>>1263427 sarcasm or stupid?
>Looking at the quality of what's gone on here in the last week (especially the past 2 days) I'd say this place has almost been shilled to the point of uselessness anyway
hahaaaaaaaaaa
how long ya been around?
>bread burners.
technically, long posts don't actually burn any more bread than one-words "KEK" or "fill" posts.
very good post, and an example of a
notable
that's not about sauce.
(or: you want sauce, go read the crumbs)
>Opinion piece not notable.
I CALLED IT
:
<No sauce, no notable.
is taking it too far as far as i'm concerned, though, not necessary at all. Goes for most notables, but somethings are worth putting in there and we sure don't need bossy bakers abusing the rule.
Otherwise i still think it's a shame we lost the whole missions post.
Forgetting/missing info is one of our main weak links, so taking stuff out is not a direction to go into…
Anons the other day talked about focusing better on tasks by using dedicated threads.
Some exist already, some would have to be made.
Both categories should be listed in full in their own section of the dough, for easy referecnce: as we see when baker can't put the new bread link in time, some anons here don't even know about something as basic as the Catalog link.
Expecting them to find a specific thread on their own, it seems, is expecting a lot.
That could be formed into a new, reworked MISSIONS sections to the dough.
Seeing how much people here stand around waiting between drops as if there was nothing to do, I'd say it is badly needed.
(also useful would be links to all dedicated threads of the catalog, not sure they're all there.)
+another idea thrown around earlier was to start a thread just for digging old crumbs, more in depth…
friendly warning, baker, i'll just repost it next bread and the bread after that in protest.
not my post, but notable-worthy.
>What if I told you I added it shortly after I read it?
then i'd be very glad i won't have to do it, thanks.
But i knew this "no sauce no notable" rule would get mis-used, i tried to warn against it.
you're fast, nice work as always :)
We used to have the same notable system specifically for News.
It was expanded to the larger encompassing concept of Notables.
I deplore to see it brought back to the state of only "news".
Most of your comment does not address that and wouldn't normally be worth replying to (but isn't false, just misplaced)
>would you suggest anything goes?
lovely false dichotomy, there, concernfag.
most bakers are anons who have more than enough discernment to do the job quite well.
contested cases are discussed in the general, and it works.
<misinformation and disinformation rain here like a monsoon. how should we discern fact from fantasy & fiction if not for sauce?
are you even from here? ugh
>People taking opinions in Notables and repeating them over and over.
so you're catering an organisational tool to the dumbest, shillest of us.
good job
but we spend all day discussing and ranting.
the good rants condense all these discussions.
as anon who has missed breads and wants to catch up, these are 100% justified to have in notables.
just a few of them, here and there.
otherwise just all go back to calling it "News"
>is it desirable for notables to have sauce or not?
of course. if you'd read what i wrote or if you actually argued in good faith you would notice that.
>the general rule of notables having sauce is to prevent BS from spreading
but you see, it was not used as a "general rule" and/or "guideline", the post was repeatedly shut down in the name of the rule.
only after multiple replies did the baker go back on his swift decision.