If I didn't believe what I was saying, then why would I say it? Popularity? It's not popular to be anti-piracy online. I do pick and choose where I engage and try to convince others piracy isn't helpful, but pretty much every time I read someone talking about them downloading pirated content I do find it disgusting.

Now, how exactly is this virtue signaling I ask?

And here I was thinking that virtue signaling means signaling your virtue.

Looking good in front of those users with similar (real or actual) beliefs, looking good to those of local authority(in this case, gog staff), a smug sense of self satisfaction, etc. Take yer pick.

I know, right? Sometimes with all the complex maneuvers I find it all a wee bit confusing to follow, but I try my best.

This thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ5okDEvw1Q

LOL.

People who constantly use buzzwords like "virtue signaling" have nothing to say. It's moot.

Then I could similarly accuse anyone of supporting piracy in this thread to be vice signalling. The truth of the matter is that the intention/motive behind making statements online is only known to the person making it. Thusly, virtue signalling as a derogatory label is woefully inaccurate and massively overused.

Motive is everything in this context. If (and I hate using this extreme example) the Pope publicly denounces a violent conflict and encourages both parties to calm down and come to the bargaining table is this virtue signaling? That all depends on whether or not the Pope believes in what he said and why he said it. If his motives are pure then he's not.

There's a danger in attempting to shut the conversation down by labelling any discussion of morality on the pro-side as "just virtue signaling". If someone was to start using vice signalling to indicate those signaling support of the other point of view, well, around and around we go and nothing changes. Want to kill off discussion? Keep using that catch-phrase for every perceived expression of virtuous behavior.

Because "piracy" isn't necessarily unethical, and the companies that decry it are. There is no loss with respect to DL's that aren't purchased. With physical media, on the other hand, there is a tangible loss resulting from theft.

Why be disgusted by behavior that is decried by those who have no ethical superiority? Are you a "good" person because you don't download content you haven't paid for?

The better question is. Why are you here then?

Just go to your next torrent tracker and fight the evil corporations there while you are singing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ju_10NkGY

A better example, IMO, would be people going outside to bang a pot in support of frontline healthcare workers.

As for the Pope, I believe it comes down to whether or not he's virtuous and truly cares about humanity.

Bingo....good question right there.
Aside: are the walls of tepid text ITT making you see spots before your eyes as well, or is it just me?

I would ask the same re: yourself, given your posting record ;)
(p.s. MrKrabs says Hi)

Precisely. Not that I want to compare myself with him, but anyone who believes in what they say and aren't saying it with the (at least the primary) intention of making themselves look better in doing so isn't engaging in "signaling".
Because I consider it theft, which is a pattern of behaviour I personally don't like to have done to myself nor others. Because I consider it rather unfair that others in life get to take what they want without paying while others struggle and yet obey the rules and pay for the same product. I don't really care for big businesses per se, but I recognise businesses are made up of people and they like everyone else deserve to be paid for the work they do. A lost sale is potential money which could have built the business, hiring more staff etc, and this is why I don't like that one act of downloading pirated content.

I'd be lying if I said that the theft part was more important to me than the fairness bit. It severely pisses me off when someone gets away with illegitimately obtaining what I had to pay for.

I've expressed a view I believe in with the motive of trying to affect change in others - to convince others it's not a good idea. In doing so I provided some reasoning behind it. That's not me "virtue signaling". That's me expressing an opinion and engaging in discussion hoping to convince others of the merit of not supporting piracy. Like others have been trying to do on the opposing side of the argument.

Finally we come to the true heart and crux of the matter re: your thoughts on the subject. Imho you should've just said something like this to begin with, and skipped the moralizing sounding tone/wording in some of your earlier posts ITT.

(aside: I find it better to try to avoid being jealous of others doing something my
own morals 'prevent' me from doing. I find that often makes life a whole lot easier)

I am fascinated how this thread evolved. The OP created it because there were several users who pirated GOG games and wanted to get help support here. I've visited one of those websites and they are actually promoting the GOG website there to get help. They put a direct link to GOG support there, i.e. this link https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/categories/201400969?product=gog

Then you read a lengthy discussion in this thread where some people say: Piracy? It's OK. Evil corporations. Blah blah blah. Virtue signaling. Blah blah blah. Moralism. Blah blah blah.

It is all nonsense.

The reality is that piracy is damaging this very website. Some developers don't want to create and release a DRM-free version of their games here on GOG because of piracy. Every single lost sale hurts this website.

Assuming he really does care about humanity, and popes don't have a good track record in that dep't.

I purchase digital games in spite of believing that corporate ethics are in the gutter. Fewer and fewer because games are crap these days, and the TOS's are completely one-sided. How others behave is a matter of personal choice. Our "leaders" line their pockets and all the pissants can do is argue about piracy and the like, which is precisely why we are pissants.

Don't see why it matters, because the repackers will crack and release it with or without the GoG installers. It looks like some of the 'cracks' is just replacing the steam dll to say it's registered when it checks, and nothing else. Others include removing/disabling DRM. I'd gotten the Skyrim one LOOOOONG before Skyrim was released here. (Again note i mostly did that to remove the client requirement, and i have the physical disc)

So in the end it doesn't matter; Except there's some people who will only buy DRM free and some who don't care. Though with how updates are lagged and treated seemingly like dirt on here, it's more likely for steam versions to get put up than GoG ones.

Devs need to see their games like birds, and once released from their hands they will sometimes fly away rather than being sold in a cage. And there's nothing you can do about it.

No, it's because offline games mean no telemetry, which means lost revenue, and because GOG sales are pennies in a bucket.