I appreciate the fact that you guys have read and commented on my script. Being new to this site, I uploaded several of my scripts without the knowledge that there were actually discussion boards attached to each script. So, it's a pleasant surprise to get feedback, even though I have to honestly admit to all of you fine writers that I doubt I'll be returning the favor on this site (I already do so elsewhere).

So, again, thank you. Good luck!

Quoted from KJLateran   Even though I have to honestly admit to all of you fine writers that I doubt I'll be returning the favor

Sadly, this is one of the many reasons why I don't post work up anymore... Writers, like this guy, flood the site with their little 3 page epics - Don't respond to the feedback given - Don't care about the time people, like myself, put forth into reviewing their work --- And then, to top it all off, they have the lack of moral fiber to tell you they won't even consider looking at your work...

I don't care what the ramifications are here...

There are some really talented writers here and whose work deserves to be celebrated in some way or another... Be it a simple read or review or, ultimatley, getting picked up and sold for production.  

So, with all that said... I read your script... I have an opinion on why it succeeded and or failed - But, since you don't care about the favor in error I won't return it.

Quoted from KJLateran I doubt I'll be returning the favor on this site...

While my feelings on this may not be as eloquent as Balt's, I did share a similar sentiment when I read this.

What I would ask -- if you continue to post your works on this board -- is that you drop a quick comment on your scripts to make potential reviewers aware of this.

There are some who might read your work out of sheer goodwill, but many reviewers would like to know that they are spending their time with an active member.

I admit that I generally only read scripts from people I know are active on the boards but read this as it was only 3 pages, but...

Quoted from KJLateran I doubt I'll be returning the favor

...now I know I just won't waste my time again.  Why post a script on here if you don't care if anyone reads it?  I agree with Balt, but maybe wouldn't have worded it so harshly lol.

Quoted from alffy Why post a script on here if you don't care if anyone reads it?

In all fairness, some people post a script in hopes of having it "found" by someone who wants to produce it -- but they have no interest in participating in the review forums.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the issue of different procedures for a simple posting on the home page and an actual link here on the forums.

I'll bring it up with Don and the other Mods once I have mulled it over a bit.

Honestly, I don’t get too upset over this type of thing.

I might get slammed for saying this but I don’t really have a problem with the author’s comments. Personally, I read scripts because I’m interested in the script or the author. If people don’t read my script it’s because:

a) They dislike me personally or want to “punish“ me,
b) they don’t know me or aren’t aware of my work, or
c) the script didn’t grab them. And personally, I don’t want someone to read my work because they feel obligated.

I’m sure there are other reasons, such as time. The point is that I get something out of reading scripts. It inspires me. I have something to gain. Something that makes me a better writer.

If the author of the above script doesn’t want to read scripts around here, it’s his loss. It just means that in the long run, I’ll be a better writer. And that’s good in my opinion because this is a very competitive business.

I’m satisfied with his explanation. I’m sure he’s probably over there at Triggerstreet or somewhere where he’s forced to read a lot of crap. One of the things I most cherish about Simply Scripts is that I can put my work up here and I can do whatever I feel is best for me personally as a writer. I can read what I want. Those who want to get something out of it can get a lot out of it and those who don’t aren’t forced to participate. They can just fade into the distance and disappear.

I think we all do what we feel is best. Instead of getting annoyed, I just look at it as though I gain something from the experience and the non-participatory writer gains nothing. Unless, of course, getting mad about it inspires you to write; Then I guess it’s a good thing.


Breanne

That's fair enough Breanne. For each their own.

But many here write reviews in good faith. They expect a return read sometime in the future or, at the very least a comment or maybe even just a thank you for their time and effort.

If the author isn't gonna respond at all then, at best, it's rude. In my humble of course.

I for one won't review anything from anyone who doesn't post replies for this very reason. If the author has got the time to submit a script they should make the time to respond to comments. Or else why bother submitting?

RV

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I'm sure he's probably over there at Triggerstreet or somewhere where he's forced to read a lot of crap.

Actually, Brea, I think he is a denizen of Movie Poet -- which is on the verge of becoming a sister-site, with so many shared members.

There is alot of good stuff over there, for sure -- and when you do encounter "crap", at least it is only five pages worth.

And MP has their own loosely-enforced requirements for reading the works of your peers, so I can understand when he says his reading time will be spent elsewhere.

But in the past few years, there has been an increasing tide -- some would say a flood -- of five-page scripts from authors there who have no interest in participating here.

While the home page posting should remain open to all, I think, as a courtesy to the active membership, there should be some kind of opt-out or opt-in option to having a thread for your script on the discussion board.

Particularly for the short-shorts.

Quoted from rendevous I for one won't review anything from anyone who doesn't post replies…

That’s the beauty of Simply Scripts. You’re in control of what you read - and what you get out of it.

Quoted from rendevous If the author has got the time to submit a script they should make the time to respond to comments. Or else why bother submitting?

For the reason Bert gives above. Some writers may be trying to reach out to people other than other writers, such as producers.

Quoted from bert Actually, Brea, I think he is a denizen of Movie Poet -- which is on the verge of becoming a sister-site, with so many shared members. There is alot of good stuff over there, for sure -- and when you do encounter "crap", at least it is only five pages worth.

