Sigh.
Gender and same-sex attraction are not redundant. I don't want anyone insulted on the basis of whom they choose to screw with respect to their own gender (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual), but I also don't want anyone insulted on the basis of their gender alone (woman, man, neither, two-spirit, kathoey, etc), and I don't want anyone insulted on the basis of their screwing-consenting-adults preferences alone.

Gender Identity xor Partner's Gender Identity = Sexual Orientation
alternately
Gender Identity xor Sexual Orientation = Partner's Gender Identity

Three variables. To have all of them as protected classes, you need to explicitly protect at least two. And no, the list doesn't grow to 50 pages if every single gender is included because there's no need and in fact inadvisable to actually list them all (gender identity is a function of culture and you're going to miss a few).
For the record, a rule prohibiting race-based insults doesn't need a list of protected Pantone skin colors either.

People already do that in giveaway threads (for example) and in a small (active) community would that really be a problem? Besides, theres a limit to how much rep 1 person can get each day (5 or 6, can't remember) so what's the point of the + rep after it reached the daily max? It has been proven that the rep is abused both ways, not to say that i've seen people use it to manipulate opinions...

I know what you mean, about saying Thank you.
But you do know how quickly that can be forgotten?

I think it might help to heal/forget about the grudges on the long term. In before people would have been able to just go on a +/- rampage without consequences. But this time? Never underestimate the social pressure. This time everyone could judge. Judging also means using logic. A rampage it does not.

Not saying it is good and we must have it, but my first impression. And we shall not forget, we reap what we sow.
So further brainstorming/comments needed? for sure ;)

Yes, absolutely. We can just steamroll over people's tightly ingrained cultural sensibilities in the name of open exchange, and everyone will have to accept it.
Why do you feel that way? Are some people capable of stating opinions that are so extreme and outlandish that they shouldn't be allowed to state them at all? What I'm suggesting is that problematic people are allowed to post an explanation like anyone else.

Now, I'll freely admit that I don't expect to be convinced by an internet post to becoming sexually aroused by goats, or that EA and Microsoft are the greatest publishers in the world. But I'd rather people state their views in public than to pre-emptively stop people from making utter and complete fools of themselves, so that they might one day learn to argue for something in a way that doesn't shame them, their parents, their educational system, and their ancestors back a few thousand years or so.

"Why public?". It's a good question. Isn't this "naming and shaming", or things like a public neck-iron stand or a crucifixion or something like that? Etc., etc.

The answer to that is no, this is a phony little state that doesn't physically exist, where all interaction goes past the internet. As long as you don't post personal information or choose to divulge things you shouldn't - none of this is ever going to affect your daily life (unless you let it).

The responsibility a member on the forums therefore is to not injure themselves by being too careless, or by letting themselves be harmed by the dangerous opinions of others.

So the reason why moderating actions must only be done in public is that they must be possible to justify. And where removing information only can happen in the rare case where you might want to protect a member from posting their home address or something like that.

Outside of this, truly nothing you can do in cyberspace is going to harm anyone.

In fact, a much bigger problem with internet communities is that your average asshole moderator runs around nurturing their little uniform fan-group that can be relied on to always like the same things, and happily argue until they agree, over and over again. Where anyone who then disagrees with anything this group says is a disturbance to the mood on the forum.

What that really means is that the law on these boards have decided that arguing in any way, or questioning anything whatsoever, is not "conductive" for a good debate. Which, as we all know, exclusively happens between two individuals who agree on everything.

So back to the issue - why make moderator actions public? It's because moderator actions are done on the behalf of the member, to help them participate in the community. The moderator has power only because they can help out. This might sound idealistic - but we know on beforehand, that nothing you can do on this forum, no rule you can break, actually causes someone direct physical harm (with the exclusion of people who feel it physically when their ego is bruised). So yes, we can be that idealistic. If the moderators are not too fond of the exclusive status, there's no reason - whatsoever - to have any moderator action done in private.

Although I do of course agree that the punishment of taking some issues out in public and airing them is a much more insidious punishment than a silent ban.

"Everything's fine, move along". There - wasn't that hard. All is well.

Starmaker, you could have saved this sigh for yourself, uncalled for on all terms, IMHO!
As I made it clear >I< fail to see what you claim, the example you gave me was a slur/harassment.

And no you already say it again: INSULT which I think is already covered. Like the most common ones out of memory: NAZI, SJW and whatever.

