A reminder about posts claiming Damage Control

I guess it's cause this site has a lot of underage people in it is why so many of these kinds of rules exist cause I wouldn't expect this from a forum with mostly adults kcpp2b

I wouldn't expect people to be posting 'damage control' on a forum with mostly adults.

[QUOTE="twags82"]Thank you. I can't stand the term "damage control" because 90% of the time it's used wrong. Actually, you could get rid of the term altogether...Socrates88

Thanks. 

Casey, could we have posts that just said:

"This..... is...... DAMAGE CONTROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"

Of course with a picture of Leonidas?

:D :D :D

AdobeArtist

NO. 

im scared of being modded,  so i edited this post..

So i cant say:  "Take a couple, of these and call me in the morning?"

wow you cant say anything anymore. :?TheWiikestLink

No kidding,  everyone is wayy too thin skined nowadays.  C'mon people it's like my mom used to tell my sister and i when we would try and get on eachothers nerves on purpose "he who gets mad losses" 

It's not about people being thin skinned or offended. It's just that "Damage Control" alone adds nothing to a conversation and is basically no more than SPAM.cakeorrdeath

[QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"] if you want a forum where everybody can post whatever they want despite it being off topic, trolling, or disruptive then go find another forum. if some people's fun is ruined by having a rule that protect's the fun of the people who want to post about what this forum is intended for, then so be it.CaseyWegner

No no,your misunderstanding me.Banning for someone saying damage control in certain post is a bit harsh.For the fact if someone in that post doesn't want to address the factual truth about things in way or another then that would be damage control.Again how does the rule protect the fun of the people who want to post about what this forum is intended for,being protected?ITs more like the fun for posting here at all is being taken away.Seems as if no kind of humor can go unpunished.

saying "damage control" is reducing somebody's argument to nothing when it's most of the time not nothing. if you think it's damage control, explain why.

I always explain myself in every post I make, wheather it be in words or by a link, so that rule doesn't really affect me.  However, some of the rules on here are pretty subjective.  But the most obserd things you guys say as mods is that you're "protecting the fun of other users". 

LOL...HTF do you guys (talking about all the mods) know what affects the fun level of the users here?  I don't remember a poll on here asking the users what matters affected the enjoyability of their posting here.  So on what authority to you claim to do things that make things more fun for other users with your moderations?  Are you god?  You know what makes me and the other posters happy, when it's clear that you and all of the other mods don't.  Looking at this thread, it would seem as if most of the poeple here think that your opinion on what makes posting here fun actually detracts from the enjoyability here at SW.

Mod what you will, It's your power, but don't make claims about making posting here more fun.  You insult our intelligence by doing so because you don't konw what makes it more fun for us here unless you ask us first.  You guys make descisions about moderations here based on your view points and opinions and nothing more.

PS. the guy doesn't need to change his post or opinion because you didn't like the way it sounded.  He made perfectly good points, he didn't call you any names, and he explained why he felt that way...:shock: isn't that what you want us to do?  What would you rather him do, say nothing...or simply post damage control?

Sorry if I seem noob, but what is, more exactly, damage control?IonescoF

But the most obserd things you guys say as mods is that you're "protecting the fun of other users". 

LOL...HTF do you guys (talking about all the mods) know what affects the fun level of the users here?  I don't remember a poll on here asking the users what matters affected the enjoyability of their posting here.  So on what authority to you claim to do things that make things more fun for other users with your moderations?  Are you god?  You know what makes me and the other posters happy, when it's clear that you and all of the other mods don't.  Looking at this thread, it would seem as if most of the poeple here think that your opinion on what makes posting here fun actually detracts from the enjoyability here at SW.

Mod what you will, It's your power, but don't make claims about making posting here more fun.  You insult our intelligence by doing so because you don't konw what makes it more fun for us here unless you ask us first.  You guys make descisions about moderations here based on your view points and opinions and nothing more.

PS. the guy doesn't need to change his post or opinion because you didn't like the way it sounded.  He made perfectly good points, he didn't call you any names, and he explained why he felt that way...:shock: isn't that what you want us to do?  What would you rather him do, say nothing...or simply post damage control?

proof11102

You can't see my PM box. We protect the fun of people who want to follow the rules that they agreed to when they made their accounts.

