>>3950185, >>3950225

Ty bakers

>>3950130 lb

Thanks BV.

>>3950146 lb

> because one idiot/shill that should never have baked in the first place

1. We need more bakers. The more bakers willing to bake, the more choice we have when baker has to handoff. BO/BV doesn't choose, outgoing baker does.

1. We have a system where anyone can bake because we are a free speech board. BO/BV will mark hashes of past, confirmed shills and won't let them bake, but differences in editorial style are not what makes a baker a shill. Shills repeatedly spam nonsense devoid of Q-related content and attack our board/anons/bakers/BO/BV personally with false accusations or character defamation. A confirmed shill will have been called out as such with hash histories for all anons to see. JIDF's crying about bakers' notables on the basis of subject content is not a reason to call them a shill or to edit their notables, unless it can be proven the note contains a provably false allegation against an individual.

That said, we should help bakers uphold our standards while bread is being baked, not after the fact, by respectfully insisting that anons sauce the fact-based claims they post. If you nominate an unsauced post, provide the sauce yourself with your nomination. Sauce isn't a cap or pic, it is a URL link where anons/baker can visit independently to verify the claim made in the notable post is accurate. The sauce should itself provide verifiable proof to where its primary information came from. Unsauced blogs are not themselves "sauce" just because they have a URL link. It is slipping from this standard that will allow our notables to deteriorate. Defending it is consistent with both truth and free speech because it is content neutral.

>>3950362

>The urls are in the pics themselves.

For some posters, such as yourself, this is true. And this is sufficient for posting in-bread. However, in order to put something in notables, bakers really need a copypasta-able link so they can verify a pic is and really from the site it claims to come from or that its claims are reflective of that source's info. It becomes prohibitive time-wise to eyeball and type in a URL from a pic, therefore bakers don't do it. Therefore shills can get fake and gay shit into notes. The way to tighten that backdoor is to require sauce anon & baker can grab and vet quickly.

>>3950336, >>3950314

Whether I agree this particular bread contains notes that don't meet our standards, allowing one baker to alter the notes of another baker for any reason–but especially to label the baker comped or a shill because of JIDF kvetching–is a bad precedent. This should remain the discretion of BO/BV. BV weighed in, I think we should respect his call, as well as the custom that only mods can alter baker's notes.

>>3950502

>once in a while there is also room for opinion and speculation by informed anons within the notables

Agree 100%, Here too:

>would insist that if an Op-Ed post is made notable, it must be of high quality and generally highly acclaimed.

Speculation is not presented as existent fact, it is imagined possibilities which can't be proven. What requires sauce is "fact-based claims." For example, there's been a huge slide last few days that Cali fires overlap high speed rail lines. This is a claim to a fact. There is an accompanying theory that Agenda 21 fuggery sets fires intentionally. When Cali-anons cried that the original maps were unsauced, and in fact false (the maps by slide posters were scaled differently–the fires did not in fact overlap rail lines), other confused anons started defending the right to put theories in notes. These are 2 separate issues. Any claim to a fact (fires = specific geography, or Jews were here and did this on such and such date) requires sauce. Speculation and OpEds (I wonder if Agenda 21, or Jews, are behind such and such) do not. But yes, we should still set our standards high there as well. These theories should still reference provable, known facts as their foundation.

>>3950458

Good plan. This is the standard I'd like to see for all posts that go in notables.

>>3950508

Thanks baker, doing great sailing through a shill-storm.

>>3950544

Righteous BV. TY.

>>3950597

The standard is truth, to the best of our ability. If we make fact-based claims, we back them up. It is not for BO/BV to hold us accountable to that ideal, it is for us anons to uphold it in one another. Educate newbs in how we do things. Require sauce. If a poster is phonefagging, help him and the baker out, provide it yourself.

>>3950867

Great question, thanks for your diligence fren. If URL is included in post then, no need to include it in your nomination:

>>3950531 (URL sauce included in post)

If it is not included, like this one, it would help baker and anons out if nominator included it, like this:

Baker, could you please include this sauce for the notable below?

>>3950525 CA budget cuts past 12-months re: Fire & Prevention?

We're late in bread, so baker won't have a chance to add it this time. But eventually, if anons posts only go in if baker can see sauce, it will close some of the cracks in our armor where shills sneak in.

https://www.sierrastar.com/news/local/article152191682.html