It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Also, please let's give a big hand to GOG for announcing yet another important (and highly questionable to say the least) change that will affect everyone in no other way than a thread which isn't even a bloody sticky. Because everyone who uses chat is on the every day, all the time, and can in no way miss this announcement.

GOG TODAY
Understandable, with such things around(see Attachment).
At least it wasn't a "oh we fucked up and realized" with a setting like that not existing before.
Can understand the trouble through, especially with the NOTIFICATION SYSTEM still not being around outside of Galaxy which is being shoved down everyone's throat, so much about a Website Upgrade
(I do prefer the original design and some good things were done but it feels like Notifications simply won't be done)
Attachments:
unknown.png (65 Kb)
avatar
InkPanther: I'm glad that you react to those reports, but I do really hate that your usual policy of advising to switch chat settings if you don't like messages you receive is going to be a default setting forced for everyone...
I would assume that they probably cannot detect who have knowingly set (or left) said setting to "anyone" and who haven't understood that the setting exists or don't know what it does.

In this case, I would take GOG's side and say that it's better to change it for everyone with the setting to that value than to not change for anyone (those who know about it can change the setting back, and those who don't are safe from spam). It's a sensible default, in my opinion, and it's not that difficult to change, should you want to. (I'm still opposed to having "install Galaxy?" defaulting to "yes" in the stand-alone installer, mind you, because advertising for the client is already all over the damned site, so it's practically impossible to miss.)
avatar
bhrigu: On a (un)related note: Is the GOG forum even worth spreading spam on? Seriously?
Apparently, else they wouldn't continue.
Do realise, though, that only very few messages need to actually get to gullible enough targets. The messages barely cost anything to send, so one hit in a million is probably a gain.
Post edited July 07, 2017 by Maighstir
avatar
InkPanther: I'm glad that you react to those reports, but I do really hate that your usual policy of advising to switch chat settings if you don't like messages you receive is going to be a default setting forced for everyone...
avatar
Maighstir: I would assume that they probably cannot detect who have knowingly set (or left) said setting to "anyone" and who haven't understood that the setting exists or don't know what it does.

In this case, I would take GOG's side and say that it's better to change it for everyone with the setting to that value than to not change for anyone (those who know about it can change the setting back, and those who don't are safe from spam). It's a sensible default, in my opinion, and it's not that difficult to change, should you want to. (I'm still opposed to having "install Galaxy?" defaulting to "yes" in the stand-alone installer, mind you, because advertising for the client is already all over the damned site, so it's practically impossible to miss.)
I'd be much happier if they found it more sensible to implement a system detecting and blocking attempts to send private messages to a large number of users...
high rated
Maybe GOG should make this thread an announcement thread "a blue thread" because it's a change to the site itself, something important, and also announce this plus the double installers via e-mail and social media and pretty much everywhere.

Also it would be better if GOG left the settings like they are now and only defaulted them for the newbies.
I would only opt for a "Friends Only" setting if I would continuously receive such a large quantity of spam that I couldn't keep up with blocking users. By defaulting everyone to this, there will be frustration over the fact that you just cannot send the majority of people a private message and would have to ask them via the forum to include them in their friends list first. Sounds like a hassle to me, particularly when managing giveaways.
Why this push to educate people to not be able to handle themselves with digital media and have knowledge of the tools available to block or disengage from communication. So you get dumb masses who have a nervous breakdown when they encounter spam or a troll?
Post edited July 14, 2017 by MaGo72
I just had a terrible thought. After this happens, and I set it back to "anyone"... will that unblock everyone, including people I have blocked now?
One issue that has occurred to me: What about communications relating to moderation?

1. Sometimes a user needs to report a post. Will that user need to change her settings just to report a particularly nasty post?

2. Sometimes the community manager needs to communicate with a user. How is that going to work if the user's setting is set to "friends only"?

(I'm thinking I may change my setting back to "anyone" when the change takes effect, but will be a bit more aggressive about blocking users.)
While i appreciate GOG is doing this 2 reduce spam & harassing by some trolls/scammers/spammers, they r still a minority. As mentioned by many other members here, making chat set as 'friends only' as default have more disadvantages to the majority while benefiting only a small amt of members in reality. Personally, i feel that hving the 'Block' function shd suffice & unless members specifically feel they r targeted 4 spam &/or harassment then shd they set chat 2 'friends only' themselves.

I suggest GOG carefully relook into this making this change & take note of all the helpful comments by the members here. If they still wish 2 proceed, pls set this as an Announcement thread so that all the members in the forum will take note & reset their settings if necessary.
Post edited July 08, 2017 by tomyam80
avatar
zeogold: Now each and every person on this website, for me to get in their chat for ANYTHING, is gonna have to remember to change their privacy settings, which the majority will likely forget to do. Even worse if they've been gone for a while and miss this thread or just happen not to see this thread in general. They'll never know anything's wrong because nobody can contact them. Even worse STILL with both chat notifications AND forum reply notifications being broken, meaning nobody can warn them or even alert them to the fact they should check their PMs. There's a whole slew of people that I'll never be able to talk to again. On top of all that, prepare for a whole storm of people asking one another why they're "blocked".
These are all fair points. I think what GOG would really need is the concept of a "trusted user" - say anyone with over 50 rep or who's ever spent real money to buy a game. (Either measure by itself leaves out a small but significant number of people, due to rep system abuse or lack of payment methods and relying on friends to gift them games - but taken together they'd get pretty good coverage I think.) And then the default for chat could be "Only from friends and trusted users."

Would still be a very high barrier for spammers (and most scammers!), but should have almost negligible impact on regulars here, while still being something you'd comfortably want for new members who never participate in the forum.
avatar
elcook: ping
Any chance that something like the above could be considered? Preferably before the change to existing members starts being rolled out?
Post edited July 08, 2017 by gogtrial34987
Don't you already need a minimum number of reputation/posts/time since you registered (I forgot which) before you can post links in the forum to avoid spam? The same could be done with private messages.
avatar
MaGo72: Why this push to reducate people to not be able to handle themselves with digital media and have knowledge of the tools available to block or disengage from communication. So you get dumb masses who have a nervous breakdown when they encounter spam or a troll?
What I want to know is, how do these "idiots" manage to play the games they purchase? o.O
avatar
gogtrial34987: I think what GOG would really need is the concept of a "trusted user" - say anyone with over 50 rep or who's ever spent real money to buy a game. (Either measure by itself leaves out a small but significant number of people, due to rep system abuse or lack of payment methods and relying on friends to gift them games - but taken together they'd get pretty good coverage I think.) And then the default for chat could be "Only from friends and trusted users."
This is GOG we're talking about, here. If they really DID implement it, chances are they'd screw it up such that already-existing users would have to pay extra or get the extra rep.
avatar
gogtrial34987: I think what GOG would really need is the concept of a "trusted user" - say anyone with over 50 rep or who's ever spent real money to buy a game. (Either measure by itself leaves out a small but significant number of people, due to rep system abuse or lack of payment methods and relying on friends to gift them games - but taken together they'd get pretty good coverage I think.) And then the default for chat could be "Only from friends and trusted users."
avatar
zeogold: This is GOG we're talking about, here. If they really DID implement it, chances are they'd screw it up such that already-existing users would have to pay extra or get the extra rep.
Oh man... if ppl hv 2 start paying 2 get rep or extra rep i think this wld really be hilarious as that wld totally defeat the purpose of hving rep n the 1st place. They might as well scrap it all together.

This does reminds me of the bribe TinyE received though, lol. ;p