[QUOTE="proof11102"]But the most obserd things you guys say as mods is that you're "protecting the fun of other users".

LOL...HTF do you guys (talking about all the mods) know what affects the fun level of the users here? I don't remember a poll on here asking the users what matters affected the enjoyability of their posting here. So on what authority to you claim to do things that make things more fun for other users with your moderations? Are you god? You know what makes me and the other posters happy, when it's clear that you and all of the other mods don't. Looking at this thread, it would seem as if most of the poeple here think that your opinion on what makes posting here fun actually detracts from the enjoyability here at SW.

Mod what you will, It's your power, but don't make claims about making posting here more fun. You insult our intelligence by doing so because you don't konw what makes it more fun for us here unless you ask us first. You guys make descisions about moderations here based on your view points and opinions and nothing more.

PS. the guy doesn't need to change his post or opinion because you didn't like the way it sounded. He made perfectly good points, he didn't call you any names, and he explained why he felt that way...:shock: isn't that what you want us to do? What would you rather him do, say nothing...or simply post damage control?

CaseyWegner

You can't see my PM box. We protect the fun of people who want to follow the rules that they agreed to when they made their accounts.

When will you sticky about the downgrade for Mass Effect? I think we understand now about the term Damage Control.shungokustasu

That raccoon is clearly in damage control mode. Just look at his "hands". He's planning something.JediMoogle

i just think it's funny that when lemmings were doing it when dmc4 was announced for 360 this wasn't an issue but now that cows have started doing it "it's out of hand."InfamousC

Honestly some lems were using it correctly and calling people on it.

While during the Elite news Cows were using "DC" every two posts as some kind of way to claim "ownage" or whatever...
 

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"]When will you sticky about the downgrade for Mass Effect? I think we understand now about the term Damage Control.Unforgiven2870

It's an opinion, just like DS > PSP or whatever. 

content free posts accusing somebody of damage control will get you moderated for trolling. i'm still seeing far too much of this.

CaseyWegner

So what other word we could use that define damage control?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

content free posts accusing somebody of damage control will get you moderated for trolling. i'm still seeing far too much of this.

Kev_Unreal

So what other word we could use that define damage control?

don't even worry about another word for it. just explain why you would have said it in the first place.

[QUOTE="Kev_Unreal"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

content free posts accusing somebody of damage control will get you moderated for trolling. i'm still seeing far too much of this.

CaseyWegner

So what other word we could use that define damage control?

don't even worry about another word for it. just explain why you would have said it in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong but we still be able to use the word "damage control" and we have to give a explanation to the reason so we won't be moderated for trolling.Kev_Unreal

yes. just make it so that you're doing more than just accusing somebody of damage control.

yes. just make it so that you're doing more than just accusing somebody of damage control.

CaseyWegner

Do we have to give a reason for DC or just say it and add something else to our post?

eg. Damage control because IGN has reported these screens are fake.
eg. Damage control. Seriously, enough with this.

Are both of these acceptable or just the 1st example? 

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

yes. just make it so that you're doing more than just accusing somebody of damage control.

the-very-best

Do we have to give a reason for DC or just say it and add something else to our post?

eg. Damage control because IGN has reported these screens are fake.
eg. Damage control. Seriously, enough with this.

Are both of these acceptable or just the 1st example? 

I'm no mod but I believe the 2nd example will get you moderated for trolling due to being unreasonable to a thread. The 1st example seems acceptable if you have the evidence to back it up.

I'm no mod but I believe the 2nd example will get you moderated for trolling due to being unreasonable to a thread. The 1st example seems acceptable if you have the evidence to back it up.

Kev_Unreal

Yeah, I thought so too, just want to make sure with a mod but thanks for the reply. 

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

yes. just make it so that you're doing more than just accusing somebody of damage control.

the-very-best

Do we have to give a reason for DC or just say it and add something else to our post?

eg. Damage control because IGN has reported these screens are fake.
eg. Damage control. Seriously, enough with this.

