I guess they ought to tell you, otherwise it is a waste of time, even by their own daft reasoning. After 13 years I could not see it still being kept up. Put it down to their basic unfriendliness.
Incidentally, they do not use the word shun for this, just means that you won't be invited around for tea
*** w99 7/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***
He also let the congregation know that it would be appropriate for them as individual Christians to ?mark? the disorderly. This implied that individuals should take note of those whose actions corresponded to the course about which the congregation was publicly alerted. Paul advised that they "withdraw from every brother walking disorderly." That certainly could not mean completely shunning such a person, for they were to "continue admonishing him as a brother." They would continue to have Christian contact at the meetings and perhaps in the ministry. They could hope that their brother would respond to admonition and abandon his disturbing ways.
In what sense would they "withdraw" from him? Evidently, this was in a social context. (Compare Galatians 2:12.) Their ceasing to have social dealings and recreation with him might show him that principled people disliked his ways. Even if he did not get ashamed and change, at least others would be less likely to learn his ways and become like him. At the same time, these individual Christians should concentrate on the positive. Paul advised them: "For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing right."?2 Thessalonians 3:13.
Mind you, I could never see the point of it. I can think of two instances in my time . One changed congegations and got on perfectly well in the new one. The other one d/a d herself .