Your thoughts on AI: discussion goes here.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

i'd rather have some posts edited out, because I an enjoying the various viewpoints and discussion in the actual thread.

I was joking.

[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.

[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.

[ReachTheLimit]

I don't think a sorority's national would have to necessarily give GC validity in order to address what can and cannot be discussed online. Too may people here are assuming if it's not on the website, it's ritual, and that just isn't true, because there is so much that is discussed on Greek Chat every day that you won't find on their websites.

I still think if the sororities had such an issue with it, they would design a "code of online behavior" so-to-speak and examples of what topics are and are not to be discussed...I think college educated women would be able to figure that out and follow protocol.

But the nationals haven't taken that step and the internet has been around for a very long time. I also seriously doubt that the only folks in all of the sororities that are against AI or againt sthe discussion of even it's existance, are only on Greek Chat. Therefore, one could reason that the nationals have received complaints before, yet they don't address it or have a policy on it. I think that speaks volumes how concerned they are about the discussion of AI.

If someone on the message board thinks another sister is violating ritual or otherwise secret information on Greek Chat, then they should report her for doing so or address it with that sister directly, just like you would if you saw her post inappropriately on any other part of this website...you DON'T ATTACK the person asking the question.

That is just completely childish and it just reeks of distrust toward your OWN sorority and that the local AA's are of adult women of varying ages with careers, life experience, and the majority of them joined in college...I feel quite confident that they can make their own AI selections and not feel a half-dozen or so women on GC has to 'save them'.

[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 Alphagamuga

Sigmadive,

First, It's 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.

Then call your IHQ and ask. Attend meetings and conferences and ask. If you are unsure about the current policy of your sorority, then don't sit in the dark, ask someone who should know.

In my org, it is expected that every initiated member attend local meetings, regional meetings and national meetings to stay current on the changes and updates that go on in the org. It is your responsibility as an initiated member of AGD to stay current by inquiring about policy changes. It's when GLO members don't stay current that confusion happens.

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.

But if you (the general you) don't know what should be or not be discussed online, then maybe you are giving away information that your IHQ does not want you to give out.

Granted, some questions may be able to be addressed online, but I think it is better to at least do it in that particular GLO's forum. Those members would know best on how to address the PNAI's concerns.

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.

I think you are missing the point that there is a difference between undergrad rush and AI process. Heck, I'm in a D9 and I see the difference. Many, many, many, many NPC members have stated over, and over and over again that while there is an agreement for conducting undergrad rush, the process is different on the AI level. I feel that you are not understanding that difference. The AI procedures for CD may be very different than XYZ. It makes no sense for someone who is a member of DEF to try to answer AI questions for either group.

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.

Then maybe at your next convention you can push for a policy for your org to clearly define what is public info and what is not. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

[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.

[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.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by ReachTheLimit

I still think if the sororities had such an issue with it, they would design a "code of online behavior" so-to-speak and examples of what topics are and are not to be discussed...I think college educated women would be able to figure that out and follow protocol.

I think that most college-educated women can figure out how to behave without a "code of online behavior" from their sororities. Those who can't can be dealt with, but there's no reason to treat the others like children.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

I think that most college-educated women can figure out how to behave without a "code of online behavior" from their sororities. Those who can't can be dealt with, but there's no reason to treat the others like children.

Plus, I think it would be a real burden for the national HQs to reinforce it.

[Drolefille]

However, with in the age of Facebook and Myspace, it might be a good thing. It's not necessarily enforceable, particularly for alums, but I could see the webmaster position encompassing Facebook monitoring for example. It's often done for recruitment anyway. More anonymous sites are different, but I don't think it would be wrong for HQs to establish codes of online behavior.

I would assume it wouldn't be patronizing. It could be something along the lines of, "when representing your sorority" don't act like a jackass. Hmm.. not sure if it would work or not, but it's something that should be thought over at the very least.

/I'd call it the wave of the future, but that's just silly