>>5455198

>Please DOUBLE CHECK notables.

Please contribute rather than bitch. Point out the notable you have issue with and why, so baker has an opportunity to remedy

>muh jew SHILL BAKER on duty again.

Or continue using the types of empty name-calling that JIDF shills use, and out yourself as pushing an agenda rather than genuinely seeking truth.

New eyes joining us every day, and you just make our job exposing pro-Jew harrassment groueps like yours easier acting this obvious. As for the rest of us,

>Anons knew

>>5455121

Baker, please consider removing the following Global notables

>>5454631 Bread devoted to fighting for the lives of born and unborn infants

>>5387705 Democrats want to murder babies. Keep the pressure on.

Global notables is a category that was created for board-wide administrative comms, it was never meant to be an elevated version of Notables. If we let it slide into that, we'll have a slippery slope we'll have a hard time defining the boundary of. But if we allow activism to breach the category, we'll have an even greater problem on our hands.

As much as we believe in the cause of defending innocents, our fight has many causes, and there are many actions we can and should take to further them. But our site is a research site, not an activism hub. If we allow ourselves to become promoters for any one cause, where do we draw the line how much we promote it, and how many other causes we promote?

The entire last 2 of the first 4 posts in the dough are for special topics threads. This is the appropriate place for both of these posts, not in Globals.

>>5455591

Defending a clear scope in an organisation's mission is not to be against the furthering of anything outside that scope. It's done to ensure proper function, similar to due process. We are a research group. This thread is titled "Q Research General." It is not the place to run extended activism campaigns from. The place for that is either special topics thread, or Soc Med platforms.

>>5455632

Thanks anon, appreciate it.

>>5455664

>The most important topics should be made global.

>Imo BO agrees on that too - from what I saw.

This is absolutely incorrect. BO/BV have repeatedly said not only that they do NOT endorse or condemn any content, but they have specifically requested we NEVER use their "fake and gay authority" to argue any position.

>LOUD NEWS is our job after all…

But that's not the point of Globals. Globals is for board-wide announcements of the variety shown in the other two notables.

Our job is NEWS – its discovery, its elucidation, its contextualism, and its development over time. Our job is also memes, to condense that info into digestible bits that can be spread over SocMed. Our job is NOT the promotion of activism campaigns from here as the hub. That is a very different mission from a research group. Its one that has no definable scope, and will thus overwhelm and confuse ours.

>>5455798

>MOST important topics = GLOBAL.

Wrong. That's not what the category was made for. If we make it an "extra important notables" category we open up exactly this kind of arguing. Bakers don't need that. They have enough shit to deal with on one-tier of notables as it is.

>>5455835

>I would like it to stay the way it is.

Great. Why? You haven't addressed any of the arguments I made. It's not fucking reddit where we goddamn vote on shit.