pranks are inappropriate?

 

The answer is Yes, of course. I've already expressed in other threads that by and large I don't care for snipe hunts, though I don't have any problem with the sort jblake describes.

 

Are yeh asking whether I think that when lads do poor pranks that the proper response is to ban all pranks in a unit?

 

The answer is No. I think that's just treatin' a symptom, not the cause. If yeh have older boys in your program who are not naturally watchin' out for the younger fellows, or if yeh have scouts who can't apply the Scout Law to pranks in a way that keeps 'em fun and safe, then the problem is your program, not the prank. Banning pranks will just allow other forms of bullying to continue with more gusto out of sight.

 

To my mind, the urge to just "ban them all" is a symptom of the problem with your program as well, eh? It shows an instinct to respond with authority, rather than with mentoring. That only teaches older boys that they should treat younger boys in the same way, eh? As lesser folks who should be ordered about by those with higher status or age. Your example is speakin' so loud that they can't hear your words. Yeh need to develop a better vision for what the patrol method and adult relationships method and relations between scouts can and should be, so yeh can figure out how to build it positively.

 

Are yeh asking whether I find Alan Funt and the modern Canadian candid camera pranks to be contrary to the Scout Law?

 

The answer is no. And I'll happily stand with the majority of Americans in that regard over da proponents of the people-made-of-glass theory. I find those things delightful and humorous, and wouldn't have a lick of problem with boys in a troop playin' such pranks in the same spirit. Many a lad still tells tales of playin' such pranks on me with delight.

 

Now, let me turn those questions back around on you, eh?

 

Do you really feel it's appropriate to ban all pranks if one somewhere sometime went awry in the mind of one boy? If so, how is that any different from banning paint rollers or canoeing?

 

Are yeh really claiming that all pranks, as packsaddle suggests, are violations of the Scout Law which have no place in Scouting or in a scout's day-to-day life, from Alan Funt on down?

 

Do yeh feel that when boys do somethin' inappropriate in a unit, the proper response is a unit-wide prohibition? So if, as BDPT00 points out, a lad has a bad experience at his OA Ordeal, we should prohibit OA Ordeals? An off-color skit means banning all campfire skits?

 

Did yeh refuse to watch Candid Camera back in the day? Would yeh walk out on the Canadian version I linked to? Tell your parents it was inappropriate for scouts to watch because it glorifies violations of the Scout Law? Or did yeh sit down and say "Wow, some of those were really clever!" and note how they all ended in smiles?

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

OakTree didnt ask those questions, nor did anyone else, (except your straw man.) Nobody (except you) has suggested banning all pranks. Fits in nicely though with your earlier comment that ...emotion-laden tales told from only one perspective to try to get people to side with yeh [being] just a tactic is the un-honorable tactic of building up a straw man of positions, falsely attributing them to your opponent, and proceeding to tear it down.

 

Skip the rhetoric. Lets hear instead how a snipe hunt is a positive and beneficial activity for troops to engage in so beneficial that it outweighs the downsides illustrated by OGE and others...

[BDPT00]

So if, as BDPT00 points out, a lad has a bad experience at his OA Ordeal, we should prohibit OA Ordeals? An off-color skit means banning all campfire skits?

 

*** OA at the national level (and certainly at our local level) has already done that. Hazing/pranks/bullying (I'll throw all of it in the same pot) that used to take place at Ordeals is now forbidden. I've seen many skits interrupted at our council camps (staff has seen most any skit before, and knows when to jump up and stop inappropriate ones).

Regarding hazing/pranks/bullying, we either accept it or we don't. I don't. You do. Simple enough.

BDPT00

 

 

[Beavah]

Nah, BDPT00, that was not the example I gave, eh?

 

The example I gave was of a young lad who made First Class in his First Year, and at age 11 or 12 was elected to OA in a fairly young troop. He went on his Ordeal and had a miserable time. Nobody hazed him, nobody bullied him. He received da usual peer pressure to sleep out, even though he had less skills and was less prepared than a typical lad on his Ordeal. He received the usual admonitions on silence and took 'em seriously. And as a result of the normal OA ordeal, he had an experience that he reported very much like OGE's.

