Post by awindowacrossall on Nov 7, 2015 20:52:47 GMT
In response to Alex's question, I would say that the Castellan job is very important and one that without a doubt, needs a high degree of impartiality. However, this does not mean that you have absolute power to be a jerk towards someone. Additionally, any indication of favoritism undermines the position as well. I believe that I can be impartial in situations, keep a clear and open mind, exhibit fairness, and when needed, discipline. In my daily life, I am an educator, who is used to dealing with difficult situations in which one has to be fair, but also just. Walking that line has it moments where it tested, but I have found that if I keep a standard baseline of what is acceptable, I am able to judge from there as need be. In terms of an issue to close to home, I will do my best to be fair and serve the needs of the group, rather than be self-seeking. This position ultimately, is entrusted, and that should not be taken lightly.
Post by awindowacrossall on Nov 14, 2015 2:57:19 GMT
At what point do which types of disciplinary actions become necessary? In a general sense, what I mean is, where do you draw the line between minor offenses and major offenses, between a letter of warning and a partial ban, between a partial ban and a full ban. And what other options are there?
In many of the cases, you have to look at the intent and circumstances. Sometimes, something may be considered to be a major offense, but as circumstances and/or intent reveal, it might not be as first thought so. Of course, this is taking into account that often times, events seem to bubble to a head. I would also talk to those involved- if they are indeed sorry and "own" their actions, so to speak, some punishments/disciplinary actions would be lessened. Of course, consequences such as bans would perhaps still be in effect. In terms of full bans, those are the last resort button to be used after much thought and consideration.