>>4843274 lb
>I had one attack me yesterday not while he had the dough telling me to only post 1-3 items per bread and not call out bakers who miss stuff. He then said I'd hate to be "sidelined" for doing so
First, it was not the baker that said that, just an Anon. Second, you were never told you had to limit your posts. You are free to post as much as you like, only BO/BV can restrict who posts. The suggestion was that, if baker didn't notable as many of your posts as you wanted, and they weren't nominated by other anons, that you should pick 1-3 of your many posts and self-nominate to baker, making a case for why you wanted them in notables, rather than telling baker to suck a bunch of cocks like a whiny faggot after the fact just bc all of your posts aren't noted.
That isn't censorship, you are free to post as much as you like. And if anons nominate a post and it is relevant and factually accurate, baker will include in notables regardless, that's their job. Beyond that, it's baker's discretion. As we are more a research group than a news aggregator, there is wide variance in bakers' styles as to how many current events posts to include in notables. If news posts from a certain poster come with threat of abuse if they're not noted, this constitutes coercion, which poisons free speech and free choice. It is a natural and appropriate response in bakers (and anons) not to want to reward such coercion. Cucking to it sets a bad precedent and threatens the integrity of our notables system. The message was, go easy on the coercion tactics v. bakers if you don't want those natural and appropriate reactions to occur.
If you want to discuss this further, please take it to Meta. But if you make false statements about Anons or Bakers on the board or misrepresent what they posted, I will correct it on the board.