All hierarchical communities require adherence to certain rules, explicit and implied. It is completely normal for the "leaders" of the community to impose sanctions against a dissenter in this fashion.

Take for example the frequent attacks against me, when more often than not, I am simply explaining an objective fact. I don't mind it, as I know that for ever 2 people that dislike me, 3 enjoy reading what I post. It's a lost cause trying to maintain a homogeneous online community, and any sort of heterogeneous one will result in outliers who are targeted with social disapproval.

In short, who cares? It's natural for any community, online or not, to be primarily a pissing contest, and there's nothing that can be done about it without imposing unrealistic and unwieldy block/ignore functions.

They don't have to, and neither do I have to accept "their" culture. Again, you seem to think I'm arguing one "must" do this, I'm merely saying there are benefits to doing so and not doing so is going to reap consequences at times.

We've already pointed out a few examples of forum members with minority opinions that don't get these kinds of responses. The good news is, you get to choose your own actions, the bad is you can't demand everyone accept your actions. They're just as free to reject them as you are to perform them. That is the sum total of it.

I'm hearing about edge cases and what sounds a lot like hand wringing. While there may be valid points of concern on the fringe, the fringe is just that, and generally people who get downrepped are acting obtuse. They're free to act obtuse and others are free to react in a negative fashion, it's two sides of the same coin. I could be misunderstanding you but it sounds like your whole argument rests on people accepting what they perceived to be... well for lack of a better term "douchebaggery". Yes, you may disagree that a particular statement was douchebaggery, but someone clearly thought so and they have as much right to their expression as the original expressor.

Yes, I actually do want people to act "nice", but I can't force that nor would I want to. I'm simply pointing out that if you say something that most people find offensive, many are going to react by being offended and it's a non-starter and a falsehood that there isn't a way to express yourself, even if your opinion is minority or fringe without offended the majority even when said majority disagrees.

So, do or don't do, it's your choice, but if you pretend there's no point in trying because someone will "always be offended" I'm going to point out that's a fallacy, it is, and many forum members have proven it time and again.

You can be polite, express your opinions and despite 1 or 2 cranks you will never notice any consequences.

Also, the intended purpose of the +/- has been misinterpreted, much like the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The intent of the rep system is to highlight posts you think are recommended reading for others, and to hide posts that are nothing but trolling/flaming/offensive behavior. It is not an agree/disagree system. And the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was intended to ensure that all naturalized US citizens could take up arms via military service to protect the nation from foreign invasion, primarily the British.

I have the feeling that the blues would rather leave the +/- system to people's own judgement and let the community decide the standard. Or at least this is my impression judging by how hands off they are.

I have the feeling they didn't actually intend it to be used the way it's used in this thread. they just don't say anything because then they'd have to fix it and it would be a pain in the ass.
I have an incredibly hard time believing that the site creators intended for a post to be hidden when it gets like 3 negative votes because 3 people just don't agree with that post

There's nothing in it for them to fix it, unfortunately. LOL I bet this post is going to be low rated too by the same lovely people <- sarcasm that low rated my previous posts because they want to bully me.

I don't care for rep only great conversations with people about great games

This is why the rep system has failed, and needs to be removed.
A reporting system with clear guidelines would be a lot better, as it would make it easier to filter out the trolls and spammers with decisive action. Abusing such a system would be harder as well, as those who do would be told off by the GOG crew.

Users who do a lot of very positive contribution to the community will be recognized if they continue to do so, even without the rep system.

When people are offended, they're less likely to listen to anything you have to say and more likely to just be offended. Which defeats the purpose of having a discussion in the first place. This idea that aggressive antagonism is a good way of getting a message across has always baffled me. I can't think of a single situation where being loud and obnoxious was preferable to being respectful. Cathartic, maybe? Yeah. I think we all agree that it sometimes feels great to write an angry rant. But it's not the way to act if you actually want to get your message across, in my experience.

Aggroing a troop of bloodthirsty baboons to save your friend who kind of looks like a hamburger.

...I can think of one single situation where being loud and obnoxious was preferable to being respectful...

You know, that is precisely your problem, you don't pass anything as your opinion (which is how you should pass it,) you pass everything as an objective fact, including very subjective things. That's why people tend to jump at you.

This is something I don't understand. When I see someone saying "fish and chips objectively sucks" I only think "my, my..." and move along.

And most of people here feel sacred obligation to say "no, it's not objective, downrep, downrep this heretic!!!!"

I mean, wtf... From the fact such person says "it's objective" doesn't make it objective, and you don't have to make a crusade about it, every time somebody says something like that...

Well duh, that's because objectively they're only bested by peanut butter and jelly sandwiches on the list of things that don't suck.

Well most of this topic is about presenting information in a bad manner, and this would really be one of those situations. I am one of the people who gets irked by others who act like their opinion should be some kind of generally accepted fact.