Your thoughts on AI: discussion goes here.

[Jen]

Just imagine what would happen if a sorority suggested to its members that they should not post on a message forum such as Greekchat.

Just imagine.

[cutie_cat_4ever]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Just imagine what would happen if a sorority suggested to its members that they should not post on a message forum such as Greekchat.

Just imagine.

I guess it almost sounds like controling their freedom of speech? and also gives out a pretty poor image of that particular GLO.

I guess things are just inevitable, esp with internet. I actually belong to a honor society that has rituals. One of my friends isn't in, but he told me he was able to search our rituals online (and he told me what they are, but of course I denied it) but you can say I was shocked.

Originally Posted by cutie_cat_4ever

Oh, I see. I guess one would assume that HQ would be really concern what goes on these forums and how it portrays their GLO. It's generally true for most orgs or societies for higher ups to make a stand point (without citing any sources) to control damage, like politicians.

But I guess I can see having HQ voicing their opinions here as a form as risk management risk, sort of like you never know if you accidentially leaked out ritual or not.

With that being said, I guess that pretty much says that the AI forum shouldn't even exist in the first place , i guess?

I also see it this way -- official posting from IHQ might lead others to believe that GreekChat and the Fraternity are affiliated in some way, when that isn't the case.

Official content resides on the IHQ website because they have full control over those pages. It's easier to direct those interested in AI there rather than have them come in here, where they have no say in what goes.

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Just imagine what would happen if a sorority suggested to its members that they should not post on a message forum such as Greekchat.

Just imagine.

I'd hate to think a sorority would prohibit and limit their members from personal expression.

[UGAalum94]

Well, I think clear documents from GLOs pointing out what could and could not be talked about online, as far as group policy is concerned, would have gone a long way towards resolving disagreements here.

For instance, if AGD came out and published a policy that directed women not to ever post policies of the group online that would have shut me up. It's the absence of that document that makes it seem debatable.

Women from the group who seemed to be posting policy could be pointed towards the official document, and there would be no question whether she was permitted to post about it.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Well, I think clear documents from GLOs pointing out what could and could not be talked about online, as far as group policy is concerned, would have gone a long way towards resolving disagreements here.

For instance, if AGD came out and published a policy that directed women not to ever post policies of the group online that would have shut me up. It's the absence of that document that makes it seem debatable.

Women from the group who seemed to be posting policy could be pointed towards the official document, and there would be no question whether she was permitted to post about it.

Here's the thing though. Undergraduate recruitment is written in stone, it's above board, because it's the main intake of women into greek organizations. Not many people know about AI because it's not common and because every GLO has a different policy.
If this forum goes, then it would just go back to how AI is supposed to be, with the GLO approaching the woman and not the other way round. Let's say AGD allows you to post policy. Someone sees that here and thinks 'oh, well if they do it, then I can do it with XYZ and DEF and maybe MNO too.'
In that way, we're doing a disservice. Not only is the information misleading, but it could then lead back to sorority shopping which, as a general consensus, is frowned upon in the AI arena.
If this sub-forum is closed, then anyone with interest would go into either sorority recruitment or alumni involvement, post their question and they would be redirected appropriately.
Remember the sassy little slogan you see on bid day shirts?
'It's not for everyone and that's the beauty of it.' This applies 100x more to AI.

[ReachTheLimit]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Here's the thing though. Undergraduate recruitment is written in stone, it's above board, because it's the main intake of women into greek organizations. Not many people know about AI because it's not common and because every GLO has a different policy.
If this forum goes, then it would just go back to how AI is supposed to be, with the GLO approaching the woman and not the other way round. Let's say AGD allows you to post policy. Someone sees that here and thinks 'oh, well if they do it, then I can do it with XYZ and DEF and maybe MNO too.'
In that way, we're doing a disservice. Not only is the information misleading, but it could then lead back to sorority shopping which, as a general consensus, is frowned upon in the AI arena.
If this sub-forum is closed, then anyone with interest would go into either sorority recruitment or alumni involvement, post their question and they would be redirected appropriately.
Remember the sassy little slogan you see on bid day shirts?
'It's not for everyone and that's the beauty of it.' This applies 100x more to AI.

If someone gave out incorrect information about a sorority that isn't slander or libel. If anyone has documentation of someone suing a sorority because they got inaccurate information about joining one I would love to see it for my own amusement (that means, city, state, location, case name...not "Oh, it's been done" generality), because anyone that would file one due to information that they got on a public message board has a few screws loose.

