Now I don't really understand. First you say it's a good thing. Then you say it's silly.

Ugh... Claiming that expressing disagreement with people expressing disagreement somehow strips the latter of their freedom to express disagreement, calling it "suppression" - that is what I find silly. It's not intolerant to merely disagree with someone, even a minority.

That thread depressed the hell out of me. I guess it's a little late to say that I support your position, but I do.

This. I'm far from a GOG loyalist (I use Steam all the time! :D), and downrating of legitimate criticism is stupid, but I get really sick of people complaining about the same things over and over. When people mention in almost every new game release that they're disappointed that it's not an old game, people are going to get tired of it. Same thing with those who have their pet games they constantly talk about GOG needing to get. Put it on the wishlist, make a thread about it if you must, but bringing it up constantly isn't going to make GOG get it faster, just like rapidly pushing an elevator button doesn't make the elevator move faster.

It's a vicious cycle. x]

It's refreshing to see others accept disagreement between people. We should sue Facebook for not being open with their only 'like' button and no 'dislike'. :P

There are three kinds of people in the world: Complainers, complaining about complainers and people who don't care about either of the first two. :-)

I know GOG forum doesn't seem to have many rules and I like the freedom here as many others but to avoid this they could do a minor restriction on the reputation system (if it's that important) to avoid newcomers or old members with multiple account to abuse it. Aside from that I think any down- or uprepping is justifiable because it's based on opinions, we are not supreme scientific judges. We should be allowed to downrep someone because they have "a bad opinion" according to the one who downreps, it's his freedom to do so.

You'd be surprised ;P...

That's blatantly not true and you should know better than to tell this to ME, of all people.
Even if it were, I wouldn't consider it much of an issue, though. That's the things about having unpopular opinions - you need to be ready to take flak for them, otherwise they wouldn't be "unpopular" in the first place.

There's a joke that sheds some light on the issue: a castaway was found after living on a deserted island for many years. During his time there, he had erected three buildings: a house, where he lived, a club to which he went and a club to which he DID NOT go.

If I was European I'm sure I'd actually appreciate the theatre as much as you do. ;)

http://fandommenacepodcast.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/billtedwhoa.gif

BECAUSE Elizabeth Taylor had such great cleavage in the film? :-P

"Edit": wanted to post this a bit back, as playful early AM-ish anaphora of sorts, but as a reply - came across as edit which I suppressed. Hence post it now with leitmotiv "äly tuli iltajunas!" (from Karelian translation of Donald Duck, meaning with a delay, and a little more, lol)

Well, when it comes to this vox populi vox dei approach - Hitler was highly popular indeed at outset, and voices of difference got most vigorously frowned upon; very severely indeed.

If any popular moral compass and standard of conduct is as good as the next one, a frown may indeed be more honorable than a smile.

Yes, it is a gaming site, but it is still surprising at times what constitutes a "frown at" or "smile upon" opinion, in my view.

...it is something I have never mentioned. There's a difference between applauding people expressing themselves and applauding the things they are expressing.

Otherwise - I agree with the gist of your reasoning. It is simply unrelated to what has been said.

That, coincidentally, is ALSO something I have never said. Hell - it's one of the things people here probably would be able to predict me disagreeing with.
Of course - your critique is quite valid... though, again - unrelated.

.
.
I admit the comparison to NSDP regime is bit of a hyperbole but relevant in terms of historic evidence - but besides, I quoted fully your response to a posting that pointed out that OP was merely requesting goodwill, yet that he might not be able to expect none, not dictating the rules of the fora.

My impression is that the up post / down post is more often about having similar opinion, than appreciating fellow fora members engaging nicely and arguing their point of view maybe firmly but politely. I cannot say I have always been perfect, unfortunately.

The smile at - frown upon approach is arguably more populistic, based on how a posting is liked or disliked. Let us just simply state vox populi, as original quote. But this surely implies validation of popular opinion?

This I think this is the difference between "goodwill" your counter posting as such supported, and "rules" implied in the posting you reacted to - or the moral compass, as in assessing popular and unpopular views at equal footing.

Edit: trying to figure out how to properly snippet this. But not succeeding, gääh! :'(