>>2406509 lb

>The Bo can specifically ban when he sees fit

Technically, yes.

Culturally, no fucking way.

Anons do NOT want bans on the basis of ANY individual "seeing fit." Not without full confidence/transparency/REQUEST from anons. Otherwise viewed as authoritarian, loses trust. IP bans are useless anyway bc these fuckers IP hop. One of them has already admitted it does this routinely.

What we need to do is get more eyes on, build an aware consensus of oldfags/autists. Bredd 3009 is a good start. We need to gather evidence (links/screen caps). I have troves of it, just need to whittle into presentation(s), timed so as not to create too much drama/slides, and I can't be the only one presenting. We need to hash all the evidence out together, and then make an open call to label certain bakers as "clown" based on the preponderance of that evidence.

How do we screen bakers then? One way is IDEN by prev. bakes when ask for handoff, and BO/BV can confirm whether baker is honest re: those bakes being theirs. If no prev. bake history, BO/BV monitors, and anons watch like hawks for tell-tale signs of clowning.

Any other ideas? We can always go back to the whitelisted trips idea, but I think that still puts too much authority on BO. It's not about whether I trust him, have watched long enough to trust 100%. It's about unimpeachability in perception, otherwise clowns have window to seed suspicion. Needs to be a screening system WE use, not the mods.

baker

Did you make this post last night?

>>2387547 #3009

If not, are those your bakes in the cap?

If the latter, there is a clown impersonating you.

When you have a chance (I know you're baking now)

could you please share the posts where these caps

were first posted, to eliminate doubt/suspicion?

TY

>>2407522

TY for your honesty.

2 more questions, if you will.

1) Did you, or did you not, doxx yourself as a fem named Edena?

2) Did you, or did you not, engage in multiple attempts to get anons to publicly & fully self-doxx?

3) Did you, or did you not, spam the board attempting to discredit Q as "articlefag?"

Again, not trying to falsely accuse anyone, just trying to shed light, and to provide you the chance to clear your name since owning the above post has cast a shadow on it. Understand if no time to answer while baking (and certainly not this bread). I will repost at more convenient time if needed.

TY

>>2407572

2→ *3

accuserfag def not bot, kek

>>2407596

Were you anon from last night?

Might need your support, brother