Anonymous ID: af9e2a Oct. 25, 2020, 8:04 p.m. No.11280476   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0500 >>0546 >>0596 >>0994

>>11280333

>>11280461

 

>>11280038 (Bakers META) (me)

 

>>11271869 (Bakers META)

>ALWAYS been the baker's call

funtionally

absolutely correct

 

when applied in context with actual anons

refusing to handoff to the first offer made is going to lead to friction

if it is done too egregiosly/ too often

itwilllead to continuing splitting of the bread

 

this is basic commerce law

when a baker on duty offers to another anon the responsibility of the kitchen they are engaging in commerce

 

they are making an offer

(insert first come/ first serve clause here)

 

there are 4 moral responses to an offer made in commerce

 

1.Refusal

-flat refusal of all terms

-this is called refusal of commerce

-you are refusing to engage in legitimately offered commerce

-by refusing commerce as a resolution to the offer you areaccepting the terms of waras a resolution to the offer

 

2.Ignorance

-ignoring the offer

-I dont know the period (I think it is 30 days or, 2 fortnights) but this is the length of time you have to morally respond to an offer

-if the offer is ignored beyond this point, it is considered refusal of commerce

-and thus, anacceptance of the terms of waras a resolution to the offer

 

3.Acceptance

-flat acceptance of all terms

-commerce accepted

-offer agreed too

-all parties are now morally responsible to meet all terms of the offer

 

4.Conditional Acceptance

-commerce accepted under condition

-parties engage in negotiation over conditions

-either negotiations are succesful, and conditions for commerce are agreed too

-or negotiation is unsuccesful, and both parties agree to amicably part ways, or:

-the terms of war are acceptedas a resolution to the offer

 

 

In the context of On Duty Baker requesting a handoff

If the baker makes the requestopen, andwithout condition;

 

Example:

"Baker Seeking Handoff, Kitchen is offered."

 

Then I dont see how that baker can add conditions to the orriginal offer after any anon has accepted the orriginal terms of commerce -no conditions.

 

As in the example:

Baker on Duty: "Baker Seeking Handoff, Kitchen is offered."

 

first anon offer: "Offer Accepted. Handoff Confirmed?"

 

Baker on Duty: "Let me see your credentials"

 

This is a breach of commerce, in changing the conditions of the orriginal offer AFTER it has been duly accepted in commerce

 

 

NOW

It is, in practice, solely the decision of the on Duty Baker how to engage in commerce

 

As I am brainstorming;

 

If On Duty Baker states the condition of baking credential requirement (whatever they decide that is) in the orriginal offer to handoff the kitchen, then that condition is duly made in commerce.

 

It would then be the anon accepting the offers responsibility to accept that condition, and offer credential

 

Refuse that condition and engage in war

 

Ignore that condition and effectively let someone else take the commerce

 

or

 

Conditionally accept the offer, and negotiate the terms of credentials.

 

If negotiation fails, I can see multiple potentials outcomes;

 

amicable resolution -third party baker accepts all terms of credential requirement, meets the terms, and takes the bake

 

no amicable resolution -terms not accepted and war chosen as resolution to offer of commerce

 

But, seriously, I am not even really sure about the morality about refusing the on duty bakers offer with conditions, if the conditions are clearly stated in the original offer?

it seems this would only be moral if the condition of credential requirements ITSELF was considered a breach of commerce in the sphere of /qresearch/ baking

 

These are my brainstormings on the subject.

 

Anyone see any faults in my logic?

 

Care to offer and criticism?

 

o7

Anonymous ID: af9e2a Oct. 25, 2020, 8:23 p.m. No.11280731   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0753 >>0766 >>0815

>>11280596

>my issue is with people splitting the bread and not asking for hand off

5:5

I have issue with this as well

even in the most legitimate case

like every anon in the bread is literally begging anyone to e-bake another bread

 

in that instance I still think it would be a good idea for the baker planning to split the bread toat the very leastmake an offer to the current on duty baker

 

failing resolution here

and given anons demanding

move your request to the anons demanding

tag them and ask for confirmed handoff

and then document it all

 

although I do see a problem with this

 

I watched some seriously low shit anytime animebaker bakes

people shit all over that baker like its a straight white male with a white wife and a family of blond haired blue eyes kids or something

I dont get it

 

the anti-anime REEEEEEing has gotten so thick I have seen what I think are anons split the bread without ever asking for a handoff

just because of cartoons

 

especially dishonorable when you consider animebaker will handoff to literally any anon

all you have to do is ask.

 

and now I am wall-of-text effort posting again

/for shame/

 

o7