Okay, I retract my previous comment!  

And thanks Warren -- you helped remind me of a bunch of stinkers I wrote!

Quoted from Gary in Houston Okay, I retract my previous comment!   And thanks Warren -- you helped remind me of a bunch of stinkers I wrote!

Ha-ha... always happy to help  

Quoted from Gary in Houston Okay, I retract my previous comment!   And thanks Warren -- you helped remind me of a bunch of stinkers I wrote!

In your defence, it does say "ScriptSearch" next to it, could be clearer you can search for writers as well.

Personally, I think the way you have to register for the discussion board is long-winded and off-putting.

If you click on "Register" in the top left you get an error message saying you can't auto-register anymore and contact the system admin, then you click on that and it opens up my email program, I guess you then write some email saying "Please register me?"
Then you are sent a username and password.
Can it not be possible to register through the site and still maintain that the admin has to approve new registrations?
Anyway, that has nothing to do with challenges and such, just think it could put some people off joining the forum

Speaking of, personally, I would have it so if you want to post a script for consideration/review you have to at least register for the site - Dave's idea of setting automatic notifications when someone posts a review on a script only works if the person is actually registered... I wonder how many scripts are posted by unregistered members?

Anyway, I'll shut up now.

Quoted from Warren I think this functionality is already available? Not sure if I'm missing the point, but if you search by a name it will bring up all your scripts, so a producer could see your collection.

I didn't even know that existed! I knew there was a search facility but I thought it searched through the main scripts like Aliens, Jurassic Park etc. Maybe relabelling this or making it more apparent on the site would be useful?

I’d always heard we used to have a chat room. Something like that might be nice in a limited way again — say like a Friday happy hour or something.

I don't understand the fixation on having "newbies" reply to comments about their scripts.

Shouldn't a writer receive feedback in any way that he or she chooses? If a writer wants to reply, great. If not, fine. Absorbing the comment should be enough.

If not responding violates some unwritten rule of courtesy, then perhaps that rule should be made less esoteric.

If you give feedback and would like a reply, I suggest stating that directly in your posts: "Please reply to this comment when you are able." That would clear things up considerably.

If a writer doesn’t reply that’s his/her choice, whatever the reason. However, big waste of time for the person who read it, and I don’t think a simple statement will encourage them to respond.

It’s a chance we take sometimes. I believe it says more about that particular writer than a response would.

That's so wild, I was about to post a comment similar to what Rob just said ^

I think that in OWCs there is a rule about commenting on other entries, but there are already a lot of rules to take in for someone who hasn't seen the challenges grow over time.
In a perfect world, we'd all be completely familiar with the rules and every nuance therein, and of course people wouldn't just join challenges without reading the fine print, but y'know...

SS relies on a "quid-pro-quo-feedback-reply" community, and honestly that's not something I personally understood when I joined. The price of admission should reflect the community's values better.

Honest question, what is stopping someone from creating a new account for every OWC, submitting a script, and running off without having contributed?
As annoying as it might be, what if OWCs required new accounts to post feedback on other un-produced scripts, before joining a challenge or posting a script.
For example, they'd have to provide feedback on seven of the un-produced scripts of the week.
At least then, a newbie might grasp the process a bit better, and understand that this is a site that rewards (thoughtful?) feedback.

If this is the behavior SS wants to cultivate (and I think it is), it should be made abundantly clear to newbies, and maybe there should be a "quest" to enter.





Also, the voting system for OWCs is flawed.

Let's say my entry seems to be around the middle of the pack, I can be dishonest to get a better ranking, and possibly even win. Assuming other people are being honest, I can intentionally rate the best scripts as low as possible, thereby bringing down their average.

It reminds me of the Nash equilibrium problems I did in college. Let's say, if I were honest I would have given the other scripts 4s, but I'm choosing to be dishonest and rating them 1s.

An example of the votes:

Best Script - 5, 5, 1 = 3.67 avg

Better Script - 4, 4, 1 = 3 avg

Slightly Better - 3, 4, 1 = 2.67 avg

My Mediocre script - 2, 3, 4 = 3 avg
(I didn't vote on my own)

By being dishonest I tied for 2nd place, when I really should have gotten 4th. If I had a friend who voted with me, forget about it...
I'm sure this has been pointed out before, just something to consider.

Quoted from MarkRenshaw I didn't even know that existed! I knew there was a search facility but I thought it searched through the main scripts like Aliens, Jurassic Park etc. Maybe relabelling this or making it more apparent on the site would be useful

Lots of hot tips here ( for seasoned members and Newbs alike) -

https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-cc/m-1124159895/

Quoted from SAC I’d always heard we used to have a chat room. Something like that might be nice in a limited way again — say like a Friday happy hour or something.

All I know is people often used to gather for a Skype chat especially on the eve of OWCs.

