One particularly aggravating tactic in group conscience meetings is the invocation of the newcomer argument.
These are actual examples I've heard over the years:
'We should not mention God in the meeting, because the newcomer will be frightened off.'
'We should not have an announcement about people avoiding excessive disruption, because newcomers will be confused about whether they can go to the bathroom during the meeting.'
'We should not use a microphone for sharing, because newcomers will be too nervous to share.'
'We should actively invite newcomers to share, because otherwise they might not.'
Usually, the individual is arguing for what they themselves want, but speculating on what the imaginary newcomer's needs and wants are and using the notion that the newcomer is the most important person in the room to trump any other argument.
In truth, there is no hierarchy of importance, and all AA members are equally important.
Bearing that in mind, what matters is the good of all: Tradition One says that common welfare comes first, not that there are two classes of members, newcomers and others, and newcomers come first. Personal welfare comes a close second, but it is definitely second. No well-functioning group: nowhere for newcomers to come to in the first place.
I'm also frankly sceptical about the presentation of newcomers as feeble, craven, and querulous infants who must have all responsibility taken away from them for their own good. If you've heard some Step Fives, you'll know that the fragile wallflower is a rare creature, and most people in AA, including me, are strong-willed, bullish, and extremely effective at getting their own way through manipulation, control, and force. We've generally survived a lot and have shown significant ingenuity, resourcefulness, resilience, and resolve in the face of vicissitude, opposition, and adversity to secure our supply of drink and other 'resources' and to withstand the collateral damage of an alcoholic lifestyle.
It is true that newcomers will sometimes complain of this and that, blaming their non-attendance or failure on some aspect of AA they found disagreeable. This is a pretext, not a reason, however. I wanted to get well, so was willing to put up with all sorts of things I found rebarbative in AA, in order to do so, in exactly the same way that I was willing to put up with financial loss, destroyed relationships, trouble with the police, and physical injury to continue drinking.
Now, obviously the newcomer must be borne in mind: so let's avoid jargon in presenting the programme, because they won't understand it; let's make sure that the venue is welcoming and the format is clear. But it's dangerous to build the group's structure, format, and content around the imagined objections, sensitivities, or imperious demands of people who have already made up their mind they don't want what AA has to offer.
Build something sensible, robust, and functional, and make the prospect of recovery attractive. Then leave it to the individual to make up their own mind. Extend a welcome, smooth the path, but don't take away their responsibility for deciding in favour of recovery and taking the requisite action.
Also, the particular objections above can be dealt with in other ways, for instance:
'We should not mention God in the meeting, because the newcomer will be frightened off.'
- Maybe let's talk about a Higher Power and stress that that can be conceived of in many ways.
'We should not have an announcement about people avoiding excessive disruption, because newcomers will be confused about whether they can go to the bathroom during the meeting.'
- Maybe have a line in the script about staying behind afterwards if anyone has any questions.
'We should not use a microphone for sharing [to enable everyone to hear], because newcomers will be too nervous to share.'
- Maybe they can just listen for now and work with a sponsor on overcoming concern with what others think of them.
'We should actively invite newcomers to share, because otherwise they might not.'
- Maybe treating them like any other member, each with their own responsibility to play their part in the meeting, will help them feel more 'part of' than siphoning them off as a special group.
When meetings start to use imaginary newcomers as pawns in a group conscience meeting, a good move is to ask any actual newcomers or other people in the first year to share their experience and to ask other members to refrain from speaking on their behalf. They can speak for themselves. It usually turns out they're far more robust and with it that people give them credit for.