 

This is a real case, eh? I'm not makin' it up. It involves a real youth, and a real lodge, and a real pair of very upset parents and a kid lost to scouting.

 

Objectively, from a different perspective, this was just an ordinary Ordeal, led by upstanding lodge members. Yah, they probably missed da signs that this particular lad wasn't as well prepared or emotionally robust as a typical Ordeal member, but it wasn't because they intended bullying or hazing. The kid didn't express his worries durin' the Ordeal because he was told to be silent and took that at face value.

 

My point is if yeh just took that young lad's perspective as the only perspective, we would have dissolved the lodge, eh? I think yeh have to ask yourself, though, why yeh would really believe that fellow scouters like those lodge members or OGE's Scoutmaster or me support hazing and bullying. Do yeh think so little of the scouting movement, or of Loyalty and Kindness, that yeh would immediately assume the worst of fellow scouters because of one upset boy, or because he happens to disagree with yeh in an internet forum?

 

No, of course neither I nor anyone else accepts hazing or bullying. I fear, though, that our approach to authority sometimes teaches such things to kids by our example and action. Often right here, in electronic print.

 

Beavah

 

[BDPT00]

I hear ya loud and clear. Not a problem. The perspective that counts, however, is still the "victim's." Your Arrowman example is a good one. The lad is clearly not fit for the OA (at least from what I'm hearing). Wrong age? Wrong year? Bad weather? Lousy food? Tease? Tired? Don't know. It just didn't work out, and I'm fine with that. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of banning Ordeals and camfire skits. I'm in favor of trying to find out if there was maybe something that could have been done to make his Ordeal more enjoyable. If so, next year's Ordeal will be better. If not, that's just the way it goes and that's too bad. As much as we'd think it is, Scouting isn't for everyone.

That doesn't dismiss my opposition to pranks. As far as we know, nobody did anything to this kid. If he'd spent the night out hunting snipes, I wouldn't feel the same way.

I don't equate the two examples. Again, we won't be agreeing on this.

BDPT00

[Twocubdad]

Work with me here, Beav, cause I'm missing something.

 

Define "prank" for me. What is the difference between acceptable and unacceptable pranks? Give us some examples of acceptable pranks.

[Beavah]

I reckon we are agreeing on this, BDPT00. Because yeh see, from a legal perspective (which did come up in da case I mentioned), OA ordeals really can cross the line into da legal realm of criminal hazing in some states. Regular, ordinary Ordeals like this one.

 

That's worse than snipe huntin', eh? Higher risk from a personal and risk management perspective at least. I'd still say, in a somewhat qualified way, that OA Ordeals are OK. Well done pranks in a troop where the boys are bein' taught to live by da Oath and law are much less worrisome, to be honest. Heck, even poorly done snipe hunts (which I really dislike) pose less risk.

 

TwoCubDad, I tried really hard to give yeh my examples of acceptable pranks. Gave two whole YouTube links to dozens and dozens of 'em, which demonstrated quite well what I'm talkin' about in terms of both action and tone. Referred repeatedly to Alan Funt and the ol' Candid Camera prime-time TV show. 30+ years of what I would consider generally acceptable pranks, approved for all audiences. In fact I reckon that the old Candid Camera show may have been da source for a lot of scout prankishness.

 

Don't know how I can be any clearer than full video and audio, eh?

 

I think everyone got their knickers in a twist because a message I was composin' simultaneously with OGE's popped up right after his rather than right before his, so it looked like I was respondin' to him rather than respondin' to somethin' earlier which was really the case. Interestin' example of da power of emotional storytelling.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutfish]

So basically what we are saying here is this: Anything that could possible cause somebody to be embarrassed is going to be considered hazing or bullying?

 

Well, somebody better call National and send out the notices that camp swim checks are no longer okay, Matter of fact, no swim checks anywhere are okay any more. Why? Because it is embarassing and even mortifying for a scout to fail one or be designated a beginner or non swimmer.

