There are 196 pages in the thread, if you don't pay attention to that as a company/community staffer then that's half the problem right there :P

Though I would say sniping at each other does little! if you want to inform for change then the info has to be there, in-fighting doesn't lead to anything!

i think you have misunderstood me. i will make myself clear.

since announcing my intent when i did, last year, i have not bought a SINGLE game on the gog platform.

i intend to carry this behaviour forward.

[i'm not sure how i can make this more clear, but if you feel my statement is ambiguous in some way, please feel free to reply, here.]
oh. i'm aware.

but we will learn - indirectly - what the long term plan is, and that will be gog's "statement" on the matter. [ie: either hitman will return to the store at some point and it will be fixed [an INCREDIBLY unlikely scenario, by the by. io don't seem to be interested in "fixing" their own nonsense], or some other debacle will happen in the meanwhile, and that will basically confirm my stance.]

this is SUCH weird logic.

i'll try go through it a bit at a time, so that you can disentangle yourself from your snarled argument and hopefully you see sense [that seems doubtful given your replies here, buuuuut, you never know.]

let's start with the word boycott:

if you want to be ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL about the word, there's two definitions that come up when google searching.

the one is much as you posited it: a full scale withdrawal from commercial/social relations with some other entity.

the other is a little more nuanced in that it is a "punitive ban." that can mean basically anything. if you read the first post in this thread, the op suggests people boycott "to whatever degree they're comfortable with" [some of this emphasis is mine.]

in this sense - the "punitive ban" sense, it seems fine to me if people go AS FAR AS THEY'RE COMFORTABLE with a boycott. that could mean reduced spending. it could mean not telling their friends about gog. it could mean posting in these forums about why they're not spending money on gog games, etc.

so: the op is not being unreasonable.
you, on the other hand, are being QUITE unreasonable [from the few replies i've read of yours, so far.]

---

with regards to that venn diagram - of the op's post and people being lumped in suddenly participating in a "faux boycott" - this makes no/little sense. especially in light of the fact that the op went /out of their way/ to talk about folks doing "what feels comfortable" in their first post.

---

for what it's worth, i don't /expect/ you to see sense in what i've written here, but i kind of hope you do. it - as others have pointed out, here - DOES NOT do for us to be sniping at one another.

I almost spit out my drink at "(FALSE ALARM!)".

i think you have misunderstood me. i will make myself clear.

you are subscribed to this thread created by the op, time4tea, where he stated that he still buys gog games. therefore, since you are in support of his hypocrisy, you are also a hypocrite. if you don't want to be a hypocrite, then revoke your support, and start a new thread dedicated to a true boycott instead of this faux one.

[i'm not sure how i can make this more clear, but if you feel my statement is ambiguous in some way, please feel free to reply, here.]
To boycott something is to engage in an action. That is a verb. The first definition is a verb. The second "punitive ban" is a noun. Therefore, the first one is the correct definition. /case

The rest is just you twisting the words to justify, thus being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

ah. very good.

you have decided to argue in bad faith.

somehow, i'm not even surprised.

good luck to you, i guess?

In the end 'they' don't control what others do so it's a moot point in it's entire concept.
Boycott/ don't boycott/ partial boycott; who here even thinks they have the 'authority' to dictate what another member does.
All it is, is an attempt at exclusion from a social group when you boil it right down.
Whelp, the group don't care.

Loose translation, "I am incapable of defending my argument when confronted with logic and definitions, so I will claim that my opponent is arguing in 'bad faith' as a last ditch effort to save face." Your intentions are transparent.

this is the last time i'm replying to you.

i spelt out - fairly clearly - how i felt your argument didn't make logical sense.

you didn't offer proper retorts.

from that perspective, "arguing" with you is in bad faith. there's simply no "argument" to be had.

either way, as i've said. good luck to you. you're clearly on a crusade. enjoy it, i suppose.

I offered a retort. You went into your childish "arguing in bad faith" attack against me because you couldn't defend your stance against logic and actual definitions. Anyways, I'll keep on pointing out your hypocrisy as I do with the OP and the rest of the faux boycotters.

Krogan32: In that case go make a thread/topic against boycotters. Why not? But you admitted that you are here to just oppose to the all people, regardless of the facts that some specific users shared, and you came to ruin the thread and that is the whole thing you are about the whole time. You even went as far as to follow people from this thread to others and attack them there and admitting it has a connection in the first interaction with them I saw. Even there you said "faux boycotters". At some point you turned into a complete spam...
People came to group and share information here more than to argue... Argue ok - I am all fine with it, but this went to a complete attack already some time ago.

Even this last message of yours has "hypocrisy" in it and ends with "faux boycotters"... you really need some withdrawal. :D
You can argue 'just so much' with someone using "two words" and able of only one point of view.

If you would be a bot, your code would be very short...

I understand that "faux" or "hypocrisy" may be new and interesting words to you, but as you will go through the life and grow, you will learn much more words that sounds fancy and clever, don't sweat it.
If you will get so busy with one, you will have a less time to discover all the other. And also you will miss out giving some time to "meaning". You know, it's also an important part of communication. Words alone are not everything. They may be vague without that. So it's better to you know.. chill a bit sometimes? In a way, I guess? Just a friendly advice. :)

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_video_games_digital_distributors/page1

I do sometimes wonder if CDP will decide it'd be in their best interest to just shut down GOG and focus on gamedev only. Such a little amount of money for the headaches.

Been awhile since I've seen trolls this well-fed.

Anyway, I'm not boycotting Steam because unlike GOG, it's customer service is adequate to my needs, and it doesn't pretend that it isn't a giant bumhole.

So there ya go, GOG: stop pretending you're not a giant bumhole, and fix your customer service -- or don't.

Linko64: "There are 196 pages in the thread,..."
Me: That depends on your resolution. :D For some it's way more. :D

EDIT: Actually.. if I log in it's 79 (separated/raising by 10 - ?), if I am not logged in it's 262 (separated/raising by 50 - ?). Without changing any settings. :D One of the "mysteries of the forum" for me... :D trying to wrap my head around... :D
Like.. literally.. now. Never tried before to think around it a bit...
Hmm.. also my post number is 3932...

.. This will take a while... :D