Thanks Bert. I was just pondering the nightmare of trying to drag through a feature length script you’re not interested in.

Quoted from bert While the home page posting should remain open to all, I think, as a courtesy to the active membership, there should be some kind of opt-out or opt-in option to having a thread for your script on the discussion board.

Wise words. Sounds like a solution to me.


Thanks guys,


Breanne

Quoted from KJLateran I appreciate the fact that you guys have read and commented on my script. Being new to this site, I uploaded several of my scripts without the knowledge that there were actually discussion boards attached to each script. So, it's a pleasant surprise to get feedback, even though I have to honestly admit to all of you fine writers that I doubt I'll be returning the favor on this site (I already do so elsewhere). So, again, thank you. Good luck!

With that being said, I've moved this writers work off the board

Don

Not wishing to be a pain, but I think it's an overreaction.

Personally I only ever come onto the discussion board, I don't use the home page to search for scripts.

I think it's fine if people don't want to review other people's scripts. There is already an unofficial process in place whereby reviews are reciprocated, and that prevents it becoming a problem.

The only reason this has blown up is because the author was honest about the situation.

As Bert said, this is a good site to post scrits in order to find a producer of some kind. It's not necessarily the case that people are looking for reviews, they are just advertising their script if you like.

I've personally seen a few scripts from people who haven't ever contributed to the board at all, but I thought had some potential. I don't really think that the system needs correcting in any way. The site works as it is, you get out of it what you want from it as an individual, as Breanne so eloquently explained.

It's better to let the site police itself. A lot of the other sites are so regulated that it becomes an irritation to me and I dont' bother with them.

It's great that loads of scripts are posted up every week, a nod to Don, but also a shame that most are from people who never visit the boards.  It's easy to miss scripts, especially shorts written by long time members and therefore they can get lost in the tide.  I'm not sure I have the answer other than having an author field on the board, making them easy to spot.  I guess this could probably be a headache for Don though.  I'd like to say that I have no issues with none regulars posting their work, so perhaps we should just not review them and so not get annoyed when they don't respond lol.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Not wishing to be a pain, but I think it's an overreaction. Personally I only ever come onto the discussion board, I don't use the home page to search for scripts. I think it's fine if people don't want to review other people's scripts. There is already an unofficial process in place whereby reviews are reciprocated, and that prevents it becoming a problem. The only reason this has blown up is because the author was honest about the situation. As Bert said, this is a good site to post scrits in order to find a producer of some kind. It's not necessarily the case that people are looking for reviews, they are just advertising their script if you like. I've personally seen a few scripts from people who haven't ever contributed to the board at all, but I thought had some potential. I don't really think that the system needs correcting in any way. The site works as it is, you get out of it what you want from it as an individual, as Breanne so eloquently explained. It's better to let the site police itself. A lot of the other sites are so regulated that it becomes an irritation to me and I dont' bother with them.

Not a pain at all.  I entirely agree.  I wish to leave the discussion board as unregulated as possible (without it getting overrun with spam and such).  In this case, I merely removed the writers work from the discussion board.  The scripts remain listed on the main site.  I do this from time to time when I'm told or learn that the writer just wishes to have his/her work posted, but doesn't wish to participate in the discussion.  

Don

oh, I thought this discussion would run and run but on that note Don....

...Transmission End....

Quoted from Don Not a pain at all.  I entirely agree.  I wish to leave the discussion board as unregulated as possible (without it getting overrun with spam and such).  In this case, I merely removed the writers work from the discussion board.  The scripts remain listed on the main site.  I do this from time to time when I'm told or learn that the writer just wishes to have his/her work posted, but doesn't wish to participate in the discussion.   Don

Fair enough.

I would question whether informative discussion necessarily has to include the author themselves, though.

As I say, from a personal point of view, the presence of these scripts is of interest to me and I'd prefer to see the reaction to them regardless of who posts them.

The great thing about this site is that it is able to grow organically because of the input of its members. It's obviously critical that there arwe a core group of people willing to review each others work, but there are also other uses for the site and for the discussion board.

Rick

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

I think Simply Scripts could evolve into a major tool that could launch you into the business, easily... The only problem is lack of direction in "some" areas.  I think Don, being the deep down good hearted person he is, has opened his site up to a wealth of people and let the site become "their" site and not "his" site.

That's tops in a lot of ways.  It shows that he's really thinking of the average person and site member.  What I feel he should do is regulate some of the boards, though.  This is a screenwriting forum and website... Cut all the loose talk out. Do away with "certain" threads and board.  Bring this back down to a site where writing is encouraged over talking about music - video games - and other such happenings.

Once you wrangle those aspects into the barn, that's when you can start to broaden again.  Make a designated mod to a designated board.  Make them read a certain amount of scripts submitted or at least skip through them and see if they are properly or poorly formated.  

We need a board souly for regular members... A place where only those with a certain number of post can even access. This board is where all legit work could be posted - exchanged - read and reviewed.  It would be open to download and the author could be contacted through PM by members, but only commented on by his direct peers...

While this all seems extreme, and it is; I'm sure it is... I think some of these ideas could be applied for the benefit of the site and the writers here who are serious about getting proper feedback for their hard work.  A board where you know if you put up a script you're going to get reads and critique.

