Your thoughts on AI: discussion goes here.

[UGAalum94]

Some groups do share some information publicly.

What was wrong with the idea of letting members of each group follow their own national policies again?

[UGAalum94]

Midwesterngirl, I have no doubt GreekChat could be a thorn in the side of the officers of any group for many reasons. I'm glad to hear national officers are on here and I'd hope they could keep a lid on any off-limit discussion.

I'm perhaps too sceptical of people making the claim that they represent the overall wishes of their group on GreekChat, especially when some of the most vocal say pretty much whatever they want to say.

I'd like someone to show me why it's appropriate to "assume" that if it's not on the official site, the topic is off-limits.

If I can google your group or my group and come up with document from your official group about AI, how can you make the case your GLO intends everything about AI to be secret?

Something else I'd like to see: could those of you who make the claim that AI threads have become train wrecks provide a few links for threads in which it wasn't one of your own anti-AI group who caused the wreck?

[midwesterngirl]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Midwesterngirl, I have no doubt GreekChat could be a thorn in the side of the officers of any group for many reasons. I'm glad to hear national officers are on here and I'd hope they could keep a lid on any off-limit discussion.

I'm perhaps too sceptical of people making the claim that they represent the overall wishes of their group on GreekChat, especially when some of the most vocal say pretty much whatever they want to say.

I'd like someone to show me why it's appropriate to "assume" that if it's not on the official site, the topic is off-limits.

If I can google your group or my group and come up with document from your official group about AI, how can you make the case your GLO intends everything about AI to be secret?

Something else I'd like to see: could those of you who make the claim that AI threads have become train wrecks provide a few links for threads in which it wasn't one of your own anti-AI group who caused the wreck?

The information used to be public and now it isn't. Our selection is now invitation only, no cold contact. I don't think that means that it is secret or off limits, it just means that more discretion needs to be maintained and GC sure as hell is not discrete in any way. By taking it to the private side of our websites, it allow our HQs to control what is out there because the information isn't so readily available. I think that is the point.

I don't know how many trainwreck threads are still available. Most of the threads have been deleted for very obvious reasons. Long term posters just rememeber them because they were highly unforgettable. Not to mention that individual organizations may have individual stories that members might share but prefer to keep between themselves. If you look through the Ai forum you might find a few of them. Beyond that, it is just the rocking chair memories of the GC oldsters.

[UGAalum94]

This is a serious, I mean, non-rhetorical, question:

Why would a national officer of a group have to address the case of a particular PAI online?

I can totally see why a national officer would need try to eliminate posts containing ritual, secrets, etc.

[UGAalum94]

I'm feeling self-conscious about the edit button lately.

When I look through the AI forum, I see a pretty even mix of general, seemingly harmless questions and answers, and particular women's AI stories.
I don't see terrible violations of group rules and violations of group secrets.

Once in a while, there's information from someone who seems a little crazy, but these people don't seem to claim any authority or expert level of opinion.

(I am NOT making an comparisions between the process of rush and AI here, but it seems to me that the recruitment forum, which is the main thing I read, has about the same ratio of oddball:average posts, and yet it seems that most people are cool with rush stories, or at least they aren't asking for the recruitment forum to be shut down.)

If the system that has been in place for moderation and deletion generally works, why would it be better to get rid of the whole thing?

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

I'm feeling self-conscious about the edit button lately.

When I look through the AI forum, I see a pretty even mix of general, seemingly harmless questions and answers, and particular women's AI stories.
I don't see terrible violations of group rules and violations of group secrets.

Once in a while, there's information from someone who seems a little crazy, but these people don't seem to claim any authority or expert level of opinion.

(I am NOT making an comparisions between the process of rush and AI here, but it seems to me that the recruitment forum, which is the main thing I read, has about the same ratio of oddball:average posts, and yet it seems that most people are cool with rush stories, or at least they aren't asking for the recruitment forum to be shut down.)

If the system that has been in place for moderation and deletion generally works, why would it be better to get rid of the whole thing?

Are You out of YOUR mind!


Dont you know that AI is special and is not to be talked about?

Everyone that I heard is Anti! Well, maybe not so much!

[SydneyK]

This is going to sound snarkier than I want it to, since I really don't mean to be snarky at all. But, alphagamuga, why are you so interested in seeing the AI board continue?

As midwesterngirl said, the AI policy of some orgs used to be public, and now it isn't. Because the (I)HQs felt the need to move their AI policy to a non-public location (or omit it entirely, I don't know) , it makes sense that those (I)HQs wouldn't want AI policy to be discussed on GC. Since Carnation and PT already have enough on their plates, it doesn't seem fair for them to have to mod/delete/lock/edit as many posts/threads as they would have to if the forum were to continue in its current form.

I think there are too many people here (and you may not be one of them alphagamuga, so this isn't directed at you) who believe that those of us who are in favor of omitting the AI forum are anti-AI. That isn't necessarily true. It's just that there isn't a need for AIs to share their story until they're actually a sister. At that point, if they want to share the story of how they became a sister, then that's fine. They aren't second-class sisters because they are an AI.

However, due to the current state of things, some people may see AI as second-class membership. It isn't just for the sorority's protection, but also for the PNAI's, that the AI policy be known only among those who need to know it. Your basic GC guest isn't necessarily someone who needs to know.

[chitownxo]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Are You out of YOUR mind!


Dont you know that AI is special and is not to be talked about?

Everyone that I heard is Anti! Well, maybe not so much!

Tom, the vast majority of us are not "anti-AI". Many of us are "anti" discussing the process because we believe it contains ritual information (i.e. membership selection). There are others on this board who believe the AI process is NOT ritual. Therein lays the debate. My position is that as my organization does not publicize our AI process, neither will I, as I will respect the wishes of my organization.

I don't believe I've read any posts that disparage sisters who have joined organizations via AI. If there are posts of this sort on GC, I've missed them.