Quoted from Warren Turns out I can see what Jeff says if someone quotes him. I take it that was directed at me? Jeff's opinion means so little to me that I blocked him. He has nothing to offer me on SS. Well technically I don't think he has much to offer anyone but that's for them to decide. Either way, he literally doesn't exist in my SS experience and it's been a great place to be

Ahhh, how sweet.  And how mature of you, Warren.

Actually, it's not very sweet and makes me kind of sad.  Hopefully, more peeps will quote me so Warren can see my words of wisdom.  

Quoted from Dreamscale Never meant to say Blondie didn't do a good job, just pointing out the error in the scoring, and as I first said and Dustin reiterated, a script that does not meet the challenge parameters, could very easily win the round.

That we can't know unless I missed the importance Blondie puts on his "meeting the requirements" parameter.
What if scoring a script as "N" for the requirement makes him cut the average in half?
I think Sean has something in store for this and doesn't want to voice it out. Again, unless I missed something...

Quoted from khamanna That we can't know unless I missed the importance Blondie puts on his "meeting the requirements" parameter. What if scoring a script as "N" for the requirement makes him cut the average in half? I think Sean has something in store for this and doesn't want to voice it out. Again, unless I missed something...

I'm not aware of that.  As far as I can tell, a script can receive the least possible in meeting the requirements, which is 1 point, but still receive 5's in the other 4 categories, which would render an average score of 4.2, which, you'd think, would/could win the round.

For instance, I still have 5 to go, and the highest score on my card, is a 4.0 - and that entry received 5 in the criteria section.

Also, on my scorecard, no script has received a 5 in any category, other than the criteria section...and none remotely deserve any scores of 5.

Well, let's see if you are correct at the assumption that "Yes" equals "5" and "No" equals "1".

And see, Sean is not even responding to this. I do think he'll do something more regarding this criteria met/not met thing. Let's see.

Quoted from Dreamscale I'm not aware of that.  As far as I can tell, a script can receive the least possible in meeting the requirements, which is 1 point, but still receive 5's in the other 4 categories, which would render an average score of 4.2, which, you'd think, would/could win the round. For instance, I still have 5 to go, and the highest score on my card, is a 4.0 - and that entry received 5 in the criteria section. Also, on my scorecard, no script has received a 5 in any category, other than the criteria section...and none remotely deserve any scores of 5.

For this, as in the OWC, I don't look for perfection. I reserve the 5 spot for the best of the bunch, not comparing to every script I've ever read. There are almost always at least two or three 5s from me, and a whole lot of 3s because most of the scripts fall into the average, as it should be. I've even adjusted scores down because another script blew past them and deserves the top spot, but that's the point of this, to identify which are the best scripts of the lot.

Quoted from Dreamscale I'm not aware of that.  As far as I can tell, a script can receive the least possible in meeting the requirements, which is 1 point, but still receive 5's in the other 4 categories, which would render an average score of 4.2, which, you'd think, would/could win the round.

Jeff, from a mathematics perspective you are correct. But the doomsday scenario will never happen. I didn't enter this one, but in the ten of so that I did enter, I don't recall a single situation where a quality script that didn't meet the parameters finished well. i.e., we've used a a variety of different scoring systems and somehow the cream always rises to the top. My bet is that it won't be any different for this one.

Generally - Solid writers look at the OWC criteria and do their best to fit it knowing that their work is going to be judged on that basis. Weaker writers often don't - they merely submit what they are comfortable with. There's kind of a linkage - scripts that don't meet the the parameters are generally weaker ones anyway.

A separate thread - in between OWCs - on an ideal scoring system including the handling of scripts that don't meet the criteria might be a useful discussion. Not sure it is a productive one exercise for one where the scoring system is already in stone. It's not going to change (I think) and I give kudos for the effort to address the non-compliance in a simple and straightforward way.  It's a good leaping off point for future discussions.

I finished and turned in. Some notes.

- I do make plenty of mistakes in my reads, and if someone defends a script, I reread it. That happened with one Kamanna just defended. I gave it a fresh read, and in some ways my perception improved a lot.
- I gave 3 scripts a N on criteria. And to be sure, I went back and looked at each one to make sure. But even assuming that results in a 1 in that, where a y would be a 5, 2 of these scripts still did very well with me.
- no script stood out or even came close. Not surprising considering the limitations. When I used to do OWC's, there would usually only be 1 script that stood out, sometimes not even 1. I've only had one of my scripts stand out. This is hard, and the really talented people that wander through tend to move on.
- while none of them stood out, the general writing in most of them was decent. They weren't as a rule hard to read. Most of the writers have the ability to hit it out of the park if it all comes together.

Quoted from eldave1 Jeff, from a mathematics perspective you are correct. But the doomsday scenario will never happen. I didn't enter this one, but in the ten of so that I did enter, I don't recall a single situation where a quality script that didn't meet the parameters finished well. i.e., we've used a a variety of different scoring systems and somehow the cream always rises to the top. My bet is that it won't be any different for this one. Generally - Solid writers look at the OWC criteria and do their best to fit it knowing that their work is going to be judged on that basis. Weaker writers often don't - they merely submit what they are comfortable with. There's kind of a linkage - scripts that don't meet the the parameters are generally weaker ones anyway. A separate thread - in between OWCs - on an ideal scoring system including the handling of scripts that don't meet the criteria might be a useful discussion. Not sure it is a productive one exercise for one where the scoring system is already in stone. It's not going to change (I think) and I give kudos for the effort to address the non-compliance in a simple and straightforward way.  It's a good leaping off point for future discussions.

Co-sign.

Jeff is already keeping score and has noted that due to the scoring system some scripts have scored lower than what he would ordinarily give them. Likewise, some will score unjustifiably  higher. That means that a script, Jeff feels is better than another script may lose out to that other script.

Although the Doomsday scenario may not happen, the scoring system is skewed and also makes it easier for writers to tailor old scripts as there is only a 1 point penalty for missing the criteria.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Jeff is already keeping score and has noted that due to the scoring system some scripts have scored lower than what he would ordinarily give them. Likewise, some will score unjustifiably  higher. That means that a script, Jeff feels is better than another script may lose out to that other script. Although the Doomsday scenario may not happen, the scoring system is skewed and also makes it easier for writers to tailor old scripts as there is only a 1 point penalty for missing the criteria.

Okay, but...so what?

Quoted from ReneC Okay, but...so what?

It makes it an unfair and easy to manipulate playing field. And it just isn't necessary when there is a simple solution.

Quoted from DustinBowcot It makes it an unfair and easy to manipulate playing field. And it just isn't necessary when there is a simple solution.

Exactly.

There's no way to know if a writer submits an old short or revamps an existing one. No scoring system will change that. And nobody submitted anything that is wildly outside of the requirements, so what are you complaining about? Because something very unlikely to happen might happen and somehow everyone will go along with it and score it so well it wins?

Come on.

If you're unclear Rene, you should go back and re-read. I'm not going to repeat myself because you can't be arsed to keep up.

Quoted from ReneC There's no way to know if a writer submits an old short or revamps an existing one. No scoring system will change that. And nobody submitted anything that is wildly outside of the requirements, so what are you complaining about? Because something very unlikely to happen might happen and somehow everyone will go along with it and score it so well it wins? Come on.

Genre: Action
Object: Script that scores much better than it deserves
Location: SimplyScripts.com