Sadly, the guy that this thread is about will probably go on to prosper in the business while so many of the talented writers here will get discouraged and quit writing all together...  There is nothing like reading a damn good script here by someone who knows what they're doing and then letting that person know how they hooked you and reeled you in.  That is an important thing for a writer to hear... and I feel so much of that is gone with these new members and their 5 page scripts.

And, yes... I'm a prick.  I know a great many hate me and that's fine. I work better that way.  But I've never said something here I didn't believe in and I've always gave sharp, honest, gloves off advise that, when applied to the writers work, will help them a great deal... So what if they have to lick their wounds while they apply that advice, next time they should spend less time licking wounds and more time getting it right.

My bucket of change --

Quoted from Baltis. This is a screenwriting forum and website... Cut all the loose talk out. Do away with "certain" threads and board.  Bring this back down to a site where writing is encouraged over talking about music - video games - and other such happenings. --

We tried this and everybody pretty much disappeared until the fun boards went back up.

Face it man, the focus is on making friends and not writing.

People would rather rush through and post a short instead of putting in the time to write something interesting.

Quoted from bert 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.

Hi Bert,

I've posted several scripts over the time I've been here, you even reviewed a super short that I wrote years ago.

The reason I don't post more often is that I invariably get approached by people asking to make it, or someone takes it upon themselves to make it without even asking and considering the intention is for me to make them myself anyway, it can become an unwelcome complication.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like the regulars struggle to get reviews to me. Maybe on features, but that's a different issue.

Seems to me that the regulars are very good at looking after each other and reciprocating reviews on here. Looking at the shorts section, there isn't a script that hasn't been reviewd at least once and many of them have been reviewed numerous times.

I think everyone needs to be careful that they don't make the site stale. Authors who don't intend to participate much might be drawn to the board by the discussion of their work and become an active member long term. That won't happen if the scripts are just posted on the home page.

Also, it's part of the script writing "experience ", if you like, to write scripts that attract attention based on their loglines, premises and such. Newbies whose are getting lots of reads must be doing something right, because this site has always operated under the principle that only people who review get their work reviewed in exchange.

In other words it seems like the core issue is that some of the active members are reviewing scripts from newbies at the expense of reviewing regulars, but surely that's just life isn't it? Being a regular doesn't necessarily entail that your script will be the most attractive, or the most worthy (although that can often be the case).

All I'm saying is that the site has a great many uses, some of them are not overtly visible (eg the Producers who trawl looking for scripts). Getting produced seems to be a concern for many of the writers on here, so it would be unwise to make the site less Producer friendly. I like to read what other people (who will be your audience) think of the scripts and I'm sure other Producers do as well.

Rick

Quoted from Baltis. I think Simply Scripts could evolve into a major tool that could launch you into the business, easily... The only problem is lack of direction in "some" areas.  I think Don, being the deep down good hearted person he is, has opened his site up to a wealth of people and let the site become "their" site and not "his" site. My bucket of change --

The obvious thing here, is a top 50 unproduced feature showcase. Yeah... I am aware of how difficult and subjective that would be. But let's face it, that's what the world's like, It is competetive and it is subjective. We could have one board where potential applicants to this board can be discussed, critiqued, shot down, whatever. If you are not an active participant on the boards, you're never going to get in. This also would give those of the industry who did want to have a look at the SS a place to go without wading through all the crap.

And no, I don't think I'm good enough yet to get on said showcase - but at least it would give me and the rest of the newbies something to aspire to.

I think that a couple of simple solutions that have already been suggested might help. The idea of a tick box for "Discussion Thread" when you submit scripts for example - it is true that not everyone will tick it, but it will eliminate some of the problems.

I also think that the author's name - board name probably to indicate they are SS members - should appear on the boards to show us who wrote what - if only for search purposes. Maybe instead of the title you could have it underneath the "Posted by SimplyScripts" (pp Niles Crane) or something like that.

I would not be at all happy with the idea of an "Elite" section - "All writers are equal, but some writers are more equal than others"!

And how would you decide that? Baltis, for example, has been around here a lot longer than me - I have only been here a little over 3 months, but I have more posts to my credit. And would have even more, but when threads are cleaned/deleted, my total has gone down. So do we use posts - and if so how many? 100? 500?

And who is to say that someone who posts (as has been mentioned in another thread) a couple of lines on a thread repeatedly just commenting on insignificant things, and easily exceeds a set total, just so you could join the "Elite".

Which would then bring you into the area of "your posts are more important than his posts" sort of judgement!

Anything along these lines would not work and would be severely detrimental to this site.

btw I have looked at Movie Poet, and noticed the overlap of names with this site. What put me off it was the fact that you are assigned scripts to review (correct me if I am wrong), and the element of this "Elite" with some of the comps limited to members who have reached certain levels.

Finally I would say that the "non-writing" threads are still about us as writers - we absorb everything from around us, we are not hermetically sealed in. So discussion on music, sport or whatever, helps us develop as writers.

Malcolm

A while back I suggested a rating system for scripts, but it was generally felt to be a bad idea (including by me eventually!).

The problem with any "top of the pops" style chart is how do you decide which is best - who votes - everyone or an a voting panel made up of members based on what criteria? Is it just for shorts, features, TV scripts, Movie scripts, stage plays? The complications will be enormous.

