If they don't post their source, then how do I know they didn't just make the whole thing up? I've seen more than my fair share of fake press releases and announcements over the years.

How about this? From now on, any rumored tracks must be provided with a source URL as well as official announcements. Would cut down on arguing and double posting of information.

Sounds good to me. Fake press releases suck, seeing as there's always one DVD-bag that believes it and spreads the shit like truth.

I think Pink's new song "So What" would be a lot of fun, plus give the ladies something new to sing.

Then I personally would like to add anyone who talks about what they "know but can't share" should also be willing to say a source as that's in the same vein.

That's an easy fix. I won't share any insider information with anyone on this forum anymore.

I have no problems providing a source for anything I put from now on. I'll just keep the good stuff to myself.

What's got two thumbs and will never see a red ring?

:up: jdpatri :up:

This guy.

rotfl

Your Blu-Ray player never red rings but you still need a next gen system to play games on.

Ouch, sir.

To be honest, that would be better than posting vague hints that could point to virtually anything. Those sort of posts don't really add much to the conversation.

And know that we do appreciate the effort you put into the DLC. Not you Gramps, but Shag.

Definitely! It's just the "I know something you don't know" posts that irk me. ;)

Then as of today, those posts cease.

A 1-week ban for anyone that provides information about future songs without a source? This includes me.

Make it a YEAR!

I don't think the admins will want to deal with the hassle of a ban for that - at the very least, a public lashing though.

You can't ban people, L&O?

What kind of fun is your job with no bannings?

Do our sources have to have sources or is one degree of separation good enough?

Also, when I post the DLC on a Friday and I format it as a quote by an "HMX" poster, is that good enough or should I include the URL to the post? Should I provide any trace routes or DNS lookups to verify that the URL is actually pointing to the official RB forums? How do I know somebody didn't kidnap Henry or Sean and is posting fake press releases under their name? How do I know that Henry or Sean are not possessed by the devil or off their meds? How can we be sure the songs they post have gone through the MS and Sony approval processes? How do we know Tuesday will even come? I mean, a lot of bullshit can happen in the world over the course of 3 days. And with all the devilry provided by Yngwie, perhaps Jesus will come to rapture us all before then. How can we be sure of any of it, I ask you?! IT IS MADNESS!

Rock Band DLC Posts: They're Serious Business!

:lol:

And the guy that replied with one smiley face in his post was?

I'd say one degree of separation is enough. If it's direct from HMX, I would still provide a link.

I have seen people do fake DLC "posts", down to the "Rock Band is a product of MTV Games, copyright blah blah blah" and all that bullshit. It'll just cut down on bickering (on everyone's end) if *EVERY* informative post is sourced.

Not directly - I can request it but it takes more than not adding a source to a post to impose a banning.

It's no fun actually.

You should probably go ahead and put that in the first post of this and all future threads. That way when new people come in the rules will be right there at their fingertips - because we all know they aren't going to bother to search for this. :up:

I have it on good authority that next week's DLC is going to be ______'_ _______ ____, I'm really looking forward to playing ________ ____ and ___'_ ____ ________. And maybe even ______ __ ___ ___.

I had already planned on it. :)

Of course, the amount of people that read the OP is probably minimal.

I wish we had the same rule as another forum I frequent: "Fail to read the OP and you are banned."

rotfl