Agree with this.
 

I am glad you finally came out and said that we're allowed to blow sunshine up everyone's butt but are not allowed to offer honest opinions. What in the hell is the point of that?

Please note that there are TWO threads - one pro and one con. Equal time for both sides. I wanted a record of everyone's thoughts on the matter, that's all. People can read them, then decide if they want to post. I'm sorry if you don't agree with the concept. Please remove my quote from your sig.

I misunderstood the point of your threads -- I thought you were saying that your quote in my signature is the new rule in this forum. Is that not the case?

ETA: Does your question whether we're "for" or "against" AI refer to whether we're in favor of or opposed to AI in general or only in terms of this forum?

That rule applies only to the 2 threads in question(pro AI and con AI).

I don't understand the goal of the pro and con threads. What good does it do to have people proclaim themselves to be pro or con ai? And, why do we have to separate the two into separate threads that cannot co-exist? This is the exact point of my threads. Debate is frowned upon. Why aren't people allowed to debate the issue? Why do we have to segregate them?

The problem is that whether you're in favor of AI as a concept has nothing to do with Greekchat. I think AI is great in appropriate circumstances, but I think it's awful when freaks find out about it on GC and people encourage them. So I can't say whether I'm "pro" or "con" AI, because it depends on the situation.

I am opposed to having this forum on GC.

See my quote above.

So, you're just wanting a roll call of posters? What purpose does that serve other than to pre-judge the validity of a poster's views?

It's asking the wrong question. It's like saying "are you pro or con abortion?" Whether you support a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses is a completely different question from whether you are pro or con abortion -- you can be completely opposed to abortion but still support another woman's right to have one.

I don't think it pre-judges anything. The people posting to these threads are already on record as being for or against AI. All someone has to do is read through the postings on GC to find out that information. I'm just putting in all in one place for everyone to see.

then post in both threads. Some folks already have.

Why does anyone care whether or not someone is pro-AI or con-AI unless they are using it in the context of determining the validity of the post? Why do we need a thread stating our opinion on the subject? Why not allow discussion on the topic? That's the point.

There is no 'valid' or 'invallid' argument. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. That is the only point.

You want to go ahead and start a thread to argue the point of pro vs con? Go ahead. As long as it doesn't get personal, the thread will stay put.

Barbara, you're missing the point here. With all of the recent thread deletions going on here, people are starting to feel like we can't disagree with anyone on anything or else our posts will be deleted. You may think that you are encouraging us to express our opinions, but by creating two separate threads that basically just serve as a roll-call, you are only sending out the message that opposing opinions are inappropriate or aren't tolerated.

Tell that to your favorite poster. Seems like the personal attacks come whenever someone disagrees with her.

Please see my post in the recently deleted threads thread regarding that.

I don't play favorites, never have, never will. Same rules are applied across the board. Your opinion differs and I know and respect that difference.

As an NPC "outsider" I agree also.

I don't think the process of pursuing AI should be discussed on GC any more than the process of pursuing membership at the collegiate level. Each org will have her own private rules for joining and they should not be discussed in public. When a 'freak' comes on here pushing her interests to AI into 'any org that will take her', then that is when the discussion gets hot.

I can understand why this is such a sensitive issue - no one wants their org perceived as the 'easy to AI into org'. I think this has been the crux of the whole NPC AI issue here on GC.

When you talk about membership, whether it is for collegiate membership or AI, it can become very sticky for a number of reasons. That is why it should not be discussed, or even hinted at on a public forum.

As I have been on GC over the years, I've come to appreciate the fact that the D9 mods will immediately close / delete threads concerning membership into a D9 org. You can scroll through the AKA and Delta forums on a daily basis and some weirdo has posted some question like 'I love you guys and obsess on becoming a member - what do I need to do to join your org'. Then the mods of each forum will direct the poster to the org's national website for membership information. I think if you did that here for NPC - AI, it will cut out all of this confusion and mess.

