Quoted from eldave1 I've become progressively angry regarding the non-reviewers the more and more OWCs I have participated in.

I agree, and I used to constantly beat that drum myself.

But fact is, any "system" that might be implemented means one more thing Don has to keep track of, and these OWCs are already kind of pain, so he is a saint to even run them at all.

In the end I think it is just a flaw inherent in the system that we must live with.  Still cool to call out the parasites when you see 'em, tho.  But beyond that I think additional levels of complexity are kind of counterproductive.  

Isn't 20 reviews enough? We have to look at the value of those reviews too. Every single writer (mostly) that reviews other scripts have entered one themselves and therefore have a vested interest in winning. It's a little like a game of poker. Most of us are in it for the mug.

We don't really care about the reviews other than whether the reader liked it or not. Those that do it for reviews are pretty desperate writers and likely need the help. What value a review from them anyway?

Quoted from bert I agree, and I used to constantly beat that drum myself. But fact is, any "system" that might be implemented means one more thing Don has to keep track of, and these OWCs are already kind of pain, so he is a saint to even run them at all. In the end I think it is just a flaw inherent in the system that we must live with.  Still cool to call out the parasites when you see 'em, tho.  But beyond that I think additional levels of complexity are kind of counterproductive.

Yeah..could be.

I confess I didn't do my fair share. I think I read about 15 and commented on about 10. I don't comment on scripts if I can't find something constructive to say.

Which leads me to another point you guys should consider. Should a read count if the comment is useless? This comment appeared on ours: "No idea what this one is about. They're all killers? Really strange."

That's the whole comment. Now you might argue that we could learn that the reader didn't like the script and didn't understand it. In theory that is helpful. But almost everyone else that read it seemed to understand there was a body-jumping thing going on. This reader was the only one who didn't. Which tells me he didn't really put any effort into it.

Which is fine. Life is short. If a script doesn't grab you, why bother reading it? Our script was not very well done, so I don't expect a reader to push through an unhappy experience.

But at the same time, it also feels like some readers are racing through the scripts so they can check them off. I mean how easy would it be to comment on every script if the comment is utterly useless? I could read Stowaway up til the spider appears, and my comment could be "Ah, spiders, not a fan, I'm out." Then move on to the next script.

I had a really hard time getting through the slave script. It made me stop reading scripts for a few days. But I tried to make a helpful comment.

I would not make any rules about required reading.

I have another suggestion.

Dena and I have become very good friends who work together all year. Last year we sold a screenplay for a $1800. Maybe someday we'll do better. And we met here. During an OWC. This  was how it happened.

Dena had submitted a script but had not commented. I had been a member here for less than a year. Dena, who I didn't know, shyly commented in the general OWC thread that she was nervous about commenting because she didn't feel qualified. I told her writers just want feedback, and everyone's opinion helps. Just comment on what you like and don't like about the story. She did, and became an active regular here and made numerous friends.

the idea

So rather than punish people who don't comment...make it positive. Seek them out and encourage them to comment. If they stay invisible, this will require Don's help. Maybe some OWC ambassadors could be made, people who could contact silent writers and try to draw them out nicely. Pia, Jeff...whoever. Just send them an email, maybe through Don, saying: we're grateful you submitted, please help us out by giving your opinion. No technical knowledge of screenwriting required. Just read and comment on what you like and don't.

Just a crazy idea.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Isn't 20 reviews enough? We have to look at the value of those reviews too. Every single writer (mostly) that reviews other scripts have entered one themselves and therefore have a vested interest in winning. It's a little like a game of poker. Most of us are in it for the mug. We don't really care about the reviews other than whether the reader liked it or not. Those that do it for reviews are pretty desperate writers and likely need the help. What value a review from them anyway?

Not sure what enough is. To me is is more of an equity thing - i.e., do your part.

In this OWC, it looks like around 9 of the most frequent commenters didn't enter a script. So had the non-participants not stepped up, probably would have averaged around ten reviews per script.  I just think that is pretty sad representation for a 26 script challenge.

Either that or I'm just feeling pissy.

For me, it's not the fact that I am getting fewer reviews than I give out - As Dustin points out we get enough reviews to help with any rewrites. (Although good point made above by Dave - Non participants have held up the reviews this time around)

It's more the principle of it - The downright cheek of taking with no intention of giving.

More red tape is never good in my opinion though - we don't want to take anything away from the OWC.

Sometimes newbies are scared to comment, sometimes a reg has the intention of reading and reviewing but life gets in the way - we don't want to punish them. We only really want to target repeat offenders - Those who just selfishly refuse to participate but are happy to receive 20+ reviews in one week.

