> Been catching up on previous breads and figured would share a data point for consideration. Not intending to argue any of this, just providing opinion and catching up on other things. Do with it what you will. Only qualification of opinion will be that for past 3 years have been on here for most waking moments, ugh, and more before then just not as intense.

> Tech/Weed/DilbertAnon

I recall long conversations with muh work product anon, engaged with many rando anons, on the pros and cons of modifying a previous bakers notes. My argument at the time was that we should be able to fix previous no-tables if sufficiently retarded (verifiably incorrect and or malicious) and with the support of sufficient legit hash anons on that bread. Was eventually convinced that a bakers work is sacrosanct and not to be changed, corrections can be made by current baker in current bread supported by current anons. Fine, whatever, an argument can be made for either point of view and I would guess the prevailing view would have been somewhere around the 30/70 - 40/60 ratio. Consistency of tribal rules is more important than always being on the winning opinion. Baked for a few years on the graveyard shift when anime and dodge didn't murky up the shift too much for a clean hand-off without being accused of being in a crew (only because that shift used to be zero admin time and difficult to counter a good 3+man shill team without access to hash). Stopped when previous admin unilaterally removed bread banner without dialogue. Had a long tear on the boards about it not unlike previous admin did when they lost ops. Was baking based on previous tribal rules that established a strong counter-measure to subversion when admin was not around. High standards on content and psyop resistance. New enforced rule not bakers jam. Nearly started baking when new admin was looking promising. Warned against banner contest, that it would forever be a bone of contention, that best move would be to provide admin services when asked and let new tribal standard emerge, that democratically selecting the properties of a standard that was autocratically created is not the correct reversal of damage done. I would imagine that there are bakers that hold similar views and experiences that are trying to contribute but the terms are still too grey. SinceBOwas adamant on going down this road here is what I would expect to be reasonable for anons of my experience and views going forward. Admin should not get involved in banner business unprompted unless it is a clearly malicious image (checked the "q post on the banner" banner, that should be fine 7 days a week, seriously) If anons on the bread complain about the banner, and admin confirms by hash they are not division fagging, then admin (with capcode, if you are gonna post anon then (you) with capcode expect and accept a non admin response to first post) to ask baker to provide their safer banner image for a swap out.

No reasonable anon could find these suggestions unacceptable