dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

>>9076822

we couldn't check the notables before they were baked bc the shill baker didn't post any update until around 700 posts, which was the final notables bun

and then the next bakerrefusedto remove the post from notables.

i was the baker that handed off to the shill, obviously didn't know he was a shill until another anon mentioned there had been no baker posts around 600. then i proceeded to argue with current baker over it and all they did was declare that it was against protocol to change previous notes and then put their own posts + shilly bakers posts in notables to document.. excluding my side of the conversation..

lots of fuckery in the kitchen.

>>9076880 yes. and now all of a sudden bakers can't edit previous notables? which we used to do all the time? when there were corrections or something was later found out to be fake/gay or in cases like this when there is a legitimate shill post that suggests Q is a larp.

>>9077135

meant to tag >>9076748 too

>>9077141

read the bread and discern for yourself..

why would i waste my time like that? i also never said one word about baker checks. i said anons should watch the bakers and pay attention to notables. i also argued that bakers should be able to edit past notables (as we've always done in the past) in cases where corrections are needed but faggots will talk shit anyway so i don't know why i'm explaining myself to you.

Anonymous ID: aafa22 May 8, 2020, 3:25 a.m. No.9077186 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>7425

>>9077184

>we fix things when the next baker comes in

THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING. APPARENTLY NOW THE PROTOCOL IS NOT TO FIX THINGS BUT TO LET THE ENEMY WALK RIGHT INTO NOTABLES.

excuse the screaming, frustrated, sleep deprived etc.

>>9077184

also literally no one, not a single anon mentioned baker checks before this bread. we understand BO/BV are barely here so no one is suggesting that. what is the paranoia about qrb? there are like 3 anons in there.. not a competition.

Anonymous ID: aafa22 May 8, 2020, 3:31 a.m. No.9077206 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>7425

>>9077195

yea see where you and i disagree is that you have completely normalized shills/"bad guys" taking the bake, whereas i fight it every time i see it and call it out. it's not that hard for anons to do that in order to prevent shills from baking. it's what we always did pre-2019. you've become complacent. shills should never be allowed to bake. notables are the news… handle with care..

>>9077203

the problem is we have a group of clown bakers. do people not understand what is going on? there was one legitimate shill baker + another baker citing a "new protocol" in comms (presumably with other bakers?) where they don't fix notes if something goes wrong

how many bakers are in on this? do anons understand what is happening?infiltration

>>9077211

you're coordinating and/or IP hopping with another anon in this bread mentioning baker check. NOBODY WANTS BAKER CHECKS, CALM YOUR BOOMER TITS. i just want anons to pay attention to notables and bakers and to call them out when fuckery is afoot. and no, shills wouldn't bake a bread full of muhjoo shit notables. they would sneak one or two in and if there was ever a real issue that anons disagreed with, the notes would be changed and reposted in another bread. those who scream the loudest about the degradation of the kitchen are actually the ones who care about the integrity of this board.

handle with CARE. not eye-rolling nonchalant complacency. how about you read Q's last post and get back to me? i've spent countless hours of my life baking for this board. i will not let the kitchen burn down bc of idiots like you.

>>9077236

read my posts in this bread, i'm repeating myself 12 times. the solution is

a) anons need to watch the bakers like hawks, which was how it was when i first started baking, and call out any fuckery with the notables or the bakes. this includes repeated "mistakes" in formatting or with the dough - which create problems for archivists and aggregator sites. if they do this, shills can't bake

and

b) bakers also need to hold each other accountable and use their best judgment when 1) handing off and 2) revising previous notes WHEN NECESSARY

for example, archive anon informed the baker that the spoilered "redacted" notes fuck up the archiving, so i, the next baker, changed the previous notable buns to remove the asterisks and added the last global announcement. this is perfectly ok. the "new protocol" is bullshit

>>9077237 yea it's called the Make Baking Great Again agenda, fuck off clown

>>9077241 i just came into the bread late so sorry for responding to a post you made probably hours ago. but i disagree about anons being sick of this shit. i think there are a lot of new anons on the board and they're not familiar with the culture around here or the board's history. they trust bakers blindly and kiss their ass. you can tell by the decreased commentary on notable updates and the decreased number of notable nominations. there is less engagement with the baker and more social-media-like shitposting. oldfags might be fatigued at this point but they are clearly in the minority. i bring these concerns up because in the past there might have been 1 or 2 shilly bakers every now and then (i can think of a couple in particular) but now there are bakers who are TOTALLY OK with shills baking. we used to have good bakers to balance out the shitty or shilly ones. now shitty baking is the norm and anyone who calls it out is a concernfag or being divisive. this is not sustainable. good information is being left out of notables. i see it posted on twitter and it's hours before it makes it here, if it does at all. shitty bakers either miss it or intentionally leave it out. this used to be the best place for news.

>you are the news now

>handle with care

Anonymous ID: aafa22 May 8, 2020, 3:55 a.m. No.9077291 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>7425

>>9077258

>by yourself

well it wasn't just me. there were a handful of anons who supported the effort.

and no, i think the role of the baker is important, but i don't see myself as important at all. i am an anon just like other anons who dig, pray, meme, make graphics, etc.

and re: "heartache and stress", that's irrelevant. i feel worse watching shilly shit happening without saying anything than i do speaking up. remember the captcha war? anons rose up against it and Q finally intervened to lay the matter to rest. this shit has been an issue for a year but anons won't listen until Q tells them to. in the meantime, i see bullshit, i call out bullshit.

Anonymous ID: aafa22 May 8, 2020, 4:03 a.m. No.9077320 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>7342

>>9077296

you did no such thing, sir.

Anonymous ID: aafa22 May 8, 2020, 4:05 a.m. No.9077326 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>7337

>>9077304

kek, yea change into your daytime pajamas

>>9077325

cucumbers and peppers are fruit too..

Anonymous ID: aafa22 May 8, 2020, 4:18 a.m. No.9077363 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>7377

anyone got a FOX link? POTUS interview in 40 minutes

Anonymous ID: aafa22 May 8, 2020, 4:21 a.m. No.9077373 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>7382

>>9077362

thanks baker, notes look good but the below have already been in notables a few breads back (also typo in that last one if you're going to keep it)

>>9076775 Exclusive: 1996 court document confirms Tara Reade told of harassment in Biden’s office

>>9076898, >>9076920, >>9076955, >>9077059 The enzyme Bill Gates is using in his microdot vaccine is “Luciferase”. Doesn’t get any more evils than that.

>>9077299 During transition, top Justice Department official Sally Yates learned about the Flynn-Kislyak phone call from President Obama himsel

>>9077367

agree 100000% anon, but what can we do at this point

>needs to be fucking heckled out of the fucking kitchen

this isn't happening anymore. we used to be SHAMED for this kind of behavior. but the social norms/culture of this board have changed. i hope lurkers will at least read the dialogue that's been happening the past few breads and speak up if they see anymore fuckery. and i hope a good baker will remove that post. i might bake later but i'm running on no sleep rn.