This I agreed with .. Also what is that ''snip'' in your reply for On not showing what I said? I ask just out of wondering

Also FYI I use moral Busy bodies and purtains only in special scenarios.. In my case I use them for there is a behavior linked to those terms from the 80's and 90's thatthose linked behaviors was used as shutdown tactics so I for a lack of better phrases and terms use those to describe a specific behavior and mindset rather then shutdown toatics

But ya back more onto the topic .. The problem with a rule of ''no politics'' for the site means even this Itch.io thing do to context of media and even some companies and people in power using it as openly political based reasons .. means it became with that contect hypocritial to allow that in the forums .. or even discussed about .. Hech one could even say games with blatant political factors to them shouldn't have discussion threads in there own forum do to the ''no politics'' rule even as there is games blatantly about real world politics on here that ensures reviews and threads of the games would be indeed political.. So I hate to say it G.O.G does seem to be hypocrtitial or need to go into extremely fine detail what they deem as truly political and what they don't as s result of what I have seen on the forums at varies times mods post and say

Corporations never stopped virtue signalling. This is one of those things that sounds good on paper only. This is the thing: GOG is not equipped to handle what they're trying to pull off. Obviously, the idea behind forums is to allow a community to help take work load off support staff, to help create brand loyalty via "we're a family," as well as heading off bad reviews to a place under their control. The problem is, this comes at a huge cost, as well as many of their policies regarding curation and community standards. The thing is, GOG is signing up for this. From a fundamental point of view i cannot view GOG's code of conduct as anything short of hypocrisy. I don't need to see these threads to see that GOG has these games here, creates a community, then tries to silence certain topics. Then, on top of that, i can see all the threads and things that suddenly are allowed.

Don't get me wrong: i totally get that GOG is not where one would come for politics, normally, but the idea that it's not the place for it is fundamentally flawed. GOG and the community needs to deal with the realization that just because they agree with a certain stance or topic doesn't mean it's apolitical. I've beat my arguments to death on why something as simple as the choice of toppings on your pizza is political, but i've learned that most people on either side aren't interested in logic, reason, and evidence (to the degree that they'll go straight to ad hominem instead of staying on the argument and it's often projection).

And the thing is, outside of the politics themselves i see the same manifestation in GOG's policies: I claim that GOG does not have a listing fee, only to describe their alternative as a really vague description of a listing fee ("operational costs") while stating that it's confidential (declaring that they want to make the argument that something doesn't exist because it's confidential). What do we call that? It couldn't possibly be politics, could it?

They're all playing the same game. Once a corporation goes public it's part of the system. The corporate system is part of the problem, and I do agree it's not hypercapitalism, though, because it's anti-capitalist.

It's actually well documented why this happens if you're that curious. It is mostly to do with this thing called "worldview."

And as you're noting, hedonism. Watch for the strong correlation between hedonism (and by this, i do mean the search for pleasure on pinrciple, not this new definition that seems to be floating around that it's simply seeking any form of pleasure) and existential nihilism (this strange fixation on the heat death of the universe in the here and now). Once you catch that, you'll find that many people just engage in sophistry, rather than logic. First comes their preferences, then logic to justify it comes after. Scientists claim this is all people, but my experience says otherwise (just that this is the dominant position in society).

I usually snip quotes for brevity or when I don't need to address every single point. I agree. I've previously likened GOG to a bookstore. They are both free to sell political works, but the bookstore isn't an appropriate place to debate politics unless it's sanctioned like in political forums, town halls, news programs, etc. From reading the rules, a lot of this can be summed up as common sense. But yes, it looks like the rules aren't enough if these problems are persistent throughout. And some people need clearer guidelines so they don't unintentionally break them so the burden of responsibility is fully transferred to users and not on GOG for ambiguity in their rules.

With respect to politics, I reiterate my interpretation that in-game politics are fine, but referencing IRL politicians and countries' actions to further or dismiss a political ideology is unacceptable especially if unsolicited (e.g., hijacking threads and taking jabs). Though I do personally acknowledge it's difficult to not participate in continuing hijacked conversations and therefore am guilty of it too coming from different platforms that embraced them.

Yep and there in lies the problem Mods I have seen engage on the forums in political related factors even when its literally known it is heavily political

Then lets add you got literal games like this one one here for example(that to me this is related to the topic of G.O.G and hypocritical topic and your last message bit on real political figures in game and the like .. Also just keep in mind not trying to be political just stating facts

Carmageddon: Max Damage features these 3 additional game modes:
Trumped-Up where every pedestrian is respectfully replaced by the President of the United States.
Hillaryious in which you’ll meet nothing but duplicates of the defeated Democratic candidate.
Mass Debate which features a politically correct balance of both characters.

That to me in my view a game too political to fit G.o.g's rules given while they are optional they are fully accessible depictions of political figuires real ones and not ones that have been gone for some tome .. I'd not see games as against there own rules if say for example they had specific WW2 era leaders or even further back and so on matters..

