TYB!
>>12128234 Dough
>DO YOU THINK IT IS OK TO DELETE ANOTHER BAKERS NOTABLES?
even in the "worst" possible case, unless the notable content is literally illegal (CP, etc) then NO ONE should be editing the 'previous bakers' work product
you are responsible for YOUR work product when you bake
not the baker before you
or the bakers after you
just to state my opinion on the subject
>>12128234 Dough
>DO YOU THINK IT IS OK TO DELETE ANOTHER BAKERS NOTABLES?
>just to state my opinion on the subject
and to give an example of this behavior that I have previously admonsished:
/comms/baker WnB braggs about deleting previous bakers notables
^^^^^this is the kind of thing that starts baker wars, as a basic first principle^^^^^
I am not making that claim here
or making any statement of intended conflict with you, bakes
just stating very clearly, forFULL DISCLOSUREmy opinion on the subject
>It is ok when the notables are stupid
not editing the previous bakers work product is a first principle anon
you saying its okay to abandon first principles when you dont like the other party?
like democrats "selecting" Joe Biden, becuase you know, fuck the Constitution, Orange Man Bad
>Just because an individual doesn't appreciate or understand another anon's notables does not give rise to deleting what they had collected.
this
it is a FIRST PRINCIPLE
and it REEK of censorship
EVEN IN THE LIKELY EVENT THAT THEY ARE "BULLSHIT" NOTABLES
to delete someone ELSES work products is to take ownership of that which is NOT YOURS
how would you like it if the notables YOU baked were EDITED after the fact, and someone added something ILLEGAL to them
pretty fucked up right?
and that would be WRONG
based on this first principle
but if we go violating these principles when we decide we dont like this content or that content
then we dont get to ENJOY THE BENEFITS of adhering to FIRST PRINCIPLES
>why does a baker think he has a right to remove another baker's notables. Really fucking annoying
ikr
>The baker that bake it wanted the change.
5:5
so if you want to
you can change the previous bakers notables?
that is what you are going with?
>Baker's choice, anon.
so editing orevious bakers notables is just a choice any baker can make
that is the standard you would like to go with?
>They would have been better off leaving the shit notes and instead gathering a record of anon disagreement with the previous bakers' work.
agreed
>We are in this together and have differing opinions at times.
>/COMMS/ jews deleting other bakers notables was what started the bread wars in september.
yep yep
>The same baker asked for the change, of their notables.
I must have missed that one…
-have a link?
>>12128630 current baker
>The same baker asked for the change, of their notables.
sounds fake and gay
>>12128671 previous baker
>I'M RIGHT FUCKING HERE AND DID NOT GIVE ANYONE PERMISSION TO ALTER MY NOTES.
yep
fake and gay
Lying is not a good look, if you have a sauce link where the previous baker told you to edit their notes, now would be the time
>YOU PUT SOME ASSHOLES JEWISH TITLES UP ON SOME GOOD NOTABLES AND NOW YOU ARE CRYING BECAUSE THEY WERE CORRECTED…
akchuahly…
I have been furiously eating popcorn
watching the show
and shitposting the night away
I baked one E-Bake tonight
it was a duplicate, I self-reported for locking
it is now locked @54 posts
so yeah
good times
>will include both sets of notes, nb
great thinking
>Good solution?
in fact
I think this is the best solution in these cases of HOTLY disputed previous bread notables
take your own notes/ make your own notes list
and bake it ALONG WITH the previous bakers list
that way, you are not "endorsing" something you do not want to endorse
and you are also not censoring anyone elses work
this, in fact, is a workaround that bakers have stumbled upon a FEW times over the years, kek
I approve, for what its worth
>the keks never stop in the gulch.
its nice to have friends in the gulch
friendly fire…
enemy fire…
its ALL fire…
keep your eyes open anon
ok duty baker:98f2f7
>98f2f7
look at that
a compromise!
>You fucking shills are the ones deleting notables to protect your sorry ass pedophile religion
anon, the baker has included your notes back into the bun in an attempt to compromise…
chek'm
>will include both sets of notes, nb
>I approve, for what its worth
>Notes list with BOTH sets of Notes and a lines indicatingNOTAKER CHANGE
>look at that
>a compromise!
>there is no compromise.
It is LITERALLY exactly what you are asking for, anon
your notes, exactly as you have taken them, in the Dough
what the fuck?
>ANY BAKER DELTEING ANOTHER BAKERS NOTES SHOULD NOT BE FUCKING BAKING AND I CAN NOT BELIEVE ANY ANONS ARE OK WITH THIS SHIT.
yep
I am NOT okay with that shit
which is why I made a an argument based in reason and logic
I argued with the baker on duty
that baker has conceeded to the merits of the argument (it seems)
and in an act ofFUCKING RAREcontricion
the baker is going to re-include your notes exactly as they should have been
that is LITERALLY the definition of a compromise
and a DEEP on at that
it is NEARLY completele capitulation
>IT IS THEM KNOWING THEY ARE CAUGHT AND TRYING TO BACKTRACK NOW.
entirely possible
take a WIN when you get it, anon, for fucks sake
>I DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH INFORMATION TERRORISTS.
I support that position
sincerely
>I'LL STOP WHEN THE NOTES ARE FIXED AND
strike the and
lets take the fucking win that it is NEVER okay to edit previous bakers work product
I am not going to sleep
but I am NOT "stealing" the bake from current baker
I will totally watch till the next handoff though
5:5?
anon
we DID fight
we are NOT allowing the censorship
the on duty baker is REVERTING the changes made
that is how it works
anons in action
take the win
>WHILE ANONS JUST TAKE IT.
NO WE FUCKING ARE NOT JUST TAKING IT
fuck YOU good sir
I have been defending the fucking principle all bread
dont be a nigger
I get it
your pissed
I, in fact, think you have a reason to be pissed
I am trying anon
we shall what happend next bread
kek
facepalm