Isn't using multiple accounts to circumvent bans itself considered a banning offense in many forums? Especially if you use your sockpuppet to continue ranting about the thing you got banned for in the first place.

We can but hope...

Talk to me Goose.

Protip: next time, say "brave and stunning". Same shit, plus extra accusations of sexual impropriety (which, for male feminists, is a given). Bonus points if you can work "an important conversation" in there somehow.

Nobody unironically identifyies as an SJW. It's commonly used to label and dehumanize people with views that aren't in line with alt-right bullshit. In worst case scenarios, this kind of rethoric is associated with hate crimes, mass shootings, etc.

GoGs future customer base as they are overly relying on those kind of indie games from those kind of people which is a concern.

Some people just love to be low rated...

cool story, bro

The term isn't hate speech (that's just some really bad wording which) but you could argue that it is being posted in a political sense, which would have made more sense for a ban reason. Chalk it down to a lack of experience from the mod rather than anything sinister

This illustration has been posted countless times before, and so long as we have people making posts like this, it will continue to be posted.

"Hate speech" is one of those phrases I hope goes out of fashion soon. The mods for this forum do make a lot of questionable decisions and hate speech is something that changes definition every two days in 2019.

Official hate speech identifiers take offense at your hate speech towards hate speech. Please cease and desist or legal action may be enjoined.

I dont see anything which I would consider 'hate speech' in the attached image.

I dont want to see this kind of random/arbitrary or misleading moderation on GOG.

Edit: And I dont think a mere 'inappropriate' is better than 'hate speech'. If they ban somebody they should make it properly clear why and not just "this post is inappropriate because I say so".

GOG's forum, GOG's rules.

Whats the point of your post?

(I give feedback to GOG here.)

technically as the term is in fact social justice warrior; it's kind of the opposite of hate speech.
It's just that the term is used derogatively for people nazifying (as to take the internets meaning of shutting down arguments by relating them to hitler noi matter how obscurely referenced) issues that in most cases already have legal stances not communal moral ones; where the law is meant to reflect community values, but doesn't because laws are regionally soveriegn.
An Australian being butthurt over American gun laws would be an example; whereby the Australian would try to impose his values on the foriegn national socially due to him having no footage legally while still considering themselves part of the American community by the fact that there is no nationality online (which actually isn't true; in fact even in space you can retain your nationality in respect to law which is amusing to say the least).

Hate speech however is abusive or threatening speech demean or brutalize others for alleged membership in a social group.
So even though calling someone an SJW being a negative term is derogative and the use here is essentially libel; is an SJW a social group? or are they just individuals of other social groups being labelled externally.
Being an SJW is not being a feminist for example, whereas being a feminist can be considered a social group because of it's homogeniety.
Being lumped together as under the term 'black sheep' doesn't make a social group, ergo it cannot be construed to actually be hatespeech even if it is meant derogatively.
If the terms SJW is being used to infur individuals within groups are taking moralistic actions 'above the law' it's legitimate criticism if an example can be set.
In such a case you can construe that censorship is an issue, moreso because a more social recourse is not presented as being taken which of course would not be reflected in a screen shot taken at the time and as such shows no context.
Has the defendant recieved warning for comment? I'm inclined to think they have and should of presented their grievance in a less general way.
As anouther has said it's GOG's forum and unless they are based in a country with free speech protections covering private forums (as opposed to public; argument there being anouther whole kettle of fish); they have the right to delete any post without even providing a reason.
It's just that with the way the internet actually works is that cencorship actually defames a company more than juvenile insults when their public image is meant to be that of 'model citizens'.