Horrified at Site - Is it just AKA?

[TSteven]

Originally posted by honeychile
Thank you for your concern. We recently had a change in server that resulted in this error. It has since been rectified. Thanks for your concern in letting us know, Marcia

Do they equate "rectified" with nonexistent? Cause there still isn't any mention of - much less a link to - Alpha Kappa Alpha.

IMHO, for this situation to be "rectified", they need to offer an apology to Alpha Kappa Alpha and get the correct links up ASAP.

[navane]

Originally posted by honeychile

Thank you for your concern. We recently had a change in server that resulted in this error. It has since been rectified. Thanks for your concern in letting us know, Marcia

I'm sorry, but how is it that a "change in server" resulted in inapprpropriate content being posted in the AKA section??? That statement is almost as insulting. Marcia should have said something like, "We regret that this unfortunate situation occured. We have taken down the offending material and are currently conducting an investigation into this matter."


.....Kelly

[ladygreek]

Originally posted by navane
I'm sorry, but how is it that a "change in server" resulted in inapprpropriate content being posted in the AKA section??? That statement is almost as insulting. Marcia should have said something like, "We regret that this unfortunate situation occured. We have taken down the offending material and are currently conducting an investigation into this matter."


.....Kelly

Exactly!

[honeychile]

I completely agree with TSteven and navane. I was just reporting exactly what I received.

[alphaalpha]

Originally posted by navane
I'm sorry, but how is it that a "change in server" resulted in inapprpropriate content being posted in the AKA section??? That statement is almost as insulting. Marcia should have said something like, "We regret that this unfortunate situation occured. We have taken down the offending material and are currently conducting an investigation into this matter."


.....Kelly

I do agree, but i think that the reason why they would not say this is because it would open them up to being responsible and therefor open to litigation.

[ladygreek]

Originally posted by alphaalpha
I do agree, but i think that the reason why they would not say this is because it would open them up to being responsible and therefor open to litigation.

True. But on the site itself they talked about the migration to a new server and how seamlessly it went and that eveything is as is was before. So does that mean the AKA stuff was on there before?

[alphaalpha]

Good question ladygreek. I just think that people will use things as an excuse. I didn't see the sights, don't really want to, but sometimes people will say how easy something was even though everything went wrong. Of course, i do not know, but it is just my opinion.

Debbie

[TSteven]

Originally posted by alphaalpha
I do agree, but i think that the reason why they would not say this is because it would open them up to being responsible and therefor open to litigation.

You are probably right. Yet, someone (or more than one) *is* responsible for the content of the site. (current and previous) And they should be held accountable.

[alphaalpha]

They should. The school (or whoever) is just trying to save their own behind and it would probably be really hard for someone not there to figure out who is responsible. I am just saying that cause probably the universities will not publiclly announce who is at fault to try to save themselves some bad press. If someone really wanted to put in the effort they could get something going. Personnally, i think that it is bad. Again from what i have heard as i did not see the sight. But i really have tons of other things going on to deal with something like this, nomatter how bad i think that it is. I do think this is how people can get away with stuff (really a topic for another thread) but when people are busy they can't really devote tons of time to holding someone accountable.

It is really unfortunate, however.

[navane]

Originally posted by alphaalpha
I do agree, but i think that the reason why they would not say this is because it would open them up to being responsible and therefor open to litigation.

Well, thank goodness someone had enough sense to put, "All information on this site is the intellectual property of the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council and National Panhellenic Council of the the University of California, Berkeley. © 2005 - All rights reserved." right at the bottom of the webpage. Now we know exactly who to blame. Or perhaps Richard M. Weber, owner of calgreeks.com, would like to take responisibility for this?

I don't care what they say or don't say. Not giving a satisfactory response doesn't somehow make them less negligent.

.....Kelly