And they still don't do nothing ... the problem is simply that GOG is constantly hiring mods that are unable to do their jobs and fire those who were able to do things right.
Which would be the worse solution of all. GOG the store and GOG the forum has become one entity for me, If they would remove the forum I would be gone from GOG as well.

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

Read "any discrimination". Since paid clients might create threads while unpaid - not and this is done by the Poland company, it's a discrimination. Of course I might be wrong and that is not a discrimination (by property), yet any newly created user is a client of GOG Store and treating one type of clients differently, even though there is no such Agreement rule, is segretating them by groups, hence discrimination. No one said anything about EU checking the forum availability directly, I was merely talking about same treatment for everyone, at least everyone in the EU, since some countries can be discriminated without any consequences on EU's end.
Me too, it's the last thing why I'm even here. I might even politely request to delete my account.

This an extreme stretch taken from general guidelines that are basically part of GOGs forum right now as well and also I fail to see how "I dont have an account" would be a part of discriminating on the base of "sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, ip of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation".

If you were unable to create an account on GOG (to post in a thread) because you are black or a woman or whatever ... THAT MIGHT be discrimination. But everybody is able to open an account on GOG. There are quite a lot of restrictions allowed or even necessary in the EU as well (i.e. the age you are allowed to even buy on GOG) but that does not make it discrimination.

Where did you get the part of "I don't have an account"? Could you check again please. Every user have an account, hence that user is a client of GOG Store according to the Agreement which that user must read and agreed to adhere.

If someone don't have an account - then that person is not a user and not a client. No business relationships, no nothing.

It might be the biggest streach in entire history of humankind, yet I hardly see it as an argument "No, it's not a discrimination", sorry.

Please tell me where did I even mentioned something about *not able to create an account*. There is ONE case only which I presented - segregation by paid and unpaid clients, every person which has access to the internet and the IP adress which is not on a block list have the ability to become a user (create an account) without prohibition.

Yeah, only one of them actually sells the good stuff. Such scammers :(




I haven't really thought about that. But now that you mention it, a diploma from the university with the most hilarious name would probably a good wall decoration or gift for a friend.

Never said, yet you included a new theoretical case of "discrimination" and that is your argument here? That one case you presented is SO serious that mine is not, hence it's not a discrimination. I'm sorry that's not how it works. I'm not moved by that logic. I could agree all you want that it's a streach, that the level of limiting / discrimination is so low is almost non-existent, but I could not just agree that it's not there.

It's like saying that "killing a person" would be a serious crime hence pushing | poking | spitting at other people on street at will is NOT a serious crime. Does it mean that it's not a crime entirely?

Limiting one type of clients (which paid nothing or paid less than the specific amount, or not paid withing a specific time frame) with creating a new thread on a forum whilst other clients who purchased games (or paid more than specific amount, or paid something within a specific amount of time) - that is discrimination whether it's a streach or not.

Creating a new thread, not a post. Your argument is simple "I disagree becase my case would be serious and yours is not bases on anything". Even though it's based on purchased games, I even highlited the word "property" twice for you.

Discrimination by Property

Description of what Discrimination really is:

Discrimination refers to unfair treatment of an individual or group based on certain characteristics such as race, gender, age, religion, and sexuality, among others. Discrimination can occur on both an individual and systemic level, with the latter often resulting in unequal opportunities and outcomes for marginalized groups. Discrimination can take many forms, including but not limited to: exclusion from certain activities or opportunities, denial of basic rights and freedoms, and negative stereotypes and prejudices.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. As long as you haven't bought anything, you are not a customer and the shop doesn't have to provide their services to you. Think of a bar for example: You can enter it, but if you just sit down on a table without ordering anything, they are allowed to show you the door. It's not a discrimination and happens all the time.

Tbh: I don't understand your position.
In the first quote you agree that you would be fine with restrictions (one thread/day) for users who haven't bought anything yet.
In the second quote (and I had to edit that at places, to make any sense of it...if my interpretion of your intent is false - please tell me), you say, it would be discrimination, to limit users who haven't bought anything yet, to one thread/day...

Thank you yet another great but unrelated argument. The bar don't sign a client agreement with the customer or patron, it works as a public offer which is subject to change.

Whenever a new user is created, by creating an account at GOG, the Agreement with GOG comes into place.

1.1 This Agreement is a contract between you and GOG sp. z o.o., ul. Jagiellońska 74, 03-301 Warsaw, Poland (we will further call ourselves “GOG”) and applies to www.GOG.COM, your GOG user account, GOG GALAXY application (including GOG GALAXY store), any games or videos or other content or services which you purchase or access via us, the GOG web forums, GOG customer and technical support and other services we provide to you (we'll just call all this “GOG services” for short).

