>>6394

>The current solution of old school bakers sniping the notables near the top of each bread is quasi-workable.

respectfully disagree anon, we need to restore the chain of trust from Q BO/BVs > bakers > anons

we have to find a solution that doesn't involve fighting with board leadership, otherwise there's no way to rely on notables

the best solution would be for site admins to kick FastJack out of qresearch and restore baker checks and other anti-shill efforts

second best, Q posts here and the migration is "official"

third best, the bakes here are more already trustworthy, and here we have good qrb notables and even links to decent buns for qresearch notables, this split-board thing sucks but it is usable

agreed

I think that verification is part of each of the three options I posted, whether it happens here on qrb, or on qresearch

>>6415

oops, rt >>6410

>>6436

working on it now anon. plan is to use the bakes here to collect notables for both /qresearch/ and /qrb/.

previously: >>5274, >>>/qresearch/7017291

if you wanna get in touch, make a post at >>>/patriotsresearch/1 with a protonmail address, and I will delete it and send you a mail. I don't want to share too much though, hope you understand.

>>6443

This is basically the best endorsement possible for wearethene.ws. Thanks "anon".

>>6468

yes, discussed a bit there too, ty.

I've refined the plan a bit since then, the breads here are currently the best source for both /qresearch/ and /qrb/ notables.

>>6478

Derailment is only temporary. "We have it all."

>>6448

No, definitely not efficient/optimal/comfy.

I think here is a good place to try out baker verification type things, where board ownership might support such an initiative (and tripcodes are allowed). Needs to be done with anon buy-in though.

Chain of trust from Q BO/BVs > bakers > anons is still the key, however that is achieved.

>>6515

To be clear, the part I disagree with is sniping notables into /qresearch/ breads, I think that is worse than doing real baking of both boards here.

Debate is great but you're not gonna get any kind of reasonable debate with the current qresearch BO/BV crew.

>>6527

Agreed on that, give em hell anons.