Quoted from bert that one of the most successful "star" scripts around here -- a good, filmable script as opposed to a pisstake -- arose from a nice, straight-up horror challenge back in the day.

Blame Phil, I do. Fucker. I didn't write one. Give cred to those who actually wrote a serious entry. Was a tough challenge. Hate not entering. Feel like the bus left for school and i didn't make it in time.

Matter of fact, that's reminescent of me childhood. No wonder I'm so stupid.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I hate to be whiney...but I really dislike the slow posting of the scripts. I know you have a life Don, but...I'd hate for a bunch of them to be posted right when people quit reading and start guessing who wrote what.

Pia, I'll keep that in mind in the future.  Oddly enough, this go around, I felt that I was posting them too quickly and was worried that each batch wasn't getting enough exposure.  

Perhaps next go around I'll post them all in one fell swoop.  

The OWC is always a work in progress.

Quoted from bert I know that a certain amount of bitching and groaning always accompanies the announcement of the OWC genre and theme -- and I realize they are meant to be challenging -- but in the future, I would hope they are also a bit more conventional.

Bert, yes, there is always complaining about the genre and theme.  A couple of things I was surprised about was that I thought the genre and theme this time would elicit a very strong, vocal reaction.  This was a tough theme.  I was gobsmacked when I read it.  I came up with nothing.  I wasn't expecting a lot of scripts.  Just the opposite happened.  There were over 40 submissions of which around 35 have/will get posted.  

While there was a certain disappointment in this genre and theme, I didn't get any "Fuck you, Don and fuck your stupid one week challenge," emails from anyone on the release of the theme and genre.  So, in my mind, a success.  

Maybe in the future we can throw in a more conventional theme and genre and see what happens.  

Don

I'm still waiting for my script to be posted and not really expecting too many reads. I think the main problem with this OWC isn't the theme/genre but the people who have posted numerous 'joke' scripts. 40 is a lot to get through, especially when quite a few of them are deliberately badly written.

Ste

I hate to be the one to advocate 'more rules', but I didn't take part in this OWC and from an observer's point of view there does seem to be quite a few bad vibes about this one. It's also completely clogging up the portal...

Two rules to consider imposing from now on (stop me when you disagree):

- A limit on submissions by each member: personally I'd argue that one entry per member is quite enough - if you try and write a bunch in a week they're all bound to receive less care than they should. I know a lot of people write multiple submissions, though, so I'd argue that a limit of two each would be sufficient. Fewer entries = more reads, few entries each = more equal attention for everyone who entered, and probably fewer entries each = better scripts.

- Some requirement that an entry has to fit the theme - I know some people like the piss-take scripts, and say that just reading serious entries, particularly with a theme as tough and abstract as this, would be tough-going. But what's the proportion of joke-to-serious entries this time? I haven't read any of the scripts, but I'd guess it's pretty high. I R-E-A-L-L-Y don't want to tell Don how to run his own website - he does a fantastic job anyway - but I do think when it comes to the OWC submissions rules should be a bit stricter. Format rules, a page length-band, some serious attempt to actually meet the challenge...I don't know whether "pisstake" (to use Bert's favourite word) entries should be blocked, but I thought I'd raise it for consideration.

---------

As I say, I didn't take part this time. But I have in the past and I see how this particular edition is unfolding, and those are two issues I thought I'd flag up.

Both of those sound good to me, Jonny.

Jon,

While I agree with both of your suggestions, I think the last one will require a lot of work on Don's part. He would have to read through all of them to weed out all of the pissers. And who's to say what's a pisstake and what's not (it could just be a badly written script).

I know Don likes to keep Simply Scripts open to basically everyone - which is what is so fucking great about this place - but I do agree that the rules could be a little tighter when it comes to the OWCs.

First, in my opinon, the OWC should only be open to board members.

Second, while we shouldn't take the fun out of the OWC, I think that if Don or Phil ask the participants to keep their entries straight then people should definitely repect that. And fucking ban them if they don't.

The people who participates obviously feel a responsibility to read as many entries as possible and it would be a real shame if those reads are "wasted" on joke scripts. Nothing wrong with a good joke but why not wait until after the OWC is over?

My .02

Rob

For what it's worth, people's opinions are always going to be their opinions, even when they're wrong. I did write something this time, and while I cannot admit to a great amount of time devoted to it, I did try to follow the theme, be a little creative, and not make a joke of it. Mine has been accused of not following the theme, not being serious, and being a joke I must have heard that I wrote down. So how do you deal with scripts that people think are jokes, when they actually weren't written as a joke?

I also found that people like bandwaggoning. Once one error is found, then there are multiple errors and the script sucks. Then everyone finds said error, and suddenly it's not an error, it's errorSSS. My script contains a single typo. One. Uno. I've doublechecked, and it only has one. And yet, for some reason, people have posted that it has "multiple typos" and apparently "multiple formatting errors." When the names are revealed, I'm going to challenge those who posted said comment to point out the other errors. I know they don't exist.

