>>551683

>All opinions are welcome and if they are unpopular the anons will do all of the filtering themselves.

see

>>532395

>MAKE THE RULES SIMPLE

>

>MAKE THEM PUBLIC

>

>ENFORCE THEM EQUALLY

I'd suggest marking bad posts

(user was banned for this post)

BUT DO NOT DELETE THE POSTS!

Leave them as an example for the rest to learn from. Clear examples will help newbies learn to spot bad actors and ignore them / filter them.

Clear examples will help misguided anons learn from their mistakes.

Using bullshit like golden rule violations is actually very harmful to the health of the board. golden rule does not work with masochists Lurk Moar is less than helpful, as it is NOT specific in what area needs improvement.

You already know that innocent well meaning anons get caught up in the bans. Help them learn instead of just capriciously banning them and apologizing after the fact

You are herding cats, subtle, gentle and very CLEAR direction is needed.

A baking school? We most certainly need some type of guidance and oversight.

A baker is part cheerleader and part editor.

With a good baker and tasty bread the anons will snark less and contribute more.

With good bakers you can gently guide the group.

Ask yourself what happened with the bakers?

What has happened with the quality and texture of the breads, the quality of output to the world at large has suffered.

We cannot control the bad actors

We can help guide the content of our breads

If you didn't realize it, these are NOT NEW problems and workable solutions have been found.

I'm not special, I've just watched the evolution of these boards since Moot screwed the pooch. Fredrick Brennan's struggles to set up 8chan were VERY instructive in re; shills and bad actors.

I do not want to tell you what to do, I just want to present alternative options and possible solutions.

I've edited 8bit's post on /comms/ about DNS to authenticate

>>571931

>not the god of absolute truth.

IT was never my intention to imply that.

I do appreciate the very hard work you've put in

My opinion is that mistakes were made, and now things are getting better.

It was a learning experience.

When I make a mistake, it means I've learned something new that I did not know before.

I've learned a few things lately.

my 2¢ you are on the right track re: moderation / bans

I believe you and the BVs are ripe for a little W. Edwards Deming.

I had the pleasure of seeing one of his lectures.

Some of his viewpoints on systems analysis might yield valuable insight here.

He was sent to Japan after WWII to help with rebuilding and his influence can still be seen in Modern Japanese industrial efficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

I'd also appreciate your input on the bakers school.

I remember the horrific catastrophe that was the baker's union prior to the exodus and do not want to make those mistakes.

Instruction and a bit of guidance for the continual stream of new bakers in important in my opinion.

Your occasional oversight and input there could be very valuable.

>>575137

>This Edwards Deming guy seems pretty interesting.

I'll try to find some of the material from him that is relevant. The wiki article is kind of superficial, it mentions the red bead demo but the link doesn't go anywhere because nobody has posted what that was.

As part of his lecture he had several stories that illustrated a major thought in his system of process analysis

As I recall the red bead thing went like this

Imagine judging your group by the following task

There is a barrel of beads, it is mostly white ones with a lesser number of black ones and a very few red ones. Now the task of each worker is to take a tray with bead shaped dimples and plunge it into the barrel and move it around with the object being to bring the tray out with beads in each dimple on the tray. Here the fun begins, you are going to give demerits to each team member who has to re-do the action due to the presence of a red bead. It was all to illustrate the concept that some errors are systematic and trying to improve group efficiency isn't always straightforward.

Another was

I've got a bucket that represents the time I have in a day. I've got several containers of stones which represent 'tasks'. He takes as many large stones from the 1st container as will fit in the bucket and asks "have I filled my day with tasks?" NO, so he takes pebbles from the 2nd container and adds a few hands full to the bucket and again asks "have I filled my day?" NO so he goes to the 3rd container and gets sand, and fills the bucket up. "Is my day full now"?" he asks… the crowd agrees yes, He then asks what the point was… gets several answers and then tells the group that the point was to put the BIG tasks in first or you won't get them in at all.

