If it's spam, it is illegal - JW made that clear in a recent email. So can be deleted.
>bakers should be able to be anon
Understand. The problem comes when an anon baker turns out to be a shill. Since we have a custom of allowing bakers to be final arbiters of what gets in notables, what do we do when a shill puts in Protocols of Zion, spam, realrawnews stuff, miscellaneous anon comments he likes, and other material to which anons object? When baker completely ignores anon objections and bakes them in anyway?
If it's OSS, we can take it out - because he is usually recognizable and banned from baking. What about other shill bakers?
When public officials abuse the trust of voters, we can impeach them. Do we need a process to "impeach" bakers who grossly abuse the trust of anons? Who refuse to listen to reasonable anon requests to remove material that obviously shouldn't be notabled?
What about a list of obviously unacceptable acts? Not one or two but as a pattern:
-
notabling non-notable posts
a. without sauce
b. with very poor sauce (realrawnews etc)
c. completely irrelevant or wo/value (misc anon comments etc)
d. "muh joos" and other stuff that discrminates on the basis of race, sex, religion
e. spam
f. defamatory to Q, 8kun or Qresearch
g. old news or many duplicates
-
changing stuff in the dough wo/notification
-
refusal to listen to anons or treating anons with obvious disregard
-
refusal to give up the dough to reasonable requests for handoff
Thoughts?