Strangely enough (after my rant about it last week) I didn't have a problem with this guy. At least he said thank's. And if he didn't know there were attached discussion boards - you can't really blame him.

The newbies of this world need the help of some of the more established contributors. Like Grasshopper - "Just because one nail bends"

I've been here about a week and I've reviewed 2 shorts and one full-length comedy, which is about all I had time for since I try to do this for another site as well and, oh yeah, I put in a 65 hour week as a civilian!  Unfortunately the full-length one was by a new person (I thought I should help out since we're both new) and it doesn't look like he will reciprocate...

I guess I look at it as paying your dues.  I suppose I have a tolerance level, and after an acceptable amount of time I'll stop putting in the effort.  It's way too early for me to think like that though...

I must confess the shorts puzzle me a bit - do most people here write those instead of full-length scripts?

I understand it's easier to review a short - you can curry favor with 3 people in the amount of time it takes to do so with one - I just didn't think the market was so wide for them...

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Not wishing to be a pain, but I think it's an overreaction.

You are never a pain, Dec -- but in this instance, unless I am mistaken, you have never posted a script.

So you might not be getting it.

You have never been an active member posting a work you have sweated over -- eager for feedback -- only to find your script buried beneath ten 3-page scripts by complete strangers who will never respond.

For the active members who crave feedback, it can be a very frustrating process to watch all the reviews on those 3-page scripts while your own script slips down the boards.

Don does what he can -- I have seen him post scripts from the regulars last -- or separately -- but that only helps for a day or two.

I bet there is a simple solution out there that will not require additional work from Don.

That is what I would like to see happen on this thread -- not a discussion of "what you do" or the relative merits of 3-page scripts --

-- but instead, the members putting their heads together and finding that solution.

I think, if I understand it right, that Bert might have the right solution. Add a little box on the 'Submit your Script' page asking people if they actually want a discussion thread created to go with their posted script.

That might solve situations such as the one created by this OP - who I have nothing against, actually; he's active on other sites, he posted his short here without realising it would appear on the discussion board, and rather than not acknowledge the feedback he received at all he at least took the time to be upfront and grateful to those who read it.

The related, thornier question is whether every posted script should automatically get its own thread, or whether a dedicated script thread on the boards is something a member has to earn - a privilege, not a right. Number of questions there:

- Should a member have to have commented on a set number of scripts before their script's thread is activated? What would be the set number? Would there be some sort of 'quality control' on their reviews, to prevent them just posting token one-liners? How can you judge the quality of a review?
- Should there be some sort of warning signal - like there was in the August OWC - that the script you are about to read is by someone who may, in all likelihood, never respond or return the favour?
- Is it a justified action to take in order to ensure the board's active members get some sort of recognition for their interaction, and will it encourage newer members to get involved, at least for a while, when they know a dedicated thread for THEIR script is their reward?
- OR would this kind of system, this imposition of 'rules' that have up till now really just been a sort of unspoken code of mutual respect and appreciation, go against the spirit of this community, and will it just deter new writers from joining?

I don't know the answer to those questions, and I have a feeling any kind of screening process would mean a big increase in workload for Don (is there any way the job could be shared?). But I thought I'd just throw them out there.

Quoted from JonnyBoy OR would this kind of system, this imposition of 'rules' that have up till now really just been a sort of unspoken code of mutual respect and appreciation, go against the spirit of this community, and will it just deter new writers from joining?

Yes, Don is of a similar frame of mind to this last set of comments, Jonny.

Ideally, we are looking for very simple ideas -- that should be intuitive to the older members and the newbies alike.

Thinking outside of the box is encouraged.

Ok, how about if, after your new work is posted, you have to post saying, I dunno, thanks Don or sometihng. I know a lot of regs and some newbies do this anyway.

But if someone anon gets a script posted but doesn't do this, we can then choose if we want to read it.  Does that make sense?

Bert, I'm pretty sure I've read some of of Decadence (Rick) script. At least one.

I also think the best solution would be to have a box to check when submitting if you want your script to be up for discussion on the boards.

I've read plenty of scripts where the author never responds. I usually delete my comments after a week or so in those cases.

Stevie, after a long discussion about this long time ago, Don started adding the author's board names after their names. That will give most people a clue if they are members of the boards or not.

Pia  

The check box for threads is a good idea. I support it. I think it would cut down on a fair share of leeches. At the same time, leeches could just as easily check the box and not join the boards. But like I said, I think it would help. I don't think this is a problem you can flat out fix but you can definitely make it smaller.

I've got a suggestion. Why not have a symbol follow the logline to indicate the writer is an active member of the boards. Worked for the OWC, right? Besides, there's already symbols for the format quality. Some members aren't around as much as they used to be but it's easy to tell who's still a contributor. George and Breanne still pop in from time to time. Someone like Andrew Romance, I wouldn't expect back anytime soon.

You can't force people to be a part of the community. You can take measures to exclude the people who don't contribute but I don't think that's fair. I think the key is making sure members are informed about who's scripts they're reading.