We already have a thread for recommending SS scripts - I recommended one of yours on it! - and personally have come to the belief that this works best. Maybe better promotion of it would be an answer?

Balt,

The thing is, this site is just what it is, a virtual meeting place. It seems to me that anybody can make of it what they want. We all have PMs, we all have email, we can all start threads. Anyone one of us can start something up and get others involved.

There doesn't seem to be a need to physically change anything.

I do think that the board for the regulars sounds appealing to some degree. One of the problems you get with the internet is that a lot of the better writers, the ones on the kind of cusp on something, stop posting their scripts. You're basically giving the keys away to the farm at some stage because a lot of the bigger companies aren't going to be interested once it's been publicly available.

That being said, I don't realistically see how a board can ever be a way of getting you into the business. In truth a board that could do that would have nothing to do with screenwriting and would be largely about marketing, precedures for approaching agents, pitching, advice on how to build a network of contacts and that kind of thing. It's that that separates the people who make it from those that don't.

A lot of the time I'm not even sure how important the script is when I see the standard of some of the films that get made. I saw 2012 last night and the first 45 minutes were amongst the worst I've ever seen committed to the screen. The writing was as bad as I've ever come across. It improved considerably when everyone stopped talking and the world just fell apart, thankfully, but I was close to walking out (and more than a few did so).

On the other hand I recently watched David Mamet's Redbelt which was superbly written and was clearly a labour of love. It was the best fighting film I've seen since Rocky. The film absolutely died on its arse, making less on average in the cinemas it was shown than most independent filmmakers manage with their DV film.

I'm open to discussion on it though. I've said before that there should be some way of making more of everyones abilities.

Rick

To be fair, I've been booted from this site so many times now I lost track... My count resets each time.  I've been apart of the community, in some form, for many, many years, though.

As for the raiting system... I think that works. A 1 out of 5 stars system would let members know what is and isn't good.  Only allow 1 vote per user. Or, only those who have reviewed a set umber of scripts are allowed to vote... That way we know they're not just marking a mark to mark it.

There are many ways to make the site more productive and active... Maybe these aren't the best ideas, but something good should come of all the ideas collectively.

Quoted from Niles_Crane Malcolm A while back I suggested a rating system for scripts, but it was generally felt to be a bad idea (including by me eventually!). The problem with any "top of the pops" style chart is how do you decide which is best - who votes - everyone or an a voting panel made up of members based on what criteria? Is it just for shorts, features, TV scripts, Movie scripts, stage plays? The complications will be enormous. We already have a thread for recommending SS scripts - I recommended one of yours on it! - and personally have come to the belief that this works best. Maybe better promotion of it would be an answer?

Niles,

As stated, I know how subjective these things are and that they can easily become a popularity contest, rather than an honest rating system. But I also understand the frustration of the active members who are good enough to give critique.

I only started writing scripts ( if you could call them that ) in August of this year. Although I've been writing most of my adult life. The help I was given on this site (yourself included) has been invaluable. When I read someone like Alffy, RV, or Balt saying that their going to stop helping the newbies because they're ungrateful, really worries me.

There has to be away of stopping people from taking the piss. I'm not even talking about review exchange. Just... Hey man, thanks' for that you really helped me.

There's a top 100 list of the best produced scripts written, so a top 50 unproduced list is at least possible.

Maybe bring in an independant - charge a fee, for those particular applicants. That way you cut out the popularity ellement. Let's face it - who wouldn't want their sript in that showcase. Once it's grown legs, you could propably use it as a calling card to get an agent. Some sites already do this.

I've tried other sites too, but come back to SS because its by far and away the best site for aspiring screenplay writers. The members here are damned helpful and yes I include Balt in those. I don't want it to go to hell in a basket just because of a few ungrateful assholes.

Maybe a line could be added to inform the newbie that if they want their script read, they should read other scripts and post reviews to gain a review in return.

When I was new I didn't know this was how this site worked and feel many newbies think it's a case of post a script, get reviewed, leave it at that.  Knowing what to do in advance would probably help newbies before any mistakes occur.

Quoted from jayrex Maybe a line could be added to inform the newbie that if they want their script read, they should read other scripts and post reviews to gain a review in return. When I was new I didn't know this was how this site worked and feel many newbies think it's a case of post a script, get reviewed, leave it at that.  Knowing what to do in advance would probably help newbies before any mistakes occur.

Jayrex,

There's already a thread for review exchange.

The problem with this is that a lot of newbies just don't have the confidence to give reviews to established members.

I reviewed one of RV's recently and pretty much everything I wanted to say had already been said. It is difficult for the newcomers. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The one thing you shouldn't do EVER! Is not aknowledge. Thats just bad manners.

I would say that I regularly visited the SS site to look for script links for years before I realised it had either the unproduced scripts section or a Discussion Board!

Maybe the solution is simple - if you want to post scripts, you have to register - and to do that, you are directed to the Discussion Board so you see the forum exists and can't say you didn't.

The Top 100 Scripts list (which is now several years old) featured on the SS site the result of an Institute wide vote by the AFI a few years ago (they also voted on 100 Best Films, 100 Best Comedies and so on). It isn't anything to do with the site, nor required poor old Don to slog his way through a list of screenplays!

