Is roll call a good idea?

[DSTCHAOS]

I think people are taking Alphagamunga too literally.

Sure, there's nothing "wrong" with roll call threads. We don't need national officers to post in them to know that. And roll call threads obviously are not mandatory--although some GCers are aggressive enough to make newbies think that if they don't post in a roll call thread they will be terrorized or something silly. But the general point that Alpha is making is for people to be cautious either way. Obviously people can find out info whether or not you post in roll call threads.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I think people are taking Alphagamunga too literally.

Sure, there's nothing "wrong" with roll call threads. We don't need national officers to post in them to know that. And roll call threads obviously are not mandatory--although some GCers are aggressive enough to make newbies think that if they don't post in a roll call thread they will be terrorized or something silly. But the general point that Alpha is making is for people to be cautious either way. Obviously people can find out info whether or not you post in roll call threads.

I agree completely.

People who I converse with and deal with offline (like, say, chapter brothers, friends, etc) have relatively high access to 'personal' information - by necessity, because I'd like those people to be able to contact me if needed, etc. I personally would prefer not to be contacted by others - and not just for 'crazy' purposes, but because I don't need spam, junkmail, or Idi the Nigerian knocking on my door with SPECIAL OFFER MY FRIEND MAGIC MONEY MY FRIEND.

I think a large part of the divide here shows the strong differences between people, in terms of public face, career needs, and all those interrelated things that really make us different. I don't blame a single person for not posting in a roll call thread - the whole argument seems somewhat petty, and really seems like we're "fishing" for "perps" . . . I especially don't blame people who work in a well-connected industry, or rely on clientele or reputation. My company, we personally search for myspaces and livejournals for every analyst we hire . . . most people don't even consider that. They probably should - it's insane.

Giving people the tools to capitalize on their insane insane insane-ness might not be the best Internet strategy, and hostility against those who are trying to prevent that seems somewhat near-sighted.

[cutie_cat_4ever]

Agree, unless you want to be like Erica Rose from The Bachelor, that's a different story:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...ndid=107462729

That's her myspace.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I agree completely.

People who I converse with and deal with offline (like, say, chapter brothers, friends, etc) have relatively high access to 'personal' information - by necessity, because I'd like those people to be able to contact me if needed, etc. I personally would prefer not to be contacted by others - and not just for 'crazy' purposes, but because I don't need spam, junkmail, or Idi the Nigerian knocking on my door with SPECIAL OFFER MY FRIEND MAGIC MONEY MY FRIEND.

I think a large part of the divide here shows the strong differences between people, in terms of public face, career needs, and all those interrelated things that really make us different. I don't blame a single person for not posting in a roll call thread - the whole argument seems somewhat petty, and really seems like we're "fishing" for "perps" . . . I especially don't blame people who work in a well-connected industry, or rely on clientele or reputation. My company, we personally search for myspaces and livejournals for every analyst we hire . . . most people don't even consider that. They probably should - it's insane.

Giving people the tools to capitalize on their insane insane insane-ness might not be the best Internet strategy, and hostility against those who are trying to prevent that seems somewhat near-sighted.

On the other hand, if an individual starts posting on GC and self-identifies as a member of an organization, the members of that organization then have an interest in determining whether or not that person actually is what she says she is.

If you post under a name and don't claim an organization, it's no one's business. Once you start speaking as a member of that organization, the organization itself has a vested interest in knowing whether or not you have the authority to speak as one of them. For a place like GC, I think this matters a lot. Parents and potential new members come here to research organizations. I sure as hell don't want a non-member making members look bad.

That said, I can understand the issue with self-identifying to anyone who claims to be a member of the organization which they are verifying for.

There are definitely competing policies at work here, but since this is "Greek Chat," a place which as you know is for members of GLOs, I think the concerns of organizations ought to win over individual concerns every single time (when reasonable).

Obviously, I don't really give a damn about my privacy here. It would take very little effort for anyone here to figure out who I am, where I live, my phone number, etc. I really don't care though. I try not to give anyone a reason to want to hunt me down.

