While an interesting way to interpret the statement, I still find this to be a critical flaw. Part of a Knight's job is to confront members when they break rules. I don't imagine that's a very happy part of the job, and it's quite clear that members don't always react in the most mature or effective manners. I believe that shying away from confrontation, then, would directly interfere with candidate five's ability to enforce the rules.Originally Posted by Linus
I do think your suggestion that we should look at ourselves as the staff first is an interesting suggestion. According to the task instructions, we are the staff, so perhaps we should examine ourselves in comparison to these candidates and see how we measure up and how selecting a new member might fill in some of the weaknesses we, as a staff, may have. For example, I'm fairly certain everyone in team fruity can be classified as a veteran. As a group, we don't represent new members very well.
Looking at it this way, we may not want to consider candidate one. He has the experience factor, but so does the rest of our hypothetical staff. We've all be around for quite some time. I think, then, we may want to more strongly consider three and four, as they offer different things that one does not. It's something to think about, at least.
