Yup. I understand the function is self moderation when it comes to spam bots, but it's a bit too open to misuse.

sounds hilarious

The spammy down repped threads usually are.

I always click on a thread that's been greyed out (now I know that's what it means) to see what has enraged everyone this time...

Why would you want to report something as spam that clearly isn't spam? Yes, one or two users might have a reason to do this, but... That shouldn't be enough to kill a thread.

That's why I said "more or less confirmed". I just don't believe the "glitch" thing with three (heavily downvoted) disappeared threads.

It's semi-confirmed that spam reports can do this.

It could be worth a test...

No, seriously, DON'T touch this thread! It's a classic!

So we should call more attention to not use the report function unless it is real spam. And while I personally think that everyone should be responsible enough to decide if something is spam, it would be perhaps better if gog could implement something that avoids "legit" threads being deleted automatically, even if they are troll threads ;-)

I would suggest

Nobody allowed to post until they at least buy a game or spend a nominal sum like €5 (to preclude sale games like 1.99 etc.), if someone does buy a "sale" game, maybe allow posting on the actual forums of games you own and not on the general forum.

I understand why threads can be deleted like this (used to be a mod), 'cos they can form a bad impression of the forum for new members. So, there is a certain merit in doing this

If people are unhappy about thread deletions (woulda loved to see P1na's post to see if it was actually as funny as the voices inside said it was j/k), then a thread locking, so it will quickly sink into obscurity, with the activity of this forum, it would disappear quite quickly.

No. Let me repeat that in a louder tone of voice: NO!!!

I can't think of anything more damaging to the relationship between GOG and potential new customers than to require them to pay money up front just to be able to talk to existing customers about the service. If I found a service with that requirement, I'd turn my back on it instantly and never look at it again.

I find it fitting to uprep this post.

I see your point and agree with it to a certain extent, but the main problem we have here is with multi account trolls that abuse that freedom.

There is a Contact Us link that could be used or a noob forum that ONLY mods are allowed to post in, thus stopping any bickering, it was only a suggestion on my part and no offence was meant :)

Thank the gods, heaven forbid I should ever read anything that funny :)))))

Credit where credit is due: I did use part of this joke, so it's not all me; but the punchline was my original creation©

Don't worry, I didn't actually take offense. I just found the idea so horrible that I thought it necessary to express it somewhat, ah, forcefully ;-)

And your approach is too much like the DRM-loving publishers' approach to the problems they perceive: "Someone is abusing the system? Let us punish EVERYONE!"

The existing system is excellent for dealing with spambots. The community is very good at policing the forum. We just need the tool to be better at distinguishing between spambots and genuine users, rather than restricting who can post where.
I was just about to post a link to that video ;-)

I was actually thinking of MP when I said that :)

Who knew that Scotland Yard had a Crack Inspector, sounds like an interesting job :)

Well, how about separate "Spam" and "Troll" buttons?

Seriously, you may understand the word "spam" narrowly as advertisement bot-created threads. But, an awful lot of people use the term more liberally than that. And without any way to differentiate why you are reporting the thread, the spam function gets overused.

On the other hand, I'm not very concerned. I don't really think we're losing anything of lasting value.