>>6378400
>I was legitimately starting to bake when the first post was posted
I'm certainly not mad.
>I know, for a second it was legitimately hard to tell.
We would do anything for this board. We would all step down and we would all help facilitate a move to another board if that's what Q wanted.
>You realize anons have no way of knowing that right?
The odds of all 4 of us agreeing to collude against the board and trick the NSA while doing so are so unbelievably low (imo). I would think, considering our trackrecord, that a smart individual might come to the conclusion that we are not colluding against the board and also somehow also tricking the NSA while doing so.
>Spam was deleted today though.
True. I removed (((Q is a JEW))) for reaching a certain number of posts at a certain point in the bread. What's the point of removing spam if they only hit your threshold at 650+, it just fucks with baker. By the time these people hit the end of our acceptable losses threshold baker has often baked the next thread. If we lower the threshold we're no longer using a threshold because of volume we're doing it because a certain group of posters (regardless of content) have decided to keep under our threshold they've picked out with their other higher volume assets.
>but we went down this route.
No, you and other bakers went down this route, for everybody else it was obvious. We don't telegraph what we do to the shills and despite the fact Anons and our ideologies have always been aligned we knew we were going to take heat for what we unanimously considered to be a worth it scenario. We weren't going to give the shills the option of kvetching and frontrunning our plans and we never will.