Are both of these acceptable or just the 1st example?

definitely not the second one. as for the first, it's ok. 

lol this thread is open again? i'm just wondering, if you're gonna moderate for saying "damage control," shouldn't you also hand out moderation for every time someone writes "owned," "T_HBO," "ownage approved," "ownage denied," etc? SW has always been full of posts like that, with very little substance added to it...i would imagine that would lead to over-moderation
mwa

those have been getting people moderated for over a year. 

[QUOTE="mwa"]lol this thread is open again? i'm just wondering, if you're gonna moderate for saying "damage control," shouldn't you also hand out moderation for every time someone writes "owned," "T_HBO," "ownage approved," "ownage denied," etc? SW has always been full of posts like that, with very little substance added to it...i would imagine that would lead to over-moderation
CaseyWegner

those have been getting people moderated for over a year.

"I hate you"  can that get me moderated? 

"I hate you"  can that get me moderated?m3Boarder32

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]"I hate you" can that get me moderated?IonescoF

Ok,  ill be sure not to say that 

Damage Control on a forum? Oh my. How far nerdism has come. :|FlashMan2006

please, don't act so surprised

Getting to be a little, shall I say, Gestapo around here, no?  The words "damage control" do not deface a person and cannot be construed as a personal attack.  Saying "damage control" is no different than saying someone's assertions are silly and unfounded.  Perhaps we should ban one for expressing his opinions entirely.

I don't like this new-founded policy--Rubbish.

Getting to be a little, shall I say, Gestapo around here, no?  The words "damage control" do not deface a person and cannot be construed as a personal attack.  Saying "damage control" is no different than saying someone's assertions are silly and unfounded.  Perhaps we should ban one for expressing his opinions entirely.

I don't like this new-founded policy--Rubbish.

CubeJL

you didn't read very far into this thread did you? it's not even a new rule.  you can say "damage control" but you'd better have something to back it up with.

[QUOTE="CubeJL"]

Getting to be a little, shall I say, Gestapo around here, no?  The words "damage control" do not deface a person and cannot be construed as a personal attack.  Saying "damage control" is no different than saying someone's assertions are silly and unfounded.  Perhaps we should ban one for expressing his opinions entirely.

I don't like this new-founded policy--Rubbish.

CaseyWegner

you didn't read very far into this thread did you? it's not even a new rule.  you can say "damage control" but you'd better have something to back it up with.

I read your entire post, sir.  The thing is--one shouldn't have to back up a simple assertion like "Damage Control".  It's no different than saying something like "that's silly".  It's an assertion.  People make them and sometimes the post that provoked such a response speaks for itself (i.e. it doesn't require evidence to support it).

The bottom line--this is a forum--a place where people should feel welcome to express their feelings freely, so long as these feelings don't deprecate someone's character or issue personal attacks.

This is a pretty dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="CubeJL"]

Getting to be a little, shall I say, Gestapo around here, no? The words "damage control" do not deface a person and cannot be construed as a personal attack. Saying "damage control" is no different than saying someone's assertions are silly and unfounded. Perhaps we should ban one for expressing his opinions entirely.

I don't like this new-founded policy--Rubbish.

CubeJL

you didn't read very far into this thread did you? it's not even a new rule. you can say "damage control" but you'd better have something to back it up with.

I read your entire post, sir. The thing is--one shouldn't have to back up a simple assertion like "Damage Control". It's no different than saying something like "that's silly". It's an assertion. People make them and sometimes the post that provoked such a response speaks for itself (i.e. it doesn't require evidence to support it).

The bottom line--this is a forum--a place where people should feel welcome to express their feelings freely, so long as these feelings don't deprecate someone's character or issue personal attacks.

This is a pretty dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion.

Free speech does not apply here. This is a private forum run by Microsoft... err I mean Cnet. You agree under the TOS that you would follow whatever rules that are implemented. If you can not, then they will ask you to leave. I hate the rule personal, but "When in Rome".

[QUOTE="CubeJL"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="CubeJL"]

Getting to be a little, shall I say, Gestapo around here, no? The words "damage control" do not deface a person and cannot be construed as a personal attack. Saying "damage control" is no different than saying someone's assertions are silly and unfounded. Perhaps we should ban one for expressing his opinions entirely.