We are a site of writers, and while we adore exaggeration, we also have to write accurately. If we can't write an accurate review, how can we expect anyone to take us seriously? You can't write multiple typos when the script contains only one typo. It's inaccurate. It makes you look like an idiot. Apologies if I just called you an idiot. You'll know who you are in a few days. There's more than one of you. But honestly, pay attention to what you're writing down, people. If you're a writer, then words are your life.

In the end, it apparently doesn't matter what you write. There is little hope of doing anything that will be accepted.

Oh yeah... The number of formatting "errors" (and I use the term error very loosely here, since it's somewhat arguable). One.

Who's going to decide if they're a joke or an honest attempt?  Is mob mentality what rules?  Would you like a mob to decide if you were trying to meet the challenge or not?  Would you trust their decision?

Honestly, you can't make subjective rules about these sorts of things.

It's only recently that people have been submitting more than one entry.  There was always an unspoken rule, called the Helio rule, which said you can only enter one script.  I say we just continue the unspoken rule - people coming into the site during an OWC are unlikely to write more than one so you don't really have to make it this formal thing.  

And as far as closing this to just board members.  How do you expect the site to grow if you don't allow an influx of screenwriters during one of the most important and attractive events on the site?  When countries do things like that they call it isolationism and it's really bad for the economy.  Much better to allow multiculturalism to flourish.  The more and different input we get the better writers we can be.

  

If it's closed to just board members then people can come to the site and enter - they would just have to sign-up for an account. Also, if there were less entries I think it would be possible for moderators or volunteers to read through them to check if they fit the genre/theme (similar to how they do it on moviepoet).

The main point I agree with that Jonny brought up though is the limit on entries per member. Unspoken rules are fine, as long as people stick to them.

Ste

Hmm...feel like I might have started something here.

For the record, I was not advocating the institution of new rules.

I was simply pointing out something weird that happened when the topic/genre were really weird -- and suggested that we keep such a possibility in mind moving forward -- lest it happen again.

Also for the record, Don rocks, and my comments were in no way directed at the way he runs things 'round here.

It was just an observation.

The trouble with unspoken rules, however, is when you miss the unspoken conversation that establishes them.

Quoted from mcornetto And as far as closing this to just board members.  How do you expect the site to grow if you don't allow an influx of screenwriters during one of the most important and attractive events on the site?

If the OWC is such an important and attractive event on the site, then closing it to members is exactly how to make the site grow. You're assuming that people won't join up, I'm say it's going to have the opposite effect.

Quoted from mcornetto Much better to allow multiculturalism to flourish.  The more and different input we get the better writers we can be.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Michael, but don't you have to be a member to provide input?

I'm not understanding your argument for keeping the OWC open to anyone. Some of the folks that enter the OWC do it through the main site and they're probably not even aware that the discussion board exists. This also means that a lot of reviews are wasted on writers that are not around - and are not giving any feedback themselves.

Movie Poet doesn't specify genre.  The last time it did was the horror contest and if you remember there were plenty of arguments and disagreements about what horror was.  As far as I know a decision was never made except individually by the readers.

So, do all these entries meet the theme?  I suspect most of them do, therefore none of them would be disqualified.

As far as the board member thing goes.  It would be silly to enter the contest and not be a board member.  I don't think we really have a problem with that.  Why make rules if they aren't even an issue?  If you're talking about active board member then how do you define that?  How many posts does someone have to have in order to be active?  Do they have to have logged on in the past year?  What qualifies them?

Quoted from mcornetto Who's going to decide if they're a joke or an honest attempt?  Is mob mentality what rules?  Would you like a mob to decide if you were trying to meet the challenge or not?  Would you trust their decision? Honestly, you can't make subjective rules about these sorts of things.

Again, this is just a suggestion, but I think it could quite easily work the same way you used in the last OWC.

Have a panel of people - maybe the moderators - who divvy up the scripts between them and read a few each. With the majority there won't be a problem. But if you come across one that you think isn't in the 'spirit' of the challenge, then you flag it up and get everyone else's opinion on the panel. If a simple majority (say 3 out of 5) think it isn't actually within the bounds of the challenge, then it doesn't get posted, and the person who submitted it gets a quick message explaining why. That way it's not one person's opinion, but the collective judgement of trusted individuals on the site.

I'm not saying we should try and choke the OWC under new rules, I'm just saying that there are a couple of things that could be raised for discussion. And Don did say it's a continual work in progress...

Quoted from sniper If the OWC is such an important and attractive event on the site, then closing it to members is exactly how to make the site grow. You're assuming that people won't join up, I'm say it's going to have the opposite effect. Correct me if I'm wrong, Michael, but don't you have to be a member to provide input? I'm not understanding your argument for keeping the OWC open to anyone. Some of the folks that enter the OWC do it through the main site and they're probably not even aware that the discussion board exists. This also means that a lot of reviews are wasted on writers that are not around - and are not giving any feedback themselves.

You are assuming the site is the boards.  The site is not the boards.  The site is http://www.simplyscripts.com.  That's what pays the bills - not the boards.  Excuse me Don for stating that so plainly.