Here is the problem with you: Not realizing that OP is trying to make it vague such that it gets harder to target. He posted 6 dates every month to chose from, and said "any white-looking clothing will so" so clearly he knows that targeting will be an issue.
Never underestimate antifa's willingness to infiltrate though. Which is why OP need to be really specific about keeping OpSec (which he didn't).
The problem with you, OP, is that your ego does blind you somewhat, but the shills in this thread are much, much worse.
I network, particularly in methods and forums that bring in a wide cast of characters. You don't, presumably, because you don't value activities that would allow you to connect with people outside of your narrow band of personal interests. That's why you'd say a person grows old meeting fewer people because you exhaust your own meeting grounds.
The problem is that #1 most people in /pol/ have autism lack social skills, in varying degrees (which is why social-related ideads are hard to implement), #2 many people in /pol/ lack OpSec such that they can't follow plans by the letter, leading to them being attacked (don't even bring up Chanology or GamerGate, that is just sad) and #3 those who have social skills, OpSec and other useful knowledge will talk in other platform than /pol/ to do their operations, this is just a >>>/meadhall/ really. The idea of the /walk/ is good in intention, but neglect such issues.
You strike me as an anon who is able to appreciate the idea, and I do actually want to promote good opsec so those participating don't bungle themselves up. If you would, point out specifically where I compromise opsec so I can at least consider whether that is an acceptable relaxation of a rule or not. Absolute perfect opsec will isolate you completely from everyone and therefore make networking impossible. But in a model of such diffuse meetings and the creation of a strong plausible deniability I believe some rules can be relaxed a bit to achieve the goal of meeting anons you wouldn't have met otherwise.
1 most people in /pol/ have autism lack social skills
2 many people in /pol/ lack OpSec such that they can't follow plans by the letter, leading to them being attacked
3 those who have social skills, OpSec and other useful knowledge will talk in other platform than /pol/ to do their operations
See, these are good criticisms, so I appreciate that. I do understand that imageboards in general select for more introverted or autistic types, and that not all anons are going to have sterling social skills. That's fine, and actually one of the reasons why a Walk is the way it is. It provides a context for anons to strike up a conversation or at least a goal to fixate on and overcome their aversion to communication. It's good exercise, like how it is good social exercise to smile at people in the grocery store or make small talk with the cashier. The Walk could help some isolated anons, of whom there are many, to meet someone who at least knows where they are coming from and offer an opportunity to connect over that. For other anons it is simply a networking opportunity to encounter people whose talents could be useful or who they would lend their own talents to.
So on the following opsec rules part, that's why I simplified the Walk formula to its barest parts. The previous thread had 7 or 8 steps to it in a somewhat confusing and verbose wall of text. I reduced it to 3 steps and made the meeting concept more secure. A Walk in my opinion doesn't require absolute perfect opsec because its diffuse and offline nature provides the main part of its protection. Even if an anon slips up offline it likely won't be to anyone who is a problem given how unappealing a target a Walk is if even you could call "it" a "target" like it was a single thing and not a highly decentralized series of possible events. Also so long as an anon can maintain his plausible deniability, he could use it as an opportunity to teach the other how to do it right if such an encounter happened. What should be done is implore anons to not compromise themselves online where there is the possibility of causing bad stuff to happen, which luckily those with good opsec experience like yourself can help with. I have no problem with writing a section about good opsec while out and about, whether on a Walk or otherwise, so if you're willing to mention your concerns and how you'd do it instead I'd be very interested.
Finally, on the skilled anons going to less-populated boards to do their activities, that may be true but part of the goal is to get anons connected with those who have skills and experience so they can improve themselves and be helpful or friendly otherwise. Most organizations are not entirely staffed with elites in their field, but rather have a few elites with many hands to amplify their ability to do things. For instance, it doesn't take massive skill to learn how to plant gardens or paint a house or go hiking, which are the sorts of local organization activities I imagine could come out of anons meeting local anons. The more experienced can teach the less, and together they can contribute towards improving their societies. Now addressing those skilled and interested who hang out in the smaller circles is an issue that I'd like to explore without going on a spamming campaign, but I do think most of them do frequent the board and might see a thread like this anyway.
your networking places/times/plans
your plans
Plans for what exactly? Walking around in a t-shirt and talking about politics?
We literally have public syringe disposals and designated street-shit cleaners in my city, because there are more bums shooting up heroin and public shitters than there are cops to arrest them. For fuck's sake, when I went last weekend, every other homeless nog undressing in the public library restroom was wearing the "walk" attire, a white t-shirt and a do-rag.
Even if we're going to get targeted, frankly, it's a hell of a demoralization opportunity. Imagine actually having to spy on cleanly dressed, upstanding citizens, next to literal hordes of goblins taking dumps behind centuries old greco-roman monuments. What a clown world.
[–] 17840412? ago
That's my thoughts on it too. If it was bad for anons I would be arguing against the idea all the time trying to convince them that it was too dangerous, not helpful, or just bad form that would be damaging to them or to those around them. It would be out of actual concern for the well-being of anons, and a few posts are clearly like that. But if I thought it was going to be good for anons and therefore hated it, I'd just start saying anything I thought would work towards the end of ruining participation. There is a difference between anons debating about Yang or Tarrant while throwing insults and a false consensus trying to sink an idea. There's just a different flavor to it all, and anons who have some experience with it can note the difference.
>>13078306
Do your imagined police departments hire toddlers to do their spying too?
>>13078314
You're actually right, that is good opsec that I go over in the Common Concerns. A Walk doesn't require online posting to do anything save for mentioning an optional general location and time to concentrate in. You don't seem to be able to distangle the difference between, "Meet in a park near yourself wearing non-obtrusive clothing," and, "Meet me at 487 Dumbfuck Lane at 3pm wearing a fedora with a swastika on it." They are completely different methods of meeting.
>>13078397
Exactly this. It seems to be an answer to most statements about, "But what about the police!? The CIA!? The GUBMENT!!" is to note that not only are the anons expressly told not to do anything illegal or obnoxious, but to do that in a subtle and almost indistinct way without even going to a hardline specified location. And even if whatever law enforcement was interested in this idea, they amount of money and coordination and effort they would have to make to maybe see a guy in a white shirt in a park on a spring day talking and walking around somewhere in the Western world is ridiculous for what non-crimes he is committing. They simply have better things to concern themselves with than crushing guys in white shirts. If the Walk idea was like a Charlettesville-type event that would serve to concentrate and unmask anons in a reliably small place, the criticism of police resources and investigators would be entirely valid. But it's nothing like that. Not in the slightest.
[–] 17869880? ago
>>13080154
Are you kidding me JIDF? No one reads your bot text.
[–] 17869882? ago
Yeah, reading is not your strongest part. Better skip it and go straight to cuckporn.