>>6446595 pb
With regard to "checking" you bakers have grown complacent
This is BO responding to bakers' requests to get handoffs checked out as a matter of course by the "management," of whatever we want to call them.
Just read thru the entire LB discussion about checking in BO/BV, including BO's response. IMO, this checking in is not about complacency. I don't know why that word would be used. Makes it sound like bakers don't want to take responsibility, but really, it's about the fact that bakers do not have nearly the info that BO/BVs have about this board, who is here, and their history.
Checking in with BO/BVs also ensures a better line of communication between "management" and the board, with the bakers acting as sort of a go-between. "Mgmt" can see who the regular bakers are, who is new and who is experienced. Can be helpful at times.
Also, it can protect the bakers by "vetting" them, so that other anons and bakers know they are trustworthy. Important because bakers are often subject to shill attacks. There are only a handful of bakers currently baking; one baker said he counted 10 right now. So what better way to weaken a board than to undermine them? Checking with BO/BV for every single bake means there is a record of a baker's bakes.
IMO, good comms between mgmt and the board is are essential, I think. The recently confusion over Captchas–whatever it's really about–illustrates the problems that ensue when that communication is missing. There may be a good reason for it, but there's also a downside, with anons wondering why no explanation. I hope the benefits are worth the tradeoff.
''I have to run so I can't respond to comments but will look at them later. Hope this is helpful. Not into division-fagging but hope to promote a discussion on an important issue.''