I don't like this new-founded policy--Rubbish.

shungokustasu

you didn't read very far into this thread did you? it's not even a new rule. you can say "damage control" but you'd better have something to back it up with.

I read your entire post, sir. The thing is--one shouldn't have to back up a simple assertion like "Damage Control". It's no different than saying something like "that's silly". It's an assertion. People make them and sometimes the post that provoked such a response speaks for itself (i.e. it doesn't require evidence to support it).

The bottom line--this is a forum--a place where people should feel welcome to express their feelings freely, so long as these feelings don't deprecate someone's character or issue personal attacks.

This is a pretty dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion.

Free speech does not apply here. This is a private forum run by Microsoft... err I mean Cnet. You agree under the TOS that you would follow whatever rules that are implemented. If you can not, then they will ask you to leave. I hate the rule personal, but "When in Rome".

In fact I did sign a contract.  However, this deals in something entirely different...we might as well police all of the unfounded commentary that flies through these forums if we're going to single out people for using "damage control".  Do I think one should always try his best to substantiate his claims with facts?  Absolutely.  Do I think it's a moderator's place to insist that he do so?  Not in the least.

I still maintain the right to protest new rules as they come to light..and if they become sufficiently irrational, I then have the right to leave. 

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="CubeJL"]

Getting to be a little, shall I say, Gestapo around here, no? The words "damage control" do not deface a person and cannot be construed as a personal attack. Saying "damage control" is no different than saying someone's assertions are silly and unfounded. Perhaps we should ban one for expressing his opinions entirely.

I don't like this new-founded policy--Rubbish.

CubeJL

you didn't read very far into this thread did you? it's not even a new rule. you can say "damage control" but you'd better have something to back it up with.

I read your entire post, sir. The thing is--one shouldn't have to back up a simple assertion like "Damage Control". It's no different than saying something like "that's silly". It's an assertion. People make them and sometimes the post that provoked such a response speaks for itself (i.e. it doesn't require evidence to support it).

The bottom line--this is a forum--a place where people should feel welcome to express their feelings freely, so long as these feelings don't deprecate someone's character or issue personal attacks.

This is a pretty dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion.

yeah I don't see what the big deal is about saying damage control.  But if he wants a follow up reason there is really nothing we can do about it.  Mods just like to make as many rules as possible so they can give out more warnings and suspensions when they get bored :D 

I read your entire post, sir.  The thing is--one shouldn't have to back up a simple assertion like "Damage Control".  It's no different than saying something like "that's silly".  It's an assertion.  People make them and sometimes the post that provoked such a response speaks for itself (i.e. it doesn't require evidence to support it).

The bottom line--this is a forum--a place where people should feel welcome to express their feelings freely, so long as these feelings don't deprecate someone's character or issue personal attacks.

This is a pretty dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion.

CubeJL

content free replies have always been moderated. i don't know why you think this is a new rule. this is just a reminder about an old rule (that's even in the terms of use) that has been ignored far too much lately.

[QUOTE="CubeJL"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="CubeJL"]

Getting to be a little, shall I say, Gestapo around here, no? The words "damage control" do not deface a person and cannot be construed as a personal attack. Saying "damage control" is no different than saying someone's assertions are silly and unfounded. Perhaps we should ban one for expressing his opinions entirely.

I don't like this new-founded policy--Rubbish.

Brown52

you didn't read very far into this thread did you? it's not even a new rule. you can say "damage control" but you'd better have something to back it up with.

I read your entire post, sir. The thing is--one shouldn't have to back up a simple assertion like "Damage Control". It's no different than saying something like "that's silly". It's an assertion. People make them and sometimes the post that provoked such a response speaks for itself (i.e. it doesn't require evidence to support it).

The bottom line--this is a forum--a place where people should feel welcome to express their feelings freely, so long as these feelings don't deprecate someone's character or issue personal attacks.

This is a pretty dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion.

yeah I don't see what the big deal is about saying damage control.  But if he wants a follow up reason there is really nothing we can do about it.  Mods just like to make as many rules as possible so they can give out more warnings and suspensions when they get bored :D