There is in fact nothing to stop us (I assume) creating a thread "Best SS Screenplays 2009" and creating such a list - every time a member posts there, the original post is amended to reflect votes - the list is built up, the rankings based on how many times a script is recommended, and so on. It would be relatively simple to do - and all but the original post could be cleaned regularly, so keep the size down.

Anyone fancy setting it up? I'll do it myself if you want?

Several good ideas on this thread, especially having the writers name or username on the title of the thread. I have been guilty in the past of opening up a thread for a new script to see who wrote it, noticed it was a three pager from someone I've never heard of but read and reviewed it anyway. Having the name on the title will keep me from ever doing that again for someone who doesn't even say 'thanks'.

The voting idea also sounds good. Giving the regulars a set number of votes (say 3) every year to vote for the best of that year gives all the writers here something to aim for. Well done to whoever suggested that.

I'm not sure about a board for regulars only. I'm aware Niles has over 400 posts but I've been here for over a year now and haven't reached 250 yet, but I still visit this site everyday. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this position so how would cases like that be judged?

The box to tick when submitting a script is also a good idea although I can see where the admins are coming from as it would be a nightmare.

Niles,

Sounds like a plan.
Obviously any suggestion has to go through Don and I'm sure there could be any number of problems that haven't been thought of, but at least it's an idea. This kind of discussion can only be helpful.

The idea of promoting the better scripts does keep the older members interested and can give the newer members apirations - always a good thing. If it can help cut down the post it and go crew, so much the better.

The one thing this site cannot afford to lose, is its wide appeal. It's a bloody good site and I'm sure everyone wants to keep it that way.

There has got to be some middle ground here.

Please, Please, Please, let's not get to a stage where the members here stop helping the newcomers. It's so counter productive.

Quoted from malcolm3 There's already a thread for review exchange.

What I said was for when submitting a script, not in the discussion boards.

Some newbies don't even know the boards exist.  And the ones that do, don't know how the boards work.

In the past people used to simply post a message saying:

"Is the author around for feedback?". Or something similar.

That seems to be the easiest and most sensible way of dealing with it.

Quoted from jayrex What I said was for when submitting a script, not in the discussion boards. Some newbies don't even know the boards exist.  And the ones that do, don't know how the boards work.

Point taken.

Niles, if you can regulate that thread, please make it, I would love to see it and contribute.

Quoted from 1987Brian The voting idea also sounds good. Giving the regulars a set number of votes (say 3) every year to vote for the best of that year gives all the writers here something to aim for. Well done to whoever suggested that.

Actually, that might work - when we reach certain colour codes, we get a vote to go with it, which we can use in December for a "Script of the Year", so the higher our colour rating, the more votes.

How would it work in practice though? I have no desire to create something which would cause more work and headaches for Don or the Mods.

Quoted from 1987Brian I'm not sure about a board for regulars only. I'm aware Niles has over 400 posts but I've been here for over a year now and haven't reached 250 yet, but I still visit this site everyday. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this position so how would cases like that be judged?

Precisely my point - it is relatively easy to run up a total, it does not necessarily reflect your contribution. I hope I have made one with these 460+ posts - but I could just as easily posted one line reviews of loglines and nothing else! Anything that introduces a judgement between members - your posts are better than his posts sort of thing - is best avoided.

Suggestion,

30 days probationary period after joining before you can submit a script. That gives you a chance to find your way around the site and maybe even give the odd review before posting yourself.

A top 3 Unproduced scripts

1 feature

2 Short

3 series/episode.

All genres included

To be voted on once a year by active members.

Then showcased to the best off SS ability.

Now that would be some competition.

However, you would still have to have an independant to make sure it's not a popularity contest.

Here comes the wet blanket...

I really hate where you guys are going with these suggestions. Absolutely don't like the idea of having best scripts at SS. Have you noticed how many scripts get posted every week? How can you possibly have a best of when there's no chance anyone will read them all. If someone only reads one and votes it #1, how will that be fair? I also think we've tried it a few years back and it was disastrous.

I also strongly dislike the exclusivity type idea that only certain people will have access to this or that. That doesn't sit well with me at all. This place is a nice and friendly place and should be open to anyone, regardless of ability to write. And I can't say I really know Don, but from the little I do, I think he loves scripts, books and podcasts and such. he loves the written word and I think he wants anyone who attempts to write to be able to showcase it. I could of course have totally misread him.  

I take offense to people harping on short shorts all the time. I think I have written some pretty good ones myself. Santa's Gift to Joey would be one. Those very short scripts are great for filmmakers that are looking for shorts to produce for their showreels. In the last year and a half, I think every single short I've posted has been produced or is in production. I've also written some shorts that I have not posted here because a. people complain about the amounts of shorts being posted. b. I usually get a ton of reads and I don't want people who feel they have to read my stuff because I've read theirs. I rather save those reads for whenever I post a feature.

That's it. Rant's over.  

PS. this place is not about competition...There are enough screenwriting competitions out there. This is a place to get help so we can become better writers.

I agree completely with Pia.

You've got the Nicholls and numerous other contests if you want to compete. That's completely independent and that's the "real world".

Seems more like people are interested in self-publicising and protecting their own interests, using the board as a means of advertising for the select few.

I really don't mean to be confrontational here, but this problem is one of your own (the active members) creation. You are choosing, of your own volition, to review scripts from non-active board members. Whose fault is that?

