I'm with Dave here, and I'm pissed about the arseholes who don't do shit.

Quoted from Dreamscale I'm with Dave here, and I'm pissed about the arseholes who don't do shit.

Kindred spirits

Reviews aren't just helpful for rewriting the OWC entries. They can help the writer for everything else they write. I firmly believe the OWCs are responsible for many writers improving here, and it's only in part because of the practice. It's also the reviews.

I've never received feedback that was only useful for the script it was in response to. I submitted to an OWC like two years ago and didn't re-write my short, but received plenty of feedback which helped me write future shorts. Not everything deserves a second draft.

Only one person so far has argued for no reviews at all. There's really no need for post after post suggesting we keep them. Nobody, aside from one person, is saying we shouldn't.

Of course we should keep the reviews. The main thread is about whether participating members should be forced to do them or else be punished in some way.

It's just not a good move. Yes, fine, be pissed off... whatever... but if we put in rules this will prevent members from entering in the first place. I don't think I'd enter either. Giving reviews freely of my own volition is one thing, being forced to... is another.

Whatever rule you come up with adds work for Dom and the mods, plus they can be circumnavigated. So for example, if you came up with a rule that stated all entrants must review at least 10 scripts, they could just put post a few words on 10 scripts that don’t help the writer at all.

Personally I think things should carry on as they are. As frustrating as it is to have entrants who do not participate, there’s enough who do. Most scripts get at least 2 pages worth of comments and hundreds of views.

Every single OWC I’ve entered I’ve gone through a stage where I feel like giving up entering future OWCs and giving up writing forever due to some of the brutality of the comments. But by the end of every single OWC I’ve figured something out about my script which has helped me write a new draft. For every unhelpful review where the reader says they just don’t get it, or ditches it on page 2 without offering anything constructive, there’s an equal amount of helpful comments.

I always have to remind myself that reviewers are reading these scripts with a desire to find fault. The last thing they want to do is to actually like it. It is the most hostile writing environment you’ll ever find yourself in, so if readers do begrudgingly enjoy certain aspects of it – this is a good script or at least a great idea and is worth persuing. Yes, this is supposed to be fun and the prize is a crappy mug, but never underestimate ego and competiveness.

I’ve never had to do a major rewrite of my OWC script, but little changes here and there based on the majority of the comments, rather than individual opinion and bias is priceless.

Quoted from MarkRenshaw I always have to remind myself that reviewers are reading these scripts with a desire to find fault. The last thing they want to do is to actually like it. It is the most hostile writing environment you’ll ever find yourself in, so if readers do begrudgingly enjoy certain aspects of it – this is a good script or at least a great idea and is worth persuing. Yes, this is supposed to be fun and the prize is a crappy mug, but never underestimate ego and competiveness.

And this is why we love it!

Quoted from MarkRenshaw I always have to remind myself that reviewers are reading these scripts with a desire to find fault. The last thing they want to do is to actually like it. It is the most hostile writing environment you’ll ever find yourself in, so if readers do begrudgingly enjoy certain aspects of it – this is a good script or at least a great idea and is worth persuing. Yes, this is supposed to be fun and the prize is a crappy mug, but never underestimate ego and competiveness.

Hey Mark, genuinely interested to know if you consider yourself to be apart of this or feel like you are making the comment as an observer of the behavior, that behavior being "reviewers are reading these scripts with a desire to find fault. The last thing they want to do is to actually like it".

It's a very hard thing to make a judgement on, I think it's clear when a script is being bashed, but when is a comment not part of someone's desire to find fault? I'm very happy with my script, so definitely no hard feelings on any reviews that were made on my entry. But for examples sake, you made a comment on mine along the lines of me having an obsession with hands, but every time I mentioned a hand it was critical to the story, in my eyes it had purpose, yes there was a line that could have been written better and that has since been changed, but it still has the word 'hand', in my eyes this is finding fault where there is none, in yours it's constructive criticism (hopefully :p).

I'll use another example with one of my own comments. I said that I wasn't quite as thrilled with The Stowaway as you were, I acknowledged that it was brilliantly written, and had excellent suspense, but for me it was too comedy heavy to be a horror. The majority spoke and it took out the mug, but that's still my view, excellent craftsmanship but 8 pages of pure comedy in a 12 page horror. So is this finding fault where there isn't any, or my actual feeling? I'm putting words in your mouth now but you might think it's finding fault, but those were my thoughts and I stand by them.

So back to my original question, do you think you are part of the problem or just an observer?

I think Dustin is somewhat right about that being why we love it. There is something very sweet about making it through that gauntlet and getting the mug dispute all odds being against you.

I do think it can be taken too far though. I guess the people in receipt of negative comments will always be the ones to call out when they think that point has been reached.

Not sure if this is technically feasible, but how about the following to 'encourage' better participation levels...

1) OWC script comments are not immeadiately published on the script threads.
2) On the agreed date for comments to close they are then published for all.
3) EXCEPT for those who have not contributed with feedback on say 30% of scripts (or whatever number)
4) Those who do not contribute are also not eligible to vote or receive a score on their own script.
5) Those with no script in the OWC can contribute as normal and their comments would be released with everyone elses.

This would severely reduce the value of the OWC to those who do not contribute to them, whilst keeping everything else - except the hourly 'refresh and see if I've any new comments' aspect

Just a thought.