Do I make a claim that we need to include NAZI as a separate topic?
I really do not get your point. I fail to understand your logic, as simple as this. Give me a good example or describe it in a way were you do not use other already covered words ;)
Maybe I see it under a bigger spectrum?

As we say here in Germany Haeh?
WTF?
How did you get to THIS impression? I am really stumped. Hence no further comment. The rest I will comment on, but I suggest to you to re-read or post why you think of it in this way of my comments. ;)
Unless just a misunderstanding.

EDIT: Not sure if you read over the part in bold and see who I was talking about.

I'll just say this...the hate speech discussion is a black hole.

A lot of the "special snowflakes", some who have shown in this thread, are equally as responsible for the problem. When entire groups of people are dismissed as "xenophobic" or "racist" just because these people disagree, they are just as much of the problem and thus should equally be banned.

I believe some light moderation is necessary, but limit it to the serial offenders or those who are going completely off the rails. People like Tauto and others who seem to do nothing positive. All they do is attempt to cause problems. People who spam the forums with repeat posts.

Because for every KingBradley or Regals, you have the dtgreene or Telika or Vain going around calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist, xenophobe, or a conspiracy theorist. If you ban one group, you would have to ban the other. It's a can of worms best left alone.

Mind pulling him off the piles of bodies in the dumpster behind GOG headquarters and telling him that we still love him?
As much as I'm glad that Fables can get a feel for the community from this thread, this is the reason why I'm not sure whether this thread/this particular discussion will get anything done or not.
This community is EXTREMELY divided on what we think should and shouldn't be allowed. Heck, it's a naturally touchy subject. The problem is that we're trying to decide where to set the bar, and there's going to be literally no consensus whatsoever on where that bar should be set. It's impossible, there's too many people here who differ strongly. For every person who asks for use of particular words to be banned, there'll be another person who wants those words to be allowed, and another person entirely who says those words are fine depending on context.
I feel like we're only going to go in circles.

Seriously? Did we reach the point where we need a symbol to reminds us to be grateful? Don't get me wrong, i'm playing the devil advocate here, the usernames display would help me to confirm some theories that i have.

Thing is, can gog actually display those usernames? And who should be able to use the rep system? Can we assure that would be fair considering the amount of lurkers that use the system? The number of alt accounts already created that would have the possibility of using it? Again, it comes down to... you know it by now... the software that gog forum is using and how in the hell they could come up with something complicated without fucking it up.

That's why that i suggest to get rid of it, no loopholes, no hassle, no drama...

Yep

I'm just saying there can be no exceptions. And that because we have this styrofoam-padded playground, we can afford it when people fall over themselves sometimes. Or all the time.

At worst, you could for example formalize the user-side filter on user-names, if you feel like you never want to read a post again where the author field says "nipsen", and so on.

See, here's the problem we get here on this forum. Very few people have had a problem with literally no moderation at all, for a long time. And with no moderation, this forum has still been less toxic than literally every other games-forum there is.

And the only point when someone insists that there should be moderation - in weird, unspecific ways - is when a group argues themselves into believing that why, yes, we should be able to dictate what other people should be allowed to do - because we know better.

Do you, really? We can all agree that threatening with physical harm is pretty bad. But beyond that - do you really feel that it's necessary or justified to "guide" the community this way? To make an "important decision", out of the eyes of the public, for their own good? That there's an exception involved here when it comes to a specific member with a curious form of tourettes that have them shout out ridiculous political correctness at the most random times - that is so severe it must be shielded from the public?

Like I said - no such scenario exists on an internet forum. You can't come up with one. But if you give a moderator power to make secret decisions like this - they will still find a situation this is thought to be necessary.

Meanwhile, we also don't get any benefits from steering people around. It's not going to attract people to the forum, because they know the kids are steered around by the ears. Unless we are trying to make serious headway in mobilizing the evening jacket elderly gentleman crowd who are now sick and tired of reading about all those uncomfortable things the paper insists that must exist out there somewhere - there's no way to motivate people to join with that kind of attitude.

You might say - but we don't want people who are extremely sensitive to leave. There are children here, who may not even know what google is. And they will be irreparably harmed when someone challenges their views with unchristian knowledge. Or something.

The truth is that we're missing out on the vast majority of possible posters in the first place by having a "structured little society". It's not going to attract people we really might be interested in reading something from.