 

You know how embarassing that is? All your scouting buddies get designated swimmer while you get to splash around in anke deep water. Might as well put on a dunce hat and one of those dinosaur inflatble tubes around your waist!

 

How about a scout that forgets his book at a BOR or EBOR? You better keep on going lect you embarssa him or cause humiliation!

 

Matter of fact, just the idea of a SM conference, BoR or EBoR is enough to cause stres and anxiety in some youth. Better not hold any more CoH's either because some boys are scared....NO! Terrified of standing up in front of people!

 

Cancle summer camps and any activities over 72 hours or any high adventure activity too. You know how dreadfull, embarassing and potentially scarring those "turn your head and cough" examinations are.

 

Scouts have to cook their own breakfast? Forgetaboutit! Too stressfull for some boys!

 

And yes, I have seen and heard complaints about everything I said said . And in the eyes of the scouts involved , they were really, really big deals that they completely loathed!

 

And we know that what the purpose was does not matter, only how the scout involved percieved it. Even if he doesn't understand the reason for or why, or the intent behind it.

 

NOw, you better not ever tell any jokes around, in the proximity of any scouts or parents either. You know why? Because they may think you were talking about them. Doesn't matter if you were or not....only matters if they think you are.

 

Afterall, it's the victims perception that matters!

 

Guilty, guilty, guilty! Trial over! No need for your side...the "victim" already spoke and shared his point of view!

 

What if he finds out he misunderstood or was wrong? Well, he won't! Why? Because once he initially thinks he has been wronged, then everything stops and will no longer be reviewed. It will just consider to be wrong.

 

Oh yeah, might as well stop wearing your uniform, It is intimidating to some, and others feel bad, even embarassed because they do not have the full uniform.

 

Nope! You can't say they can but it over time or even get one from the uniform locker. That still means you are poor or can't afford a new one, which is embarassing and possibly traumatic.

 

You know what, just go ahead and shut your unit down. I am sure at some point in time, a scout quit because he felt things were too hard, too stresfull or he just wasn't as good at scouting as another scout..in which case, he quit because he felt embarassed or in adequate as comparred to the other scouts.

 

So, where exactly do we draw the line? Oh yead, wherever the "victim" percieves it should be drawn.

 

 

 

[FScouter]

Oh, for Pete's sake!!

[Twocubdad]

 

If the purpose of swim testing is to ferret out the weak swimmers and hold them up for ridicule, then yes, 'fish, we shoul ban swim tests. But off hand, can you think of any other good reasons for conducting swim tests? Really, anyone feel free to chime in because 'fish apparently missed that section of Safe Swim Defense.

 

Courts of Honor must be really short in your troop, since everyone probably already knows the boys with the crippling fear of public speaking. I suppose you only have to call them forward, get a good laugh while they stutter, stammer and wet their pants, then everyone goes home. But yes, if that's all there is to a Court of Honor, we need to ban them, too.

 

And I suppose we should ban all medical checks, too, since everyone knows the only purpose of a hernia check is for the doctor to get a laugh. HA! Can't wait for these kids to turn 40 -- now that's HILARIOUS!

 

I've asked this a couple times and no one has addressed it, but am I the only one who sees a difference between a real part of the program which MIGHT have the potential for causing stress or embarrassment versus some stupid game where the WHOLE PURPOSE is to cause stress or embarrassment?

 

I don't like changing light bulbs, so the idea of doing a COPE course just ain't happnin' for me. My guess, however, is that part of the training COPE directors undergo is how to work with kids who are freaking out and helping them make a positive experience of the whole thing. I happen to know that during OA Ordeals candidates are taught the purpose behind stress-inducing elements of the weekend. All of which is brought together for them at the closing. I also know those in charge of Ordeals look for kids who may need to punch out. No, there's no guarantee that they won't miss a kid who isn't handling the stress well, but if this were a snipe hunt, they would be looking for that kid so the could call the rest of the troop around to laugh and heap ridicule on them.

