lol:

I love how easily Lektor went from "the 10/100 rule is easy to enforce, you politards can't stop me, I am a consistent arbitrator" to melting down like a little ***** once he realized he failed to stop AOC

He's definitely not the only one who seems mad ...

HT with the pretty sick heel turn here on rep.

This thread has everything. I laughed. I cried. It was better than Cats! I'm going to see it again and again!

There is no heel turn on +rep: I like the guy. I just thought his appearance here just to vote for AOC was funny.

I already did. Because she's likeable. Doubt it will hold back the AOC wave.

Nah, you narc'd him out.

Fabian,

It seems like you're not claiming Howard violated the letter of the agreement, but that he violated the spirit. The freeroll came about after Howard complained about the Politics forum, injecting that discussion into the LC thread completely on his own and out of nowhere. As a result, you proposed the freeroll that he "not bring Politics into OOT."

His recent political utterances are substantively different from those that sparked the freeroll. In the posts that engendered the freeroll, he did "inject" and "bring" politics into OOT. However wrt Ms OOT, he was (in the absence of any examples you can provide to the contrary) not "injecting" or "bringing" politics into OOT, but participating in an already political discussion.

This distinction between the posts that led to the freeroll being offered and the post he has made recently is enough that Howard can justify his position that he did not violate the spirit of the agreement.

However, we need to ask Howard:

a) Do you believe in good faith that the freeroll was about not "initiating political discussion" in OOT, rather than not "posting about politics" at all, and that this was a distinction integral to the spirit in which you offered the freeroll?

b) If OOT hadn't (since the freeroll was offered) turned into a fairly political forum in which LC posting has centered around debates about misogyny, intimate partner assault, men's rights, political correctness, and transphobia/transinculsivity; followed by long discussions about US politics across multiple threads:

Would you have felt making an occasional political post in OOT in response to someone else bringing up politics would not violate the spirit of the freeroll?

Above was before you tried to play it off differently itt. (The humor of it all!)

Politarding much there?

Bad little post-run for Howard. Dead man walking.

A). I think there is a bit of a grey line on this issue. With respect to the post in question, I merely pointed out that I voted for AOC in her round against Riley even though I dislike her views. I did not specify any of her views, nor did my post seek to create discussion or debate about any of those views — which is the essence of politarding and the point of my freeroll. Essentially, I was pointing out that my voting was apolitical, as opposed to the blatantly political voting of the politics interlopers here (to the extent that exists, of course).

B). If there were an OOT topic that was overtly political, ie one, say, about transgender rights, I would have to pay Fabian if I posted a substantive political point in such a thread, even if I did not start that discussion.

I actually think the question here is a close one. I think I would owe Fabian if I had articulated a specific AOC position and said that was dumb, or why, because such a post would invite a response and lead to the politard vortex that we should try to stay away from. I note in this regard that my AOC post had no such impact.

I will also note that some of the posting ITT has sparked some PM exchanges on expressly political topics, which I have taken care to undertake ONLY in PM. That point may not matter on a literal construction of “inject” but instead goes to my good faith in trying to keep politics out of this thread.

I am checking with Mason right now to see if he will grant the panel subpoena power so we can get those PMs and anything else we deem relevant to our investigation.

Cant wait for Nancy Pelosi to he nominated next year

fixed

I bet Maxine Waters would ring up the votes too!

Oh the irony in this statement!

lolno

Greg: looks like your thoughts re: the freeroll are pretty much the same as mine. Howard seems to be saying the intent is introduce/escalate is a violation but continue/respond isn’t. Seems an arbitrary line to draw, and it weakens his argument, but without agreement from him that it’s no politics talk, gotta go by literal interpretation of inject.

Lektor: do a repechage with Robbie, blunt, and a couple other deserving contestants. Then continue the contest with a set of voting criteria that won’t change again.

It's like an fuluck-signal!

Imagine the nerve of Lektor trying to disqualify you, when you have 14 OOT posts in 2018 just on Hamilton alone!

And I must admit, I've never heard of Cats inspiring people to go to 30 showings between 4 different productions in 6 cities.

I think everyone on the approved voting list should just get on a conference call or group chat and tell each other which Roni is the tenderest in their view. Report back to the rest of us.

Also, I looooooooove (like really love) the fact that the people who are the most consistently vocal that adults talking about politics is just unbearable and have a zero tolerance policy for it, watch for it with an eagle eye, and mention it must be avoided at all cost whenever there is a hint of violation are also the people who lament how ridic chicks and snowflakes soyboys are to be offended about jokes and stuff. I mean to the point that sexual harassment style jokes are more offensive as a political topic (is it political tho?) than as sexual harassment.

Right, Howard?

LOL no, JT, that is not and has never been my position. No politics in OOT is an informal forum rule that I’ve violated from time to time and for which Fabian has rightly criticized me. Hence the freeroll. I’m not in any way offended by political discussions, which I routinely have IRL with both people that agree and disagree with me. I actually think those conversations are important. Just not in OOT.

I just mentioned you to try to trap you. I'm talking about others.

I was not even tempted.

Off to the great white way to see it again on Saturday.

I like Blunt, but she wasn't nominated, and I similarly don't believe anyone else who wasn't in the contest should be entered at this point.

And Robbie, while a worthy contender, has already had plenty of chances.