>>10920039

I hereby make a claim of /comms/baker subversion

this claim is the foundational reason for the splitting of the bread saturday 10/3

the bread was split for the reason of:

Violation of First Principles

First Principle Violated:

-anons not allowed to bake as anon

Example 1 of Ongoing Issue

/comms/bakers refuse to handoff to anons

4 /comms/bakers involved in this example (4 unique UID's)

pic related includes 3 of these bakers

would have included 4th but pic related getting too large to digest

Bread #13946

/comms/bakers refuse to handoff to anons

anon wasfirst to offerto take bake

/comms/baker 'be' refuses to pass without qbin pre-verification

/comms/bakers proceed to defend brand new baker hand-off pre-verification procedure that was created by these same /comms/bakers

/comms/bakers require anon to selfdox/namefag in order to bake

since when are anons not allowed to bake as anon?

pic very related

input from anons requested

how does this look to you anons?

easy to understand?

is everything sauced?

UIDs → /comms/baker ID's

too big? (what should be removed?)

At least 2 more examples of the above are being sauced and proofed

will post when done

thank you for (you)r consideration

o7

>>10920318

More Evidence of comms/bakers refusing to handoff to anons

>>10920318

>>10920322

/comms/ Baker WnB Deletes Previous Bakers Notables

asked about it directly in /comms/

doesnt care about things like that

pics related show:

Batchs of notes bunned in confirmed bakers (Bokeh Baker) final notes bun is removed with no explanation by next baker (Baker WnB)

Anons asks what do? -no response given in bread

Anon tracks down handoff chain, builds sauce, discoveres WnB is baker that removed notes

Anon posts sacued proofs in all bakers META threads

here, and on /comms/

as well as baking class breads

WnB answers anon:

"No, no thoughts. I usually bypass this (anon concerns?) cause I dont really care."

I dunno anons, what do (you) think about the bakers who employ that stradegy?

is it okay to anons for bakers to edit previous baker on duties notables?

anyone care to dispute any of the above analysis, or the proofs themselves?

>>10920359

>>10920318

>>10920322

Example

/comms/baker wnb brags about deleting previous baker notables

>>10920380

>>10920359

>>10920318

>>10920322

/comms/ Baker FreeBaker/ Frebe/ GYB actively supports, or directly engages in [Moldy Bread Campaign] spamming the general

included pics (here and at linked post up-bread) show:

the exact same post is made, with the exact same original post caps (made by frebe) on qresearch general, and on /comms/

the caps from /comms/ board show the UID that posts as =frebe== on comms is the same user that that made the post on qresearch

the caps from qresearch show

-the user who posts as frebe on /comms/

-which is the same user that mad the post caps and post calling out baker

-is also the same UID as this comment:

"what do you suggest, then? moldy bread campaign unsuccessful, kek."

demonstrating this user at the VERY LEAST tacitly supports the spamming of the bread with moldy bread .png's

I dunno anons, what do (you) think about the users who employ that stradegy?

is it okay to anons for bakers to spam the bread when they get their panties in a twist?

anyone care to dispute any of the above analysis, or the proofs themselves?

>>10920403

>I'l liking this movie. Anons win over and over.

covfefe and popcorn on the haus for all patriots

/comms/baker subversion

sauced and proofed

>>10920402 Example 1

>>10920380 Example 2

>>10920359 Example 3

>>10920318 Example 4

>>10920322 Example 5

all I am doing is making proof of this fuckery now

3-4 more proof incomming today

-removed notables

-/comms/bakers spamming /qresearch

-/comms/bakers refusing to handoff to anon

stay vigilant anons

see something

say something

screencaps

archive everything offline

o7