>>15761970 PB

>red text spamming and raiding all the time, OSS posting "muh graphics."

doesnt sound like grouds for deletion and banning to me

im my opinion, and historically the position of the board generally is that deletion and banning is an EXTREME last resort

and only to be used in the case of potential legal liability to the board

as in, you would delete material that is defined as illegal in the countries our servers operate in (in our case, the Unites States…… right?)

and it would stand to reason, that a repeat offender, posting illegal content, would be banned

and thus

you would have an affirmitive defense in the case law enforcement asks "what you did about it"

the ban wont prevent the user from circumventing it

and you cant prevent illegal content from being posted before it happens

but at least you have an affirmative defense

any deletions or bannings beyond that are capricious and have no defensible reason for being applied

to be very clear

I am not instructing management as to how to run their ship

I am merely making a statement of opinion and historical context

feel free to ignore these as you wish

>>15763260 PB

>Even their claims should make it obvious what the problem is to (you)

one thing I have learned here is patience

I dont have enough exposure to the current context to make an absolute claim

but

yes, anon

the laguage being used to support this position of deleting and banning based on SOURCE and not on CONTENT is dubious at best

at this point, I will say I think it is well intentioned

I still think it is dubious

time will tell weather the intentions are pure or not

I would hope that new management would give us the benefit of TIME to make our assesments of their qualities, be they good or bad

and it wont work in the long term

attempting to insulate the board from a particular subset of anons I mean

again

just an opinion

ignore at your own will

o7

>>15763407 PB

>Oss censored anyone that he wanted to, didn't agree with and was pretty arbitrary about it, gave them perma bans and cut a lot of anons off the board because of it

literally no one in this conversation is defending this

>New admin censors oss because he chooses to disrupt the flow of information and vibe of the board

that is not even remotely close to a good reason

>he thinks he us unique and special

pretty fucking irrelevent to the principles being disucssed

>censorship argument just lost a lot of ground with me

it is not my intention to "make ground" with you

my intention is to articulate a position of principle

and to support that principle with reason and logic

and further, to point out the violation of principles when they occur

becuase when you violate your own principles, the whole house of cards falls down

again, simply an opinion

ignore at will

o7

>>15763511 PB

>What I want you to do, is to consider what it means when a person comes back to this board and finds this shit going on. You think your hatred of OSS grants you the right to act as you please in retaliation.

>>15764043 PB

>doge.ong

>give it a rest

wow

that is informative

very interesting

I am a good example of somone coming back to find this shit going on

I have already been accused of being /hivemind/ as I -FIRST- dip my toes back into digging

somone thinks they smell /hivemind/ and a fucking five alarm emergency alert goes off followed by a deletion/ banning spree

I havent even been here a week and this is obviously happening

do you think this is going to have a POSITIVE effect on digging/ memeing/ and praying?

>>15764137 PB

>lets make perfection the enemy of the good

it got sorted

take a deep breath anon

>>15765184

>Time will tell what works and what doesn't.

>I am a patient man - willing to watch and wait.

>Hope you are as well.

as you have accepted my sincereity I am compelled to accept yours

I am willing to have patience

things have a tendency to sort themselves out …over time… in this place

o7

So, an event happened at the end of 2020

I am not bringing up the event to accuse anyone of anything

but it was the context of posts that have been deleted in bread #19937, so I will be referencing it here

the event in question:

the deliberate "salting" of a benign news story that was notable at the time with an overt bomb threat

as in

the copypasta of a news story that woud likely be considered notable at the time was editied in the middle of the body

a bomb threat on a specific location at a specific time was typed in the middle of a paragraph where it would have been difficult to notice

this "story" was then posted in a /qresearch/ bread, and was nominated as notable

this was an attempt to get the baker on duty to bake this bomb threat into the notables

the baker on duty DID in fact bake it into the notables, as they did not notice the bomb threat it had been "salted" with

in the end, it was OSS that in fact noticed the bomb threat, and informed the baker, who immediately removed it