>>575772

I've found a plethora of YT vids of Deming's lectures

>mfw search for w edward deming lecture

If you have a spare 10 minutes watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckBfbvOXDvU

it's the red bead demo

not quite as I recalled, but it's still amusing and informative

ATTENTION BO

Please take a look at #719

there is behavior that is definitely giving ammunition to our enemies

If he wants to shitpost make him lose the trip

shitposting like that from a position of authority is bad, bad bad

I screwed up in 717 by leaving my handle in the name field… some of the results were funny but it harmed the thread fiercely. I will not repeat that mistake.

>mfw some of it was funny tho

Well, you are in the middle of erroding one of the things that made /qresearch/ different than /pol/ even though they were populated by the exact same anons

I think I can best explain it by asking if you remember the original SpaceElevator and the later SpaceEscalator?

If you didn't experience it for yourself I'm not sure I can truly convey it.

The sincerity of SE shone thru the shitposting BS

The decorum quelled the rabid shills

The constant politeness and civility was contageous.

That is a part of what we are losing BO

Think about it

Think about it long and if needed research what I'm speaking of.

You saw what the prior schism has done

Think what another will do

my 2¢

need a trip? legit purppse?

what beyond ego is driving this?

once is happenstance

twice is coincidence

third time is enemy action

deming says it differently

anything 3sigma or more outside norm is special cause

>>586376

I'll call you out when you do wrong

it's the chan way

>>586376

Can you give ONE good reason you need the trip?

Just ONE valid reason?

Ego is driving you

It isn't pretty

There is no I in TEAM

>mfw doesn't seem to be a YmRjOGI2ZjQ1Mjdi on the team either. Probably won't answer this question because there is no valid answer

If you truly don't see what the harm is you do not belong here and are temperamentally unfit for any postion of authority

BO

check the logs, see how many of the kitchen staff haven't done a shift in a while.

I guess random clowns will do the job well enough.

Maybe I'm wrong

I hope I am.

Now that was funny

I hope the BV understands how that all was triggered by an authority figure making statements about censorship of material that was only questionable and not severely pornographic or even pizza related.

When it comes to matters of taste by moderators, don't announce it, just do it. If there is a real reaction you'll know it soon enough.

It's herding cats, and damned fickle cats to boot!

It gelled, my thoughts on authority namefags shitposting. The reason it's bad is because it gives license to miscreants to misbehave. If he can do it, so can I.

The kerfluffle caused earlier was authority overstepping accepted boundry. Chans are pretty much freeze peach zones. If it's not clearly illegal, it's fair game. That's the norm. For the sake of decorum /qresearch/ is a special zone. The only other time I've ever experienced this voluntary relaxation of the self protection is the Space Elevator & Escalator threads of yore.

It's rare, this atmosphere of civility, amongst savage savants who are properly described by the statement

>We treat normies like scum and have the combined social grace of a rabid golden retriever.

my 2¢

>>628711 (cheKeKed)

beautiful idea BO

I think it'll help show the misguided anons the error of their ways, as well as helping to illustrate to all present the differences between honest mistakes and malicious intent of these posters

Attention BO

I'm the baker that created /comms/

I would truly appreciate your thought on this effort.

If you have any suggestions please let me know.

btw.

I think your recent changes in the ban / deletion area are going to yield more of the illustration / correction action you desire and create less of the division wedge points

salute!

>>779882

ATTENTION BO

problem with #985(s)

questionable baker has been removing notables and editing the lists

NOT responding to anons

note one thread is missing notables from #978 & 979

other things are missing, whole thing needs a bit of BO or BV attention asap

The next tactic in the playbook

corrupt the dough

create divisive bad breads

please resolve this quickly

you will get calls for union

you don't need it

just ~~delete~~ lock bad breads ( add comment if desired about reason)

you'll soon know if you've got rouge comp'd bakers

there are enough of the good ones to keep track, you'll hear the uproar

>>799656

>We do not use our powers to mess with the bakes.

bad bakes get locked, some deleted, so you do occasionally mess with them.

>Anons can survive bad bread

yes, and it will help with the further education re: the ability to discern questionable data and deliberate manipulation.

my point still stands that this is another exploitable weak point and you should beware of future attempts with similar tactics.

