Yes. That's exactly what I mean by saying that your statement was ambiguous. It can be interpreted as a demand. It can be interpreted as a possibility. It can be interpreted as something in between. My initial impression was that you agree with the "demanding ban" crowd. Now I think that probably not.

No, I do not. Again, my opinion is that games should be banned based on clear and reasonable criteria. If you are unable to set such criteria then NO games should be banned.

No, it's not obvious, especially with people around demanding games banned based on their personal feelings. Sure, technically it's also a criterion, but it's a subjective criterion that is neither clear nor reasonable. Thus to me, it doesn't count as a criterion.

I see. I and JuWalk saw "ban crowd" and you as hostile too (more hostile than us). Apparently, we made a mistake in your regard.

Ok, my mistake. I wasn't aware that the word "admit" has this connotation. I mean, I knew that it can have this connotation, but I thought that it's not obligatory.

Also, I must add that while you admit/accept that people are individuals and can have different views, many from the "ban crowd" refuse to admit it. As mentioned FrodoBaggins, who thinks that any type of sexual appeal denigrates a woman, and that woman can't feel any other way. Maybe my "admit" negative implication comes from there?

Sorry for not being more clear. Part of the reason why I'm interested in thoughts from both sides of this debate is to help me come to a more concrete idea of where I stand.

So games that meet the criteria should be banned and those that don't shouldn't i.e. some games should be banned.
No games should be banned if no criteria can be set. Can criteria be set? Yes? No? Maybe? Probably? I think probably which leads to "probably some". Since you said "No, I do not" think some games should be banned am I to assume that you think no criteria can be set? This quote made me believe you think criteria can be set:
"In itself, censorship isn't unilaterally a bad thing. Sometimes it's necessary, as you've rightfully pointed out that you can't sell everything everywhere or show any content to everyone. And some things indeed need to be restricted."

Thank you.

Perhaps so.

Yeah. And that's why, as I've said, everyone should put extra effort to be accurate and clear. I've tried to avoid ambiguity with the word "some" and still got into what seems to be a contradiction because I wasn't thorough enough with my explanations.

Actually, my position, in general, is that no games should be banned. Not completely, anyway. People should have the right to access any information. Except if it's someone else's private information, or maybe government top-secret data. If a game contains such private data, I understand why it can be banned. I also understand (though not entirely agree) when a game is banned because it calls for violence or other activity against the law. I mean, if it's illegal to break the law then it probably should be illegal to incite breaking the law.

Those are only two exceptions. Any other game should be available for people, who wish to play it. As long as these people know, what they are doing - here is where my opinion about "restrictions" comes into play. Children shouldn't be allowed access to content that they can't process properly. Just like people with mental problems, who can be influenced by the game and do something that can cause harm to them and others. But if you are a mentally capable adult, and a game has all the warnings about its content attached - it can be assumed that you know what you doing and thus should be allowed to play.

With online (and physical) game stores it's more complicated, as they are private businesses. And it's a very complex topic, what business decisions are their private matter and what decisions are meant to be regulated by the law and government. However, I do think that "clear and reasonable criteria" should be applied here in any case - after all, if a store sets the rules, customers at least should have a right to know what those rules are.

If we talk about GOG specifically, it has a DRM-free principle declared. And it's one of its advertising points. Thus it's reasonable not to accept games with DRM. And it's also reasonable not to accept games that aren't working properly (not finished, for example), as customers buy games to play them (in general).

However, at no point, GOG advertised itself as a kid-friendly, or porn-free, or anime-free store. So, there is no reason for it to ban games due to pornographic or anime content. And people, who don't like porn or anime can simply not buy those games. With an appropriate filter, they wouldn't even know those are there.

So, that's essentially my position on the topic. Do you see any contradictions?

Umm... no. Parading women around almost naked, with their privates bulging out, is degrading. Normally dressed women that are not strutted around, are much more appealing.

Men are not paraded around with their packages bulging out. I don't see any games on GOG with men wearing a fig leaf down below with a huge bulge coming from behind it. So why should women be treated like that?

And since JuWalk is so obsessed with porn, I find it strange that he has no games on that account.

So why don't GOG have games featuring almost-naked men with their privates bulging out?

Because it actually has. If you don't see such games, that doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. There are plenty of games around with male characters wearing revealing outfits. For crying out loud, the whole "Barbarian" archetype in fantasy games is built on muscular men strutting around in nothing but woolen shorts. Tell me this type of clothes has any reason other than visual appeal.

Sure, many of such games, including ones with a focus on sex and erotica, aren't on GOG. But I'm not the one who makes decisions, so don't complain about that to me. I have no objection to bringing those games here.

As I've said before, the whole "sexual objectification" idea is complete BS. And as HappyPunkPotato said, women aren't a hivemind. There are those, who see nothing degrading in wearing revealing outfits and behaving in a sexually provocative manner. And there are those, who think that even working out to have a more appealing figure is demeaning. Your point of view is not universal.

And I think it's strange that you can't tell pixels from people.
If these games humiliate and insult women, why do girls play them too?
Do girls humiliate themselves when they walk around like this in real life?

As some people pointed out before the flame war began, it would be nice to have some advanced options to filter out these games for those of us who would rather not have to deal with it. I get banning based on content can be a slippery-slope, but I think we can all agree that more particular filters would be nice.

Yes. More filters are always good. In general, it would be great if the addition of flexible filters became the standard for all types of stores. So that you can mark in the search not only what you are interested in, but also what exactly needs to be hidden from the search results

I'd be happy to see the people who find these games unfun to get a filter option, similar to sports and other genres that aren't people's cup of tea, but I can't get behind the efforts to remove the content entirely simply because prudes get upset at the sight of a nipple. It's 2022 and we still have people pushing long debunked Social Purity propaganda about sexual content in entertainment being deviant and destructive to social health like it's the 1860's all over again (and no, 1860 was not a typo).