OSS did in fact have the screenshots of the conversation where this was planned

the conversation did in fact happen in the /comms/ board

I am not making a value judgement on the above entities

I am not implying either should be revered or derided

I am merely making a statement of fact, based on an event I witnessed

I am not going to make any claim as to the motives

but this event did happen

it came up today

I made a post stating that I had witnessed the event

see something

say something

I went back to the bread to review the conversaion when I got to 8kun this evening…

and those posts of mine have been deleted?

not all my posts in that bread

just the ones about having witnessed this event

interstingly, there are still posts referencing this event existent in the bread, specifically:

>>15767337

>>15767492

one of them is a direct reply to one of my deleted posts

this would be an anon who claims to to be the baker who baked the bomb threat (obviously un-intentionally -they were tricked)

I suppose this "anon" could just be another sock puppet of disgruntled anon in that bread, but disgruntled anon was IP hopping every other post

and "bomb threat baker" anon has 31 posts in that bread

not exactly conclusive, but its a data point

now, the bread was mostly spam from disgruntled anon (OSS? I -assume- so…)

I get that this is something you feel you should remove from the board

I disagree

but that is just my opinion, again not telling you how to run your ship

I absolutely understand if the posts of mine I am referencing were deleted in error

shit happens

I feel the intentions are in the right place, so I can absolutely understand some friendly fire

I am however curious if these posts were deleted BECAUSE they referenced the event I have described above?

If only so that I know not to reference the event in the future if it is considered "not allowed" on /qresearch/

thank you in advance for your direction in this matter

what do?

>>15768915

>How long are you claiming exactly?

to be fair anon

when BO says "(you) have not been here for a long time"

he is referring directly to (me) and the fact that I have been 100% absent from the board for a full year

and thus, I have -no idea- what has happened over that year

and

they are absolutely right about that

so I take no offense

>>15769159

>he is

I think** he is (they are??)

>>15769915

>because OSS left his own reputation in pieces

so

your saying

every issue IS being blamed on OSS

in a "look here, not there" fasion

and that is okay

because what OSS did wasthat bad

OSS defined the new moral standard?

as long as it notas bad as OSSthen its totally okay?

trying to follow the logic

in an attempt to illustrate the "logic" I am following

please correct me where I am in error

>>15769893

>I have recently observed "X"

>Is "X" a case of don't look here, look over there?

>there are plenty of other shills who do the same thing, but do not get "X"

>>15769915

>"X" is probably because OSS has a bad reputaion

am I reading this wrong?

>>15770289

>I certainly wasn't saying it's right, simply that past acts have made him an easy target for blame, for anything.

I can certainly understand that

>>15770289

>I certainly wasn't saying it's right

roger that

sorry for implying otherwise

>>15773894

>When a hostile group (often but not always OSS) posts attack messages as spam, should admins sit back and allow it? Is that what anons really want?

that is what this anon wants

if I were to vote

>Spam is not free speech.

that is debatable

so is the defintion of spam

one anons spam is another anons critical message

>However, most anons are silent

would their voices change your opinion?

>those are the voices that should be heard

"should" is a sticky wicket, philosophically

who decides what SHOULD be heard?

>Admins are trying to find the balance between too much deleting/banning and none at all.

I commend their efforts

and will offer my insight as I am inspired to do so

>Much of the current spam is from OSS and minions. Completely new scenario.

this disinction is irrelevent

>They are a generally hostile group who never cleaned up QR.

being nice has never been a requirement on /qresearch/

have you read the welcome page?

https://8kun.top/qresearch/welcome.html

>HM is the only board that has ever done a full frontal attack on Q Research

wrong

/comms/

/mnr/

/QRB/

I am not making any kind of a value judgment about these boards, but the fact remains, "raids of conquest" were conducted againsts the /qresearch/ board from the boards I listed above

the point being

its not the first time

and it wont be the last

>Thoughts?