Quoted from Grandma Bear Here comes the wet blanket... I really hate where you guys are going with these suggestions. Absolutely don't like the idea of having best scripts at SS. Have you noticed how many scripts get posted every week? How can you possibly have a best of when there's no chance anyone will read them all. If someone only reads one and votes it #1, how will that be fair? I also think we've tried it a few years back and it was disastrous. I also strongly dislike the exclusivity type idea that only certain people will have access to this or that. That doesn't sit well with me at all. This place is a nice and friendly place and should be open to anyone, regardless of ability to write. And I can't say I really know Don, but from the little I do, I think he loves scripts, books and podcasts and such. he loves the written word and I think he wants anyone who attempts to write to be able to showcase it. I could of course have totally misread him.   I take offense to people harping on short shorts all the time. I think I have written some pretty good ones myself. Santa's Gift to Joey would be one. Those very short scripts are great for filmmakers that are looking for shorts to produce for their showreels. In the last year and a half, I think every single short I've posted has been produced or is in production. I've also written some shorts that I have not posted here because a. people complain about the amounts of shorts being posted. b. I usually get a ton of reads and I don't want people who feel they have to read my stuff because I've read theirs. I rather save those reads for whenever I post a feature. That's it. Rant's over.   PS. this place is not about competition...There are enough screenwriting competitions out there. This is a place to get help so we can become better writers.

I don't think what you are saying is wet at all.

I'm as scared as anyone that changes could ruin the site.

My suggestions were only to try and appease those members who are sick of the post and go merchants. Who use this site purely as a bill board and nothing else.

My biggest fear is that the outrage caused by these people is going to stiffle newcomers and as I'm one of them - I really don't want to see that.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Here comes the wet blanket... I really hate where you guys are going with these suggestions. Absolutely don't like the idea of having best scripts at SS. Have you noticed how many scripts get posted every week? How can you possibly have a best of when there's no chance anyone will read them all. If someone only reads one and votes it #1, how will that be fair? I also think we've tried it a few years back and it was disastrous. I also strongly dislike the exclusivity type idea that only certain people will have access to this or that. That doesn't sit well with me at all. This place is a nice and friendly place and should be open to anyone, regardless of ability to write. And I can't say I really know Don, but from the little I do, I think he loves scripts, books and podcasts and such. he loves the written word and I think he wants anyone who attempts to write to be able to showcase it. I could of course have totally misread him.   I take offense to people harping on short shorts all the time. I think I have written some pretty good ones myself. Santa's Gift to Joey would be one. Those very short scripts are great for filmmakers that are looking for shorts to produce for their showreels. In the last year and a half, I think every single short I've posted has been produced or is in production. I've also written some shorts that I have not posted here because a. people complain about the amounts of shorts being posted. b. I usually get a ton of reads and I don't want people who feel they have to read my stuff because I've read theirs. I rather save those reads for whenever I post a feature. That's it. Rant's over.   PS. this place is not about competition...There are enough screenwriting competitions out there. This is a place to get help so we can become better writers.

No Pia, you're anything but a wet blanket.  Thank you for saying it.  

The way some suggestions sound might turn this into another Triggerstreet, and the way Triggerstreet is is why I'm here and not there.  No exclusivity of any kind.  Everyone should be able to access all scripts at any time, it may just be beneficial to know if the author has just posted to post.

A lot of interesting ideas here -- still digging through it -- but I do feel a need to put the brakes on any plans for any "Unproduced Screenplay" awards the minute I saw it.

Without going into long detail, it has been tried in the past -- it turns into a popularity contest -- and it gets ugly even with the purist of intentions.

Use the "Simply Recommended Scripts" thread for those you feel are worthy.

This contest idea ain't gonna happen.

As a new person, I think one (and only) change I'd like to see on the discussion boards attached to the works is the author's SS handle underneath the title...

Unfortunately unless the author is also the last poster we have no way of knowing without going in, and thus recording a "view"...

With the author listed, the senior board members could easily pick each other out and review accordingly.  Also, the "views" would be a more legitimate count of those who truly wanted to be there.

Or not...

AJR

I think people forget the portal page is where most people do their browsing... I'm always on my phone or netbook on this site.  I almost always have it set to portal.  How can we clutter it up with our names & then our screenplay names? It'll get really ugly, really quick.  It'll probably become overwhelming when you look at it too.

I certainly have no desire to see SS becoming broken into a them and us type site - or to have a system where we have to review scripts given to us, or review a certain number before earning privileges.

And, sorry Malcolm, but I wouldn't want a probationary period either. I posted my first script within a couple of weeks of joining. It was the first thing I'd written in 7 years - if I had had to wait a month before I could post it, in all likelihood I would have gone elsewhere.

Pia, I do think you are worrying unnecessarily. Don and the Moderators (a well known 1960s band I believe) have simply asked for suggestions as to resolve certain issues that have been raised. They will do whatever they think best.

The problem seems to be that such is the number of scripts posted by inactive members and non-members, work by active members - new like myself and Malcolm, as well as older members such as yourself and Rendezvous - is pushed down and out. If these posters were returning, taking part - simply responding to their own threads, it wouldn't be a problem, but they want the benefit of the site without the responsibility of being a part of this community.

And how is that fair?

