[llao]

Of course not, just like my forum would not be open for people who post flame-bait like yours.

Behaving like a decent human being is an implicit, obvious rule.

[slyall]

" I'm sorry why are you kicking me out? I read the book and I'm not doing anything wrong! I guess I'm talking a bit more than some other people but they are just quiet and I'm an outgoing guy. "

"Are you seriously implying that I'm not a decent human being because I talk a little more than Bob? "

[cf498]

Which can be answered with a simple "get lost".

edit: Since some people seem to disagree, why not? I fail to see how its any more complicated then those two words. You put in the effort to organize the bookclub, you have the prerogative to say who can participate. If you dont like that make your own bookclub. Forums have thrived on this concept for decades and it only got complicated once they became business enterprises.

Maybe to phrase it more broadly outside of the organization aspect and for general social interaction. You dont have a right to be part of a social group or go to a certain party. If I dont like you I likely wont spend time with you.

[slyall]

Now I realise there are multiple people in this thread but the bookclub went from:

"My book club will not be a safe space, it is open to everyone who reads the book"

to:

"Behaving like a decent human being is an implicit, obvious rule."

to:

"a simple 'get lost' [..] you put in the effort to organize the bookclub, you have the prerogative to say who can participate "

[TeMPOraL]

Yup.

This is a way any and all small-scale social interactions work, and have worked since forever. Pushing a CoC onto this is trying to override the natural way small groups of people form, replacing it with a formal structure that's not fun for anyone except people better at lawyering and - to borrow FakeComments's excellent term - social LARPing, than actual interpersonal skills.

[afarrell]

EDIT: oh, you are a different commenter than black-tea.

Well, the points still stand. Your position is different than his.

———

> flame-bait

I’m not trying to divert the conversation to pointless angry arguments. I’m trying to direct attention to the core thesis of the post.

Genuinely. I don’t know how to persuade you that I’m not trolling, but I’m not. I care deeply about this topic.

> implicit, obvious rule

The rules which people call obvious are often very hard to learn because people are unwilling to give clear feedback about them. If someone grew up in a boisterous family from New Jersey and who learned that people speaking over each other is fine, why would it be obvious to them that what they were doing was rude?

Getting kicked out without clear feedback just conveys “people don’t like me”. Nothing obligates you to teach them, but its nice to. And I think “this person isn’t willing to listen to/adjust their behavior in response to feedback” is a very reasonable line to draw for kicking someone out.

But I’d ask you to you recognise the differences among “everyone who in my honest judgement isn’t rude”, “everyone who is open to feedback”, and “everyone who has read the book”