Relative new (night) baker weighing in:

>>1995406

>(BO/BV's) monitor the bread handoffs and call out shills when we see a shill trying to take the dough. We can monitor 24/7

Makes sense for there always to be a foreman on duty. Foreman maintains the authority, then bakers aren't given the authority-tempting identities that allow for pleb uprisings ((cough-leafy)). I've been present for handoffs where this authority was invoked, everything went smoothly.

>>1995490 lb

>puts a large strain on you and your staff

This is the only problem I see. So "managerial" staff will have to grow and organize shifts to the extent the system is manageable. Numbers-wise, that is more reasonable than tracking a larger number of sub-lieutenants as named/vetted bakers.

>>1995871

>I wonder how people would feel if I offered to give the password to /comms/ to the 1st anon who asked for it…

This is and should remain a different system that is not given free access. Active boards for free speech, archives controlled access only.

The one remaining strain to this proposal is retrobaking. When we have shillbakers that are on duty awhile and then caught, bakers have to go back and grab missed notables. The solution to this is HAVING MORE BAKERS IN THE POOL, so the chance of overlap is higher. One takes current bake, one goes back and does the retro.

HOW DO WE GET/TRAIN MORE BAKERS? is the remaining issue. And how much loose namefagging is worth the loss of anonymity for ease of communication (avatars, time-of-day designation e.g. "Daybaker" etc.). I'm too new to suggest solutions, just pointing out sticking points or areas of confusion I experience. It seems a waste of energy to try to conduct ops with zero identifiers. But I also hear that the system once ran smoothly before the influx of shills, so as long as BO/BV is around to step in to stop a known bad handoff, the confusion of an otherwise unidentified handoff is minimal/low stakes.

My preferred solution is redundancy: 1 supervisor (BO/BV) and 2 bakers on at all times. If the baker is new, oldfag helps out. If the baker is shill, oldfag can retrobake when the next baker takes over. Even well meaning bakers have exigencies come up. Redundancy covers that too.

Hope I didn't overstep in my observations as a new baker. Just take or leave them based on merit, as I know you anons will.

>>1996090

Nature is hierarchical anon. It isn't my energy making it so, it is just the facts as I understand them to be through empirical observation.

Agreed that we shouldn't impose artifical ego-based authority onto it, but if we don't work within the natural structure of human systems, we will chase our tails needlessly.

I am anon, and I advocated for a system that keeps bakers anon. BO/BV has an authority here that we do not. This is fact. Transparent, reflexive authority is not absence of order. It is merely right leadership. You told me to go back to the office, I might respectfully suggest you rethink your leftist informed ideas of equality.

>>1996173

>>1996197

THIS. I have been thinking about both these issues.

1) Coming up with guidelines for editiorial discretion (let's work on this: separate bakers' thread?)

2) Having pre-established niches for when multiple bakers are needed. I'd thrown an idea out last week about letting lead baker be the "pilot" (does the copy-paste bake) and one or more bakers step in as "navigators." They could use designators similar to how we use "baker" and "notable," but call themselves NAV-Q for Q posts, NAV-1 for early-bread notables and NAV-2 for late bread notables. Organization/division of labor. Everyone keep anonymity. Common search terms for lead baker to CTRL-F and grab.