I hope you found W. E. Deming's thoughts useful.

>>805581

>This is the bakers problem

not theirs alone!

>I only respond so you all know someone is listening.

BO

Doxing is being promoted!

BO

I'd like to ask some questions about why tripcodes are completely disabled.

the reason I'm asking is the poor quality of some threads could be alleviated if we bakers could know who is who. I don't mind handing off to a completely unknown anon once and seeing it go south, but how to I not make the same error in the future.

Currently the board is completely overrun at times with non productive postings. As a baker I can deal with that. Sometimes notables don't get collected, I can deal with that. Sometimes a rogue baker packs crap into the notables or bread, I can deal with that occasionally… if we cannot tell each other apart this a major vector for malice.

This brings me back to trips.

I do not want to bring back the headaches of the baker's union. but we've reached a point where we need to be able to tell each other apart in a verifiable way and trips allow this along with anonymity.

I know it violates cultural norms here but a certain amount is already present.

If I post with my signature pic or Baker Chris Knight, or Jack Burton most anons know the qualities of those bakers / posters. We've come to trust them to a point.

There are enough vectors already for mischief and malice of clowns I see a way to eliminate one and improve the quality of the bread.

>mfw it makes multiple thread filtering a breeze.

I think the cultural norms will keep many from using trips, the majority of the ones who do will be anons with reason, like planefags or QmapAnon etc… they have need of a verifiable identity as the clowns start making fake posts under easily forged credentials, thus fogging a reputation.

my 2¢

>>909129

>>909129

I've been wrong before, and I'll probably be wrong again, but this time…

I know I'm not the only long time baker that has retired from active baking until this is resolved. Why should I put work into a bread just to see is destroyed?

less than 10% of posts are worth reading,

notables that aren't

wonderful gems of information lost in the chaff

It pains me to sit back and watch experienced bakers get discouraged and beginning bakers get swamped by the speed of posting, end result is inferior breads.

The frequency of moldy breads will increase and the level of mold also.

I hope I'm wrong and some 'organic' solution appears.

btw. WHO ARE YOU TO BE MAKING ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT WILL OR WON'T BE DONE ON THIS BOARD?

>>911140

>Consider a bakerbot.

that is not a bad idea

a bot that automatically collected Q posts is feasible.

however the job of adding new resources to the 3rd page or editing existing resources might present a task not easily automated.

the notables… well that is purely an editorial decision and the quality of those choices have major impact.

i do not see that task being automated

the massive traffic is going to force change and a trusted source for breads is essential to the long term health.

i don't care how it is achieved as long as it is achieved

trips for bakers

baker-bots

two possible solutions… any others?

>>909129

>trips where disabled so clowns couldnt hack Q's tripcode again

what utter and complete twattlespeak

you obviously do not know how that security system works on 8chan.

disabling tripcodes on /qresearch/ does absolutely nothing to prevent clowns from testing tripcodes

>>997104

>Bakers will not be distinguished from other Anons.

ya but the BO & BV can distinguish themselves as they wish… why?

Either we are all anonymous or not, currently it's not

Why is it not a reasonable request to be able to distinguish one baker from another?

>>1060104

you can post 'em at /comms/ and I'll make sure they don't get lost

>>1039444

the anons will choose

but they cannot make an informed choice if they cannot tell one baker from another reliably

how many botched bakes are you willing to put up with?

I think I understand part of your objection, and I agree that useage of trips is offensive and counter to the anon creed.

You are incorrect if you think prohibiting trips helps fight the hackers trying to crack Q's pass phrase. All they need do is go to another board on 8chan and try, the whole site uses the same salt for secure trips so that they show up the same on any board. Thus the same trip between greatawakening and qresearch.

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I just see a need to be able to verify certain anons. It is very necesary for the BO & BV to be able to authenticate themselves, I think you'd agree to that useage of trips, I know I do.

I think the situation will get worse as the posting speed increases. It may become necesary for the BO to install an automatic baker of some sort in order to keep the botched bakes and the even more subtle clown edited bakes where specific info is omitted or obfuscated