Effective aggression is a criteria of judging. I've seen some claims that damage should not be factored into scoring but that only suggests naivety of judging criteria.
Ineffective aggression would be something like Matt Riddle throwing sloppy air combos to influence stand and Wang fans, which does not cause damage.
When damaged is caused it can be seen as a result of an aggressive maneuver. Aggressive maneuvers which result in damage are a prime example of effective aggression because aggression that causes damage is at all times mostly effective. 
Its a fight, the whole fucking point of it is to do damage.
Exactly! Some people on here confuse MMA with dancing with the stars.
Agreed.
This whole idea of damage shouldn't count comes from the odd fight where one guy obviously has been the dominate fighter, but receives a bad cut/broken nose/hemotoma that makes him look worse off than the other guy. That is the rare exception where visible damage doesn't necessarily mean a dominance in effective striking or aggression. 
The rules are GARBAGE
The judges are GARBAGE
The Commissions are GARBAGE
Most refs are GARBAGE
Haulport - The rules are GARBAGE
The judges are GARBAGE
The Commissions are GARBAGE
Most refs are GARBAGE
With every post, it gets easier to imagine that you are actually the bird in your avatar.
The rounds are judged separately. Damage done in the 1st round is scored for that round, but should not affect how the action in the 5th round is scored. The real benefit of early damage is how it weakens your opponent throughout the fight, and it's not really significant damage if it doesn't.
Poopyface TomatoNose - Exactly! Some people on here confuse MMA with dancing with the stars.
This. I wish it was a cumulative score like Pride scoring.
Cindy