I always wondered if Richard knew a man named Stuart Pedasso.
Dick probably knew him as Stu
I have a solution it offers the following advantages;
a. doesn't require constant monitoring
b. easy to set up built into the platform
c. carries between breads
d. is not easy to forge
e. baker's choice to post with or without ID
f. easily removed from bad actors
it's obvious if you read what I posted and have a good understanding of where you are posting
I'll give you a hint if you haven't guessed yet, one other famous anons uses this feature.
I often do not speak correctly
BO & BV know which anon I am, not my name etc… CM can dig his data and DOX me but that's nothing new
>whitelisting rando bakers
ah… but dear anon random they aren't
BO & BV see a hash that is constructed from the IP that the poster used.
Thus BO & BVs can distinguish between anons and that includes bakers.
The only fly in the ointment I see is if it becomes a requirement that the baker have positive ID to bake.
Showing they can bake in the test kitchen shuold be a reqwiremant b4 baekin don U thing?
Demonstrating the editorial discretion and critical thinking to collect decent notables might be another requirement.
But the big problem anon is if we the mere peons of this board cannot tell one baker from another with accuracy how can we accurately chastise the bad ones?
How can we instruct the sincere ones?
>you understand it anon
>>>1908266
>o7
I used the wrong word perhaps?
worker bees might fit better
what do you think of the idea of allowing bakers to use trips?
pros?
cons?
don't give me fee-fees I want logic
I hate tripfags and fame fags but I have searched for months and found no reasonable easily implementable alternative.
I think we can all agree that if we do not remove the subversive bakers we'll continue to have issues
>Do you even know how IP hashes even work?
yes, I'm the BO over on /comms./
>Not possible on a board where anonymity is enforced.
of course it isn't possible right now, BO has to whitelist additonal tripcodes if he want's to try this experiment.
>The last time it was tried [ie- the fabled baker's union], the board went to complete shit. You cannot play identity anything if identity politics are out.
now here we come to a typical argument put forth by the left, you cannot discriminate! discrimination is bad!
even a baby learns to discriminate what it does and does not put into it's mouth eventually
So the reduction of your argument is that it's bad to discriminat and that random bakers is the best we can hope for because allowing the anons to pick favorites among bakers might be detrimental to the project and Q would move to another board.
If we are shown to the world with vacuous and ridiculous half truths posted as notable what will they think of us?
Did Q tell us the world would be looking at us?
>As long as it works.
It has a chance as long as it is not a requirement to bake and some baker doesn't go off on a ~~tripfag~~ famefag trip and try to an expose & claim inside knowledge or some such clownish shit.
> CONTROL THE MESSAGE.
up until now it's been a crapshoot who gets to post the bread title and notable section each time and how is that working out?
If you think the 'message' hasn't been subverted many times already I think you haven't been paying enough attention.
It's not so much what the put in it's what they leave out
ya, and Im a fearin the crunch is coming
>the more money they get.
as long as there's no DAD in the house
in order to get the gimmedat cannot have a father in the house. This caveat in the program has done more to ruin inner cities than crack