Indeed it should be closed. It is artificial, and the question is rethorical, he already pointed out that he does not agree with the new CoC, and he does not want to contact with a mod or staff to clear this doubts as he has been advised in various posts. Because it should be the useful and reasonable solution.

The intentionality is just some kind of retaliation "Ey, will the other stores topics be closed as well?"

What is he expecting? A response saying that only the Zoom advertisements will be closed?

He also asked about where the line between advertisement and simple commentaries is. Well, I answered that the line will be interpreted by any mod or staff based in their criteria an rules. But he ignored it. It is not interesting enough for him.
His intentionality is other.

Indeed, pointless thread, artificial and rethorical. Anyways if it is closed we'll see him whinning about this censorship. I an sure.

Yep, close this thread please.

It is additional proof of sabotage, by the same perpetrators, as now this thread has just turned into a continuation of the locked Zoom Platform thread.

Not it hasn't, people have given the person answers on how they should proceed, the topic creator chooses to ignore and continue to complain like they are being victimized, posters again repeat what they can do. original poster escalates and again ignores options presented..... by doing this they are breaking the rules of the forum as this is a situation that should be resolved privately with GOG staff - again something many have pointed out - but they continue to keep it a public issue when it is not.

So people are just calling out the poster now, frankly T4T is just sabotaging themselves as they are merely refusing to accept the answers being provided and continues to create drama and act like a victim when they are the ones escalating the issue.

For sure. What T4T (and many others like him) doesn't want to accept, is that GOG as a private company (spare me with "CDPR/GOG is a public company!!"- objection) can make up any rules (within a legal frame, ofc.) to which their customers have to abide to, if they want to remain on GOG's forums, and partake in (GOG related) chats there.

At the same time (and this is what really angers T4T and others like him) - is GOG totally free in their decision to alter, bend, discard and re-write, any of these rules at any point.

GOG is free to interpret and apply any rule inside their forum in whatever way they want - irregardless of whether their customers agree or not.

GOG is also not legally bound to explain themselves at any time or in any form.

GOG can even apply rules to users which are not applied to GOG and GOG staffers themselves.

GOG's forum rules are not laws - which would have to apply to everyone here equally.
They are just rules for the visitors. Not for the employees.

Because there's a huge difference between a customer of a company, and an employee/the owner of said company.
Try to use the employee's changing rooms in any Walmart or CostCo, without being employed there.

Start a "sit-in" in the foyer of any Walmart and/or CostCo, scream threats at other customers, and/or destroy wares...but don't complain if the managment calls the cops on you to remove you from their premises, and also (permanently) bans you from their premises.

Your rights end where they clash with the rights of others. Or the rules of others.

See it this way: if you want to come into my house, you will have to follow some rules - which I will not necessarily apply to myself.
My house - my rules.
You don't like my rules? Then leave my house.

What now.

People commonly call it "carrot and stick", it's routinely applied by individuals, institutions, trainers, heck even people on their own selves. It's gratification if the expected thing is done (good boy goood boy) and punishment when the expected thing isn't done (bad boy baaaad boy). It's pretty standard even when applied on one entity.

And here it's even less contradictory, as its on separate entities. Pressure on one (bad boy, baaad boy), support on the other (good boy, goood boy). I really don't see how that confuses you. Societies fine some people and give medals to others, depending on their respective attitude to one norm, and it's not perceived as a contradiction.

And it has nothing to do with the validity of the opinion or norm. It's just about an explanation of internal coherence that doesn't require some conspiracy interpretation ("ahaa, it's all on purpose, because he's an agent of").

But hey, whatever, opt for the interpretation that you find most convenient.

I'm sure it will be closed. But not for the reason you wrote, but for being a violation of the CoC (no public discussion about moderation). The most likely outcome will be a ban for Time4Tea (which would be well deserved) and the locking or deletion of the thread.

I was mostly calling out Zoom for accusing GOG of undercutting them, the EA issue and lying about having the games before anyone. When Gamersgate was selling the games years before them.

That is hilarious because when Alekhine's Gun was released here Zoom Undercut GOG, plus they never announced it as a sale so Zoomer's were coming here claiming GOG was overcharging for the game. It wasn't until days later when they were called out that they announced it as a sale.

I forgot about the Alekhine's Gun stunt from ZOOM. Guess that makes them little hypocritical.

I'm lost at why ZOOM gets so upset about GOG selling games they have as well. It's not like ZOOM made or owns the games. Steam gets 90% of games before GOG, and I never see steam cry about it. As I said, it comes off as childish, like kids fighting over what game their favorite consoles have on it.

When a person has vested interest in one party, acting detrimental toward a competing party quite literally falls into the zone of illegality. He doesn't merely support them, he is a moderator on their official communication and support channel. While he isn't an employee, he is a representative or agent. To activly try to harm a competitor's business while representing another and claiming to be "just another community member here" is disingenuous at best, and illegally anti-competitive at worst.

That is one interpretation that you give. "He wishes to sink GOG for the benefit of the shop he's involved with." I offer you a different interpretation. "He wishes GOG to up its DRM-free standards, all while investing himself in a shop that meets these DRM-free standards".

The difference being, according to you his "victory condition" would be GOG to go bankrupt, and according to me his "victory condition" would be GOG to follow the same standards that he sees in that other shop.

These are two possibilities. I consider the second one much more realistic. And I think you ditch it because the first one feels more clear-cut and rhetorically convenient to you.

I don't give a damn about the stakes (I don't participate in the boycott even though I find most of its demands to be quite sound, and I have no curiosity in checking out that other shop), but frankly, I don't find the accusations in this thread intellectually very honest. We can't exclude ulterior motives, but considering them proven based on anti-corruption principles imported from much more serious, high-stake contexts in, in my opinion, a playful but ridiculously self-serious disregard for how humans operate in real everyday life, especially when it comes to hobbies.

Right, so the guy is affiliated with a competing company, he's camped on this company's infrastructure, interacting with this company's community under the pretext of a deep concern for this company's state of affairs while all along he overtly goes about diverting business from this company to the company he's affiliated with. But according to you his motivations are not to be questioned because "no, really, his heart is pure" and, what was it, you've eaten a carrot and hit yourself over the head with a stick ?

Honest folk re-evaluate their behavior at the mere semblance of impropriety, never you mind the countless instances of actual improper behavior plastered all over this forum.

I know we're in a pop culture forum, and in a pop culture forum, the most comic-bookey interpretation is the most popular. So yes, you can assume he's a scheming mustache-twirling villain if it makes you feel great about it.

What I'm saying is that someone who simply finds one principle important and sees, among two shops, one matching it and the other not matching it, could behave this exact way. Pressuring one shop to match it, and getting involved with the shop that matches it.

You truly believe that, if GOG suddenly accepted the boycott's thread's conditions, T4T would go "darn, my cunning plan has failed, I must find something else to sink gog wth" ? Well, I believe he'd see it as good news and simply be happy with GOG.

What do you think about the following text behind the link?
https://answers.ea.com/t5/EA-General-Questions/Please-Don-t-De-list-EA-Games-from-Zoom-Platform/td-p/11784296

It was written by Time4Tea aka Strobulator. And this is not an assumption. This is a fact.