Again this is @KiannaMcDowell 's idea. I’m not sure if this thread should be a genral story questions or a story debate thread. Maybe we could decide?
Anyway today’s story
As for the cell phone part. I want to hear people’s suggestion on how OP could have delt with other children wanting their cell phone if they had allowed (broken foot girl) to have a cell phone out of the bedroom?
Here’s two food scenarios from my experience at Bible Camp. I know it’s not the same thing as a broken foot and a “no cell phone” rule but it’s kind of show you how kids can be clamouring for stuff “because Person A has it!”
Up until a 2-3 years before Viral Yuck I couldn’t have drink of water in the kitchen in front of the children especially the 4-5 years old. Since Mom said if I had a drink of water the kids would all want to have a drink of water. The only way I could have a drink back them was if I went to the bathroom. (Note: Snack time back then were at noon and I been there since 8-8:30am and I wasn’t leaving the church until 1:45pm with no lunches until about 12 years ago when 2 people took over the camp) Now we have a sort of big water dispenser thing now so that doesn’t apply anymore.
Back when I was in Gr 7 and 8 (and maybe Gr.9) we had two flavours of Ice Cream but because some kids had one flavour (let’s say Chocolate) all the kids wanted chocolate. So for some years (my Gr.10-12 years?) we only had 1 flavour of ice cream to prevent that problem.
Tell them that they can have their phone if they break their foot, too.
ETA: OP states early on that they have plenty of activities to do. The only reason that one girl isn’t participating in those is because she twisted her ankle, and the main girl seems to be hanging out with her while she recovers. Presumably, the other campers would be too busy to play on their phones and wouldn’t even notice until it’s time to go back to their rooms, in which case they can use their phones all they like.
To piggy back off @KiannaMcDowell point this could be a great time to teach some broader lessons about rules and why they exist.
“Yes Sally gets her phone, she has hurt her ankle so we are making an exception. The rule exists to encourage you to interact with each other and take advantage of your surroundings as well as giving you an outlet to express yourself without the influence of social media for a moment. But since Sally got hurt her scenario has changed shes not able to do alot of the activities and thus there is no reason to keep her phone from her because the effect of the rule isnt relevant to her situation”
Heck its Bible camp so if the REALLY want to get deep and insightful about it they could use that as a opening to talk about things like old testamnet laws and how they would make sense in the context of their time and setting but how the specifics may no longer apply to the exact letter in a modern context.
Such as there is a theory that Abrahmic religions restrictions on pork could be in large part attributed trichinosis which in a Biblical era Levant would have been prevelant in the vast vast majority pigs and so was a legitamate health concern. But in modern pork production trichinosis is much less common and much more treatable. So there could be a discussion about letter of the law vs spirit of the law and how that can apply to us today.
Though that might be a bit deeper of a conversation than a camp counselor wants to have.
The use of religion and the ensuring of safety of future generations has been put forward as a way of making sure radioactive and toxic biological waste is lft untouched.
Think of all the ancient texts that would have been understood several thousand years ago that we are only now starting to translate.
Now think ahead several thousand years, after our civilisation has fallen: will future us recognise a radiation symbol? Will they know not to open what might appear to be a mausoleum with that symbol everywhere?
A lot of thought is being put into the symbols to show that it can cause death, and have it understood for the next few thousand years.
But it has been suggested that maybe the message the symbol conveys could carry on if it were part of religion, superstition or myth. Future civilisations might not know why it is bad in there, but they would know it was bad.
A bit like the hypothesis that certain foodstuffs were forbidden because they could kill if prepared or stored poorly
Another theory is that pork was forbidden because it tastes like human meat (supposedly; I have never eaten either humans or pigs, so cannot verify). There’s a story which backs this up, in which the origin of pigs is that a bunch of humans were turned into them for some crime or another. In an era where you have no food accountability and some of your neighbors might be setting up a pie shop on Fleet Street, it’s probably better to avoid anything that could possibly be human. But nowadays, we have ways to verify the origin of meat, so you’re more likely to avoid accidental cannibalism. Probably. You never know…
In any case, it seems like the original question has been answered.
I don’t think that kids would care about the rules being broken for two kids because one of them has a broken foot and it doesn’t matter if there’s like 100+ activities for campers to do - the thing is that kids would want to do exactly the same thing as the two girls and be allowed to use THEIR cell phone.
And even with a “talk” like Opinion suggested it could backfire on the camp counselled and the kids would be like “its unfair that they get to use one girl’s cell phone but no one else can bring our cell phones out of the bedroom!”
On the one hand, they have an injured camper who is very likely in pain, probably lonely, and definitely bored. While the camp probably isn’t as likely to face a lawsuit in Spain, assuming no gross negligence on the part of the camp, the parents of the camper would have a really good case to complain about their child getting injured and then abandoned for the rest of the day. If they paid money, they’re more likely to request a refund if their child was significantly unhappy and that’s the camp’s fault. And since this is probably a niche camp, their potential customer base is smaller and any complaints have a greater chance of a boycott.
On the other, they have potential complaints from whiny campers. Ones that will probably die down in a day at most and are no reason to get the parents involved.
Which do you think is more likely to cause a problem?
And what if after the camp is over the campers tell the parents that “Girls A&B got to use Girl B’s cell phone but no one else could use their cell phone” and leave out the little bit of information about the Girl A broken foot and the parents call the camp or something to complain that “YOU DIDN’T LET MY LITTLE PRINCESS/PRINCE HAVE A CELL PHONE BUT YOU LET GIRLS A&B HAVE B’S CELLPHONE?!”
or all the kids will pretend to have a broken foot just so they can use their cell phones if OP had allowed Girls A&B to use the one girl’s cell phone?
Then camp administration can tell the parents that Girl A had a twisted ankle and was given her phone. And if they have nurses there (which they should), then they should be able to tell whether someone has a foot injury or is faking it.
And all of this assumes that the other kids somehow learn about it. If it happened during the day, everyone else would be out doing other camp activities and wouldn’t find out about it. If it’s when there aren’t any activities scheduled, then they can just go back to their rooms and use their phones.
This is nonsense and you should stop believing it. I know you’ll just double down on this idea, but it’s not true and you should stop repeating it.
The girl with the twisted ankle should have been allowed to have her phone and the other kids should have been told that it was a special circumstance. They weren’t barred from their phones, they just had to use them in the bedroom. If they wanted to watch a movie or play whatever mobile game is popular with the kids these days they could go there and do so. The girl with the twisted ankle couldn’t.