>>4493886

Ty for putting in time here, baker.

Asking one more time whether you'd consider giving current baker the okay to amend this notable summary:

(all pb)

>>4492448, >>4492467, >>4492522 >>4492675

>>4493920

Ty baker. Re: this,

>DO NOT label baker as proofreadr, we have to sit on the whole bread and cant do autist shit, we have to wear diff hats, dont except some fucking off bread double checking, you stick around, catch early notables and help us out, ok fren?

What do you think about above issue? Are these kinds of criticisms of bakers legit? Is there a better way to handle them? Do you think it's okay for bakers to add unrelated criminal allegations to summaries? Was it acceptable in this case for baker to discount request without explanation?

>>4493874

Ty anon, grateful for all the evidence on this you can share. And I remember these btw. Good lookin' out.

>>4494185

>im trying to breeze thorugh these and collect and we are already at 300 and we feel pressure, i feel pressure

Baker, I appreciate your not having time to weigh in on a baking practices issue during a fast bread. Could you do so at your earliest convenience here or on comms or Meta? Just say you were the baker that baked such-and-such bread #.

>heres what i got

Re: these, I'll look thru them, but when in doubt don't include in notables.

If there's no sauce, or anons raise legit concerns as to fake&gayness or relevance, it should not be noted.

>>4493928

>Critical thinking… objectivity…. these are things I've tried to teach here and other places

Plz continue to hold the line here.

They're hitting us hard with anti-logic campaigns

(but also: lb lb lb lb lb faggot! kek)