[quote=@Inkarnate] The point of an open discussion, in my mind, is to discuss things no matter one’s disposition going into them. The process you describe feels to me as exclusionary and seems counterproductive in my view when it comes to approaching discussion. In similar clubs (album discussion, etc.) there has never been option to veto for just this reason. People want to discuss a piece. One does not really want to participate in a group if they are excluded. If this is the system you want to prescribe to, that’s ultimately your decision but my interest in participating is definitely reduced if that is the case. Isn't the point of a discussion group/club approaching works you might not be interested in or dislike? If our opinions here in this discussion thread are on how we want to proceed I am a hard ‘no’ on any vetoing/voting system. [/quote] [quote=@Altered Tundra] While I might be tentatively interested in a book club, having a "veto" option is severely unappealing. Honestly, in all book clubs I've been apart of, the whole thing was about finding new books and partaking in conversations and debates about that book. A veto option erased the former. and quite frankly, it takes away the "don't judge a book by its cover" simply because one doesn't like the reputation of said book. Also, how do you know that people won't like the books that you dislike? I can tell you right now that I've disliked a lot of things that people have told me are great and vice-versa(me liking something that they don't). So, honestly, that's another reason why the 'veto' option isn't a good one. [/quote] Whereas I understand where you guys are coming from, a face to face book club involves more personal investment than what we would do here, and as a result too much controversy is more likely to cause this project to fracture. Perhaps a veto with the caveat that the pro-thatbook side having the opportunity to plead the case of their book would be a workable solution?