Question: Why was this thread locked? It was on topic & had my blessing/permission, and except for a few rare posts most were being civil and supportive.

I can get closing threads that pick on individual members/groups/etc, but this was a thread in SUPPORT of someone(in this case, me)....are we not allowed to make threads that are nice about people(Like birthday threads/cheering up threads/special occasions/etc)?

I can understand enforcing rules(and that maybe mods are forced to do so in said cases) but this seems a bit much :|

Also: Usually threads get a little blurb, even if using the standard "offtopic" reason for doing so, on why a thread was closed as the final post. At least some vague/blanket reason would've been nice to have, if nothing else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
(Again, I don't being up every thread locking anymore....I have an offsite for that sort of thing.....but why would a nice thread on someone be closed and with no reason given? If it's due to NDAs...can y'all really not give a blanket default reply when closing threads? That seems a bit much for GOG to ask of it's new hires, imo.

Regardless, after this I won't pester anymore on thread lockings....I will keep it to myself for the most part....thanks again for any reply)

To be fair I think many who are privy to company info/secrets/inner workings have to sign such NDAs...even community moderators.

(Someone correct me if i'm wrong, though)

Well, if you think about it, if some were to open up threads to support one user for some reason, and the post devolved into people slamming another user "to support", would it be fair to leave it open? Personally I didn't see anything wrong with it, but it's one of those "what if" situations you have to look at in the long run (thinking in what if's is headache inducing). Someone could always make the complaint that it was allowed for one person, but not another.

If a single person slammed someone, warning that person and deleting that post if need be would likely be just as effective....especially now that we have new mods.

The problem is if we stop to worry what if for everything then no one might want to do or say much at all....problems should only be handled as they occur or(at most) when visible signs of an imminent problem are apparent.

Were such signs apparent here with that thread? Maybe there were and I missed them.

That unknown reason bothers me more....I am more bothered that no reason was given....not even "locked for offtopic" or "locked for violating rule x or y".

(Also what about all the GOOD such threads can do? Like brightening up some people's day?)

But if such is allowed then anyone could make their own such threads...so no one would technically be allowed over another and all would be equal....and if it's not allowed then fine, but they(gog rule makers/etc) should make that clearer in the rules.

Does GOG want us to get used to more regulation and moderation in the forums after what felt ages of absence of any noteworthy community interaction?

Does this by any chance have anything to do with the upcoming release of Cyberpunk? Maybe a new graphics trailer will be released soon and they need to get ready for deflecting negative feedback? ;-P

GLAND, Cool this place hasn't gone like Bethsoft's forum... Yet.

Honestly the issues (outside of technical aspects) with the forum stem 90% from a lack of visible moderation. Silently moderating or appearing simply to punish does nothing but leave a community feeling hollowed and ushered around.

This isn't anything complex, it's a basic element.

Most of the time GOG doesn't care, and it shows. But that's the world we live in.

Personally, I think it had run it's course and closing it was the merciful thing to do. But that's me. lol

May be true, but it's bad moves for a niche company that fosters a great deal of PR from 'for the gamers'. Old school video games go hand in hand with a sense of community that exceeds modern social media. Plus, most of the core users tend to be here rather than social media.

Good points, and nice to see you weigh in on this.

=====================================================

Fair enough, though if that's the case why isn't the forums a proverbial sea of lock symbols yet? ;)

Thanks for the clarification!

because they are extremists causing harm for their cause.

The only avatars that were recently abused were TinyE putting rude things about peoples religions on them.

I agree. The mindset of the people who rise up in the corporate world is appallingly deficient. They are not the best and the brightest. Not at all.

Yes, but who do you expect to want to run companies for profit? Many truly wise people have(or seem to have) higher priorities than money, and so running such businesses likely wouldn't appeal to them or they'd be a bad fit....especially if they had to appease a bunch of share holders.

(Someone correct me if i'm wrong somehow....also note I may use the wrong words to express my thoughts sometimes...I do hope my intent can be figured out, at least, based on what I posted)

I'd like to take a minute to offer some reminders.

1) When posting on the GOG forum, please refrain from bringing in real world politics and controversial real world topics.

Topics related directly to games are generally allowed. Just remember to be civil.

2) Individual moderator decisions are not up for discussion on the forums, whether it be support, neutral commentary, or disagreement. You are allowed to report that a moderation decision occurred (ex. "I had a post moderated because [reason]"), but that is the extent of it.

I've pinged GOG staff about GOG's preferences for disputing community moderator decisions; my current understanding is that you can ask in PM or a support ticket that the incident be reviewed by a GOG staffer. If I hear differently, I'll let you know.

3) This thread has been left open for the time being as a place for people to ask for clarifications on the rules or moderation. While doing so, please keep in mind the above two points (especially point 2).