 

I watched the video, Beavah, admittedly not all two hours. Funny. I especially liked the one where the old man did the power slide into the parking space. I was less endeared with the Menthos/Diet Coke gag. Might be funny in camp, but I see that one going badly if someone tried pulling it during an Eagle Court of Honor. I note, however, that all the Candid Camera skits were essentially sight gags where the "victim's" only involvement is in their reaction to the joke. I guess the summer camp equivalent would be the plastic eyeball floating in the soup or the quarter glued to the picnic table. Yeah, there's mild embarrassment in being fooled, but the joke itself is funny, not just the embarrassment of the victim. The reason the victim is laughing at the end isn't because Canadians have a better sense of humor that we do, but because the sight gag itself was funny independent of the reaction to it. But I honestly don't see many 14-y.o.s putting this effort into a prank.

 

Rather, I think what the rest of us are talking about is stuff which is based purely on someone being the goat and ultimately isn't otherwise funny. Like Snipe hunts. Or the Canon Report gag. The only thing there is that some dupe fell for it. Anyone here still get a laugh out of confusing report/account for an arcane definition of report meaning explosive noise? Or is the laugh over the fool who fell for it?

 

Those are zero-sum games. We're getting a laugh at your expense. Our good time comes by making you feel like a schmuck.

 

NOT Scoutlike.

[Beavah]

but am I the only one who sees a difference between a real part of the program which MIGHT have the potential for causing stress or embarrassment versus some stupid game where the WHOLE PURPOSE is to cause stress or embarrassment?

 

No, TwoCubDad. I think what's odd is that anyone would think that a fellow scouter would tolerate a game where the WHOLE PURPOSE is to cause stress and embarrassment.

 

What an odd, cynical, absurd thing to think about me or any other scouter.

 

If yeh start with that premise that scouts and scouters are all about deliberately causing others stress and embarrassment and harm, then da proper response is not to worry about pranks. The proper response is to MAKE SCOUTING ILLEGAL.

 

If yeh discover in a particular troop that boys' WHOLE PURPOSE is to cause stress and embarrassment and harm, then the proper response is not to ban pranks. The proper response is to EXPEL SCOUTS FROM THE PROGRAM and then fix your program to do a better job teachin' those who remain.

 

If, on the other hand, yeh feel that Scouting is a wonderful and wholesome program, with well-intentioned volunteers and good kids who are practicing and learning the lessons of character, then yeh come to different conclusions, eh? In that case, yeh recognize some fun and value in jokes and pranks and skits, just as yeh recognize some value in OA Ordeals and swim checks and canoe trips. Even though every now and again a youth or adult can misjudge somethin' and turn it into a learning/teaching moment, even though there's always a chance someone will misinterpret or take things the wrong way.

 

It's just like paint rollers, eh? If yeh start from da premise that all kids are idiots and all adult leaders are dangerous fools who can't be trusted, then (and only then) does it make sense to ban paint rollers. If yeh start from da premise that kids are reasonably capable and adult leaders in scoutin' are caring, alert folks, then yeh reach a different answer.

 

So da reason you're comin' to a conclusion of "Not Scoutlike" is because yeh started with a premise that wasn't scoutlike. Change your premise. You'll reach a different conclusion.

 

I honestly don't see many 14-y.o.s putting this effort into a prank.

 

Yeh must not know very many 14-year-olds, or yeh must not be givin' 'em da right encouragement.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutfish]

"I suppose you only have to call them forward, get a good laugh while they stutter, stammer and wet their pants, then everyone goes home. "

 

WEll, it was already said above, only the scouts perspective matters. And the scout may very well think that the only reason we got together was to humiliate him.

 

It was said above that our real reason or intent didn't matter. So , even though the reason we call him up actually has nothing to do with what the scout thought...only his perception matters.

 

You do know at that age, youth do forget that everything is not about them or how they see it.

 

"I've asked this a couple times and no one has addressed it, but am I the only one who sees a difference between a real part of the program which MIGHT have the potential for causing stress or embarrassment versus some stupid game where the WHOLE PURPOSE is to cause stress or embarrassment?"

