>>15395071

>They never left, Anon

Have to admit changed opinion on this. There was a post after the rally that did not have trips but the whole board accepted that it was comms. The ID had 3 posts on that bread from memory. One of them that got less attention (do not even think it was note abled) required a certain post number to work, that anon got the correct post and had the exact to the second same post time as an adjacent post. That requires special access. Lesson learnt, check timestamp of potential comms, if same as adjacent post down to the second then more credible than not.

>>15395257

Yeah thanks, now I can go back and find them easier.

>Complaints about unchallenged consensus

Yes obviously there were and continue to be butt hurts, but it got the level of engagement that a legit drop has in the past, not making a claim just analyzing available information.

>Butt hurt complainers rebuking special access claims

Claim a post number that will fall in a future bread, do it with a pic, when that post number comes up take it, with the same pic, linking back to the claim post. Everyone add noise like a normal digits race.