[AXO Alum]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you post under a name and don't claim an organization, it's no one's business. Once you start speaking as a member of that organization, the organization itself has a vested interest in knowing whether or not you have the authority to speak as one of them. For a place like GC, I think this matters a lot. Parents and potential new members come here to research organizations. I sure as hell don't want a non-member making members look bad.

DITTO! Same goes for people who try to speak on other organization's policies & such!

I have been on GC longer than most people - there aren't many that are left of the originals - so if I ask an alleged AXO via PM to fill me in on her info, then she shouldn't have a problem with that - I'm not someone who just showed up on GC the day before asking for that information. And I sure the heck would NEVER dream of using that information in the way that BA did.

Originally Posted by AXO Alum

DITTO! Same goes for people who try to speak on other organization's policies & such!

I have been on GC longer than most people - there aren't many that are left of the originals - so if I ask an alleged AXO via PM to fill me in on her info, then she shouldn't have a problem with that - I'm not someone who just showed up on GC the day before asking for that information. And I sure the heck would NEVER dream of using that information in the way that BA did.

That's also why I like knowing who members are. When I first joined GC (holy crap, 6 years is coming up!), I was a collegian and there was only maybe one or two AGDs already here that actively posted. Up until recently (and maybe it's because I voluntarily removed the 'Moderator' next to my username), I haven't had a problem with PM-ing people asking who they are.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AXO Alum

DITTO! Same goes for people who try to speak on other organization's policies & such!

There's a fine line between your argument (essentially, "they speak for my organization so I deserve to know if they're legit"), and the constant battle against 'policing' in the name of "representing the org" - this is a really, really bizarre conversation, to me, because of this.

i'm not even really sure how I feel, to be honest - it's just weird.

Originally Posted by AXO Alum

I have been on GC longer than most people - there aren't many that are left of the originals - so if I ask an alleged AXO via PM to fill me in on her info, then she shouldn't have a problem with that - I'm not someone who just showed up on GC the day before asking for that information. And I sure the heck would NEVER dream of using that information in the way that BA did.

I don't think anyone has any problem with an established member politely inquiring via PM - I'm not sure it needs to be a public event, though, until and unless someone is making a fool of themselves, if that makes sense?

[AlexMack]

Sorry (that's sarcasm btw, helping you out here, there will be no apology in this post), but this thread is total BS. In case you haven't been paying attention lately, let me recap:

BA googled my screen name. She found my journal and then began to spread around my personal information, my life, on greekchat, WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. She found out enough that if she wanted to, she could easily, EASILY find out who I am, where I live etc. This has nothing to do with rollcall and everything to do with a complete psychopath who will stop at nothing (as was proven) to make a petty little point. The rest of us can all let things go and keep grudges to GC. She can't.

Roll call is fine. It's the psychopaths who aren't.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Roll call is fine. It's the psychopaths who aren't.

The problem arises when the psychopaths take the information from roll call and use it for their evil purposes. On a public message board like GC, nobody can stop this from happening.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Roll call is fine. It's the psychopaths who aren't.

Oh, I'm no fan of psychopaths; I just think roll call makes things easier for them.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think a large part of the divide here shows the strong differences between people, in terms of public face, career needs, and all those interrelated things that really make us different. I don't blame a single person for not posting in a roll call thread - the whole argument seems somewhat petty, and really seems like we're "fishing" for "perps" . . . I especially don't blame people who work in a well-connected industry, or rely on clientele or reputation. My company, we personally search for myspaces and livejournals for every analyst we hire . . . most people don't even consider that. They probably should - it's insane.

Exactly - I don't think it's feasible for every member to be able to post or share enough personal information to confirm their membership in said organization; I think that reluctance throws up a red flag to a number of people on the board. It's a fine line between looking like a "perp," and keeping your identity sufficiently hidden so as not to jeopardize job/scholastic/outside interests.

If I had come to GC now at this point in my scholastic life and career, I probably would not have shared as much information about myself as I did when I first started on GC in 2001. The fact is that anyone with enough time on their hands can probably figure out who I am (not even mentioning the fact that I've met a handful of GC members in real life).

I guess I can understand both sides of it, and it comes out as a no-win situation. People want to protect their organization, but individuals want to protect themselves as well.