So I'm very sorry but I don't want to thing of a bar for example.
It's simple. Let me quote myself just in case:
"Yes, that suggestion was brought up by many users including me. That would be a cool suggestion, yet it would require more work from GOG stuff to check if the account is *valid* for posting. Also it would break some laws (especially the EU), since the forum is open and public everyone should have access to it."

Why can't I love the idea of limiting the spam bots, at the same time why can't I discuss the possible risks? My position is simple: harsh laws could benefit with fighting the crime which is good, it will also make some freedom to collapse which is bad. Do I want to eliminate every spam bot on GOG forum? Yes! Will it discriminate the unpaid clients (including the spam bot and innocent new users) - Yes!

I hope it's clear now.

Or as an 'ice breaker' (lighthearted banter) at a job interview. But doubt they would actually get the job after showing it... :P

Yes, it's a little clearer now.
In connection with your other posts: you think GOG may come in hot water, if they restrict new accounts the right (or privilege?) to create threads and/or post in those created by others, correct?

I honestly don't think the "EU discrimination paragraph" would apply in this case, though.

Because you are not hindered to purchase games, read the threads, read the reviews, etc.
Fact: to read what's in the forums, you don't even need an account. Reading is "free for all".

Writing on the forum, on the other hand, could easily be considered a "privilege". And privileges have to be earned. E.G.: by purchasing something first.

Here's another example of "writing something on a store's digital premises": reviews.
There are many shops where you can review the articles you have bought in that shop online...yet, you can't review stuff that you didn't buy in that store.
The option for me to write a review about "article X" is only given, after I purchase "article X" - on that store.

Is that discrimination?
Because I definitely can have an opinion about "article X", even if I didn't buy it (neither in store Y nor at all), right?
And I have bought other articles in the past, so I am a registered customer.
Well, apparently that's not discrimination.
Else, the EU would act and forbid these "store-purchase-bound" review sections.

To end this here:
the worst that could happen, is that GOG has to expand its User Agreement with a simple sentence: "Any active participation in the forums (creating threads, writing comments) requires at least a single purchase in the GOG store:"
With that, they would be on the legally save side.
They could even add a "minimum purchase value" and would still be well within the law.

Nah, it's more SMS 2FA on registration and then encouraging people to use it on login on a new device (same as the email 2FA today). Not sure where you're from (profile says Russia, but I'm not going to assume you are), but in a lot of countries SMS 2FA is the norm as it's the most accessible (doesn't require a smartphone). I know that Origin use it.

I'd mainly push it because I hate email 2FA. That being said, if you limit posts (or remove ability to create threads) if you haven't bought a game, then I think you probably do most of what you need to make it hard for the bots.

Stop coming to GOG if the messageboards are removed? Must not care too much about DRM-free games, then. Doesn't make much sense to be here at all, if you don't care about the games.

Yes, that's why I wrote that:
"Either it's an open / public forum or a closed one. In case GOG change that to be more exclusive to the paid owners - their Agreement rules - then yes, a very good solution. Still not the best."

EU was made as an example of the most harsh institute where it comes to human rights. Whether or not it applies I can't be certain. I would expect that a GOG's lawyer would request to change the text in User's Agreement for certain.


Very good examples with everything of the above, yet unrelated to the only case which was presented should such a limitation arise.

A privilege you say? Yes it might be, let's check what it is shall we:

A privilege in a user's agreement typically refers to a specific right or benefit that is granted to the user by the company or organization that owns the product or service covered by the agreement. Examples of privileges that may be included in a user's agreement could include access to certain features or content, priority customer support, or early access to new products or services.

These privileges are usually contingent upon the user agreeing to abide by certain terms and conditions set forth in the agreement, such as restrictions on how the product or service can be used or prohibitions against sharing login information with others.

It's important to note that privileges granted in a user's agreement are not necessarily legal rights and may be subject to change or revocation by the company or organization at any time. Therefore, it's important for users to read and understand the agreement before agreeing to its terms.

So yes, it could with one little requirement: the User's Agrement should be adjusted accordingly.

I don't know, are you talking about Steam and other stores? In GOG we might post a review for a non-existed games in our libraries. Are others stores possibly at risk of discrimination their users? They might.

How is it related to current case? It's not BUT I see your point here. Since no one cared about limitation of users with no game to write a review why should GOG care about limiting one group of users with creating a new thread or more than 1 or 3 threads per day? The risks are probably low, but this doesn't mean they are not there.

Yes, thank you. I have the feeling that I somehow repeating myself over and over. I mentioned that User's Agreement should be adjusted in that case.

You wrote it's the case for the worst case scenario. Fine by me. Worst case or not, I merely stated the risks and the possible solution in my previous posts as well.
In my case I stop worrying about such thing as "GOG DRM-free games" the moment I was banned from purchasing them EVEN if I can get a working credit card from a friend based on my IP address location. Guilty as charged, you are free to condemn me.