Your thoughts on AI: discussion goes here.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

I think potential AI members are tired of getting attacked for their interests and getting grilled by other GC members, who may NOT EVEN be a member of the sorority they are looking at, about why they want to join, etc. That isn't anyone's business, it's between the PNAI and the AA, and no PNAI should have to justify it to anyone on GC.

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways -- you're saying that why a woman wants to join a sorority isn't anyone's business and is between her and the organization. That's fine and I agree. The thing is, after she posts about it on the internet, she's making it everyone else's business. She could keep it between herself and the organization by not posting about it on the internet.

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways -- you're saying that why a woman wants to join a sorority isn't anyone's business and is between her and the organization. That's fine and I agree. The thing is, after she posts about it on the internet, she's making it everyone else's business. She could keep it between herself and the organization by not posting about it on the internet.

SO true.

[ReachTheLimit]

Well, I'll give you that, I probably didn't word that correctly.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is when someone is generally posting, looking for general information, and just want to post regarding her successes and lows regarding AI, why should she have to worry about being grilled regarding her quest on the GC AI Forum and that people that don't particularly like the AI process being discussed lead the way? It just seems cruel and unnecessary.

[tunatartare]

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

It just seems cruel and unnecessary.

It's a cruel, cruel world.

There's a simple solution. If you think it's cruel- don't post. It's not rocket science. Really. (But of course I wouldn't get that, because I'm not a rocket scientist.)

[greekalum]

AI is an honor. It is not something like running a marathon that one sets a goal to do and then trains for, prepares, and does. Positioning it as something one has successes and lows with seeking misrepresents what it actually is.

General information is not available because there is no general NPC policy. The only relevant information is available from that organization only.

[ReachTheLimit]

Originally Posted by greekalum

AI is an honor. It is not something like running a marathon that one sets a goal to do and then trains for, prepares, and does. Positioning it as something one has successes and lows with seeking misrepresents what it actually is.

General information is not available because there is no general NPC policy. The only relevant information is available from that organization only.

No one has posted on this entire thread that NPC had a general AI policy.

[greekalum]

You asked why people couldn't seek general information. I answered.

[_Lisa_]

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

No one has posted on this entire thread that NPC had a general AI policy.

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

I guess what I'm trying to say, is when someone is generally posting, looking for general information, and just want to post regarding her successes and lows regarding AI, why should she have to worry about being grilled regarding her quest on the GC AI Forum and that people that don't particularly like the AI process being discussed lead the way? It just seems cruel and unnecessary.

Its such a BURDEN to remember what we're implying when we post.

[ReachTheLimit]

Originally Posted by _Lisa_

Its such a BURDEN to remember what we're implying when we post.

Lisa, you got the two confused.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

No one has posted on this entire thread that NPC had a general AI policy.

That's because as far as I know there isn't one. As has been stated several times, each of the 26 NPC organizations sets their own policy for AI. I'm familiar with my sorority's policy as I attended the convention where it was voted on, but I know absolutely nothing about the other 25 groups' polcies.

If you know of some NPC general AI policy that I'm not aware, please post it or direct me to a link to it as I'd be curious to read it.

[UGAalum94]

Other than some recommendations about rush, which we all know is totally differently than AI, does the NPC have general rules about anything that individual groups do?

Maybe a few like, if you are in one group, you can't be in another group.

But in general, GLOs don't have the same policies.

No one expects that they do.

Yet, we still have GreekChat conversations about what groups do. Everyone understands that just because one group does something one way, it doesn't mean that every group A) does that one thing and/or B) that if they do it, they do it the same way.

I'm not sure why people find "that different groups have different rules about AI" means that no one can discuss AI.

It seems to be another example of how a rule applied to AI doesn't seem to guide other areas of GreekChat.

[DSTCHAOS]

Circular discussion.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

Well, I'll give you that, I probably didn't word that correctly.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is when someone is generally posting, looking for general information, and just want to post regarding her successes and lows regarding AI, why should she have to worry about being grilled regarding her quest on the GC AI Forum and that people that don't particularly like the AI process being discussed lead the way? It just seems cruel and unnecessary.

Here's the thing. Those of us who have been around GC for a long, long time have seen a huge change in the AI climate. A few years ago, things were calm and uneventful, and there were a few successful AIs who posted their stories and all was wonderful in the world.

Then there was The Great Sorority Shopping Caper where someone posted in great detail about her AI pursuit, which involved four or five organizations. I think that most of us were horrified by the whole thing. After that, more and more hopeful AIs started crawling out of the woodwork, and more than a few of them were, well, not right -- such as the woman who was "practically engaged" and chased tornadoes when she wasn't attending two different "sister" law schools and scooping ice cream. There were others, as well, a few of whom actually became AIs of NPC organizations. There also is a long history of perps and crazies posting on GC (on subjects other than AI), some of whom have been discovered to be potentially dangerous in real life.

All that has me (and I think quite a few others, although I don't speak for anyone else) suspicious of people who come on GC and want to pursue AI. I think that many of the questions asked of these women aren't intended to be cruel -- they're intended, more often than not, to get to know a little bit about who these women are and whether they're scary or creepy or unsuited for membership. Of course the local alumnae groups and executive offices/headquarters/boards/whatever of our organizations can weed out the inappropriate candidates, but it's pretty easy to ask questions on GC and give a heads up if a woman seems unstable or inappropriate.

I think that most of us are happy to have awesome women initiated into our organizations, whether as collegiates or alumnae. However, due to the way things have played out on GC over the past few years and how many PNAMs have appeared to many of us to be unstable and/or not suited for membership, we're skeptical when new GCers post about wanting to pursue AI. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

[ReachTheLimit]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Here's the thing. Those of us who have been around GC for a long, long time have seen a huge change in the AI climate. A few years ago, things were calm and uneventful, and there were a few successful AIs who posted their stories and all was wonderful in the world.

Then there was The Great Sorority Shopping Caper where someone posted in great detail about her AI pursuit, which involved four or five organizations. I think that most of us were horrified by the whole thing. After that, more and more hopeful AIs started crawling out of the woodwork, and more than a few of them were, well, not right -- such as the woman who was "practically engaged" and chased tornadoes when she wasn't attending two different "sister" law schools and scooping ice cream. There were others, as well, a few of whom actually became AIs of NPC organizations. There also is a long history of perps and crazies posting on GC (on subjects other than AI), some of whom have been discovered to be potentially dangerous in real life.

All that has me (and I think quite a few others, although I don't speak for anyone else) suspicious of people who come on GC and want to pursue AI. I think that many of the questions asked of these women aren't intended to be cruel -- they're intended, more often than not, to get to know a little bit about who these women are and whether they're scary or creepy or unsuited for membership. Of course the local alumnae groups and executive offices/headquarters/boards/whatever of our organizations can weed out the inappropriate candidates, but it's pretty easy to ask questions on GC and give a heads up if a woman seems unstable or inappropriate.

I think that most of us are happy to have awesome women initiated into our organizations, whether as collegiates or alumnae. However, due to the way things have played out on GC over the past few years and how many PNAMs have appeared to many of us to be unstable and/or not suited for membership, we're skeptical when new GCers post about wanting to pursue AI. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Well, actually, I didn't realize that the history had been that bad. I can understand the skepticism (I probably didn't spell that right). There isn't anything wrong with asking a few questions, nothing at all. This is a public forum. Some just appear to be just way too defensive in their questioning, and I seriously doubt that if someone was standing in front of them, they would ask the same question. That's just common courtesy.