It's a message board like any other, you have to do your own research to make sure that the information you are receiving is correct.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

If someone gave out incorrect information about a sorority that isn't slander or libel. If anyone has documentation of someone suing a sorority because they got inaccurate information about joining one I would love to see it for my own amusement (that means, city, state, location, case name...not "Oh, it's been done" generality), because anyone that would file one due to information that they got on a public message board has a few screws loose.

It's a message board like any other, you have to do your own research to make sure that the information you are receiving is correct.

The problem is that it becomes the burden of the GLO to prove the false statements wrong. When you have an initiated member, who represents the GLO, then the statements that the initiated member makes can be viewed as GLO policy, if the person receiving the information does not know any different.

btw, it has happend. Just go over to the Risk Management forum.

[ReachTheLimit]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

The problem is that it becomes the burden of the GLO to prove the false statements wrong. When you have an initiated member, who represents the GLO, then the statements that the initiated member makes can be viewed as GLO policy, if the person receiving the information does not know any different.

btw, it has happend. Just go over to the Risk Management forum.

I don't want to research the forum. If a case exists then someone should post the details.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

If someone gave out incorrect information about a sorority that isn't slander or libel. If anyone has documentation of someone suing a sorority because they got inaccurate information about joining one I would love to see it for my own amusement (that means, city, state, location, case name...not "Oh, it's been done" generality), because anyone that would file one due to information that they got on a public message board has a few screws loose.

It's a message board like any other, you have to do your own research to make sure that the information you are receiving is correct.

I didn't bring legality into it. I addressed the misinformation as a moral issue. In ethics it would be known as a slippery slope argument.
The problem with this forum on this messageboard is that it creates the illusion that AI is a. common and b. every sorority does it. As I pointed out before, it's a skewed statistical sample of the actual AI demographic.
I don't hate AI in any way. It's another way to bring wonderful women into my organization. But the existence of this forum is, as I said before, a disservice.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Most orgs say recs are the responsibility of the collegiate chapter...and we all know that ain't true.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Well, I think clear documents from GLOs pointing out what could and could not be talked about online, as far as group policy is concerned, would have gone a long way towards resolving disagreements here.

For instance, if AGD came out and published a policy that directed women not to ever post policies of the group online that would have shut me up. It's the absence of that document that makes it seem debatable.

Women from the group who seemed to be posting policy could be pointed towards the official document, and there would be no question whether she was permitted to post about it.

I think the best way to resolve the issue is to use your (the general your) common sense and realize that, although it may not be *directly* stated to not talk about it, if the topic is not in the GLOs 'public domain', i.e., web site, then don't talk about it. Especailly on a public message board.

The basic problem with discussing topics online is that you don't know who you are really talking to. If I came on GC claiming to be a member of NPC org ABC, and start giving out random, incorrect information *that anyone can print as documentation for proof*, then I've misled the PNAI and misrepresented the org, which might be considered slander or libel. I've done nothing but cause confusion. I think some of the NPC ladies just want to eliminate unnescessary confusion.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

What about the women who ARE following the right process, and just have some general questions? I think it is okay to have threads like "I was invited to lunch with some women from the AA. What should I wear, and what questions should I be prepared to answer?" These are things we would gladly help undergrads with.

You know, the more posts I read, I really don't think "AI: discussion goes here" is the most appropriate label for this discussion.

I can only think of one GCer who flat out said "I wish my sorority didn't do AI"...which is fine, but I think most of us are comfortable and accepting of whether or not our sororities even do it. Either your sorority does it or it doesn't, and either way I'm sure most of us support each sorority's policy.

The majority of this discussion really touches up on the relevance of this sub-forum and what's appropriate to discuss online, not so much on AI itself.

But that's just what I think.

[UGAalum94]

SigmaDiva,

There's some question for me whether or not some information about AI is my group's public domain, so it's a little less clear than maybe you would think.

I don't mean to say that I think all of the process is public: I just think some questions could probably be addressed without giving away secret or "sisters only" information.

I also don't know that I accept the idea that because not all groups do things the same way, no group should give out info. Note, superficial rush comparison follows, but I'm not comparing AI to rush: people post rec. questions all the time. Do you need one? Is it good to have more than one? etc. When people answer these questions, I think it's always clear that they speak only for their organization, and often only for their chapter. Answers often stray awfully close to MS information as well.

Unless groups have clear policy statements, it seems to me that it ought to be up to the individual to decide to discuss anything that's not ritual or secret membership selection when it comes to AI. If it is in the best interest of the organization not to have this kind of stuff discussed, then they should publish a policy to group members, rather than leaving the issue somewhat ambiguous.