>>4705636, >>4705650

ty bakers!

>>4705318 lb

>Either a fully prepared baker or back to comms until ready.

Doesn't really work that way. Once you throw a practice bake up on comms to make sure any logistical misunderstandinsg are addressed there's no substitute for going live as far as timing and notable selection go.

Also, we always need new bakers, so if we make it too tough/unwelcoming/harsh to try out, you'll only dissuade the highly conscientious autist types that are too hard on themselves as a rule. The clueless/cocky ones (or straight shills) will just claim to be ready even if they're not. If a new baker is so bad after a few tries that they read as obvs shilly, they'll either self-screen (legit anons don't want to let down QR) or BO/BV will put 'em on the actual shill-baker list.

>>4705507 lb

I'll go check 'em out

>>4705884

cb has been complained about to BO/BV many times due to his outspokenness on the JQ and being less inclined to note as many news posts as news aggregator anon would like, and they have responded many times that, no, cb is not considered to be a shill baker.

Re: concern about new "baby baker" removing notes

I think this anon misunderstood:

>>4705345 pb

The notes weren't removed, we had two bakers baking in tandem, old and new. Old baker had the posts in question included in his bundle, but new baker didn't. The handoff protocol wasn't followed when new baker started, but that takes time to learn.

#5997 prev. baker still gathering

>>4700073 (contains WH/DJT twats, POTUS/Hannity link)

#5997 new baker, missed above twats/links

>>4699707, >>4699800

>>4699956, >>4700061

#5998

I didn't see anyone call out "Baker" or "notable" requesting missing twats go into notables (also just did a CTRL-F, nothing was there to flag baker's attn).

#5999

>>4701011 New "baby baker" requests handoff

>>4701643 Next baker doesn't include twats but…

this convo transpired:

>>4701589, >>4701616, >>4701626, >>4701683, >>4701645

Incoming baker willing to add missing notes but anon seems more interested in blaming new baker for intentional wrongdoing than with reposting and asking baker to put in notes

>>4706094

Those as well as Tiresias & Metal baker are the only ones I know of that get automatic nopes.

>>4706108

>People are fucking retarded sometimes.

I think this level of aggression and willful ignorance was prolly just straight shilling. Baker-hate is still their favorite game, with maybe fake gay/femfagging a close 2nd. I just wanted a record of it having been addressed in case they come back later and attack this new baker for it. If so, odds are that one of us here will have seen my explanation poast and can step in and shut down the kvetching b4 it reaches full shriek.

>>4706156

Can you sauce that with links?

Like I said, I CTRL-F'd "baker" and "notable" in 5998 and didn't see it called out, but I could be in error there.

I did see baker address it in 5999 but again, during baker changes, an incoming baker might miss things if they're not called out with "baker" and/or "notable" and the link to the post included

>muh CYA

Not trying to evade responsibility, just trying to make sure we're dealing in facts

>>4706285

As long as the links are included.

What we're looking for is your posting them in breads 5998 and 5999, yes?

Do you agree that new baker did not remove the posts in bundle 5997, but the difference in bundles was because 2 different bakers?

>>4706306

This is only a complaint post, anon, it is not a repost of missed content. Moreover, this post was also included in my initial post investigating your complaint this bread. This is why baker asked you to repost. Expectation is for anons to include all info in a post needed for the notable, and then to call baker's attention to it with the works "baker" or "notable."

>>4706401

>Still there for ALL to see

And again you include no links for anyone to see anything. The one link you did give me was merely a complaint that contained no content that would allow baker to remedy.

You are either not tall enough to ride this ride or you're not addressing this issue in good faith.