>>8716732

sure they would. Because one of the things the shills actively do is attack known good bakers. Because they are good.

Anons will organically figure out, by the anon's linguistics and response quality, who any given baker is… and name them. Bakers don't historically name themselves. They are given a name.

This of course gives the shills a vector.

The fact that the moribund baker's union from the cbts days even had a run was good for anons; That is why baker unions do not fly here.

Anon constantly sees 'known bakers' offering up hand-offs, so shilling about muh vatting is a laugh.

This anon has never been turned away from a bake.

This anon has never had a pasebin account either.

Know them by their fruits.

>>8716831

>>8716864

meant to include you on this response.. kek.

>>8716970

meh.. moar covfefe needed → >>8716934

>>8716831

>being responsive

forgot to respond to this:

responsive as in acknowledging either way, why something is or is not in notes, with a valid reason. Posting a bun every so often, and not leving anons guessing. You know, the normal shit.

Yes, telling the person they have stale pasta is a valid reason.

anon should not have to start an in-comment lesson about what is and is not a valid note. there are plenty of faqs on the baker's board that go into this in detail; so yeah. Unresponsive baker == someone who is asking for a shitty time baking.

>>8717209

well yeah in a perfect world you would only need to post notes and bread links… not a lot of banter..

anons notice quirks and differences in conveyance and quality though so being a perfect baker is still a worthy cause :)