So then someone who was attempting to enforce the CEO's mission would be viewed negatively? This feels self-contradictory. You can't say "We won’t: Debate caus

So then someone who was attempting to enforce the CEO's mission would be viewed negatively? This feels self-contradictory. You can't say "We won’t: Debate causes or political candidates internally" (quoting Armstrong) but simultaneously say that anyone who attempts to enforce that would be viewed negatively. That would imply that Armstrong would view himself negatively for enforcing his own rule.