But yeah, that's where we're at. Having to decide whether calling a Milo Yiannopoulos "misogyne and islamophobe" is information or "name calling". In other words, should the gog forums be modelled after Breitbart or not.
Up to Fables22 to define the line, and GOG.com's identity.
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.
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.
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.