In response to Alex Bagosy's question (too long to quote), I think Castellan is an important job and one that requires the person to be extremely impartial. Any perceived favoritism or negatives completely undermines the position. I believe I can be impartial in all situations. One thing I pride myself on is being able to see the bigger picture and to always get information from all sides. This position requires you to remove the emotion and that can be hard when it's someone you are close to. There are situations where I think it is appropriate to recuse oneself- particularly where the perception could be of a lack of impartiality even if that isn't the actual case. I believe I can be fair and impartial in any situation and I've done it in official capacities before, but to me it is more important that the OoG membership be confident of that through how they perceive what I do.
Question: "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?"
I think the difference in a lot of cases is intent. Sometimes something may seem major, but it is a minor offense because the person's intent was not malicious. Sometimes things are escalated beyond where they need to be and it is important to weigh all those factors into consideration. The response of the person being disciplined is also important. If they are sorry for the mistake and seem willing to work to rectify it, I think that is sufficient. If, however, they have no remorse or don't accept how their actions have affected someone else or the organization, then it is time to escalate. A letter of warning is appropriate after a person has received at least one verbal warning. I think a general conduct letter of warning is appropriate if the verbal warnings are repeated but for different things. If a member continues to flaunt the rules, or doesn't rectify the issue they were being disciplined for after a letter of warning, then a partial ban is appropriate. Maybe if the issue is specific to behavior on the FB page, then it is a ban on that page, but still access to the forums provided they behave appropriately here. If it is related to in-person conduct, then not being welcome to a certain number of events may be appropriate. We can't prevent someone from attending a convention, but we can tell them they are not welcome as an OoG representative at our table or elsewhere.
Full bans should be reserved for absolute last resorts. I hope we never have to reach that point. But that would be a person who continuously flaunts the rules, behaves inappropriately around others, disrespects the OoG members and officers, or otherwise gives the OoG a bad name by their actions. This person would have been warned before receiving a full ban. This should be an absolute last resort.