PT, as I am reading it, I don't think the issue is 'pro' v. 'con' AI. I think the issue is that people are very protective of who is allowed membership into their org.

Wordy McWord Word. WORD.

I do not think "fulfilling a dream" and "contributing to an organization" are mutually exclusive in any way.

I'm not sure which thread to post on either....

I'm completely against Sorority Shopping.
I'm for AI when the sorority member offers it to the PNAM, but not when the PNAM goes "seeking out" sorority members to bug about it.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, that I have less of a problem with, are women who were involved in a local in college (that hasn't been absorbed by an NPC), and now want a national tie. I still don't think that they should go sorority shopping, but if they have encountered a woman in an NPC, or an Alumna Chapter that stands out to them, I think they would be a good fit for AI in certain situations. They're obviously not trying to live out their college days as an active...they got the chance to do that, and know what that part of sorority life is about. They'd make decent advisors, because they HAVE been through the experience.

No. But one is a reason that someone might be a good AI candidate (given that they meet OTHER criteria, like say...having a connection to that group), and the other is a ridiculous reason to pursue AI. I'll let everyone figure out which is which.

And the funny thing is, I started a thread so that you could discuss the issue and noone has posted in it. Because they aren't interested or because I posted that personal attacks wouldn't be allowed? Only the Shadow knows for sure....

Exactly. I don't understand what will be accomplished. I don't even understand why it is necessary. It seems even more divisive and nasty than some of the other threads that have been deleted by the moderators. But, that is just my opinion and others are free to disagree.

Good question, aries! You are always a voice of reason....

Someone wants a "list" of Pro-AI people and Anti-AI people, so that when a PNAI comes on GC, and someone gives them advice (good bad or indifferent), we can point out "She's on the Anti-AI list, don't listen to her" or "She's Pro-AI, take her advice".

It also gives the mods a list of whose comments to seek out to delete. (Yes, I said it. Waiting for it to be deleted. Go ahead.)

So the solution is to just make it personal so the whole trainwreck goes away............

Make what personal?

I still want to understand the point of the pro/con threads. Is it just a roll call attempting to categorize opinions, which I think is futile because opinions on an issue like this are fluid and cannot easily be categorized? If there are more people posting in favor of con than pro, will this forum go away -- or if there are more pro than con posts, will this forum stay? What is the purpose?

If there were only one thread, people would definitely be posting in it, but with so many threads to choose from, it's difficult to know where to start. My experience has been that, when there is more than one thread on the same topic, mods merge them together so people can read ONE thread instead of having to wade through a whole swamp of threads.

There are posts I'd like to respond to but I don't feel like I can simply because I disagree with that poster. It's difficult to respond in Thread B to someone's post in Thread A. People usually read posts in one thread before moving on to another, so if I quote a post (from Thread A) in Thread B it is confusing to everyone and seems illogical and out of place.

I understand that one of the points in having two separate threads is simply an attempt to keep things civil, but one of the points of posting is to share different POVs. How can anyone grow intellectually (and yes, I realize intellectual growth is not the primary goal of GC, but still, I think it's important) if they are allowed to share only those POVs that are already in agreement?

Tell you what, I'll lock the original two threads and everyone can have a free for all in the pro/anti discussion

NOt sure if you are Pro or Anti AI but when you figure it out can you let me know so I can make my stance too :D

That's really all we're asking for. Thank you.

But if you're going to let it be a free-for-all...let it be a free-for-all.

Blowing sunshine up someone's butt sounds illegal.

If this thread gets closed before guano's thread gets closed, I'mma calling BS on the not playing favorites thing.

I call shenanigans on this whole AI thing.

I don't think you'll get much argument from many (save guano) on this anymore. I think we've pretty much come to the consensus that ya'll in the NPHC have the right idea when it comes to membership discussion (besides rush, because that's a completely different animal then NPHC).

With the exception of the first one (since I'm not an AI), I agree.

You mean in terms of these GC-wide membership debates? :)