Thank you, CM. The pre-captchas seem a little more sane.

>>7503750 (PB)

You overestimate yourself. Be careful.

>>7504433 (PB)

Maybe bakers should go back to ignoring "Notables" that are poorly formatted and lacking two independent nominations as simply being "interesting", but not "notable" due to lack of accolades?

If so, I'm game. Bakers are volunteers and this game of trying to coerce them into noting un-notable stuff (if it WAS notable, others would have nominated and seconded. Lack of the nomination = not noted and therefore, not notable.) is total and unforgivable bullshit.

If your shit is actually notable, it will get noticed and recommended. If it doesn't, it isn't.

Game over.>>7504433 (PB)

Maybe bakers should go back to ignoring "Notables" that are poorly formatted and lacking two independent nominations as simply being "interesting", but not "notable" due to lack of accolades?

If so, I'm game. Bakers are volunteers and this game of trying to coerce them into noting un-notable stuff (if it WAS notable, others would have nominated and seconded. Lack of the nomination = not noted and therefore, not notable.) is total and unforgivable bullshit.

If your shit is actually notable, it will get noticed and recommended. If it doesn't, it isn't.

Game over.