I like the idea of just putting a * next to an OWC entrant who has entered at least 1 OWC beforehand but has contributed ZERO - Regs can then decide for themselves whether to give detailed feedback on that entrant or not.

BTW if Don or anyone needs/wants any help in the running of these OWC, or anything on the website in general - I'm more than happy to offer my services

Quoted from DustinBowcot We don't really care about the reviews other than whether the reader liked it or not. Those that do it for reviews are pretty desperate writers and likely need the help. What value a review from them anyway?

I disagree, to a point.

Yes, the mug is great. Everyone likes kudos. (The main thing for me is the challenge. I've never written any horror before the OWCs. Probably never would have. But, now I have 2 horror shorts. I like them both.)

But, to your point, I find the reviews very helpful. On one hand, I'm getting technically more precise. It's an aspect of screenwriting I didn't know I would like so much. But, the reviews have helped me recognize the importance of precision. The more precise your writing, the less it distracts from the story.

Beyond that, reviews help you see problems that you can't/didn't see. If you're ignoring reviews because you're only concerned about whether someone likes the script or not, you're depriving yourself of a great tool to improve your writing.

I do get what you're saying: in the end, it's about you and your script. But, I wanted to push back on the "desperate writers" portion of your comment. It's not desperate to pursue feedback. It's smart.

I definitely didn't read your script properly and it was because of the former, Kev. If a script is good, as you said somehwere else, has voice, then I'll process the story far better than somebody who writes events like a boring shopping list.

Perhaps that is where our styles clash. I like to entertain with my writing, you prefer to bore people to death.

Quoted from PKCardinal If you're ignoring reviews because you're only concerned about whether someone likes the script or not, you're depriving yourself of a great tool to improve your writing.

Improve my writing how?

Quoted from leitskev the idea So rather than punish people who don't comment...make it positive. Seek them out and encourage them to comment. If they stay invisible, this will require Don's help. Maybe some OWC ambassadors could be made, people who could contact silent writers and try to draw them out nicely. Pia, Jeff...whoever. Just send them an email, maybe through Don, saying: we're grateful you submitted, please help us out by giving your opinion. No technical knowledge of screenwriting required. Just read and comment on what you like and don't.

This is a very good idea, but I cannot be that person, as everyone hates me and what I have to say.

Something does need to be done for sure.  Like others, it pisses me off to no end to see peeps not adhere to what this is all about - giving out as much or more than you get back.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor It's more the principle of it - The downright cheek of taking with no intention of giving.

Sums up my feelings perfectly.

Dustin, I've already admitted our script was a disaster. Although if you claim to like to entertain people, Libertine is not a good example. I had no idea it was yours. In fact, it was suggested I read it because it was supposedly Bert's. So I tried damn hard to like that script, and it bored me so profoundly that getting through was worse than some of the medical treatments I've been through. It was the reason I stopped reading scripts in the OWC(I eventually pushged myself to come back) But I didn't trash it. I tried to provide constructive comments. I think you did a good job on the dialog. With a few changes in storytelling technique you could do decent work. Providing one line comments feels more like checking a list.

Jeff...actually, you would be perfect. You trash scripts, but you never trash comments, and you always encourage participation and feedback. You've done that for more than a decade. I can't think of anyone more suited to that job.

Quoted from leitskev Jeff...actually, you would be perfect. You trash scripts, but you never trash comments, and you always encourage participation and feedback. You've done that for more than a decade. I can't think of anyone more suited to that job.

In all honesty, as soon as that idea was posed, Jeff was the first person I thought of, too. Even though you (Jeff) have a very direct style, it's not inherently negative. You want people to do better, you want more participation. All the things you'd like from people would result in something positive.

Quoted from leitskev Dustin, I've already admitted our script was a disaster. Although if you claim to like to entertain people, Libertine is not a good example. I had no idea it was yours. In fact, it was suggested I read it because it was supposedly Bert's. So I tried damn hard to like that script, and it bored me so profoundly that getting through was worse than some of the medical treatments I've been through. It was the reason I stopped reading scripts in the OWC(I eventually pushged myself to come back) But I didn't trash it. I tried to provide constructive comments. I think you did a good job on the dialog. With a few changes in storytelling technique you could do decent work. Providing one line comments feels more like checking a list.

But, Kevin, all of this is based on the assumption that I respect your opinion on storytelling. Guess what?

Quoted from leitskev Jeff...actually, you would be perfect.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde Jeff was the first person I thought of, too.

Haha you guys must be high.

If somebody doesn't want to read they're not going to read.

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but honestly, this has always been a problem, and no fix you can propose will capture people acting like jerks in their first OWC which is (often) the problem and then they (sometimes) get better next time after people bitch at them.