Waah.
 

http://www.mashby.com/images/posts/waah.gif


BAN ME.

FYI, there's an ignore button if you don't want to read someone's posts.

Just because you don't like what someone says or how they say it doesn't mean they need to be "suspended".

If you don't like it, want to avoid reading it and don't want to be involved in any "personal attacks" use the ignore button.

Has it been changed to where we can ignore mods yet?

It's pretty sad when the moderators who are responsible for ensuring the terms of service are followed are the ones who can't be ignored, especially when they're the very ones dishing out personal attacks.

Isn't it ironic that a thread meant to stop arguing just lead to more of it? Seriously, unless any of us have been contacted by our HQ reguarding what we've said here, I really don't think it's an issue. People know enough to take their letters out of their signatures if they don't want them to be associated with what they say here.

Again, in the words of my dear Sistermadly, "it just ain't that deep." (Oh dear, what a poor reflection on Sigma and Kappa Phi I have been by using "ain't") :p

again another problem....at least 3 of the people dishing out attacks are mods. hmmm....

yep....and notice that several of the members who have been doing the aruging and attacking elsewhere are the same ones arguing and attacking here?

I think you'd have bigger issues than that. It would mean that your friends disregarded everything you've ever done in person, everything you've done as a real live person (not as words on a message board) and given more credence to some invisible people who they don't even know.

If someone doesn't want to join my Fraternity because of something they've seen on a message board, or because of something I've written on a message board then good! Let the door hit 'em on the way out. They're entitled.

But the minute someone attacks the Creed of my Fraternity and calls into question whether my sisters are living up to that Creed, then yes, I'm going to say something.

Attacking people. Sister, please. Let me provide a definition of ad hominem (i.e., an ad hominem attack): attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where said "So and so is a stupid trout-smelling fig for saying that" or saying "Man, you're dumb as a boat full of drunken Republicans if you believe you don't represent your Fraternity!". All I've seen is people arguing about the logic of these arguments. They've been passionate arguments, but they're not personal attacks. But honestly, maybe I've missed something. It's early, and I'm not wearing my glasses.

I'm serious. It's just a MESSAGE BOARD. Why do people take this isht so seriously?

Yup, people are being strung up from trees, their privates cut off, and set on fire. Yep, that's exactly what's happening here.

(Nice try with the hyperbole, though.)

Jocelyn, I think I love you. *LOL* :D

Folks, can't we all agree to disagree on this thread and move on? Seriously, there are clearly a couple of differing factions that just are not going to agree on this particular topic. Suffice it to say that just like anything else, there's probably been a bit more discussed/requested via PM than may be assumed from some of the prior posts.

It's a message board, folks. Use the 'ban' button if necessary and ignore a poster who you don't agree with if you are unable to ban them. Thanks for your support.

PS--just because someone is a moderator, it doesn't mean anything except in the forum or forums in which they moderate. Moderators should be able to post their personal thoughts, opinions, feelings in a thread just like any other member. Just my dime's worth.

I love you.

And seriously, I don't think "Grow a thicker spine" counts as a personal attack, but apparently my opinion is not valid, so . . .

Absolutely! As long as the moderators follow the rules that they were empowered to enforce-- whether on this forum or any other area in GC. However.. they are clearly violating the terms of services with their personal attacks and this very public lynching.

You, a moderator, made the comment on another thread , "Sorry, but hateful isn't a violation of the TOS. If it were, then I think that GC would be a very empty place. " Can you please explain what you meant by this?

A few other random comments:
"Growing a thicker spine" means to stop being passive and stand up for what you believe in. I'm curious as to why the poster would say that since I've repeatedly stood up on this subject. Does the poster consider me passive because I have not resorted to personal attacks?

Or...does the poster mean to say, "Grow a thicker SKIN?" If this is the case, does she feel I should grow a "thinner spine" and just take the personal attacks? :D

The same poster also made this comment earlier in the thread: " If anyone ever thinks poorly of my Fraternity because of something I might have said, well...you know where they can go."

A question for all... Do we not represent our GLOs at all times? Do we not live our ritual and the ideals at all time? Or is it something we pull out only when it's convenient?

Does banding together to attack people represent the ideals of your organization? Would national headquarters be proud to read your posts?

Another poster made the comment: "Attacking people. Sister, please. Let me provide a definition of ad hominem (i.e., an ad hominem attack): attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain. I don't see anywhere in this thread..."

Perhaps she missed the comment regarding "growing a thicker spine." Is that not an attack on a person's "character?"

And... how about this one: "This is not about the AI Thread - its about you being the most attention starved person on GC."

Isn't "attention starved" an attack on a person's character?

As an aside, I've also noted that nobody has yet to answer my questions in which I posted earlier. Perhaps someone here would like to tackle them?

And they are:
"As I understand it, John appoints moderators. If he "isn't around much," then what is accomplished by this public lynching? Isn't he the one who appoints moderators? Do you not agree that taking any complaints directly and privately to John would have accomplished more?"

