States that don't have chapters

[dnall]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Your natural assumption would be incorrect, and the reality of the dynamics of this board would lead to a different conclusion. Many if not most regular GCers access the boards through the "New Posts" page. They scroll down and look at the threads, clicking on those that interest them, often paying little if any attention to which forum the thread is in. May sound crazy, but that's the reality here.

That would be the "New Posts" page that lists the sub-section on the right and then after clicking the thread lists the sub-section on top?

They don't pay attention to which forum the thread is in, so they don't realize a conversation isn't about them before they start talking... how is that my fault?

In all seriousness, what's the point of having different sections at all?

...Nobody is asking you to sit there and listen to us badmouth the United States of America, Otter.

nice ref.

Seriously though... that's social norming. I have GC regulars telling me: I shouldn't have a conversation about anything broader than my org (or possibly song identification), and sub-section labels are to be disregarded in all cases.

If I accept that, it puts some limits on what I can talk about. In this case, when talking about my org's expansion. I can tell you where we should go for whatever positive reasons, but I can't cite any negative reasons for not going to another region (even though that was specifically the question). If I do, I'm automatically talking about every chapter of XYZ and ABC, and I'm going to be attacked.

That limitation devalues the worth of a place like this, for no purpose at all. I think it's wrong, and I'm not going to do it.

And we, who have been around GC a lot longer than you have, are trying to tell you that that "key contextual difference" isn't nearly as key as you seem to think. I can understand why you would think it is, but in reality, it's just not.

I get what you're saying, and that's highly unfortunate.

I would never post in another org's section unless it was appropriate to the conversation AND I was giving outside perspective on what I always assume is their internal discussion.

Maybe I'll make a mistake from time to time, but I can try to respect another org's space the same way I expect them to respect mine.

Originally Posted by dukedg

I am interested to know your thoughts on the Berkeley ATO chapter, specifically, being relatively familiar with the area and campus, as well as knowing a few alumni well.

I will PM you. I don't, within reason, mind discussing a chapter in public, but only if they're here to defend themselves.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by dnall

That would be the "New Posts" page that lists the sub-section on the right and then after clicking the thread lists the sub-section on top?

They don't pay attention to which forum the thread is in, so they don't realize a conversation isn't about them before they start talking... how is that my fault?

Your ability to understand the issue is seriously lacking.

Seriously though... that's social norming. I have GC regulars telling me: I shouldn't have a conversation about anything broader than my org (or possibly song identification), and sub-section labels are to be disregarded in all cases.

Nope, not what people are telling you. But if you're going to say something like "Greek life in X location sucks" be prepared to get flack no matter where you say it. It's not because people are "insulted" it's because they think you're wrong. There's a difference.

If I accept that, it puts some limits on what I can talk about. In this case, when talking about my org's expansion. I can tell you where we should go for whatever positive reasons, but I can't cite any negative reasons for not going to another region (even though that was specifically the question). If I do, I'm automatically talking about every chapter of XYZ and ABC, and I'm going to be attacked.

Strawman.

That limitation devalues the worth of a place like this, for no purpose at all. I think it's wrong, and I'm not going to do it.

Still a strawman. Since no one's saying that, feel free to fight against it with your dying breath.

I get what you're saying, and that's highly unfortunate.

I would never post in another org's section unless it was appropriate to the conversation AND I was giving outside perspective on what I always assume is their internal discussion.

We provided an outside perspective on your stupid comment.

Maybe I'll make a mistake from time to time, but I can try to respect another org's space the same way I expect them to respect mine.

Public message board =/= ATO space. ATO space = ATO message board, ATO email listserve, or ATO chapter meetings.

[dnall]

I fully understand how the site works. It's not exactly my first time on a forum.

We're just spinning around here and it's starting to piss me off. I didn't come here as a troll trying to get a rise out of you. I'm trying to have a serious conversation about legitimate issues that I know a little bit about. If we disagree, that's fine and we can have a reasonable discussion in the right place.

I have apologized I think five times for any possibility of anyone being remotely offended by my statements. While I still think you are wrong, my apology is sincere.

I do not withdraw those statements. I've tried to clarify them to eliminate misunderstanding. If you fail to see my perspective, then I'm sorry for the unintended offense. If you do understand my perspective and are still offended, then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Just so we're clear, if I had wanted to have a private conversation between ATOs only, I would have done so in a place appropriate to that. I am perfectly willing to have this conversation in the public eye. However, if I had wanted to have a conversation about the general greek community with primarily non-ATOs, I would have posted that in a more general section. My comments are where they are for a reason.

Fundamentally though, I have to ask... what is the purpose of different sections within the forum? That's not rhetorical. I actually want to hear what you think their purpose is.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by dnall

I have apologized I think five times for any possibility of anyone being remotely offended by my statements. While I still think you are wrong, my apology is sincere.

I do not withdraw those statements. I've tried to clarify them to eliminate misunderstanding. If you fail to see my perspective, then I'm sorry for the unintended offense. If you do understand my perspective and are still offended, then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

No one's offended, they just think your'e stupid for making blanket statements. Thus the fact that you're "apologizing for causing offense" which is the half-ass of all apologies, yet "standing by your words" only means we continue to think you're dumb for making blanket statements.

So, no, I really do doubt that you actually "get" what everyone else is saying.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dnall

Fundamentally though, I have to ask... what is the purpose of different sections within the forum? That's not rhetorical. I actually want to hear what you think their purpose is.

Organization. They're there to organize the threads, so that threads on particular topics or sbjects of interest will be in forums appropriate to that topic or subject. They're not there to limit who should or shouldn't post. At least that's how I've seen it work in almost 9 years posting here.

