He'll take the job:

I would play that game.

I knew we should never have trusted Judas.

Have you seen him? He's a taffer, a sneaky shady person.

I guess the GOG issued community moderators were all totally neutral.

...

...

Okay, enough of the laughing folks, I have milk coming out of my nose.

The "neutrality" of forum moderators in the culture wars almost always comes down to twosidesing issues that don't have two sides, otherwise known as dishonesty. Rules and decisions based on those rules are never neutral, never objective, and always pertains to an individual case with individual considerations. Better to have moderators who are painfully aware of moderation 101 than people who erroneously consider themselves "neutral".

I've been in a frankly excellent team of 11 moderators chosen from the community on another forum starting in 2010 (sadly dissolved two to three years later). The position is awkward, because your loyalty is to the community while (a) you get your assignment and rules from the company (the actions of which you may not unconditionally support) and (b) the community may not strictly speaking still perceive you as part of the community once you assume that position. So that (unpaid) job, it's much less the power over deciding what is good and what is evil. It comes down to an ambassador position where you don't belong to either party. That can be really messy, and it can be thoroughly unsatisfying. In a forum with this much division among the community to boot, the position of community moderator is a nightmare full stop.

TL;DR: I totally agree with your plea not to have voluntary community mods on this forum, but for entirely different reasons. They can't throw that fucking, psychologically straining chore on folks and then not pay the big bucks for it. :|

Beer and Hookers...

Hang on what are we talking about?

Another philosopher. Have I ever told you how much I find you nice and pleasant?

Btw, it was indeed a poor choice of word on my part. GOG appointed moderators must do what they have been hired for, and since GOG owns the place it can be as biased as it wants. These are not public forums, so the host dictates the rules as they please.
What I meant is that appointed community members .paid or unpaid- usually have their own criteria to choose what is good or bad and their group of friendhips and "enemies", they don't follow their employer's rules (which, reasonable or not, at least makes them objective) as it is with GOG staff. Just look at some Steam forums to get the idea, with some relatively calm places and others ruled by self-appointed colonels, all with valve caring nothing, as always.
Is it clear now? Still so absurd funny? Please let me know if something is still wrong, I can use ike-like drawings to be clearer so my words won't be twisted and can be understood by anyone.

A friendly warning: avoid trying to ridicule others again. You already have your reputation here, so I really am not offended and anyone following the forum knows how to take your words, but you might taint the view of potential newcomers.

And that doesn't happen now?

You interpreted a halfway sarcastic reply to an argument you yourself assess as "a poor choice of words" as a personal insult and, as a reaction, doled out actual personal insults disguised with a monomolecular veil of condescending armchair psychology. Maybe re-assessing the original communicative situation would have been in order? Maybe not overreacting would have been an option?

If you're looking for actually abrasive community members, please do open your eyes and look around, it's not me. If you felt insulted by my last post, I apologize, because yes of course it isn't my habit to personally insult anyone over such not even mildly controversial stuff.

It was indeed 'absurdly funny' to think that community moderators paid by GOG would be "neutral", but that was my idea that I ridiculed, not yours. I may not have expected that you laugh with me, but I definitely didn't expect your reaction to be this negative. And if you're being honest, you're well aware that's not the reason for the downvotes I'm getting everywhere regardless of the content of my posts, and if you're being equally honest, you probably strongly dislike particularly the users that routinely downvote my posts.

We've just been over yet another 40+ page thread in which people really, really wanted to feel personally insulted over nothing, and they continued to feel personally insulted when people actually engaged with the bland parrotting of falsehoods that they erroneously thought of and still think of as "arguments". If I have been abrasive in there, and you've gotten the impression of me there, I am sorry, but I will be as rhetorically clobbering, deeply sarcastic and condescending again should another pile of this neanderthal hogwash surface.

Now on to treat your clarified arguments with the respect they would have deserved if clad in just slightly different words.

I'd object to "objective", but for the sake of the argument, yes: If not organized among many peers, if alone, and left more or less alone in this endeavour, the first volunteer community moderator would be his or her own judge, jury and executioner. They would follow GOG's ideas of community moderation less and make up their own mo[d]rality more than a paid employee of the company.

Which would of course be an even stronger argument for what we both would deem inappropriate anyway – plainly, it would not even be to GOG's benefit to assign voluntary community moderators. But I guess they're VERY well aware. There's a reason they never even tried.

I can confirm,it happens.

Basically, the perfect description for your posts.
And no, you are not abrasive at all. Especially not in threads concerning politics or, well... basically anything that is not strictly gaming. No, not even gaming, too broad; some specific videogames that have no politically "incorrect" parts inside. You mention your "unjust" downrepping, but I wonder if rather than with the content of the posts (who are always controversial to say the least, but still you have the right to voice your opinion like anyone else, no downvotes from me due to that) it has more to do with you entering a thread like an equivalent of door bashing and shotgun triggering SWAT officer. You are free to have your opinion, again, but not to expose it in a way I'd define almost "tyrannical", like everything else was garbage. You attack nobody directly, but you are usually so violent that not feeling attacked is basically impossible.

I warned you, choose your words carefully. You are the one insulting here.
Also, the usual excuse for true "abrasive" commenters is the same one used here: be offensive, take a harsh reply then wordcrafting your way out by letting the reply seem the origin of the attack. Passive aggressive tactics, again, like I recently said to another user.
I don't fall for cheap rethoric tricks.

That said, knowing your histyory I acknowledge I will never have the last word, so I'll stop here.

I was, and still am, the "peep" who said that I would publish the proof of concept code, which can automate downvoting and deleting (via spam reports) if the bug wasn't fixed in 3 months. This is a fairly standard practice.

You'll be interested to know that it wasn't fixed, and that I did publish it right on this forum over a year ago (that post is still up). Curiously enough, nobody cared. Neither GOG — because this bug doesn't affect the bottom line, nor the scaaaary forum troll, whom you all were deathly afraid of getting his hands on this info.

This is to say that to this day, if someone doesn't like you, they are free to go and delete all your posts. I haven't been doing it because I'm "lawful neutral" so to speak. Our various "chaotics" haven't been doing it because they are lazy and not technically inclined. Still, nobody can guarantee that tomorrow someone won't show up who is both willing and able.

That only holds water with respect to web sites that are "fairly standard", and GOG is distinctly "unstandard", so maybe you ought to rethink that.