All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
By definition, someone you know. Someone earlier likened SS to a pub -- and surely the way you speak (or post) to a stranger should be different, and in theory, more respectful.
Quoted from kev
I have never posted on MP, except a few reviews. Boring. The arguments can be a drag here, but they also are a sign of life. That's what's best about SS. There is life here.
I also want to be sensitive to this. While it may be a bit harsh to write off MP as "boring", it is a different atmosphere, for sure.
You would have to be blind to maintain that occasional bashing is not amusing, but lets reserve that treatment for our "friends". That is kind of what I'm saying.
One thing I have notice here: whenever we go too long without an OWC, these arguments blow up. It's almost like the tension is relieved by the OWC. I'm not pining for one, I know they are a ton of work. It's just an observation. Again, most of this is all the sign of a healthy website. It's like a family: what would Thanksgiving be without an argument or two!
My idea to solve the problem would be quite simple. The first person to review a script from what appears to be a newbie/unknown simply writes something along the lines of...
'I didn't like this, if you want to know why respond and I shall tell you.'
Then we wait for the reply. Nobody else needs to add anything unless the author gets involved. We all save time not reading a script where our reviews will fall on deaf ears, you don't waste your own time writing a review and you don't waste the time of those of us who will inevitably read your reviews. Everybody wins, don't they?
The only way this could work is if everyone chose to stick to it though. To me it doesn't seem like it would be a hard rule to follow, but what do I know?!
Anyway, just my thoughts. I'm off to smoke a doob.
Anyway, just my thoughts. I'm off to smoke a doob.
I'll be right over.
But, seriously, in regards to your post, no one knows if reviews fall on deaf ears or not. It's very possible, and even likely that writers who don't respond to feedback, do actually read it. Maybe they're too shy, too scared of Phil, or just not comfortable getting into a discussion on a subject they're relatively clueless on.
I've seen Simon actually taking your idea on recently, by stating that he has comments if the writer wants to engage. I see nothing wrong with this, but I also don't see it doing much. When a script receives either positive or negative feedback, it draws interest. It's simply human nature to be drawn to either positive stuff, or negative stuff. No way around it.
I for one will have no problem cutting back on the bashing, for amusement's sake. I can and will offer critique and the writers can take it on board or decide it's not helpful to them. Other SS'ers can do the same as they read my feedback.
But everyone needs to understand, it's a public forum, dealing with material that is heavily based on opinions and individual tastes. There are obviously many technical issues on display as well, and it's here where hard facts and realities are what they are.
I agree with you that it does draw the interest. When I read the bashing posts I often open up the script just to see how bad it is, so I can see what not to do myself. It's a learning experience for me and I will often think (hope) 'at least my work is not that bad'.
I guess it wouldn't have to be just one reviewer posting and the rest waiting to see if the author responds. Others could also add the same sort of line, just cut out all the swearing and non technical points. Basically we try to encourage the newbies out from their shells to get involved. If they don't chip in, then they lose out. It can be an intimidating atmosphere around here at times, but most people, myself included, believe you need a thick skin for this industry. Criticism sucks, but if it's constructive then it's worth it, I'm sure everyone here will agree on that.
I like that you will cut back on the bashing because sometimes it's hard to tell whether it is a joke or if you are just a big meany. I'm sure if it was face to face it would be clear but to read it's hard to judge the tone some of the time.
Essentially I just want us all to get along. I know this probably isn't possible, but we all live in hope.
Arty.
ps Just rolled one for ya, if you're not here in ten minutes it's mine...
Listen... If the Irish and English learn to put aside 800 years of hatred, im talking pilaging,raping ,murder, stealing land and murder and thats just from the english...(did I say murder twice) and get along through SS(Im looking at you ARTY and COOP)
Then surely the rest of you can put your silly little bickering aside and join together hand to hand to become one against the mortal enemy..... The french!
Can we become one against the Germans instead? The French do good food at least. Plus ze Germans always beat us (the English) in the world cup. Stupid penalties.
I would also like to add, just for the record, I have never pillaged, raped, murdered, stole land or murdered. I speak for myself here, Steve now lives in Oz so who knows what he gets up to...
One thing I have notice here: whenever we go too long without an OWC, these arguments blow up. It's almost like the tension is relieved by the OWC. I'm not pining for one, I know they are a ton of work. It's just an observation. Again, most of this is all the sign of a healthy website. It's like a family: what would Thanksgiving be without an argument or two!
You haven't been around long enough to see some of the doozy OWC arguments. There's been some really heavy ones.
I think I will be taking these forward -- in an attempt to make the board more professional and just a little more welcoming in general:
* For unknown authors, if you cannot say something instructive or encouraging, say nothing. It will have to be case-by-case, but I (and the other mods) will be judging a little more critically going forward, and if the post comes up missing you'll probably know why. * For unknown authors, one totally negative review is enough. Until the author shows up, do not pile on -- or at the very least, your post should bring something new to the table. * These rules do not apply to known members who post a turd; gloves remain off, as we assume they can take it and would want to know. * If it is an author who posts numerous scripts and never shows his face on the boards, again, one post alerting others to this fact is enough.
I'm more or less happy with the ruling but I'm still slightly uncomfortable with the idea of tailoring reviews to suit newer members in general as well as having rules enforcing such. I trust the mods' judgement but it remains to be seen how trashing will be differentiated from strictly negative reviews. As this poll plainly shows, the boards have never been good at reaching consensus and as someone suggested earlier, one man's review might be another's attack.
This coming from someone who doesn't think he trashes scripts.
Anyway, I totally welcome the latter three stipulations. I think they should at least help to smooth over some of the indignation over nonmember scripts, for one thing. And I suppose I welcome change in general. I stand by what I've said earlier in this thread but perhaps there's been a noticeable lack of civility around these parts for some time now.
Please, work on your grammar and sentence structure. If you're still in 2nd Grade, ask your teacher for some help after school. There's just no excuse for this, IMO.
Do we tolerate the outright trashing of scripts?
Pages: 
Author
Totally Trashing Scripts
Logged
Locked Board