Natter in the Quote threads has always been frowned upon, in my experience. It's not written down, but it's definitely been the practice. Yes, some slips in, but the reminders have occured, in various degrees of gentleness.

3) Only folks who have read the book under discussion will be able to participate in the discussion. Unrelated natter will be discouraged. (This item is not subject to change.)

This item makes me acutely uncomfortable, and goes against the grain of the non-admin-related portions of the board. Hell, it goes against our FAQ, for heaven's sake.

I didn't think of that. The point of that item is to facilitate focus on the discussions and discourage fragmentation into another subcommunity. I'm thinking here like natter is discouraged in Sang Sacre although I guess that kind of happened all by itself.

How about:

3) Only folks who have read the book under discussion should participate in the discussion. Unrelated natter may be gently discouraged. (This item is not subject to change.)

It's not written down, but it's definitely been the practice. Yes, some slips in, but the reminders have occured, in various degrees of gentleness.

Practice != Policy.

Peeps who've been ungentle in their reminders might need a boot to the head with a reminder of that.

I'd rather put a positive spin on the Book Club thread, rather than a negative one.

Something like: "This thread is a focussed discussion group. Please refer to [link] for the current topic, and upcoming book discussions. While natter will inevitably happen, we encourage you to treat this like a virtual book club and try to keep your posts in that spirit."

That's gentle enough, and I don't expect more than a nudge or throat clearing for maintenance.

3) Only folks who have read the book under discussion should participate in the discussion. Unrelated natter may be gently discouraged. (This item is not subject to change.)

Still sticks in the "this is not a moderated forum" craw.

Because, push to shove, this is not a moderated forum outside of the right-hand threads.

Common sense would suggest that if someone were in the thread, it's because they're wanting to discuss a book. There doesn't seem to be any reason to have CC&Rs about it.

Genre diversity and books from the literary canon that have stood the test of time will be strongly encouraged.

One of these things is not like the other.

You won't find a hell of a lot of science fiction that has stood the test of time. Or magic realism. Or anything written after 1980. Is the claim that no critically worthy books fall into these categories?

How's about I take it out of the proposal completely, but if the thread gets created we use Hec's language or something similar as a thread slug?

You won't find a hell of a lot of science fiction that has stood the test of time. Or magic realism. Or anything written after 1980. Is the claim that no critically worthy books fall into these categories?

I believe the "stood the test of time" belongs with the "literary canon," whereas your sci-fi and magic realism suggestions are perfectly copacetic with the "genre diversity" proviso.

Wolfram, I second that. If we don't tell them they can't natter, perhaps the atmosphere will make it obvious. Then we can practice forum moderation without saying we're doing it.

I believe the "stood the test of time" belongs with the "literary canon," whereas your sci-fi and magic realism suggestions are perfectly copacetic with the "genre diversity" proviso.

I took the clauses as being additive rather than independent. We support genre diversity, but only within books that have stood the test of time and are part of the canon. Did I misunderstand?