Alternative possibility: Assuming that immediate removal was not warranted (but not taking a position on that either way), Owen should have been given a stern warning that (1) any future incidents would warrant removal, and (2) for any future reports, the reporter would get the benefit of the doubt.
(Agreevote to agree/disagree: I’m not committing to a position, mainly pointing out that there are options between removal and doing very little.)
The idea was that a final-chance warning would hopefully deter future incidents.
I didn’t specify either way what the consequences would be for future reports of prior-to-warning events (especially if pre-EVF) . That wouldn’t have been necessary to resolve upfront because one cannot deter past events.
Alternative possibility: Assuming that immediate removal was not warranted (but not taking a position on that either way), Owen should have been given a stern warning that (1) any future incidents would warrant removal, and (2) for any future reports, the reporter would get the benefit of the doubt.
(Agreevote to agree/disagree: I’m not committing to a position, mainly pointing out that there are options between removal and doing very little.)
Sure but in this case, what is the issue with what happened? I guess maybe there were other smaller behaviours afterwards?
Note that the future reports did come and therefore he should’ve been removed before this point in time.
The idea was that a final-chance warning would hopefully deter future incidents.
I didn’t specify either way what the consequences would be for future reports of prior-to-warning events (especially if pre-EVF) . That wouldn’t have been necessary to resolve upfront because one cannot deter past events.