I have them from time to time :D

counter-thoughts?

>>15774028

>comms is a board that no one inhabits, or posts regularly in

>mnr is comprised of how many posters?

>qrb is compromised of how many posters?

correct, those boards are NOW dead

I wonder why

what is occuring in those board RIGHT NOW AT THIS MOMENT has no bearing on what I witnessed coming from those boards 1-2 years ago

>>15775149

>THen you must have proof then..

If you want to belabor the point, yes

it was not my intention to drag this back up

but, if you demand

I shall provide

>>15775149

>THen you must have proof then..

and here is:

FB / FreeBaker / Freebie / Frebe

getting caught being the moldybread.png bread spammer

he used his namefag "frebe" in the /comms/ board

and did so using the same UserID as he had when he posted his unique image caption style with the yellow text blocks and specific text font

he posted this exact same cap in a /qresearch/ general bread

using the same UserID as a post with the text:

what do you suggest, then? moldy bread campaign unsuccessful, kek.

which proves, unequivocably, that the namefag 'Frebe' from the /comms/ board was ABSO-FUCKING-LITELY running "raids of conquest" on the /qresearch/ board

fucking

chek'm

always have the sauce if your going to make a claim

>>15775824

I will let anons decide weather they remember breads being spammed FULL (like 80% of the bread) of moldy bread pics

>>15775149

>the rare times they do provide "sauce" it is some unreadable POS that says nothing.

(you): "whatever they say its not true!"

right

okay

think for youselves anons

or dont

up to you

free will and all

o7

>>15775596

>Gerbil was cool

dasting

>>15776908

>what is this supposed to show?

exactly what is stated to be shown

I made a witness statement

sauce was demanded

sauce was provided

'nuff said

the original context was my wondering if specific posts of mine had been deleted from a specific bread in error, or if it was intentional

this post here >>15769124

bread #19937

dated 03/02/2022

post number that was deleted: >>15767411

context: witness statement as to events that occured over a year ago

specific question:

Should I refrain from ever referecing this event ever again as would be implied by its deletion

or

Was it merely friendly fire in a bread that was "full of spam" and was receiving a pruning by new administration

I agree the bread in question (#19937) was absolutely full of spam -by any definition

Much of it was deleted

It is absolutely logical to assume my posts were deleted in error

I

am

wondering

which

it

was

intentional, or un-intentional

thats it

that was my orriginal question

o7

>>15777908

>All the posts discussing what he was spamming about got wiped out.

roger that anon

thank you

just wanted an answer to that point

o7

>>15777871

>It's a trick that people attacking the board have used before.

a trick that has more opportunity to work when the qualification for a bannable offence becomes to broad

but I have belabored the point long enough

carry on

o7

>>15778039

I trust your intentions are in the right place

and I commend your effort to make headway in this name of unity

I dont think its the right way to go about it

but I dont hold it against you

free will and all

o7

>>15778219

>You’re hitting at least 10 logical fallacies

you are NOT wrong

like pulling teeth to walk through a logical syllogism around here

logic is absolutely a first principle this board claims to adhere too

just keep banging home the points on PURELY logical grounds

try to leave out any kind of ad-hominem (no matter how true it may be) or straw men

just the facts jack

as of course, you do you

one day at a time

o7

>>15778292

>There was never a universal consensus that he was the bad guy here.

I certainly wont be caught defending everythig OSS has ever done

he sperged on me plenty

but he is a valuable anon

and the best baker I have ever seen

period

>>15780253

I have spoken my peace

o7

>>15781003

>spoken my peace

piece**

>>15781047

>If this was actually true then why were they not banned?'

what management does as a result of a specific event has no bearing on whether that event occured or not

you logical possition is:

not banned = innocent party

I disagree with this logical sylogism

again, I have stated all I cate to state on this subject

I am perfectly happy to let anons make up their own minds based on what has been presented thus far

I have no intent to continue this "divisive conversation" (as defined by our monitors) any longer

My -only- question was about my posts that had been deleted

were they deleted by mistake

or

were they deleted because they were verbotten

I ALREADY GOT THE ANSWER

they were deleted because they were verbotten

>>15777908

>All the posts discussing what he was spamming about got wiped out.

discussing ANYTHING "OSS" 'spams about' is verbotten and will be deleted

got it

thats all I wanted to know

thank you

o7

>>15781233

>Anons, please break off.

