There you have it, folks. Clear as day. Forum moderation isn't supposed to be about encouraging open and honest debate, it's about cramming the "right" kind of ideology down people's throats. An ideology which is, naturally, being defined by exactly the kind of toxic "you're with us or against us"-mentality that have made this forum go downhill.

But I guess introspection doesn't have to be one of your strong points of you see yourself on the right side of history.

Closing the GG thread hasn't brought about any positive change in any way, shape or form (except for a bunch of people getting a warm fuzzy feeling from finally getting their way). In fact, this very thread is a pretty good indicator of where things are heading. People are bound to get even more riled up and antagonistic, especially if they get the impression that moderation is biased. At least when things went to shit in the past, we had no one to blame but ourselves. And I dread to think what's going to happen when Fabs makes good on her promise and actually starts kicking people out (regardless of their position in the gog forum culture war). You thought one tauto was bad? Chances are we'll soon have a whole army of those.

You have to say it while moving and waving your arms in the air.

Wave them about like you just don't care.

What do you think of a group of Kleetuses?

Not sure what the proper term would be, a gathering of Kleetuses, a litter of Kleetuses or a colony of Kleetuses.

You are in that army.Why? Because you have a fixation with me.

All forum charters, by stating that "racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, are inacceptable", are, in the sense where you use it, imposing an "ideology", or "cramming it down peopl's throats". Antinazism is an "ideology", antiracism is an "ideology", any legal system that forbids you from eating people in the street or beating up old people to get their wallets are "ideologies", "crammed down people's throats".

So yes, a forum code of conduct stems from, and imposes, values. Against people who reject these values. You can throw a fit about it if you want, but all you are expressing is that you feel oppressed by basic values clashing with your own "ideology".

You're just using a word without defining or caring for its meaning. Again, pure rhetorics ("ideology" connoted bad, so used to designate systems of values on the opposite side, implying that own system of values is not an ideology, or doesn't exist).

One way or the other, GOG will express an ideology. Which one it will be (one inclusive to all religions/ethnicities/nationalities/sexual orientations, or one friendly to the stigmatisation and exclusion of sexual/national/religious alterities) will depend on their own decision. As they keep repeating, not everybody will be happy about it.

I happen, for ideological reasons, to hope that the unhappiest people will be the racist and homophobic ones. You can hope, for ideological reasons, for the opposite. We have no say on that.

Also :

In practice, they WILL alienate people, no matter what they do or don't (passive moderation neglect has massively alienated people, and the current population is largely a consequene of it). Beyond their own sensitivities, which already drive significant aspects of the shop (such as the DRM-free ideology), they will have to evaluate costs and benefits, knowing there will be both. Time will tell which course of action will provoke the least compensated forum hemorrhage. They will have to bet on either gamers ethnic, sexual, religious diversity or on an ultraconservative potential majority (is it actually a majority amongst gamers is the question that will determine the consequences of their rules). But you cannot have both. You cannot condone a climate of sexism, islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, and yet expect people from all horizons to stay in the community. You cannot (as this thread illustrates well) proscribe sexism, islamophobia, xenophobia and racism and expect ultraconservatives to not feel "ideologically oppressed" and decide to leave for whatever fake news outlet flatters them more. And line drawn anywhere will have such results.

So let's maybe cease to see it as a one-side issue, about one side "wanting it its way", one side "feeling offended", one side "whining", etc. Because, frankly. Look at this thread.

Oh, yes of course he does. Quite unfortunately!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/27/free-speech-debate-milo-yiannopoulos-alt-right-censorship

Actually, this Milo guy wrote a lot of articles. Articles with titles such as

"The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off"
"Trannies whine about hilarious Bruce Jenner billboard"
"Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy"
"Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?"
"Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet"
"There's no hiring bias against women in tech, they just suck at interviews"
"Science proves it: Fat-shaming works"

...on a site that you were violently defending as a legitimate source of sound and solid information again, recently, even though it's fake news to the core.

Say it with me, fronzel: MISOGYNY. And TRANSPHOBIA.

And say it with me: FAKE NEWS.
[url=http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/fake-news-wie-breitbart-fakten-verdreht-und-einen-mob.1818.de.html?dram:article_id=375553]http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/fake-news-wie-breitbart-fakten-verdreht-und-einen-mob.1818.de.html?dram:article_id=375553[/url]
(German article about how Breitbart lies out of their throats in order to purposefully misinform their reader base)

This isn't free exchange of information. It's falsifying and hateful propaganda that prohibits and undercuts the free exchange of information.

