[moderator-blue]

Oh come on now, the rep system could be easily removed and yet you guys have done nothing.

If it can be done via a simple user script, it can be easily done server side.

What's the point of moderation when users can delete posts and threads and trash people's rep?

You guys have changed code to prevent certain URL shorteners being used, and that was done within an hour, yet can't remove rep?

Rep is like the elephant in the room that for some reason you won't tackle and yet causes more issues than pretty much anything else here.

And regarding alt accounts, that could be easily curtailed by IP/email address, other forums have been doing it for years.

No need for draconian measures.

[/moderator-blue]

Will and should not happen as it is bad for business. A new customer sometimes check the legitimacy and nature of gOg as a store by asking a question in the forum. Enforcing such a rule will not capture those potential customers, few as they may be.

Remember gOg is fundamentally a store, not some sort of club or even a community, so anything that may alienate potential customers is bad.

I'm fine with that. One problem solved, at least ;-)

I think it should be an option for Spaniards as well.

Relax, pretty soon you won't be able to buy a lot of games in the States either.

I think all members must submit their citizenship certificate and a sample of bodily fluids to prevent lying about country.

Not saying you are, it's obvious you're Swedish.

That puts you right back into the problem Wishbone pointed out, where you are limiting new users from asking questions to old users. Granted, they can technically ask questions, but only by derailing threads.

I really don't see the point of any kind of paygate system if there will be clearly set rules and working moderation. It's something we could have used back when there was no moderation, and unless the trolls were prevented from posting at all they could just do whatever.

The idea of requiring users to buy a bunch of games or whatever before being able to post in the forums is a horrible idea and wouldn't solve anything at all. Just because someone has bought games doesn't mean they are not a troll or other problematic personality for starters so it wouldn't solve the problem at all. Furthermore, it completely alienates new users from accessing a community resource, making it an exclusive club that you have to meet some yardstick to become a part of, which is completely the opposite of why the forums are here to begin with. The GOG community is not just about random rants/opinions in the General thread, it also contains a forum for every game or game series in the catalogue where users can seek out information on the games available for sale here, ask questions and seek help or even help others.

New users being unable to use the forums might find that a reason enough to not want to shop here because GOG maintains an exclusive club. They would be unable to ask questions in the forums about things that they want to know before considering buying a game, such as whether a game includes XYZ on GOG or not, whether a given bug in the game was fixed or any number of legitimate questions. If their only recourse is to go ask on Steam then they'll probably buy the game on Steam instead. Otherwise what would they do? Ask GOG support and end up flooding GOG support with thousands of questions that could be answered in the forums by the community, and slowing down how long it takes GOG to process support requests?

It seems extremely unlikely that GOG would change the current system to implement a completely ineffective solution that causes their own support load to go up and is likely to scare potential new customers away. If they're going to change anything at all it would have to be something actually that stands a chance at being effective without making it difficult for users new or old to use rather than something with obvious flaws that could scare away potential business.

All forms of communities in the world both online and offline need a way to maintain law and order of some sort. With a very very small number of people in a community it can sometimes be effective to have the community self-moderate. However, as the community grows larger and larger and spreads globally it becomes more and more likely to have people in disagreement about various topics due to cultural, religigious views, political views, personal bias, or other factors. To a certain degree many people can engage in civil discussion/debate about issues with opposing views without it getting out of hand, but it depends on the individuals involved and their personalities and other factors. As the group gets bigger there will naturally be an ever growing variance of individual opinion on various things and disagreement forming. Sooner or later people inevitably show up whom are of a highly conflictual nature and/or have strong opinions often with less (if any) ability to engage in civil discourse to self-maintain the law and order.

As soon as there are enough such disruptive participants present that get involved in increasing amounts in the various discussions taking place, a rising tide of anger and hostility permeates the entire community. People become increasingly polarized on various issues and if nothing is done to mitigate it eventually it grows large enough where open war kicks in and the entire community degrades to shit quickly.

