I like that idea too... and maybe easier to admin?

I had considered that idea, way back when, when I first thought of doing this a second time. My issue was always creating a line. If you say a person reviews nothing, they'll be DQ'd, they'll review one. If you say they have to review half, they'll review as many as they have to, but no more. What is the accomplishment at that point? You're getting half-assed reviews from people who are doing it only because they're being forced to. What kind of value do you expect to get from them? More than that, does "This is terrible. Pass." count as a review? There are certain things that you just can't dictate. While I'd like to see all participants review, the rules and steps you'd have to take to put something in place would have to be so restrictive that you'd have people messaging all day long, saying reviews aren't sufficient or "They only reviewed 8 and they were supposed to review 10." Do you really want to see that? Do you really want it to come to that?

Since we're throwing out ideas to make your life harder.... ..... how about posting the full point total as well as the average? That is... after three rounds, so and so leads with 54 total points, in second X has 48 points... etc.

It's the same as the average, just stated in a different way. Feels more fun to me, but then, I watch way too much sports and I'm used to seeing scores this way.

Quoted from PKCardinal Since we're throwing out ideas to make your life harder.... ..... how about posting the full point total as well as the average? That is... after three rounds, so and so leads with 54 total points, in second X has 48 points... etc. It's the same as the average, just stated in a different way. Feels more fun to me, but then, I watch way too much sports and I'm used to seeing scores this way.

I'll reveal the way the scores/scoreboard is revealed a bit later on.

P.S. Doing it in that way, instead of averaging them, actually takes less work.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde Grading will be done on a scale of 1 - 5 across 5 categories: Story, Characters, Dialogue, Prose & Meets Criteria (genre (if any), length, etc. In the case of Meets Criteria, this is a Yes or No question on the scorecard. Yes is 5 points, No is 1 point).

I think your grading guidance would/should/could be a good format for what a review should address. If that's what we should be grading to, we should consider those factors in our reviews.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde P.S. Doing it in that way, instead of averaging them, actually takes less work.

Hey now, don't take ALL the fun out of my back seat driving.

Quoted from JEStaats I think your grading guidance would/should/could be a good format for what a review should address. If that's what we should be grading to, we should consider those factors in our reviews.

In an ideal world, absolutely. Believe me, I'm on board with that. But, there's a reason why I made scoring at least half the scripts a requirement and didn't do the same for the reviews. It's an anti-cheating measure. I would hope that every participant would review every other writer's work, but you can't dictate that. What I can dictate is ensuring that there are no attempts to cheat the scoring system this time around. I'm trying to avoid a mob mentality which almost came through last year.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde During the course of this tournament, you will be competing directly against other SimplyScripts writers and vote for your favorite scripts. Unlike last year's tournament, where writers were paired off in brackets, this will be an open challenge where your scores from all rounds will be averaged together and, when all 5 rounds are said and done, the highest-scoring writer (or, writers, in the case of a tie) wins.

The knockout structure was a lot of fun, but I like the inclusiveness of the new format.

The downside of keeping a running total is people might bail if they don't have a chance of winning, even if they write their absolute best script. And if Warren sweeps the first three rounds, the whole tournament might be sabotaged.  

Quoted from ReneC The downside of keeping a running total is people might bail if they don't have a chance of winning, even if they write their absolute best script. And if Warren sweeps the first three rounds, the whole tournament might be sabotaged.

I thought that a lower score would be more incentive to try for a better script in the following round.

I'd say you have a better chance than me! I didn’t even make it into the writer’s liked section last OWC!!

Quoted from ReneC The downside of keeping a running total is people might bail if they don't have a chance of winning, even if they write their absolute best script. And if Warren sweeps the first three rounds, the whole tournament might be sabotaged.

Been accounted for. Will be revealed later. Stay tuned.

Quoted from Warren I'd say you have a better chance than me! I didn’t even make it into the writer’s liked section last OWC!!

Your script didn't make it... not you. Your next script? Who knows.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Your script didn't make it... not you. Your next script? Who knows.

True, I still think Rene is a better writer than me, but hopefully I can get out 5 quality scripts.

Quoted from Warren True, I still think Rene is a better writer than me, but hopefully I can get out 5 quality scripts.

It's all about the story. Under pressure, I tend to miss the mark with story. Remember, I was going to do a serious take on the murder of Santa Claus for the vehicle challenge. My first ideas are terrible.