Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley I'm kind of curious now, too. I also wonder if,in the previous OWC this script was from they had the same errors as they had in this OWC...if that was the case,it tells you something about that scribe. Even if that person is new to screenwriting.  If so, they may not know of what to look for, technical issues, an soon, so they fear commenting because "they don't know what to say" I've heard that excuse before- it's BS.  Subjective opinion can also cover story an characters, what you like or don't like.

Agree!

Quoted from LC Further to what was said above, Matthew: Do you see that 'Report' button, right hand side of the script thread? You can always use that to notify Don, for any shenanigans eg. if you thought you'd already read a script prior to the OWC.

Thanks, will do.

Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this thread negative lol Time to turn it back to positive...

Thanks, Zack for this challenge Have never written horror before and I think I have developed a taste for it now lol

No problemo, Matt. Just an FYI.
Btw, I agree with Warren about your Disclaimer not being needed.  

Hi folks,

I've removed the script in question.

With regard to folks not commenting on scripts. I'm willing to entertain ideas on how we can get better participation.  

- Don

Just to clarify: the first draft of 'It's Garbage Day!' was written in under an hour the first Wednesday (or Thursday, I forget) after the competition began. I submitted a second (much better) 11 page draft to the websites Stage32 and Scriptrevolution two days before the contest ended.

Here's a link to the final draft of 'It's Garbage Day!' for anyone interested in reading it (re-titled 'Garbage Day!'): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFcl2Xq4H7iNW1Ocll3NWZ3TDFrVkpkQnQzaENrbEVZVzU4/view?usp=sharing

I am very grateful for this OWC because I will be using the short written loosely following the criteria to create a second sci-fi anthology titled 'Psychocycle', a sequel to my script 'Psychosystem'.

Quoted from Don I'm willing to entertain ideas on how we can get better participation.   - Don

When people submit, in the confirmation email, state that entrants are required to read a minimum of 50% of the entries or your script will be removed.

Quoted from Hank Just to clarify: the first draft of 'It's Garbage Day!' was written in under an hour the first Wednesday (or Thursday, I forget) after the competition began. I submitted a second (much better) 11 page draft to the websites Stage32 and Scriptrevolution two days before the contest ended. Here's a link to the final draft of 'It's Garbage Day!' for anyone interested in reading it (re-titled 'Garbage Day!'): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFcl2Xq4H7iNW1Ocll3NWZ3TDFrVkpkQnQzaENrbEVZVzU4/view?usp=sharing I am very grateful for this OWC because I will be using the short written loosely following the criteria to create a second sci-fi anthology titled 'Psychocycle', a sequel to my script 'Psychosystem'.

Hank:

You received some critical comments in the previous OWC because of your lack of reads or comments. You responded that you were sick and that you would read and comment on those post contest - you didn't.

This OWC you did not comment on any scripts despite receiving many on yours.

The OWCs operate under a good faith paradigm - that is, in exchange for peeps reading and commenting on your script, you will do the same for others. By not doing so you are exploiting the time, energy and good faith of other writers on the site. My advice is - do not participate in OWCs unless you are committed to truly participating (reading and commenting on other scripts) in the OWCs. Absent that, you will just piss people off and eventually all of your work, including non-OWC postings will be ignored.

I will read and comment on other people's scripts eventually. Since taking my time with it bothers so many people, next OWC I will instead wait until the contest is over to submit my criteria-based script to whichever board its genre falls under.

Quoted from Don Hi folks, I've removed the script in question. With regard to folks not commenting on scripts. I'm willing to entertain ideas on how we can get better participation.   - Don

That is a toughie.

Just spit balling - incorporate reviews into the scoring system. e.g., tabulate the script scores and the resultant average.

- Add zero points for writers who read less than 25% of the scripts.
- Add .25 points for writers who read  25% to 50% of the scripts.
- Add .5 points for writers who read more than 50% of the scripts.

For example, if a script gets a rated score of 3.2 - and that writer read 50% or more of the scripts, their final score would be 3.7 (i.e., 3.2 rating plus .5 bonus for reading).

I'm just making up the above numbers for illustrative purposes. They can be anything. The premise is that this is not a contest - it's a challenge - and that challenge includes both writing a script and reading those written by others.

Work wise - someone who have to responsible for counting the reads/comments by writers and tabulating the result (Volunteer basis). I did not submit for this OWC but read 20 scripts - I would have been willing to be the reader score tabulator instead.

Just spit balling.

Quoted from Don Hi folks, I've removed the script in question. With regard to folks not commenting on scripts. I'm willing to entertain ideas on how we can get better participation.   - Don

I'm willing to keep a running count on reviewers and non-reviewers. I mean, for the most part (with the exception of people getting involved on the site for the first time and learning the ropes), we know the people who are going to do the decent thing and review when they submit and we know who won't.

But, a few possibilities:

Bar them from participating in future challenges until they review all the entries in a challenge (without participating in said challenge).

Put an asterisk next to their script title, if they have a history of not reviewing, so people know that they read it at their own risk.

Basic three strikes rule: First offense, banned from the next challenge. Second offense: banned from the next two challenges. Third offense: banned from all challenges.

The hard part is that you don't want to be mean-spirited with these things, but you still want to get the point across. You want it to be seen as positive (review scripts so everyone benefits, including yourself) rather than negative (review so you won't be barred from participating).

Quoted from Hank I will read and comment on other people's scripts eventually. Since taking my time with it bothers so many people, next OWC I will instead wait until the contest is over to submit my criteria-based script to whichever board its genre falls under.

You probably won't read and comment on them since you didn't last time. You're in arrears on two of them now. We'll see I guess.

Regardless, you're solution - not submitting to the challenge will work. No one will be upset that you did not comment on scripts in a challenge that you were not part of.

Thanks for the boost of confidence. I will follow through with your summation of what I previously stated.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde I'm willing to keep a running count on reviewers and non-reviewers. I mean, for the most part (with the exception of people getting involved on the site for the first time and learning the ropes), we know the people who are going to do the decent thing and review when they submit and we know who won't. But, a few possibilities: Bar them from participating in future challenges until they review all the entries in a challenge (without participating in said challenge). Put an asterisk next to their script title, if they have a history of not reviewing, so people know that they read it at their own risk. Basic three strikes rule: First offense, banned from the next challenge. Second offense: banned from the next two challenges. Third offense: banned from all challenges. The hard part is that you don't want to be mean-spirited with these things, but you still want to get the point across. You want it to be seen as positive (review scripts so everyone benefits, including yourself) rather than negative (review so you won't be barred from participating).

I like these ideas.

We have to be careful... because once we start putting in tougher rules this has a knock on effect down the chain. Some members might not participate because they feel pressured even though had they participated they would have reached whatever threshhold anyway - a better safe than sorry attitude.

Quoted from DustinBowcot We have to be careful... because once we start putting in tougher rules this has a knock on effect down the chain. Some members might not participate because they feel pressured even though had they participated they would have reached whatever threshhold anyway - a better safe than sorry attitude.

I take your point, but I think we can work something out that meets both adjectives (I think the point added thing for reviewers I mentioned earlier is an inducement rather than a punishment).

I've become progressively angry regarding the non-reviewers the more and more OWCs I have participated in. Not sure why - maybe because I think they're stealing reviews of their script. When I look at regular scripts to comment on: - if it is a newbie - I might read/comment.  Same if it is a regular peep who I know to be a commenter/reviewer of other scripts. If it is someone who never comments, I shine them on.

Can't shine them on in a OWC because it's anonymous. Not sure why that irks me so - but it does.