o/
matter of fact, i'd load tor too and make sure it is stocked with whatever baking links you use. baking half a bread with tor and the rest with a uid is a thing.. not a fun thing, but a thign
>Community == preservation, which makes a board like this one, where Anons can learn to bake, all the more valuable.
Especially because this board purports to roll like the big stream in the sense of open collaboration. Using the entire buffalo is messy, but it works. That's why the shills hate it. That's why they asked for baker checks, then hated the baker checks, and now they are back to pushing for baker checks again.
It's not about the bakers. It's about throwing sand in anything that looks like it is running as smoothly as it can. And a group of bakers with a consensus is something the shills do not want.
This right here is why this anon started participating again. Culling will not be supported by me.
Tiresias the bot chaser… Felt like a persona sent to try to find weaknesses/crack consensus in the anons' observations on the shill activity.
Only ended up confirming everything in the crash course, kek.
all of them except highestbakingpepe.. I was in the mode of ignoring smudged art up till the end of that memestory arc.. Couldn't decide whether it was shills defacing the memes or anons just being anons so scroll scroll scroll.. kek. You have one for this guy?
>b273ca
someone tried to confuse anons with a fake notes bun in that bred too. was a fun bake :)
This anon has no opinion on what took place in bred #11438, for the record. otherwise, they would have spoken up in the bred in question..
>But the more open bakers are to legit input, the better it works
Yeah. it's best to answer queries re: notes with dispassionate reason, first. Shitposting is only really apropos if the commenter does not respond to reasonable requests (ie- more sauce, better descrip of dig, etc etc) first..
That being said…
Individual bakers will defend themselves how they see fit, for better or worse. It's a given that the shills will try to wrap up bakers in any way they can; the only answer is to conduct oneself, knowing that… but shit happens.
Shadilay, bakers!
<that which we spoon feed you
<we
<you
<arrogance
Hm.. Didn't really pay any mind to it at the time … but that doesn't seem becoming of an organic baker. Probably sent to wrap this place up in a smear, considering the persona uh.. coincidentally came here recently.
Either way, each baker's comments can only reflect on themselves in the hand that has been dealt; That's the whole point of not bothering with any memberships, and doing everything right out in the open where everyone can see it in the first place.
Remember that. Each anon can only be responsible for themselves. Anything else is an attack vector, which the ops will appeal to.
So there it is. I have no opinion about that baker's actions. i just know I wouldn't be arrogant like that to any anon.
>after all isn't that part of what we do?
not when this baker bakes. no time, nor interest in spoon feeding, not anyone's mother. If this anon is going to put the effort into sitting there and being able to bake at the level /qr/ requires, with the level of bullshit that goes on.. people reading it should at least have invested the energy to not require spoon feeding, or shut the fuck up and get out of the way of those who have invested the energy. Baby games are over. If people want Romper Room, /qr/ is perhaps unsuitable for them.
<the diggers dig and only want a comfy space to place the gems they've found for all to see
<Q requires space that will chronicle and intelligently analyze the drops
<BAKERS provide the daily bread that provides a constantly updated synopsis of recent postings, a reference list of useful links and a tabula rasa for all to post in
No spoonfeeding should be required in any of those things, in the context of /qr/. This isn't 2018 anymore.
>is creating a coherent synopsis equivalent to 'spoon feeding' ?
No. a coherent synopsis of a warzone is an oxymoran. Best we can hope for is a snapshot of the spirit of the bred. And Evidence brought to light; /qr/ is a work area, not a work product.. Shadilay :)
>Providing clear descriptions <> spoon feeding.
5:5
>But then there's the idea of using this to push anons.
This is a mistake, and a trap. Shills push.
Bakers provide a service that anons are very discerning about; Anons know, and have known. They need a ticker tape of events, not candy coating. That is why that type of arrogant "gotta be spoonfed" behavior turns them right off.
>"spoon feeding" conveys the sense of the baker as an adult and anons as children.
>We
>other red flag stuff in this whole episode
That's another feature of this drama that is starting to rub this anon the wrong way. Still don't know who that particular baker in question was, but divisive group politicky behavior like that is a feature of certain usual suspects. The "we" and "us" shit is a slippery slope that raises a huge red flag..
>I started baking because of a great baker who inspired me. He was always asking anons for input, always lifting people up, making them feel like they mattered. Bakers like that create more bakers. Something to strive for.
Worthy reasons o7
>the person who wants it will post this every bread until he gets an answer, he will not be satisfied and will continue to suggest tweaks for the dough
>that is a shill tactic
This. Next thing to happen once that is allowed, will be the roboposting shills getting their shit in the dough.
Slippery slopes are slippery.
This baker didn't like that unilateral change this am.
It doesn't matter. IT's another slippery slope of censorship.
Because [they] will just find another oft used word or phrase; All of them do the same shit that twatter and fakebook do. Removing that phrase will not solve the problem.
Or was it forgotten that 'same script, different company' is a thing?
For the record, that phrase is not important to this anon; but the idea of the reasoning behind removing it, is important to consider.
>the idea of the reasoning behind removing it
Is merit a valid measure of inclusion?
>well in this case, that would be that it's the title of a (Joe M?) video that isn't linked anymore, isn't it?
Like I said, that specific phrase isn't important, it's a lifted catchphrase.
>seems redundant to me since there's the "we are researchers.." paragraph at the beginning.
That specific paragraph was a collaboration of anons during the first waves of shills pushing violent activism on the board. Thus preserving it is very important.
Is what it is
>by the necessity of time one must from time to time accede to the enemy
No. Reagan would never stand for that.
>changing the wording while keeping the meaning is one method of combating this type of censorship
Fine. This is neither acceding, nor conceding. This is being specific about definitions.
Acceding is just a fancy way of saying " playing the game on [their] terms", and is a mistake.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accede