Your thoughts on AI: discussion goes here.

[greekalum]

Each group already HAS its own forum. If Sally AI wants to start a thread in the XYZ forum saying, "here's how I became an XYZ," no one would stop her and I think most of the XYZs would cheer her.

[UGAalum94]

Right, Greekalum, at least that's what I think would happen.

KLPdaisy, I think I understood what you were saying: you think that separate forums would validate the idea of looking for AI info online.

I, personally, have no problem with AI information being online as long as it's not ritual, and I still maintain that, despite what some say, some information about AI can be public.

Separate forums still allow free discussion for the groups that want it, but would permit regulation by groups that don't.

I think that's preferable to trying to silence AI discussion completely.

EE-BO, I think sometimes group members do talk about their experience going through rush or what they thought in their new member period. Or how and why they accepted a COR bid. I don't think that there's a problem with AI members being able to do the same thing. I don't think having AI stories creates the perception that it's a special class of member after initiation (well, any more than the circumstance of AI itself does).

Because ultimately one does have to be invited to join, I don't think having information out there about AI really promotes it as recruitment. Having information out there could actually be discouraging if you wanted it that way.

A GLO AI forum that stated "AI is by invitation only. It is considered bad form to solicit for membership." could shut down interest in AI from outsiders pretty darn quick.

Since, as far as I know, AIs can't join without sponsors who know them in real life, people can shop all they want online, but if no real world group picks them up, all the shopping in the world doesn't help.


I also have to say that PNMs and PNAMs do us a great service when they reveal that they are COMPLETELY CRAZY before we allow them to join. Forums that allow them to tip their hands early in our involvement with them may actually be doing the group a great big favor. I don't mean that you talk back to them, be rude to them, insult them, blow sunshine. But you just don't let them join your group.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

I, personally, have no problem with AI information being online as long as it's not ritual, and I still maintain that, despite what some say, some information about AI can be public.

You're only speaking about AI information related to your organization and not others, right? Let's say that I do not want AI information related to my organization posted on GC. How would you answer the following questions:

Are our opinions enough? What if another AGD who posts here disagrees with you and thinks no AGD AI information should be posted on GC?

Should members of our respective organizations vote on the AI-GC issue? Who is qualified to render an opinion -- all members? AIs? Officers? Who makes that determination? If sorority XYZ decides it does not want any discussion of its AI process discussed on GC, who monitors that? The moderators of this forum, even if they're not members of XYZ? How is that appropriate?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

You're only speaking about AI information related to your organization and not others, right? Let's say that I do not want AI information related to my organization posted on GC. How would you answer the following questions:

Are our opinions enough? What if another AGD who posts here disagrees with you and thinks no AGD AI information should be posted on GC?

Should members of our respective organizations vote on the AI-GC issue? Who is qualified to render an opinion -- all members? AIs? Officers? Who makes that determination? If sorority XYZ decides it does not want any discussion of its AI process discussed on GC, who monitors that? The moderators of this forum, even if they're not members of XYZ? How is that appropriate?

Are these the questions you meant? If so, I thought I had answered them. I think that the moderators of the GLOs forums could, by following GLO policy, decide what stays or goes. I think I've always been clear that group policies should be honored and that group members best know what the policies are. BUT if no group policy exists, it's just a matter of personal preference, and for me, I'd always err on the side of allowing people to post what they want to.

If it's not a matter of GLO policy, then isn't a question of personal preference and opinion? Aren't opinions allowed to vary?

As much as some of us might like to stop people from embarassing themselves or their groups, unless there's a specific policy against what they are saying, I don't think you can.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

BUT if no group policy exists, it's just a matter of personal preference, and for me, I'd always err on the side of allowing people to post what they want to.

So if you're not sure if something in your GLO is Ritual, you'd rather err on the side of "well, I don't know if this is ritual, so I'll just tell my friend who's an XYZ anyway"?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

So if you're not sure if something in your GLO is Ritual, you'd rather err on the side of "well, I don't know if this is ritual, so I'll just tell my friend who's an XYZ anyway"?

No! When something is ritual, it's ritual; it's not a matter of opinion. If you aren't sure, you shouldn't tell.

But in cases when it's not ritual, and there's no GLO policy about discussing the issue, then it don't think that some members of the group should limit other members of the group's discussion of the issue.

(In your example though, are you suggesting that two initiated members of the same group can't discuss ritual or things that might be ritual in person? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.)

[Tom Earp]

I have seen it posted many times that AIing is part of Ritual. Since when?

It is new recruitment process and has nothing to do with Ritual which is part of indoctranation in Initiation.

While it may not be what the undergraduates go thrhough, it is still a feeling process by Alums who are considering someone and that is all.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
adpiucf:


Tom, I simply don't understand what makes a grown man, a fraternity alumni, so passionate about the goings-on of a women's association. I'm sorry you weren't able to manage this forum when it was under your moderation. I think PT and carnation have been doing a very good job since they took it over, but the point remains that several members just don't want an AI forum and wish for our AI sisters to acclimate to their sororities by conducting their posts and stories within their sorority forums.

ETA: I in no way construe the above to be a violation of the TOS or a personal attack against Tom Earp. My stating that he was not able to moderate this forum previously is a matter of fact, and not opinion, or moderation of the forum would not have been turned over to another set of moderators. I hope it is not seen as a TOS violation. It was not intended as such.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may not understand why I post what I do but, it is my decission to isnt it.
It is not just about the she of the specie but the he also.

It is also about an open web site for Greeks. So, lets burn the books and then what?

The previous AI post was a much bigger proble
m than just understanding and I think John also realized this.


Now I am not sure what rock you have been hidding under, but the new Mods have also gotten flack about AI.

They are working very hard to keep it under control, but some seem to not want to allow them to do their Over Paid Jobs.

Can I relate, yes as I have told them many times and I feel for them.

If you and all of the rest want to talk about My Moderation feel free, but did I get much help? NO!

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

I, personally, have no problem with AI information being online as long as it's not ritual, and I still maintain that, despite what some say, some information about AI can be public.

And what, pray tell, would that information be?

If you want to use that whole "but that information was in our Quarterly, therefore IT IS PUBLIC!!!" reasoning, go ahead. But you know and I know that most, if not all, NPCs don't have AI info online for good reason.

I know for a fact that GreekChat is frowned upon by International Council. Why the heck would they want their membership information posted here?

So, good luck trying to convince IHQ that AI info can be public.

From valkyrie:
Are our opinions enough? What if another AGD who posts here disagrees with you and thinks no AGD AI information should be posted on GC?

*Raises hand*