Quoted from AnthonyCawood Not sure if this is technically feasible, but how about the following to 'encourage' better participation levels... 1) OWC script comments are not immeadiately published on the script threads. 2) On the agreed date for comments to close they are then published for all. 3) EXCEPT for those who have not contributed with feedback on say 30% of scripts (or whatever number) 4) Those who do not contribute are also not eligible to vote or receive a score on their own script. 5) Those with no script in the OWC can contribute as normal and their comments would be released with everyone elses. This would severely reduce the value of the OWC to those who do not contribute to them, whilst keeping everything else - except the hourly 'refresh and see if I've any new comments' aspect Just a thought.

Good suggestions Anthony - but I do enjoy that feeling of ignorant hope when the scripts are first posted only to have it chiseled away with every incoming comment, followed by finding solace in a bottle of wine wondering to myself "Why the fuck did I think rhyming dialogue was a good idea?" - It's what makes the OWC great!

Joking aside - Another plus for your suggestion is it would stop "bandwagon" comments. When reading through the comments I do sometimes think "Is that actually your opinion? or are you saying it because others have" - Some obviously come up multiple times because it's an issue for a lot of people - others I'm not so sure about

Downside - I love the buzz around here during an OWC, hiding the comments might make the place feel more like a ghost town during it and take away from the experience - Having the general thread to talk on will help but not sure if it will keep the interest peaked.

Oh, I have a suggestion - hear me out.
When the scripts are released, can the names or usernames of the participants not be revealed as well? - We pretty much know which regular users are participating anyway because they say so beforehand. That way they are not hiding behind anonymity (but the scripts are still anonymous) - Come voting time, we vote on both the scripts and whether the user contributed sufficiently to the challenge (Yeah, Okay, we will diasagree on the definition of 'sufficiently') - or it could be left up to a few trusted users to vote on whether a user contributed, people we know will vote fairly and honestly - anyway, the user votes can affect the scores of the scripts votes.
Also, if we know who the users are we can reach out to them and be like "Come on, get involved"

Ok as I write this I realize this is also more work for Don - But I don't mind helping out with counting votes or whatever, I'm an accountant so I must be trustworthy

Quoted from MarkRenshaw Most scripts get at least 2 pages worth of comments and hundreds of views.

The view counter is for the script thread though, not the script itself.

Everyone that competes is a part of it. It's just human nature. We can't bash an obviously good script so we find fault where we can. Appearing to break the rules can lose a script votes. So all it takes is for one writer to voice this possibility in a thread and others will jump on the bandwagon. Managing to sabotage a script gives their own a step up.

It's very nuanced, very subtle... but the tactics are there and I see them employed in every OWC - whether members want to admit it or not.

My two cents, since I'm the noob here as this was my first OWC.

I've been a non-active member since 2012. Since then I think I've read every OWC entry looking for scripts to produce. During an in-progress OWC, if I catch it in time, I'll often read the comments to help me weed out the better scripts. For past OWCs, I'll just look at the sticky and the writer's choice/favorites.

Even so, during this OWC I found it difficult at times to leave a constructive review for every script entered. As someone who reads scripts every day, it's very hard not to put down a bad script after reading the first couple of pages. It's very hard to read a poorly written script beginning to end without skimming, without digesting it all. And if that happens, it's very hard to leave a decent review. For that reason, a lot of my comments were general feedback not overly constructive, and I hope not overly negative.

I knew going in that whatever I wrote, no matter how good or bad, it would get bashed. Yes you do have to have some thick skin. But for a real noob noob who isn't familiar with how these are run, I can see how that can be off putting too.

Personally, I would't change anything. But if I did make a change, it would probably be the wording on the OWC sign up page.

So change this :

Participants are strongly encouraged to read and comment/review the other scripts submitted.

To something like:

Participants are required to read and comment/review the other scripts submitted. Not doing so will result in your script getting disqualified.

And if you want to move away from reviews for fear of scaring off noob participants, then just drive home that feedback is enough.

Participants are required to read and leave feedback on the other scripts submitted. Not doing so will result in  your script getting disqualified.

You can also direct them to a sticky guidelines with more of a guide on how to leave feedback if so desired.

I'll certainly look forward to the next OWC, as long as it's not a romantic comedy!!

I agree with Bert and Dustin, there's never going to be a perfect solution and anything that resembles forcing new participants to review might backfire in the long run.

But as Britman said, have a big link at the start of the instruction page that goes to a sticky thread where someone lays out the case for doing reviews. IE, why members find it insulting if you don't participate, why contributing can be helpful to a newer writer, advice on how to leave feedback if you're not experienced with the more technical aspects.

Also, we could announce upfront that all new-ish participants are eligible to win "best OWC newbie". An award given out if a non-regular member distinguishes himself/herself reviewing. They get a blurb on the front page about the writer with links to their work (maybe a script review too).

That will probably change absolutely nothing, but at least there's no harm I can think of... except maybe a fight breaking out over who deserves best reviewer...

Regarding reviews of good scripts: I'm always looking to give the writer something. So, sometimes, the better the script, the more fine my notes. And, sometimes that can look like I'm a reviewer just looking to knock something. For example: The Stowaway. It was the only script this round that I gave a 5. But, that didn't stop me from saying that the final 4 pages felt a bit disconnected from the first 8.

(Are people really as competitive as Dustin says? I'm pretty naive, I'll admit. But, I just don't look at the OWC in that way. I want to win, sure. But, knocking others down to advance my chances? Weird.)