There's really no need to get pissed off -- all anyone is trying to do is to explain the dynamics of this site, which can be different from the dynamics of other sites.

I can understand why you would say:

I would never post in another org's section unless it was appropriate to the conversation AND I was giving outside perspective on what I always assume is their internal discussion.

All we are are trying to say is that, as odd as it may seem to someone new, that's not how things typically work here. We tend to assume it's not an internal discussion unless it's explicitly stated or it's clear from the context otherwise. People post in forums of other orgs all the time without giving it a second thought, and have done so as long as I've been posting here. To be honest, this may not be as noticeable in the ATO forum because there haven't been that many ATOs here, so this forum isn't as active as some others.

As a rule, if a thread is for members only it will say so, either in the opening post or in the title. Also as a general rule, if a conversation is clearly more specific to a particular organization, others still will post in it if they have something to add (or ask) but will start by saying they're "crashing" (like LucyKKG did in this thread) or "lane swerving." But the bottom line is that pretty much anyone will feel free to post in any thread in any forum unless the specific thread says otherwise. That's why people often pay no attention to the forum a thread is in when they click on "New Posts" -- it usually doesn't matter because people post in each others' forums all the time. (And if it's clear the poster is out of his element -- like an old NIC fraternity alum trying to explain how NIC recruitment or NPHC intake works -- it will be suggested to him that he "stay in his lane.")

All of this is why, when blanket statements about fraternities or Greek life in general are made in a group-specific forum, most regular GCers (1) will not interpret the statement as organization specific and (2) will feel free to comment.

And one more time: Nobody is telling you that you

shouldn't have a conversation about anything broader than [your] org (or possibly song identification)

What people are telling you is that even if you are in a group-specific forum, if you make blanket statements like

Originally Posted by dnall

I don't know how many "pacific" chapters you've visited of any fraternity, but they are just not the same. Greek life in a lot of places in those regions is not strong.

Originally Posted by dnall

Greek life in the west sucks.

people are going to assume you meant what you said and you are talking about all fraternities/Greek life in general, not just about your own organization. And they'll call you on it if they think it's an overgeneralization or just plain wrong.

And glad you liked the Otter reference. One of my favorites.

[dnall]

I've looked around other org's sections. Would it surprise you that there are in fact several threads where people believed they were having a conversation (while knowingly in public view) intended for a more limited audience based on the org sub-category they were posting it in?

The organization/structure you're referring to doesn't exist if people go from "new posts" to commenting without thinking in between. The responses won't fit the questions and the resulting threads won't fit the categories. The clear intent, by virtue of there being sub-sections at all, is for the posts there to be about that subject. In the case of orgs, that means about that org only.

I don't accept explanations like, 'everyone's doing it,' 'that's how it's done here,' 'that's the dynamic of this site,' etc. I get what you're saying, but I've heard all those in defense to stuff like hazing too. It doesn't make it the right answer.

If this were a chapter talking to me about hazing, I'd be saying you can't let how things have been determine how things will be. It's exactly the people who have been around that have the most responsibility to stand up and change the paradigm.

As far as broad statements... there's nothing wrong with them as long as the reader takes them for what they're worth.

If you're an active in an org during recruitment and think someone is a terrible candidate, then you have every right to say that person sucks. Of course you need to back it up when challenged. That's org standards and personal opinion.

If that person goes on to join another org, someone might interpret an implication that the other org sucks. Regardless, that doesn't give the other org/person a place to tell you your opinion of this person from the perspective of your org is wrong.

I'm stating my opinion, from my knowledge/experience, from my the perspective/standards of my org, of a broad situation. And specifically as justification for why we don't want to do something that would be bad for us. At no point is there any implication if it would be good or bad for any other org. Any reader should understand at least the concept of those conditions implicitly & evaluate content accordingly.

And, point of information. Even now no one has challenged my premise that west coast greek systems suck. I have only been cited specific exceptions and told not to make broad statements. No one has actually attempted to defend west coast greek systems versus other regions. Until someone convinces me to the contrary, that's still going to be my opinion.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by dnall

I don't accept explanations like, 'everyone's doing it,' 'that's how it's done here,' 'that's the dynamic of this site,' etc. I get what you're saying, but I've heard all those in defense to stuff like hazing too. It doesn't make it the right answer.

If this were a chapter talking to me about hazing, I'd be saying you can't let how things have been determine how things will be. It's exactly the people who have been around that have the most responsibility to stand up and change the paradigm.

Dude, did you really honestly just compare hazing to the way people post on a message board?? Punxsatawney Phil conjured up this early spring just for you. Get out and enjoy the sun.

We had another similarly LOFLWAFFL comparison on here, something referencing the Holocaust, but I can't remember what it was.

[dnall]

It's still in the 60s. I'm waiting another month before I hit the lake.

Seriously though, hazing isn't the worst thing in the world, trust me. 95% of it is about as serious as under-age drinking. That's a long way from the holocaust, so relax with your shock.

I used an exaggerated and obvious example of something we all agree is wrong, & common excuses we've all heard for not changing the behavior. (I'm sorry if that's too broad a statement. I can say all ATOs if it makes anyone feel more comfortable).

All logic says we SHOULD be recognizing sub-sections and interpreting content accordingly. That's implicitly why they're there. There's plenty of other areas within the forum for wide open broad conversation. I then stated the excuses being given for why it's apparently not that way right now, which are eerily similar to what most of us have heard from orgs doing dumb stuff.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that analogy.