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?
Last edited by gregorio; 01-15-2019 at 03:05 PM.