It has been said that some of these people are using this site as a marketplace to show off their work. But that doesn't help the ones who are here to learn about their craft such as Malcolm. And let's face it, some of these scripts dumped here are not very good - so the authors are doing themselves a disservice by not taking part as well as us.

---

Best, and simplest, idea I have heard so far is to include the posters name alongside their title. That way we will know who wrote what, and make our decisions accordingly.

I don't think it would make that much difference to the portal, would it? I have a 15" screen HP laptop, so it may well look a lot different than on a netbook or phone, but then you can't please all the people all the time!

On most computer screens it should be fine to have it laid out thus

(new) Rest My Eyes in Shades of Green by Niles Crane

If there is a long title - such as mine have had, you can always abbreviate it with ...

Of all the ideas here, this is by far the simplest one but probably the most effective.
There would be no discrimination, no special rules or regulations, no "them and us" or elites - we could make up our own minds with this as a simple guide to help us.

OK, so on a Sunday morning I get excitable - usually the drink from the night before. However, this is important to me. I really don't want anything done that would discourage new members, or discourage established members from giving them critique. which seems to be the way the oppinions were going.

I've been lucky with the help I've got. It would be nice if others were given the same chance. I can't help thinking that the abuse by a few, could screw it up for everyone.

The good thing - Don's never going to let that happen.

So, having read through all of this, I can see lots of "both sides" issues.

I think most can agree that having the boards become "elitist" in some way -- with a group of exclusive and not-so-exclusive members -- is the wrong approach.

Don wants the boards open to all, and he has accomplished this.

Incorporating the authors name into the title seems good at first glance -- but it does seem like it would add a great deal of clutter in actual practice.

In the long run, such a change would likely make little difference.

Perhaps this conversation -- which I was largely responsible for initiating   -- may be much ado over nothing.

I suppose it is possible that some of the flaws in the current system -- real or perceived -- are simply the price we pay for having the type of community we have.

Perhaps the best solution, after all is said and done, is just to accept them....

Bert,

you're probably right Bert. Still it was nice to have a bitch about it.

Quoted from malcolm3 A top 3 Unproduced scripts 1 feature 2 Short 3 series/episode. All genres included To be voted on once a year by active members. Then showcased to the best off SS ability. Now that would be some competition. However, you would still have to have an independant to make sure it's not a popularity contest.

Since everyone is such pals any vote would not be honest and not saying people would lie or anything but since you like someone your vote shouldn't count.

We had Alan's awards for a few years back in the day and it was pretty much a debacle of "Who's popular and himself" at the time.

I could tell you right now who would be nominated and who would win any competition held on this site at this current juncture. No popularity contest needed because a lot of stuff is being ignored.

People would actually have to read features in order to nominate them and same with series. Can't just have the popular ones at the time with a couple reads that year win.

It would never work unless you can nominate your own stuff and the list for the one(s) reading would be long. If it was based on popular vote well you covered that in your reply.

I have said this elsewhere - but the Recommended Simply Scripts Thread really ought to be promoted more (I don't think it is even a sticky, is it?) Oh, yes it is - I've just looked. That would eliminate the need for a vote, rating or anything similar.

On reflection, I think any other thread - including a "Script of the Year" type, would serve only to distract from that and undermine it.

Unlike Malcolm, I can't blame the drink - as I don't. I just tend to speak first and think about it later!

Simply Recommended Scripts Thread

From what I've noticed, generally the "top scripts" on the site are the ones that have the most responses and/or views.  These scripts generally have a good concept, are well written, and are an enjoyable reading experience.  Bert's "The Farm" has over 17,000 views and I think most everyone on the site would agree that it's a good reading experience and would probably include it on a "best of" list from the site.  The problem is, though, that voting just doesn't work.  

Who remembers when Chris Harris created that "Vote or Die" mayhem a few years back?  I was actually pretty amazed that the thread went over 150 posts before it was finally locked for being so poorly organized and, well, stupid.  I believe the rules went something along the lines of voting for your 3 favorite scripts of each genre.  Well, the Western section had all of 2 scripts, so whoops there.  Then for the shorts, well, there's hundreds of them on the site and everyone has a different opinion.  One of my shorts got 1 vote and made it into the "top 5."  The script I voted for, obviously giving it 1 vote as well, didn't.  Whoops.  

I think if there's to be a "best of" section, it should simply be something like "Simplyscript's Greatest Hits," and a list of the 20 most responded to and/or viewed scripts on the site.  My 2 cents.

Quoted from greg From what I've noticed, generally the "top scripts" on the site are the ones that have the most responses and/or views.  These scripts generally have a good concept, are well written, and are an enjoyable reading experience.  Bert's "The Farm" has over 17,000 views and I think most everyone on the site would agree that it's a good reading experience and would probably include it on a "best of" list from the site.  The problem is, though, that voting just doesn't work.   Who remembers when Chris Harris created that "Vote or Die" mayhem a few years back?  I was actually pretty amazed that the thread went over 150 posts before it was finally locked for being so poorly organized and, well, stupid.  I believe the rules went something along the lines of voting for your 3 favorite scripts of each genre.  Well, the Western section had all of 2 scripts, so whoops there.  Then for the shorts, well, there's hundreds of them on the site and everyone has a different opinion.  One of my shorts got 1 vote and made it into the "top 5."  The script I voted for, obviously giving it 1 vote as well, didn't.  Whoops.   I think if there's to be a "best of" section, it should simply be something like "Simplyscript's Greatest Hits," and a list of the 20 most responded to and/or viewed scripts on the site.  My 2 cents.

