qwixter: Now that this is at post 2400 or so, at some point during a "boycott" don't you actually have to leave and move on?
I don't see why. That would make the whole thing rather pointless, no?
qwixter: The information about record sales during the boycott must sting a little bit.
It's no surprise to me, so not really in my case. On the one hand, there is plenty of incentive for them to give an impression of being well off. On the other, it is natural that a boycott like this starts out too small and the company too well-off for it to take immediate effect.
BreOl72: I, on the other hand, am saying, that if you partake in a boycott against a business, it is very obvious that you hope for that business to do poorly - else your boycott is nothing but a waste of time.
Nah. It's sufficient for the situation to be dire enough that their business
would or
could do poorly if they were to continue along the undesired trajectory.
BreOl72: See - the effect you wish to achieve with any boycott against a business, is to hurt that business financially, so that they "learn from their errors" and steer back to the course, that the boycotting group deems the "correct course".
This part is fairly phrased, though.
As a boycotter I have to trust that GOG are not so stupid that they will allow things to go that far. If it does, it's a failure on both ends.