Quoted from Rob I don't understand the fixation on having "newbies" reply to comments about their scripts. Shouldn't a writer receive feedback in any way that he or she chooses? If a writer wants to reply, great. If not, fine. Absorbing the comment should be enough. If not responding violates some unwritten rule of courtesy, then perhaps that rule should be made less esoteric. If you give feedback and would like a reply, I suggest stating that directly in your posts: "Please reply to this comment when you are able." That would clear things up considerably.

Of course.  It isn't compulsory.
Not responding doesn't violate any rule.

Of course if you comment and state: I'd love to hear your comments on my feedback, doesn't necessarily mean the writer will make an appearance.

When you post a script and state you're looking for feedback at the outset it kinda implies (least imho) that you're open to discussion. I personally just think it's polite to respond to the person who took time out to post comments. What we often get lately is a few lines stating - I'm happy to give feedback if the writer weighs in - and then, nothing.

We writers might say this because it's time consuming to give solid feedback. And a thankless task and deflating if then there's no acknowledgment to that feedback. And then a cycle of non-reciprocity prevails.

I think personally the purpose of this thread is to work out how we can encourage writers to network more (for want of a better word) with other writers on SS so there's a thriving and ongoing discussion and community.

And also, from my point of view, suss out how many and what types of challenges people want.

Additionally when the site finally does undergo its revamp, update components, for example - most members would like to see it modernised a bit - the Like function request being one popular example.

Quoted from Claudio That's so wild, I was about to post a comment similar to what Rob just said ^ I think that in OWCs there is a rule about commenting on other entries, but there are already a lot of rules to take in for someone who hasn't seen the challenges grow over time. In a perfect world, we'd all be completely familiar with the rules and every nuance therein, and of course people wouldn't just join challenges without reading the fine print, but y'know... SS relies on a "quid-pro-quo-feedback-reply" community, and honestly that's not something I personally understood when I joined. The price of admission should reflect the community's values better. Honest question, what is stopping someone from creating a new account for every OWC, submitting a script, and running off without having contributed? As annoying as it might be, what if OWCs required new accounts to post feedback on other un-produced scripts, before joining a challenge or posting a script. For example, they'd have to provide feedback on seven of the un-produced scripts of the week. At least then, a newbie might grasp the process a bit better, and understand that this is a site that rewards (thoughtful?) feedback. If this is the behavior SS wants to cultivate (and I think it is), it should be made abundantly clear to newbies, and maybe there should be a "quest" to enter. Also, the voting system for OWCs is flawed. Let's say my entry seems to be around the middle of the pack, I can be dishonest to get a better ranking, and possibly even win. Assuming other people are being honest, I can intentionally rate the best scripts as low as possible, thereby bringing down their average. It reminds me of the Nash equilibrium problems I did in college. Let's say, if I were honest I would have given the other scripts 4s, but I'm choosing to be dishonest and rating them 1s. An example of the votes: Best Script - 5, 5, 1 = 3.67 avg Better Script - 4, 4, 1 = 3 avg Slightly Better - 3, 4, 1 = 2.67 avg My Mediocre script - 2, 3, 4 = 3 avg (I didn't vote on my own) By being dishonest I tied for 2nd place, when I really should have gotten 4th. If I had a friend who voted with me, forget about it... I'm sure this has been pointed out before, just something to consider.

All good to know, Claudio.
I think after all these years Don's a wise-up to multiple accounts and vote stacking.

Keep the comments coming!

I know Don's been extra busy with stuff but I'm going to try and collate the main points for him when it looks like most have weighed in here with opinions.

A point of mention... the blind leading the blind- A newbie gets feedback from a newbie... one that thinks he/she is just a great consultant. You have a "one star" giving advice to another "one star" Sure, feedback from a 3+ star is taken accordingly in high value. --A point of pondering?

Quoted from LC And also, from my point of view, suss out how many and what types of challenges people want.

Smaller challenges (up to 5/6 pages) - longer challenges put me off (unless it is a feature challenge)

Challenges that incorporate what people are currently or waiting to work on. More as a motivational challenge rather than an inspiration one. When OWC or feature challenges come along I do get the feeling of "I should really concentrate on what I've already started"

A "Write your feature" challenge could be set up in which deadlines are set for a number of pages, or an act, or whatever and then participants post those up for the others to review/comment/offer advice (and try to motivate each other to hit the deadlines) and obviously return the favour. Then the next deadline is set and we go until our features are finished.
Participants don't need to start from scratch to enter the challenge, enter with whatever script you have and however complete it is... it's not one with a winner or writers choice, the winners are those who complete their feature.... I Think it would help me anyway lol

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Participants don't need to start from scratch to enter the challenge, enter with whatever script you have and however complete it is...

Enter a 1-5 page scene. Brilliant!