The comparison is not with the explanation but with the action you would take if you don't get an explanation. Yes, it would be nice to have one, yes, it's borderline creepy to retaliate if you don't.
I understand what you're getting at more now, but I disagree with what you're saying. Without the explanation I would either continue to search for an explanation internally or close the case with the conclusion that the other person's judgement is in contradiction to my own. A more appropriate analogy would be that you distrust your ex, telling your friends of your opinion on the matter. Similar to how on the forum you would then distrust their judgement if you believe they are volatile and act without justification and therefore exclude them from your trust list.
I've only ever had at-will employment so perhaps that example doesn't translate well to your situation - if so, ignore it.
My explanation was provided by an at-will employer; some employers go above and beyond.
Anybody can exclude anybody they want and they don't need to provide an explanation. Even if you're convinced otherwise
I agree and I am not convinced otherwise.
the whole discussion is becoming kinda pointless.
I agree, but there seemed to be a general consensus that was unchallenged so I thought I might as well throw it out there. It was starting to sound like there was only one acceptable solution and that is to not exclude those that have excluded you; as though there is no valid reason to distrust someone that is unwilling to provide an explanation for their decisions.
Personally I think you'd be hurting your chances of a potential future inclusion if you do this.
Luckily inclusion is not a consideration of mine and I will not allow it to influence my actions. My concern is what is best for the community and it seems strange to allow important decisions to be made without even requesting an explanation.