 

WEll, see, we HAVE answered in this thread and the past ones. But you just lump everything into hazing.

 

SO, here is my answer:

 

WE do not do stuff with the intent of purposely humiliating scouts and hurting their feelings. But sometimes, it unintentionally happens. We are seeing grand schemes that will have us all laughing and enjoying the camradieri of each others company.

 

But guess what, sine we are not psychic, we sometimes assume things wrongly. Somebody takes things differently than what we INTENDED . THings do not happen with the outcome we expected.

 

Sp let me propose this differently, I have been on events similar to snipe hunts. I was the subject of the prank. I was the one who was red in the face...for about a minute, before I was laughing with everybody else. And at that point, I was just like everybody else. No longer a newbi or green, if you will.

 

I have been sent looking for board stretchers, sky hooks, and chain stretchers( which are actually real, by the way)

 

At the very moment the prank happens, I may not laugh my ass off, but after a few minutes, or even an hour later, I can laugh and appreciate the event as I can see the humor in it and I also know what the intent was.

 

Okay, look at it this way: One fine Saturday morning, your 5 year old son decides to make you toast and cereal, and a glass of juice.

 

So you have breakfast...except the toast is burnt a little bit. One piece has way, wat too much butter on it while the other barely has any. The cereal bowl is overflowing and spilling milk while the cereal is almost non existant.

 

Then you go into the kitchen. Cereal on the counter, on the floor, in the sink and even in the dog's fur. Milk everywhere too. Juice ....well..he turned the jug of juice upside down while filling your glass so there is half a gallon of OJ on the counter top and floor where he filled up your 8 oz cup. Butter all over the counter and the dog is licking the butter knife he dropped.

 

So, what you really have a is a big ole mes to clean up.

 

But would you say your son really just made a big mess and nothing more? Would you say his intent didn't matter because - you being the one has to clean it up - only your perception matters?

 

Would you say his whole intent was to make a mess?

 

WEll, you could, but all you'd really doing is using an arrogant amount self centered biased vision.

 

NOw, I'm not saying we could kidnap first year scouters and hang them by their feet from a flag pole while pulling their pants down, but saying that just because a person takes something wrong or doesn't share the same humor make it hazing is just biased. And wrong.

 

There is a line. Vandalism is wrong. Physical pain is wront. Anything that leaves a mark is definantly wrong.

 

Going out and purposely planning to cause humiliation is wrong.

 

But doing something in fun and games and thinking everybody will have a laugh at the end is not the same thing.

 

BUt lets get back to the swim check statement you made:

 

" But off hand, can you think of any other good reasons for conducting swim tests? "

 

So my questiuon is this: Can you think of ANY OTHER reason ( besides hazing) for pranks?

Any reason at all? Even the tiniest one?

 

Camradieri?

Sense of belonging?

Welcoming ?

 

"Really, anyone feel free to chime in because 'fish apparently missed that section of Safe Swim Defense.

 

Nah. I didn't miss that during Safe Swim Defense or Safety Afloat. But you know...the "victms" perception trumps any other reason. If he feels it's all about humiliating him, then that's all it is.

 

 

Just like if he thinks CoH's are embarassing, then that's all they are for. Because you know...the entire troop probably planned and conspired along with all the ASM's and the SM and the entire committee to hold an event that purposely embarassed him! Wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

 

And truth be told, I have heard more complaints about swim checks and BoR's than I have ever heard about pranks.

[BDPT00]

It's a good thing I don't care about your perception.

Your examples are all part of program. As such, they are promoted, encouraged, and often required. Pranks/hazing/bullying are not. Your examples will be in books and program material. Mine will , too, not because they're encouraged, but because they're discouraged. Dare I say forbidden? Yes I do. Yet, some leaders persist in believing that they somehow build character. I get that. I think character and citizenship can be developed without teasing the new guy. They can get plenty of that outside of Scouting.