You search for the aggression that fits you and declare the rest dishonest and censorship.

When I write a takedown piece on Koch Media, you laud me for the plethora of information you didn't get elsewhere.

When I write a 15 point pamphlet on why people shouldn't use Steam way besides DRM considerations, you bookmark the post and repost it when the opportunity arises, saying that you never read better reasoning on the subject.

When I make philantropist statements about human nature, hand the Muslim community an olive branch and whatnot, you're going nuts.

Maybe the constructive isn't your kind of rhetoric?

Yeah, because, obviously, promoting a free exchange of ideas - no matter how outlandish they are (i.e. giving said racists and homophobes enough rope to hang themselves with) - constitutes sympathising with racists and homophobes.

Sincerely, fuck off!

Well, you already laid out all the points, now you just need to connect the dots: you've been on a steady decline from quality poster to totalitarian ideologue. In the past, I never could bring myself to be mad at you, though. I know you have your heart in the right place and, believe it or not, our socio-political convictions align more often than not. But the condescending manner you go about preaching the gospel to the unwashed masses in general and the wanton labelling of dissenting voices in particular, is, in my opinion, the worst possible way to go about it.

Do you know how to say it in Traditional Chinese?

真的，他媽的！

See if you can guess which character the fuck is.

If I was a moderator, I'd lock this thread and give most people in here their first warning. All you're doing here is to try to get fables to ban your favorite nemeses. "Look what xyz wrote in this thread five years ago", "xyz is full of whateverism", "xyz is the real problem of the forum", "xyz has to be banned because he's downvoting me with an army of alts that only I can see" -.-

Seriously, guys and girls: Just stop it! Draw a line and leave all this bulshit behind you. Stop posting your collection of "evil posts from user xyz" and stop discussing user xyz's behaviour the past couple of years. Most forums I know have a rule that forbids to openly discuss other users' behaviour, because this is exactly where most hostility comes from. Of course user xyz will attack you when you start to tell everyone what a douche he is!

If you don't like someone, don't speak with him. If you think someone is an evil racist, report his NEW evil racist posts (not some years old collection) to a blue. But don't tell everyone that you have proof that he is an evil racist. We can't do shit about it anyway. All you'll achieve with this is to turn a thread about forum rules into a thread about your personal animosities. And we've had enough of that the last couple of years.
You?

ps. Oh, wait, 他 really means "you" and not "fuck".

None of them. 他媽的 basically means "Your mom". Google translate is fake news.

I'm good with this.
In fact I'm behind it 100%, and I don;t even really get along with real.geizterfahr.

It's basically what I said in the, of course, now downrated #218.

Still, the post ignores that here the attacks preceded the douche telling. Unless time travel is involved, causation can not be established in this way. I of course appreciate the attempt here – attack everyone and no one, scorch the earth to make it common ground, it's an effective mediation strategy. However, in a debate as complex as this one, there are limitations to the strategy.

So is Wolfram Alpha, for that matter.

Here's what it has to say about the third letter of the alphabet:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=third+letter+of+the+alphabet

Edit: Wolfram Alpha does get the third letter of the *Greek* alphabet correct, however.

I agree, anyone with the forum name XYZ should be banned.

I just used Google Translate and it said Wolfram Alpha was German for dominant male.

This isn't a site related to Grindr or anything, is it?

Do you have a link to that particular post, maybe? Possibly a pdf dossier that everyone can download?

I sincerely can't remember "violently defending" Breitbart. I might have rubbed your face in the fact that you chose to dismiss Breitbart's reporting on the mass sexual assaults in Cologne as fake news, which turned out to be true a couple of days later, when the German media could no longer sweep the incidents under the rug. But that's about it.

I can assure you I have no dossier on you. No need to panic. Though I must say, it would have been incredible had I been able to bolster my previous post with links to the two instances you lauded the shit out of my research. The troubling thing was not when Breitbart chose to report on what hundreds of outlets had reported already for NYE 15/16, it was when Breitbart tried to literally make up more attacks for New Year's Eve 16/17 in order to finally have a scoop of their own.

The massive personal attack, the attempted ostracism and vehement defense of Breitbart, of course, happened (sorry folks & Fables, German discussion).
https://www.gog.com/forum/general_de/terror_in_berlin/post98
Please do also compare the aggressiveness of your post there in comparison to my following post, where I'm doing my darndest to bring some kind of civility back into the debate. I have never, ever attacked you in a way even remotely similar to yours. You're going completely overboard on the basis of nothing at all there. And you're throwing "fuck offs" in the faces of reasonably arguing people here.