You're using an inaccurate analogy, which isn't like you.
If Poet had started slamming me on public threads, first you and others would probably have stepped in to stop it, and second, that would directly affect the contents of the contract, since it is generally understood on SI that to-or-about agreements are mutual.
A more accurate question would be if X and E had had an argument about Poet on other threads, not SMBR, would that have entitled me to jump in and attack or defend Poet without violating the agreement?
Keep in mind that what Laz re-banned me for had 1) no relationship of any kind to Poet, and 2) no relationship of any kind to the SMBR thread, and therefore no relationship of any kind to any aspect of the contract, or agreement, or mutual promises, or whatever you want to call it. Legally, they are all contracts.
So to be accurate, you have to set up a hypothetical where there was a situation that had nothing to do with Poet or SMBR but that justified me in posting to or about Poet without being seen to have violated the agreement.
Can you dream one up? |
