From: John Estrella
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 7:41 AM
Subject: Scouts Canada Discussion Group (SCDG) on Facebook

BCC NLT and NST

Background

The Scouts Canada Discussion Group (SCDG) on Facebook was meant to be a positive environment for our members to share their successes, solicit peer support and find constructive ways to resolve day-to-day challenges and frustrations. Unfortunately, in the last few months, a vocal few have taken it upon themselves to use it as a tool to negatively influence the silent majority. While we fully support dissenting views, we have no tolerance for half-truths, misinformation, combative and churlish discussions.

We are far from perfect and we are always looking for opportunities to improve how we do things. We can only get there if we engage in a positive and constructive exchange of views and perspectives. Although social media is a valuable tool to hear various perspectives in an open forum, we don't have the capacity to fully manage it to realize its full benefit. We have no intention of squashing the discussions. We just want to take it to a place where people are more reasonable in engaging in healthier discussions. Volunteers can express their concerns or questions via the Help Desk, Group Committee, AK3, CK3 and NK3. We also send quarterly surveys to our members. So, there are several options available.

Within that context, the NLT discussed these challenges last March and we explored four options along with their advantages and disadvantages.

Option 1 - disengage/ignore
Pros - focus our energy on positive things; less stress for us
Cons - vocal few influences the silent majority (6K); free for all

Option 2 - fully managed
Pros - positive stays positive; visibility on cries for help
Cons - negative experience; stressful; no end in sight

Option 3 - respond quickly and get out
Pros - address conspiracy theories; focused effort
Cons - generates more comments; true answer gets lost; waste of time

Option 4 - shut it down
Pros - done and over with
Cons - optics of being heavy handed; will pop up somewhere with no visibility for us

Decision

For Option 2, we quickly realized that we have no capacity to fully manage it. Even if we do, it will not be a good experience and a very stressful one for whoever will manage it. The disadvantages of Option 3 makes it an unappealing choice, and we'll lose visibility and control if we go with Option 4.

So, we are left with Option 1. It is not a great option but it is a better option compared to the other three. We also found that engaging the select few individually and directly worked better for us. In most cases, they were caught off guard when we actually reached out to them. However, we were only able to reason with very few of them which led to us to believe that regardless of whatever engagements we do or arguments we present, they have already made up their minds and we can't change them. It's a lost cause so they just move on. Otherwise, we need to help move them along.

Effective immediately, please refrain from engaging the handful Negative Nancys and Debbie Downers. When you see such a post, please ignore or direct them to their respective group, area or council contacts for answers or clarifications. Kindly give a heads up to their respective CK3s as well.