The conversation began when I suggested that if GOG were to limit forum access for GOG users who have not paid for their games, it could potentially violate laws and regulations.

It's important to note that GOG can only limit access for GOG users, and any other examples (such as random internet users browsing the internet) are not relevant to this particular discussion.

I want to clarify that segregating GOG users into "worthy" and "unworthy" groups would constitute discrimination. It's important to note that this segregation would only apply to GOG users with accounts, as random internet users, bar patrons drinking beer, poor farmers operating trucks in fields, and countless other examples are not relevant given that they don't have a GOG account. No one else has full access to GOG forums except for those with GOG accounts.

If you are referring to potential clients, then it would be appropriate to refer to them as "unpaid customers" or something similar. However, it's important to note that GOG cannot limit the rights of these potential customers because they have not yet created a GOG account and signed the User's Agreement.

In order to stay on track with the main point of discussion, it's best to avoid bringing in irrelevant examples that do not pertain directly to the topic at hand.

I apologize for repeating myself, but sometimes it seems as though my words are being twisted with the purpose of proving me wrong or making me appear foolish.

Cadaver, I'd call folks who only have freebie games in their GOG library as being "Unpaid Customers".

Yes, a game selling company forum should not be open to public, nor does it have to be, by any law.
As for restricting bots, the best way is to cut off the relay servers they come from, no legitimate user or customer will come through a relay server. Do you give your CC information to all those servers TOR passes through ? I wouldn't. Timeouts are another way, say you got a matching IP trying to open another account 5 min. apart from the first, the third account they have to wait 1 Hour. Bots quit on timeouts past 120sec.. So now you have all legitimate users but not all customers, maybe some bots on the inside already. If your purchase weight is 0 then you must wait 15min. to post a second comment and 1hr. to post a 3rd comment, 8hrs. for 4th comment, etc... So the ability for 1 source spam is cut down. Multi-source spam is cut down by scanning the subject and text, kinda like the auto scan of Plagiarism in Universities, if the text is duplicate - cannot post duplicate comments in the same group for 24hrs.. Same for posting the same comment in different groups. It's not a lengthy program and servers can do this effortlessly.

If your purchase weight is 0 then you should only be allowed one post or No posts would be even better:)
Am sure Steam has a minimum $10+ purchase before you are allowed to use their forum.

Me too:

"Paying or non-paying" - Paid implies you want to be paid by GoG.

This gets me thinking:

Where do customers who bought a GOG product elsewhere but activated it on their account stand in all of this? Prime Gaming, Humble Bundle, developer sites, gifts codes from family & friends etc? They hold an item of value in their account, but technically the purchase didn't occur on GOG at all. It was redeemed here. Money was exchanged for a product held on this platform, but GOG itself didn't handle the payment.

I have no stake in this: I've purchased directly from GOG myself. No, I'm asking for those whom haven't purchased directly. Be it for payment processing reasons (GOG's CC alternatives aren't internationally the easiest to obtain), or liquidity reasons (they get game codes gifted occasionally from family because they themselves cannot afford to buy them themselves). Or they got a great deal from those limited other places - they could afford Prime (or again someone else pays for their Prime subscription), or Humble Bundle might have had a good sale (I got the Witcher Adventure Game for a song years ago).

Steam decided long ago they didn't give two sh*ts about customers like this. If you didn't buy it from Steam directly, you were beneath them and therefore only allowed "limited" access to community features (which is basically read-only).

The question is: If GOG goes the way of Steam (only direct purchases count) are you honestly going to be OK with the fact that people out there who have paid-for GOG platformed games won't have posting access to this forum? Truly? Because I'm not OK with that. It's as despicable to me as Steam is for the same reason. I'm hoping if GOG does institute some sort of paywall that they factor this in and allow these customers to post too. They could invariably have spent more on GOG platform products than a forum troll, but are not worthy because they didn't buy it from the site itself, something which used to be free for everyone who holds an account (which is free to obtain).

Just a little food for thought. Be careful how you advocate for a paywall; be specific what you truly want, or GOG might go for "what's easiest".

GOG might not change anything in that regard for years to come.

As for game codes bought elsewhere and activated on a fresh account, I would personally treat it the same way as a purchased game, unless it was a permanently free game. This means treating the user as a paid (or paying) client or customer.

However, I'm not okay with the idea of preventing fresh accounts with no games from posting at all. While this may eliminate 99% of spam bots, it might also alienate potential buyers. I have seen examples where new users asked some questions first, received positive feedback from the GOG community, and then became permanent buyers here.

At the same time, these spam attacks might also alienate not only potential but also current clients. It's a difficult situation, so let's allow GOG to decide since they are good at planning their strategy.

"Paying Client" - Don't try to teach me phony English. That doesn't wash in USA. Go to court with that see what happens.
I've already posted a very viable solution which you chose to ignore.

Fresh accounts only being able to post into the "newbie" forum and/or only able to create 2-3 new threads per day or - if that's not enough - only one new thread every two hours would be a good solution I think. Something like that is very common and in place in many forums. The latter also helps people to find the "reply" or "edit" function, rather than creating multiple threads to the same topic.

I'm not teaching you anything. Not going to visit US courts any time soon (most probably never).

How do you know that I ignored your "viable solution" and not posted in reply to Braggadar?

So seeing how you don't understand English, I can see why you don't understand that I posted a solution for everyone to see or address, not for the one person, meaning it includes YOU. Yes, we all have choices, you can ignore me all you want, but you can't argue with me for pointing that out.

Yes, we all have choices.

1. I don't understand English:

A paid customer refers to someone who has already paid for a product or service, while a paying customer refers to someone who is currently paying for a product or service on an ongoing basis. For example, if you buy a book from a bookstore, you are a paid customer. If you have a subscription to a magazine and continue to pay for it each month, you are a paying customer.

Both "paid customer" and "paying customer" are correct. So which one to use depends on the context and what you want to convey. If you want to emphasize that someone has already paid for something in the past, "paid customer" would be more appropriate. On the other hand, if you want to emphasize that someone is currently paying for something, "paying customer" would be more appropriate.

I can assume that your activity is somehow related to legal work and the mention of a court was quite persuasive. However, we are not in a court, and I would rather seek the help of a linguist in this matter.

2. Viable Solution

I assume that somehow your dissatisfaction with me was related to my decision to avoid discussing your solution.

You have some good ideas for preventing bots and reducing spam on a GOG forum. Restricting access to the forum and implementing timeouts for account creation and posting comments can certainly help. Scanning for duplicate content and limiting posting based on the number of previous comments and their weight can also be very effective. However GOG should consider the potential impact these restrictions may have on legitimate users (or clients, or customers). Finding a balance between preventing spam and allowing legitimate users engagement will be crucial here.

If you require further communication on the topic, please kindly contact the OP directly. I will not be posting here any longer, I regret that I did.

Allow me to quote you so that your post doesn't get lost in the depths of the forum.