I think perhaps the check box for posters who do not wish to have a forum thread is a fine idea.  To take it one step further, on the home page, Unproduced scripts could be in two sections.  One with a discussion forum link, and one without.  Perhaps a paragraph about how these scripts (without a link) are here just for potential producers, while the others are open to both producers discussion for peers?

I think that will create administration headaches.  People will forget to click the box or if the box is checked by default they will forget to unclick it.

I think whatever needs to be done should be done to the title of the scripts thread.  This way people know on sight whether they even want to open the thread or not.

My first suggestion would be that an * be placed by titles where we know the author is an active member of the board.  Though this will also create administrative tasks as well when *s are placed where they should or shouldn't be.

My second suggestion would be that the authors name be added to the title of the thread.  So instead of 'My Brilliant Script'  the thread would be titled 'My Brilliant Script by T. Author'.  This would ensure reads if only by name recognition.  I know that when I'm looking a a list of new scripts the first thing I want to know is who wrote them.

The only drawback I can see with this would be that some of the thread titles would get long.  However, the vast majority would be quite useful.

Anyway, that's my two cents.    

I'm not sure. l don't want to judge anyone outright or at all really. I only need to judge myself because things just are the way they are and I think we can't help certain hereditary predispositions towards, saying for instance: Stinginess, or not being so stingy. Or openness or closedness and perhaps even unemotional, if unemotional fits into that category of "closedness". Does it?

Well, I think I feel that I agree with Balt in many respects. I didn't get a good vibe from the poster here. The words seemed rather sweet, but there was something negative underneath. Strange. I don't think they meant anything by it though. Just, again, that's the way it is.

But here we are and I don't want to tell anyone what to read or what not to read.

I think Simplyscripts will continue to evolve and perhaps some kind of sticky thread can be introduced for people who are not active on the boards, but wish to submit. I don't know the logistics of board management, but that might be a possibility.

Sandra

I think with the "closeness" between ss and mp, a lot of mp writers have learned that "if you post your script at SS, there's a good chance your script will get produced". In other words, a lot of mp writers post their scripts here, but have no intention to become SS "forum family". That doesn't make them bad people...  

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Well, I think I feel that I agree with Balt in many respects. I didn't get a good vibe from the poster here. The words seemed rather sweet, but there was something negative underneath. Strange. I don't think they meant anything by it though. Just, again, that's the way it is.

I would say you have good intuition.   Among many other sites the Simply Scripts forum is considered a forum where you need a thick skin.  The general perception of reviews here is that they are harsh and people avoid the site because of that.      

I don't believe that to be true of all reviews here, though there are a few reviewers that I would consider borderline.   But there really isn't much you can do about that because the alternative is to do something like they do on Movie Poet and delete the reviews you consider too harsh.  I don't happen to think that benefits any one.

But the point here is that there could have been a negative vibe there.  I know that Kyle has been around Movie Poet while discussions about Simply Scripts were happening, but whether he actually read any of these discussions is unknown because he didn't post in the threads.

This whole perception thing is why it's extremely important that everyone make an effort to be polite to each other during the OWCs.  Because during the OWCs we get a lot of out of forum guests and if we ever want to change the perception, these are the people we have to convince that this is a great place.  We already know this but they don't.      

Quoted from mcornetto My second suggestion would be that the authors name be added to the title of the thread.  So instead of 'My Brilliant Script'  the thread would be titled 'My Brilliant Script by T. Author'.  This would ensure reads if only by name recognition.  I know that when I'm looking a a list of new scripts the first thing I want to know is who wrote them. The only drawback I can see with this would be that some of the thread titles would get long.  However, the vast majority would be quite useful.

That's actually a pretty good one. Like in the comments area, you leave your name, so Don doesn't have to go scrounging through the scripts looking for it.

Maybe have a post where, if they want to, people leave their real names so they can be known to associate with certain scripts.

That way, it's not encouraging anyone's script to be left out, but if you like stuff by a particular writer, you can find it quicker and easier.

-Sean

Quoted from mcornetto I would say you have good intuition.   Among many other sites the Simply Scripts forum is considered a forum where you need a thick skin.  The general perception of reviews here is that they are harsh and people avoid the site because of that.

If that is the case, then perhaps it is to be so.

There has to be levels in reality and so many forces are acting upon us and we're all involved in our own little progression of evolution and that's why we can't make really proper discernments most of the time because they're skewed by "where we are" at the time and that's not where others are; so before I make my little speech, I just want to say that I don't want to be harsh and judgmental.

The important thing is that no one here, the harsh critics, such as Jeff, or anyone else that are prominent here have NO desire to hurt anyone.

They are speaking their minds from their experience and this is completely acceptable on an "earthly" level. That does change, but I can't discern the other portions right now.

It's my feeling that the individuals here are here with the desire to raise each other up.

I'm here because I love the personalities that I feel connected to here.

In many ways, I feel like without you people, it's like missing an arm or a leg.

As far as reads go, if I could read everything that was posted, I would, but I'm only human and I can't.

But I can offer my confidence in all of you and say that you are all so very special and you don't even know it.

Sandra