>bakers namefagging
i guess so. it still seems wrong.
to elaborate, purely from an optics perspective:
Anonymous bakers
>Could be anyone
>could be me
>could be you
>We are Q and we are everywhere.
3 or 4 regular bakers, who refer to each other by "baker" pun nicknames
>what a circlejerk
>they probably have a discord
>same small handful of anons catering all the notables could introduce bias. Ruh roh
>famefag namefags
again, i know that its not necessarily true, and the namefag bakers are patriots who are invaluable to the movement. also the nicknames are more about verification to other bakers than "fame" or whatever. So this is purely an "optics" assessment as if i was a casual observer with no knowledge of how things work here. just my 2 cents, take it as you will.