Just to be slightly serious for a moment - these online communities are so marginal and so stuck up their own bum it's just comical. How many people run around here, for example? Is it like 0.1% of the active userbase on gog? Maybe 1% of the amount of people who have an account and added something to the wishlist.

And it's still beyond people to say: "you know what - we should be able to figure out something between ourselves here that works out for all of us. Rather than cry and ask for an authority to come and rescue us".

But you always have someone, in any society, that will push through the idea that stupid people need to be guided - or else they will be distrought and the economy will go down the drain or something. It never fails. Even in virtual little communities like this where you have no stakes whatsoever.

Don't you find that curious?

I do kind of agree if they just make foolish comments. But as some have mentioned before, breaking the law? Using your logic, it is ok if I were to brake into your house?
Did I also not stress OFTEN enough: repeated behaviour as a fail safe method?

You do know the old saying:
Fool me once, shame on me, foll me twice ..........;)

I hesitated to snip it, but I did for better reading ease ;)

First off: You did hear about the fact that some persons already committed suicide because of cyber-bulling?

You do assume that people here do not share personal information. How do you know for sure? CAN you know for sure?

You assume that everyone here is doing as you suggested. Why? If you think of those cases were people posted on facebook: we are off into holidays, our address is XYZ and getting their house robbed is already saying enough or?

And WHY do you think all those companies DID implement different kind of features to counter the carelessness/stupidity of those?
I did see people posting insensitive information here on GOG already as well, whenever I saw it, I told them to change this. Which they did, not realising it prior.

Justify: Actually as they are a private business they don't have to justify anything ;)
BUT as a ban would mean that the user breached the EULA, which every user had to sign off, I fail to see your (complete) point. I do admit, call it educational reason, that a comment of a mod, because of this and this you have been banned would be good.
If they think they have been faulted, the legal way would be taking GOG to court (and they would fail). Why companies are obliged by law (EU) to do something about. Mentioned at least once on this thread.

Sorry can't resist ;)
"your average asshole moderator" I want to see you getting out of this one :P

But here the difference already started, fables did ask prior for our feedback/suggestions/comments and so on. The reason for this threat. (see link in my post1)
He wants us to discuss/decide upon our future, so?

You are (no insult intended far from it!!) seeing it a little bit too much through a rose-tinted glass. (German saying, not 100% sure if you understand it)

I don't know if you were just lucky or just decided to ignore it (by reading over or whatever)
Some of us have been attacked on a daily basis by certain users (again check link I gave), including claims of pedophile, Nazi, spammer and similar.

Still thinking the same? Still thinking ANY mod would need to discuss this in public?

And this does not touch the other stuff like incite to violence, incite to murder and others. I extra only used the most offensive ones.

Move along ;) see above ;)

And I don't see public/hidden closed, don't worry ;)

Seriously? sometimes I think yes, with a big hammer ;)
I don't know if you have seen the thread I opened for the sales? I opened it to express my gratitude and make people say thank you for the freebies and so on.
If you are interested I can give you a link ;) And that goes for other persons/actions as well. People do remember the worse faaaaaaaar longer as the good stuff.
Hence big hammer.

No problem, normally it is me doing it ;)
I do see your point and haven't forgotten (Hello quest ;) ).
Did you think about that this might be a good way to actually battle alts? Did this thought came across?
If somebody always gets the same votes from somebody, could this not be used to spot alts?

For your point of WHEN a user shall be able to use it, open for debate:
Suggestion out of thin air ;)
Giving positive votes, day 1 (like somebody joined and asked for help)
downvoting (which I think is the biggest problem and with the bold in mind) only after 3 month? And maybe a rep-requirement?
Before you complain, it is the same.......No don't forget, it would be still visible, right?

And for the software: This would be "only" a minor modification, me thinks, and rather safe. Yes the up/downvoting might get screwed, but isn't this what you are asking for anyway :P
OK, misunderstanding ;)

No exceptions agreed, I did say so myself.
I wait for you to read my other response as they do overlap before making further comments ;)

Yes and no, FYI the law in EU is different for this. Also most of Europe has a different background with the incite to violence.
If the US would have suffered so many bomb attacks as Europe, I think you would have the national Guard 24/7 on the streets.

Just as ONE example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign#Late_1970s_and_the_.22Long_War.22