Turbo-Beaver: What is it that you disagree with specifically?
kaboro: You create yet another thread on this subject
There was a nearly universal surprise with GOG's decision, how it was communicated, and the subsequent silence about it. The official GOG message board seems like the obvious place to discuss it, also giving the company a chance to respond and address the community. Numerous people presented their take on various aspects of the whole situation. Considering the number of posts, having the discussion separated into more than a single thread seems reasonable to me.
Practically all the other threads here now are either promotional in nature or completely off-topic, with most of the remaining ones being one-off questions or complaints about technical issues or the refunds process. I don't see any harm being done by having a couple of threads to discuss different aspects of what many see as GOG's most severe reputational crisis since its inception. However, you're certainly free to make your case to the forum moderators that this, as well as presumably all the other Devotion-related threads, be removed.
That being said, I've only ever created one thread (this one), and it was to share not just my opinion but also some of the information I was able to find out, which hadn't been posted up to that point. As a matter of fact, I also believe you yourself had created at least one thread related to the Devotion controversy as well, and that was just to state your opinion, without uncovering any new facts.
It would seem then that each of us created an equal number of threads on this subject, only I also did it with the goal to provide some new information.
kaboro: you show how much time and energy you spent to dig useless information that doesnt prove anything and doesnt lead anywhere.
I appreciate your concern for my well-being. You are certainly entitled to your judgment regarding the usability of the information in this thread. However you may recognize that your subjective opinion on this matter is not necessarily a universal one. On a general note, most people would likely agree that knowing more is uniformly a better position to find oneself in than knowing less. Thus, extra information, as long as it is truthful, could hardly be considered strictly useless.
Relating to this situation, there have been consistent calls for GOG to explain who the "many gamers" that demanded the game be delisted were. This thread is, in particular, an attempt to shed some light on this question in lieu of an official explanation never provided by GOG.
kaboro: You try hard to pretend you are unbiased and objective
As a matter of fact, I've never claimed to be unbiased and objective. I am simply stating my own subjective opinion on the matter, just as anybody else on a discussion forum would. My bias is clear as a person with a long-term positive sentiment towards CD Projekt/GOG who would like to be able to remain their customer.
Being both unbiased and objective is a very hard benchmark to attain. Out of sheer curiosity, do you consider yourself less biased and more objective on this issue than I am?
kaboro: In the end your thread [...] ends on the same "
its China who forced this decision" tone.
That is the polar opposite of what I've been saying. It was GOG, I believe, that forced this issue on their Chinese social-media followers. It's all laid out in the initial post. What you put in quotation marks is not an actual quote from anything I would have written (even more so considering the grammar).
If you look at what I wrote here and in the other threads, you will have seen that I have consistently interpreted the events in a manner most accommodating to the Chinese side, whenever there is any room for interpretation. For example, a lot of the discussion has focused on whether there is any objectionable content in the game or not, i.e. whether the Chinese have a reason to complain at all. Yet in this very thread I specifically wrote that:
Chinese customers are important. Their sensitivities should be respected.
That is, regardless of the actual content of the game. What's more, I also said how GOG's decision to promote the game in China was (perhaps inadvertently) politically-charged. If you are implicitly accusing me of anti-China bias then by all means go on but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody else who's gone to such lengths not to reach for the low-hanging fruit of jumping to easy conclusions on this matter.
kaboro: The reality is we dont know why the game was pulled, your whole theory is based on thin air and i can come up with my own theories based on thin air: what if all this is just a publicity stunt? They stirred sh*t on Steam, then they pulled the game themselves, now they did the same thing on GOG.
Have you seen the attached screenshots? I've also posted a transcript and translation since. I think at this point what happened should be pretty evident, unless you choose to ignore the obvious facts, that is.