Then you have other games fully based on real world politics and figuires on here.. That or ones that mock real world political figuires still in power now among other factors existing on G.O.G that to me is even further proof of hyocritical factors.. If I recall right Infectonator 3: Apocalypse has literally a blatant Zombie Kim Jon un(sp?) just slightly spelled different but still blatantly clear who it is ,in it in a mocking way

then you have varies political games with real world political figures as the cover/game art I ain't sure how many but for one case Realpolitiks 2 has clearly cartoony chartreus of real life ones as the art for it

You also get each election year usually a political themed sale

So political discussion is unavoidable when these factors on G.O.G exists unless they make a sector just for politics till then I will keep seeing them as hypocritical

Well, this goes back to me asking where the line is drawn between what is and is not political. No one ever draws or even discusses this line. You see, "we all just know." Right, which is why we can clearly see everyone is disagreeing on where that line is. The current definition seems to be "that which i agree should be the moral standard of the world should not be perceived as political." Yet, how is anyone expecting to standardize anything if it cannot be discussed? Why would anyone just assume that people should accept their "authority." Just look at the whole COVID fiasco with all the experts with "bad data" or whatever, when you had regular people without degrees who were able to better predict outcomes. Oh, all these people made lucky guesses? No, don't think we can trust these damn experts. It's this God forsaken worldview protection shit. Anyone who disagrees with anything that a particular individual views as "settled" is "unable to understand facts" or "unable to empathize" or whatever emotional basis they associate with the position.

Oh agreed ...I just was saying the whole problem G.O.G invited when not wanting politics in discussions yet they have so obvious ''in your face politics'' Atleast in the racing game and the other realpolitiks 2.. those are so blatantly political in nature one for the modes and the names of them and the other in the name and art of the game.. They should know its political and hypocritical to allow them on the store when not wanting poltics discussed at all

The semblence of balance i must say that at least Carmageddon was trying to be tasteful (in the context of the rest of the game). On the other hand, that's not where we're going with the rest, and there are more blatant examples than the ones you mentioned. First off we have this one recently being given away, which is painfully obvious. We have this little gem which may or may not be all that political, but it has an obvious hypocritical take on politics in it's own advertisment (be bad, 'cause capitalism!). And, as Linko mentioned, this needs no introduction, as the very main theme of the setting is politics (capitalism having a major focus, of course).

At least Geralt understood capitalism. I have't played all the witcher games, but if you include all of Geralt's possible decisions out of the whole of 1 and the little i've played of 3, it seems Geralt does understand capitalism to a degree, including when to abandon blind persuit of money, which capitalism allows, unlike corporate capitalism (which i consider a misnomer, and the basis for hate of capitalism) which does not.

Yeah that game at least went for a attempt at balance.. I got that freebie(for free as while not interested in it was like might aswell to try it as it was free) and yeah that other game another good example

Cyberpunk 2077 while I disagree is truly political game play wise(as far as I have played it as I have ignored most of the story so far to screw around in game) I am aware at the very least Cyberpunk is a commonly political charged genre in fiction.. I would need to play it way more to see if its way more political them I am aware or not

But we atleast seem to agree the hypocritial factor and foolishness of ''No politics'' discussed when such political charged in someway games are on here

I mean, i could be totally wrong seeing as i don't have a device capable of playing it (my ps4 is the best I got, and we all heard how that turned out). However i heard reviews and it's going into the typical tropes. I know little about the main storyline, but we don't jump into this fictional genre and claim to be apolitical. As you note, it's a fairly politically charged genre in fiction, therefore it's reasonable to makea pretty good assumption. From both sides of the trans debate, for example, the reviews of it's handling of that were fairly scathing, so they managed to tick off everyone with that. Well, just look back at the thread and look who disagrees and why. I'm all for counter-arguments and debate, but, common, it's like going outside and arguing with someone on whether or not it's cloudy. How cloudy it is is certainly subjective, but whether or not clouds are present is not subjective. Don't worry, though: there's plenty of people who somehow manage to see no clouds, even though we're in the middle of a thunderstorm.

[modded: please keep in mind that disputing moderation publicly is not allowed. If you would like to ask some questions, please contact a moderator directly - ponczo_]

The problem is that due to companies like GOG(online/IRL) shielding people from such, a number of people can't seem to take even normal criticism without feeling bad.

Imo, most websites(in general, not just GOG) should only mod actual nasty content and mod the users posting such, and let people block posts/users/threads they dislike. People have tried that...for example: one time people made a thread criticizing the PC stuff being added to VTMB2.....people were civil and ontopic for the most part, and that thread still got locked.

On that: oddly enough, GOG allowed the B-L-M itch bundle thread, yet found that one to be against the site rules.

Both were political threads, yet only one got locked....odd, ain't it?

I actually know from experience that staff can mod posts/threads very quickly if they notice them, and I also know how easy it is to find anything rule-breaking on the first page or so of the forums(I can usually find such within a few minutes).

The problem seems to be that they focus on certain users/threads/etc, and seem to skim/mostly ignore the rest(unless they get a report on something, that is). If they spent a bit more time(even a few minutes a few times a day) scanning the threads on the first page of GD they could likely catch most rule-breaking content, and do so with decent efficiency**.

(**example: usually a thread title can more or less predict if a thread will be a magnet for rule-breaking content...after spotting such staff could check inside those threads for anything amiss)

Well said/agreed

That's just it....that thread seemed to "need" locking, yet the one supporting b-l-m also had posts pruned and gog staff allowed it to remain open.

To me this seems like a double standard.