There needs to be mechanisms in place to effectively manage communities to maintain law and order, and once self-moderation is no longer effective then some form of policing or other authority structure needs to be put into place to both inform people what the rules/laws are, and to monitor the community and take measures to maintain law and order. People need an ability to report issues in case they are not seen, and the authorities in question needs to have a mechanism with which to review reports, investigate issues and hand down a verdict of some sort or another.

That might be done entirely by hand by humans, or enhanced with computer software/algorithms or other mechanisms perhaps, but something needs to be in place to maintain a civil community against hostility or others who purposefully wish to disrupt the community simply because they can without consequence due to lack of any visible authority structure or mechanisms.

That's what we have in the forums here right now, a self-moderating community that grew massively over the years beyond the size that is able to continue to effectively self-moderate civil discourse, and so now either an active authority is put in place to mitigate these problems and restore order, or the community falls apart until full fledged war breaks out and the whole thing completely turns to shit, in the process scaring new customers away and giving a bad impression.

GOG appears to have finally realized this and is trying to explore what the most effective way to manage order may be with the resources they're able to commit to accomplishing that. People are used to it being a complete anarchic free-for-all of utter chaos, and many have taken advantage of that, having huge teenage drinking parties and destroying the house while mommy and daddy are away on vacation, but mommy and daddy just returned from Fiji and are not impressed with the burn marks on the rug and the hole in the wall now. They're prepping their "When you live in my house, you'll follow my rules." speech and pointing at the door for those who don't want to follow, which is the way it should be.

There will be some commotion as people are unsure of how things will be moving forward, and some people naturally will have more to fear about what is to change than others. If everyone thinks before they engage, and tries to be civil and respectful to each other including when they share difference of opinion, then civility ensues and they have nothing to fear. If people decide to continuously stir the pot, there will likely be consequences as they're made example of and people adjust their behaviour now knowing their will be consequences.

As long as GOG is serious about working on improving things then fables and/or other GOG folk will get the forums into a much better shape over time I believe. Once people know there are consequences to their actions and know where the line is in the sand, things sort themselves out in due time.

It's about ethics in gaming forums... pun intended.

Which is my way of saying - it's never been a matter of you having to do X - but of whether you should want to do so.

Think of it as best practices with losts of history. Kindly read my reply to Vaina below for more.

I know you won't agree. You consider transparency opposed to safety and as enabler of bad things. You might even imagine I'm advocating doxxing...

I think this is reversing causation. The bad things like underlying divisions, smashing of heads (figurative I'm sure - just quoting you), deep trenches, disagreement with moderation, etc, etc... are not a consequence of transparency. They are the underlying cause which IMO is better addressed transparently.

You should agree with me on this. If anyone would suggest our judicial system should default to opaque / secretive (dare I saw Kafkian?) processes you would understand the issues immediately. Exceptionally the identity of victims or even perpetrators might require secrecy. Extremely exceptionally the whole process might be closed to the public and kept classified - temporarily. To have that be the default however is IMO wholly counterproductive to justice.

Just because the stakes are lower does not modify the dynamics of authority and the application of power. We're only human afterall. Use and abuse are too close...

Ergo heckler's veto. Non malicious derailing will be extremely difficult to distinguish from careful manipulation.

A lot of internet issues would disappear with removal of anonymity or imposition of monetary barriers. Enforcing skin in the game so to speak.
I expect you see the principled objections to either though... balancing values and goals is difficult.

Sure.

Today I found an interesting method to managing forum, which I'd gladly post.
Maybe you'll like it, maybe not - sharing is caring.

Its called "no outside topics" policy. Means, that for GOG for example, any topics outside of GOG and its profile are prohibited ("no" word).

Examples:
Game "123" news - ok
Will GOG publish/remove game "456" - ok
Do you like/dislike GOG, and what would you change - ok
Spam fighting - ok
Games exchange - ok


Politics - not ok
Sexual preferences - not ok
Trying to break forum software - not ok
Favorite Ice cream - not ok

I don't like it.

There's already hardly any regular members here, limiting topics will just make this place even more dead.

We should be encouraging people to post and making this place fun, not imposing rules and topics.

No talking about ice cream?

Yeah, you can take that idea and shove it up your Rocky Road. :D