I'm done

my question has been answered

o7

>>15781956

>I only came back to the board when shit started happening.

I have a feeling new management is going to hear this a lot

kek

I am absolutely glad to have a place to discuss META issues

>>15781962

>Since when do people have to go through a security check to bake a bread. Wtf is this. Fuck it, I don't want to bake anymore.

so this is like

exactly what happens when you try to install baker verifications

handoff procedure is absoutely essential

but I have not found any way to effectively use a verification step for the baker offering to take

the only thing that worked for me was first come first serve

it is the only position that has a moral and logical defense on a "free speech" board that claims to be "open for all"

if this is not longer a free speech board

or

if this is no longer a place that is open for all

then please disregard my comments

>>15781992

>I will hand off to any baker that BV says it's ok to hand off to

holy fuck anon

THINK FOR YOURSELF

is the BASIC tennent of /qresearch/

offloading your RESPONSIBILITY for PERSONAL DISCERMENT onto someone else

no matter what their position is

does not you of this moral responsibility YOU have for your own decisions

You can SAY you just let the BV decide who gets a handoff and who doesnt

but that is a decision itself, you are refusing to make it yourself, and you are offloading it to the BV

that doesnt actually remove you from the decision

you have decided to all someone elses will to dictate your actions

if it turns out that persons will was tainted, you have NO defense for the actions you took because of their influence

TO BE VERY CLEAR

I am articulation a position in logic

I am NOT accusing you of acting in malice

or having bad intentions

but fuck anon

think for yourself

>>15782747

>does notabsolveyou of this moral responsibility

>>15782000

>So newfags can't bake anymore, is that what your saying?

baker verification is a sticky subject

I saved these from a time before

when anons were confronted with a verification requirement in order to be allowed to bake

>>15782809

>I saved these from a time before

Quote:

"…

I hereby make a claim of /comms/baker subversion

this claim is the foundational reason for the splitting of the breadsaturday 10/03/2020

the bread was split for the reason of:

Violation of First Principles

First Principle Violated:

-anons not allowed to bake as anon

Example 1 of Ongoing Issue

/comms/bakers refuse to handoff to anons

4 /comms/bakers involved in this example (4 unique UID's)

pic related includes 3 of these bakers

would have included 4th but pic related getting too large to digest

Bread #13946

/comms/bakers refuse to handoff to anons

anon wasfirst to offerto take bake

/comms/baker 'be' refuses to pass without qbin pre-verification

/comms/bakers proceed to defend brand new baker hand-off pre-verification procedure that was created by these same /comms/bakers

/comms/bakers require anon to selfdox/namefag in order to bake

since when are anons not allowed to bake as anon?

pic very related

thank you for (you)r consideration

o7

…"

sic. -Barkeep Circa Oct 2020

>>15782809

>I saved these from a time before

>>15782333

>The question is: What is the best way to protect the work while at the same time being as open as possible to bakers?

keep a backup of your pastebin in a text file on your local machine

you know

archive offline

apparently that is a new concept around here?

>>15782333

>Admins cannot be here 24/7 to "vet" bakers.

thats why you shouldnt be doing it

>>15783249

>Baker's choice how they handoff

every bker has free will

thus

it will always be bakers choice

even if the baker chooses to let management tell them how to do it

that is still a choice

the baker chooses to follow managements rules

the baker could always choose to ignore them

ther is no force involved

only influence

>determined by the board

sincerely curious

how does one asses the collective "determination" of "the board"

/discuss