That's not necessarily true either because threads that have a lot of replies are also banter posts and not all good reviews.

Again like I said overlooked scripts that are better than what is considered good because people like the author ruins any list.

The recommended list is at times "I just read this so I'll post it" and honestly nothing should be posted on there unless you believe it to be the truth and not just brown nosing for reads.

Quoted from Baltis. I think Simply Scripts could evolve into a major tool that could launch you into the business, easily... The only problem is lack of direction in "some" areas.  I think Don, being the deep down good hearted person he is, has opened his site up to a wealth of people and let the site become "their" site and not "his" site. That's tops in a lot of ways.  It shows that he's really thinking of the average person and site member.  What I feel he should do is regulate some of the boards, though.  This is a screenwriting forum and website... Cut all the loose talk out. Do away with "certain" threads and board.  Bring this back down to a site where writing is encouraged over talking about music - video games - and other such happenings. Once you wrangle those aspects into the barn, that's when you can start to broaden again.  Make a designated mod to a designated board.  Make them read a certain amount of scripts submitted or at least skip through them and see if they are properly or poorly formated.   We need a board souly for regular members... A place where only those with a certain number of post can even access. This board is where all legit work could be posted - exchanged - read and reviewed.  It would be open to download and the author could be contacted through PM by members, but only commented on by his direct peers... While this all seems extreme, and it is; I'm sure it is... I think some of these ideas could be applied for the benefit of the site and the writers here who are serious about getting proper feedback for their hard work.  A board where you know if you put up a script you're going to get reads and critique. Sadly, the guy that this thread is about will probably go on to prosper in the business while so many of the talented writers here will get discouraged and quit writing all together...  There is nothing like reading a damn good script here by someone who knows what they're doing and then letting that person know how they hooked you and reeled you in.  That is an important thing for a writer to hear... and I feel so much of that is gone with these new members and their 5 page scripts. And, yes... I'm a prick.  I know a great many hate me and that's fine. I work better that way.  But I've never said something here I didn't believe in and I've always gave sharp, honest, gloves off advise that, when applied to the writers work, will help them a great deal... So what if they have to lick their wounds while they apply that advice, next time they should spend less time licking wounds and more time getting it right. My bucket of change --

I don't think you're a prick, Balt. People like you help keep people like me in line.

Seriously, the issue always is trying to find the middle ground.

It's somewhere between business and pleasure I think. And we need to keep them both in mind.

A lively and spirited thread on Simply, no matter how silly it might seem, might be just what the doctor ordered in order for a person to have a break and then get back to work. As a whole, those of us who understand this must take responsibility for ourselves and try and maintain that balance.

We will be much more of a success if we work together than if we work alone. United we stand; divided we fall.

I remember that "gay" thread back in the summertime and you know, I did write a short script based upon that discussion and things that were going on in my own life at the time. It's growing cold now and I had intended to have it up way back when, but life got the best of me. Nevertheless, I have it and I really do love what I have so far, but of course I need to work with it.

Everyone is different and needs to work differently, but I think that I can say, generally speaking, we just never know where the seed of an idea is going to come from and eventually grow, even if it's in rough soil and needs to be replanted in a better location where the soil is fertile and the weather good.

Truly, it's in some of the most banal threads that I catch the spirits of those that live here in Simply and afterall, we are a living community, not just a stuffy old nineteen sixty something classroom.

We are, I think respectful of one another irregardless of differences which are beautiful differences.

Lady Mercutio has finished thus,

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I don't think you're a prick, Balt. People like you help keep people like me in line. Sandra

I like Balt. He's the Johnny Drama of Simply Scripts.  

As for the topic at hand.

You could have a sticky a thread which lists the active members (you'd have to define active) and links to all their scripts, and every time they submit a new script it could be added to the list. Then when ever any other active members are looking for something to read they could go straight to the thread and read something by an active member.  

Quoted from Takeshi You could have a sticky a thread which lists the active members (you'd have to define active) and links to all their scripts, and every time they submit a new script it could be added to the list. Then when ever any other active members are looking for something to read they could go straight to the thread and read something by an active member.

Actually, Chris, we have a thread very much like that:

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1095531482/

And I might just go clean it out to make it a bit more useful.  Good call, Chris, reminding me of that thread.  It does seem to fit the discussion, doesn't it?

I will define an "active" member as anyone who has been active anytime during 2009.

Active members who have not posted there are encouraged to do so.

Check it out once I am done sweeping out the chaff.  It might well become a much more interesting thread.

That's just has recommended scripts though. The thread I'm suggesting is a bit different.

Quoted from Takeshi That's just has recommended scripts though. The thread I'm suggesting is a bit different.

No, look again, Chris.

The thread I've linked to is a list of scripts -- with each post created by a different author -- listing their scripts.

In short, don't ask Don to do it.  Just do it yourself.

And I have just got done sweeping it out, so it is (hopefully) a little more relevant now.

I will check with Don about making it "sticky".

No worries.
I wish you'd stop immortalising my grammatical errors in quote boxes.