The perception of the one individual (and his parents perhaps) is what will make him walk. A good leader will help the Scout by trying to understand how he feels or will feel during certain activities. Sometimes we're blindsided, because we didn't realize how some kids feel. We learn.

The notion that kids learn valuable life-lessons from pranks is not in my realm of programming. That's my perception, and I'm willing to share it. I've heard yours, and I'm not willing to accept it as mine. You can keep it, thank you.

BDPT00

 

[Scoutfish]

" It's a good thing I don't care about your perception."

 

And isn't that one of the bigger problems here?

 

"If I decide something is "X":, then it is "X" no matter what!"

 

You are making your own opinion an exact definition of "X"

 

But what about all the people who ( on both sides of a parnk) do not consider it hazing?

 

 

If the outnuber you, are they all wrong because your opinion is different?

 

I am not saying there is no such thing as hazing. Matter of fact, I do not believe I ever gave a specific example of where what you call hazing should be called a prank.

 

But what I did say was that you cannot lump all pranks as hazing.

 

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it hazing.

 

And lets be real, in the last page or two of posts, we made big strides in that hazing was pretty much defined as intentionally and willfully doing something to cause hard feelings, embarassment or anguish.

 

WOW! Sounds like there is alot of hazing going on in the site, no? By some people who (in their own opinion) are fine examples of scouters and following the scout oath and law.

 

 

But lets get back to that comment:

 

" It's a good thing I don't care about your perception."

 

LIkewise, I can say the same thing. So far, the very minor pranks and jokes I have played have resulted inlaugter all the ay around and including the victim too.

 

Nope, weren't no snipe hunts, no paddling initiations, no tattos, burning or swallowing of fish.

 

At a pack meeting, after a particular den would stand up front, I'd ask the scouts if they could pass the official physical scout test: Rub your belly with one hand while patting your head at the same time with thge other. 99% of the scouts I ask cannot do it. I knew they wouldn't be able to do it.

 

It got laughter from all the parents and other scouts. It got smiles from the boys trying too.

 

Next den goes up, same question. Next den, and next.

 

Everybody got a laugh out of it. Including all the victims. Alot of them planed on asking class mates at school if they could pass the " X" grade Test.

 

Every now and then, a scout who practiced would say so at a following pack meeting and show us he could do it.

 

Hazing? Absolutely not. Humiliated? Nope! Traumatized? Not the slightest bit.

 

But, since it brought out laughter at the time of the initail pranks, I guess it is hazing.

Because that is how it was defined by a few people who do not care what anybody or everybody else thinks.

 

Basically it comes down to this: "If I am offended, then EVERYBODY else MUST BE offended as well. Even if they weren't.

 

 

NOw, I do have to ask: In this day and age, who hasn't heard of snipe hunting anyways? I am surprised that prank works on anybody any more. That's how I never got conned into it: I knew what it was before I would have been trusted to be put in that situation anyways. I knew about snipe hunting before my parents allowed me to go out that late or for that long alone with friends.

 

I guess I was shortchanged in not getting that trauma,

 

Luckily, I was born with a great sense of humor and can enjoy the humor in both sides of a parnk, practical joke or funny situation.

 

 

 

[Scoutfish]

By the way: NO MORE JOKES!

 

All jokes at some point, require a person, a group ( wether based on race, nationality, religion, work, ethics, party affiliation, education, hobbies, gender, etc...) to be the brunt of the joke.

 

That is disrespectful and insensitive to that person, group, etc...

 

That is derrogative and demeaning to that person, faith, group, etc... and will no longer be tolerated.

 

Don't even smile anymore as somebody may - in their perception - think you are thinking of a joke that could be embarassing, humiliating, derogitory, insulting or offensive in any other way towards them.

 

And, since only their perception applies, you are already guilty.

 

Sure, you don't care about their perception, ( and neither do I really) but we already learned that only their perception counts or matters.

 

 

 

By the way the ACLU couldm aways use some good volunteers to go out and educate everybody about what should offend them, and how they are wrong if it doesn't.