Where to begin, where to begin?

First of all, I'd be careful about bandying about the term "lynching," because it has very specific associations and mental images that go along with it. Posters are expressing their concerns about how this forum is being moderated. Last time I checked, no one is grabbing a rope and heading for the nearest tree with anyone.

Second, if we banned everyone who was controversial or bombastic because that violated the TOS, no one would be left because I think that EVERYONE has done that at one time or another. Just because we are vehement and passionate in our disagreements doesn't mean that John will ban people. I think that's what AOIIalum meant. If I'm wrong, AOIIalum, please correct me.

Third, OTW was telling you to grow a thicker spine because you posted that people needed to be "suspended" because of "personal attacks." But as far as I can see, no one is attacking Tom Earp's character, but rather his style of moderating. BIG DIFFERENCE. In my line of work, people frequently aren't happy with some of the things that I have to do, and they lash out. Hard. If I cried "personal attack" every time someone said something vicious or out of line, I wouldn't last a day at work! Sometimes you just have to live with the fact that people don't always play nice in the real world or online. Shrug it off and move on--in other words, grow a thicker skin/spine/whatever. That's NOT an attack on your character, that's GOOD ADVICE.

And yes, we represent our Fraternity at all times. And my Founders were progressive women who weren't afraid to speak their minds or voice a different opinion. Just because we are fraternity women doesn't mean we're lemmings! I speak my truth no matter what, and I expect no less from my sisters. Sometimes that means taking off the kid gloves and being brutally direct.

And as a direct response to your question, you are assuming that people have not PMed John and that discussion is not happening about what to do regarding this forum--which is untrue. As to why the threads exist, I think posters are frustrated and expressing that frustration in the most logical manner. But that's just my opinion.

I just posted this in another thread, but I thought it was also very appropriate to post here. Because some of you seem hell-bent on trying to prove this is all a result of personal vendetta, when it is very a much a defense of our groups' private membership selection processes:

Obviously, as a moderator of a forum, users will look to him or her for advice about the subject area of the forum. For instance, going to me for questions about KD b/c I mod the KD forum.

When the AI subforum was created, no one realized what it would become. At the time I don't think we thought it would be a big deal or very controversial.

Well, things change and evolve. Just like our founders don't do things the way we do now, organizations need to grow and evolve, and so does GC.

The fact that people would see Mr. Earp as someone who would be knowledgeable about the AI process because he is a moderator of the forum is a somewhat dangerous thing. He has, on numerous occasions, dispursed misleading and blatantly INcorrect information.

The majority of PNAI's are females pursuing NPC membership. Mr. Earp, as a male member of an IFC fraternity, is in absolutely no place to give information or advice on the membership selection processes of NPC groups. However, those not familiar with GC or Greek life in general have no way of knowing that.

It scares me to think what information he has told GC'ers via PM, because he's publicly posted things that were blatantly wrong. He has refused to disclose what he has told PNAMs who have PMed him. He has also refused to forward such questions to those who are in a better position to give such information.

I think it's a valid concern of all NPC members to know and keep abreast of what information is being given out about their membership selection processes. Membership selection is a private, ritualistic part of our groups. None of us want false information being given out about it, and I think that's why so many of us feel so strongly on the topic.

.

nope...it was because the way women on this board have been acting are exactly the way that the sorority women on their campus acted. actually, many of my friends have said that they would have joined a sorority if the women had been more like me. :)

Quote:

If someone doesn't want to join my Fraternity because of something they've seen on a message board, or because of something I've written on a message board then good! Let the door hit 'em on the way out. They're entitled.

as i have stated before....it is really less about a specific group than it is about sorority life in general.

Quote:

Attacking people. Sister, please. Let me provide a definition of ad hominem (i.e., an ad hominem attack): attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain. I don't see anywhere in this thread where said "So and so is a stupid trout-smelling fig for saying that" or saying "Man, you're dumb as a boat full of drunken Republicans if you believe you don't represent your Fraternity!". All I've seen is people arguing about the logic of these arguments. They've been passionate arguments, but they're not personal attacks. But honestly, maybe I've missed something. It's early, and I'm not wearing my glasses.

so posting a picture of a baby crying with the word Waah...isn't personally attacking someone? or what about telling someone that their opinion isn't valid because they have only been a member of an org for 5 minutes? or how about posting in another forum a parody of someone's ai story? or how about bumping someone's ai story for no reason but to cause more trouble? shall i go on?

Quote:

I'm serious. It's just a MESSAGE BOARD. Why do people take this isht so seriously?

why do i care? its funny really. those people who are opposed to this thread are saying how they are allowed to post their own opinion in the same breath they are telling me that i can't post mine. hmm...

what i also find funny is that in the midst of every bit of drama that occurs on gc there seem to be the same people involved. interesting

ever hear of the phrase, "correlation does not imply causation"?

The people involved are some of the most active GCers