>>17636272, >>17636365 TY Bakers

CAPTCHA update

Captcha function is under attack. Most of the problems we are encountering are a result. Bumpy ride, but we're still here.

Best way to access CAPTCHAS: Use the PRE-SOLVE button on the RIBBON (see CAP). Has a current link. CAP.

If you fail, re-try from scratch until you see the "Success" message. If board is under attack, this may require patience.

Anon suggestion: Click the "if the captcha doesn't load.." link right after you click reply and before the re route and you will get a captcha (perhaps an impossible one). If so, repeat again until something readable appears.

Use the endchan bunker if you cannot post on 8: endchan.gg/qrbunker/catalog.html 

>>17636422

>>17636365

Baker/note-taker

can you update the dough to swap out the entire Globals section (including captcha section) and post this instead?

GLOBALS

Know your bunker: https:'//'endchan.gg/qrbunker; Ban lifts & bug reports: >>17241201

Posting guidelines: No naked adults near kids; ALSO, report violent threats - msm trying to nail "Q and anons"

E-BAKERS: - Call the Ebake and Clearly sign out after the bake if not continuing as baker

HOW TO BAKE: >>17322493, Quik Pics: >>17322505, E-baking vs Baking: >>17485628, E-Bake: PLS TAG THE DOUGH

Q post formatting: >>17588203 Baker's Lite JS code: >>17241444

Format for A/B notables is -A -B #11111-A #11111-B >>17242529

CAPTCHA UPDATE: Admins are working on it, here's the situation >>17636422 new

>>17636365

>>17636434

sorry, dead link in there - refresh to see live one

>>17636464

>controlc or fullchan

doesn't matter, baker's choice

would be good for bakers to know both

got the glitches out last month, should be easy either way

i like fullchan better because it displays a full page

but controlc is ok too

>>17636506

>>17636506

No we are not as bad as our enemy. Our enemy's motivation is to destroy us by any means necessary. Our motivation is to stop them and bring them to justice using the law.

Same with what we do on this board. Our aim is not to ban or delete on a whim, it's to promote the ability to anons to talk things out and post memes, digs and prayers that embody what ideas about which Q writes. Shitposting is ok, too. But when it becomes obviously combative, destructive, and violence in ton (espec when repeated), it crosses a line and may be deleted. Not only because it interferes with anons but may also endangers the site.

>re temporary bans

• purpose of the temporary bans is primarily to give anons a way to see what was deleted - that's why many are only a minute

• Most temp bans are for spam. Spam is not free speech. Bad spam may warrant a longer deletion, because it's disrespecful. But it's still short. Rally spam gets a 2 or 3 hour deletion from me (til end of rally).

• Issue is not black and white. There are always limits on freedom, otherwise it is license.

• The actual % of posts actually deleted is very small. And there is always a reason or should be. No arbitrary bans or deletes are ok - bottom line.

>>17636769

>you are using weasel words

no, i am using careful words

why not? precision is an asset

Agrees that it's best when bad ideas and bigots are called out, which they often are

problem with spam is that anons aren't going to call out the same thing over and over again

Also eats up bread with stuff we've heard 1000 times over

Not free speech - a rant

Anons all believe in free speech.

But vary somewhat is what we think it means.

That's ok.

However: if this were not a free speech site, it's doubtful it would be under such attack.

Whatever our differences, i believe they are slight compared to our shared values.

o7

>>17636825

the only way to document what is being deleted is to log it on the ban board; requires a one minute ban minimum. that is procedural.

>>17636352 pb

>define spam

>Where is the line re deleting spam?

That is a good question.

Spam is material repeated over and over again with nothing new added. Not welcome but it is always here to some degree.

Was not here at the start of QR, crept in over the years. Now established like weeds in a garden.

To what degree do we tolerate it and on what basis?

Generally speaking, spam gets potentially deleted when-

• it is reported, if really spam (repeated)

• when excessive (bread gobbling).

• when purposely obnoxious (red text, especially when poster tries to make each post as long as possible)

• when a personal attack or an attack on Q or the board (queries are not attacks)

Biggest reason NOT to delete:

• When anons do not report (don't care that much)

• When anons are rebutting poster

• when spam is not controversial (will not reflect badly on the board or Q)

Hard case:

Whether to delete when poster is purposely trying to make the entire board look like loons in order to destroy our reputation.

IRL, this has a definite impact on 8kun's survival (Jim W's as well). Would be naive to think otherwise.

It's one thing to tolerate unpopular ideas, another to tolerate planted shills trying to prove board is anti-WHATEVER in order to turn people against us.

Something to think about.

>>17636926

to respond to anon's question and also provide current guidelines for dealing with spam

Will post in Dough Resources thread and mention to BVs

>>17636929

>>17636926

>>17636929

>>17636935 pb

>discerning unpopular ideas from shills tactics

tbh, not that difficult to tell the dif in most cases

if anons are actually arguing ideas, they use real arguments and facts, don't just mouth off about stupid boomers (etc)

(maybe those mouthing off aren't shills either but it they are so incoherent that all they can do is lob insults, hard to see those utterances as examples of "free speech")