Quoted from ReneC 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.

Yeah, exactly.

Actually, I always get a big kick out of such "discussions"...those where something is obviously flawed,is proved that it's flawed, and everyone says, "Who cares, don't worry, it won't play out like that."

Well, I care, I do worry, and I've seen things play out like peeps don't think they will.

Not to pick on Kev, again, but he's stated very clearly that he is adjusting category scores to make sure each script ends up where he thinks it should, score-wise.  In other words, he's throwing the category scoring out the window to make sure what he feels are the best scripts, score the highest.

That's a problem in itself, and an obvious problem with the scoring system we're supposed to be using.

I hate to break it to you but nobody's going to be getting phone calls for winning the WT. It's meant to be a fun exercise, nothing more.

Quoted from ReneC I hate to break it to you but nobody's going to be getting phone calls for winning the WT. It's meant to be a fun exercise, nothing more.

Right...and what does this comment have to do with what we're talking about?

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.

Tabling the issue of 1 point for not meeting the criteria for a moment. I don't see how scoring a script in categories (e.g., Story, Dialogue, etc) is a problem. They do that for contests all the time. Coverage is often done along those lines as well. So they seem to be pretty good rating categories. At a minimum, they're not out of bounds or wacky.

In terms of the category for not meeting the criteria and the relative weight (giving incentive to writers to tailor old scripts because as there is only a 1 point penalty for missing the criteria).

Maybe - I just doubt it. If a script does not comply with the criteria, it's only eligible to receive 84% of the total points. It's cap is basically a B grade. Would someone do that intentionally?? And I still believe that even if some would - certainly the best scripts won't and as always the cream will rise to the top.

I'm also not sure if this is really all that different from other OWCs.  They are basically average rather than accumulative scores. Let's say a script in a prior OWC got ten reviews. It received 6 scores of 3 and 4 outright DQs.  It's average score would still be 3 (I think). i.e., I don't think  zero points are typically allocated for a DQ.  If I am right about this, the scoring impact of not meeting the criteria for this OWC is actually more penal than it was for prior ones.  

Quoted from FrankM I think we have until the next submission deadline (at some point between Saturday and the following Friday, depending on your time zone).

Thanks you, Frank.

Quoted from Dreamscale Right...and what does this comment have to do with what we're talking about?

It means lighten up. You do care, that's clear, but is it worth stressing this much over?

Quoted from Mr. Blonde Reviewing ends on the 7th at 11:59PM EDT. That's just to keep things uniform. You get round 2's topic on the 8th at 12:00AM EDT.

Good to know, thanks!

Quoted from Mr. Blonde Reviewing ends on the 7th at 11:59PM EDT.

See, that's the start of the next round, not the end of the next round's submission period. That would be Monday the 10th at 11:59PM EDT. That's why I wanted clarification.

Pick on me all you want, I think you know I am capable of a robust defense.

Let's keep this friendly, none of this matters.

Ok, if this was the SATs or the police exam tests, adjusting scores would be flat out wrong. In each part of the SAT there multiple choice questions. Your score is your score.

That doesn't apply here. When you sit down to score, say, dialog, how do you differentiate between a 2 and 3 or a 3 and a 4? Maybe you have a way. I have a hard time. What if the script has no dialog? What it has sparse dialog and that sparseness fits the story? What if the dialog is creative but there is way too much of it so that it slows the story? What if much of the dialog is cheesy but there is one line that makes you laugh so hard you fart through your ears?

My guess is your response will be...if the categories don't work, why not just give a flat score?

My reply is this: the categories do work...if you use them as a guideline.

I kept a running spreadsheet. Then, this morning, now that I've read them all, I went back and looked at my scores and looked at my comments on EACH script. It was a pain in the ass. But having the scores and the comments together did help me form a better impression of the script, especially now that I've read them all.


I understand how you view it. It's how your mind works, and it's not a bad thing. You were meant to be an engineer. You see things according to very strict rules, guidelines, structures. You would look at a work of art and calculate how paint strokes the artist used, what paint mixtures, whether the artist was right or left handed. That's great. It's great that we all have slightly different ways of doing things.

I feel my approach was as fair as I could be to the writers. That's all I want. People defended scripts, I went back and took a second look. Sometimes I had questions about a script. A couple times I defended some. It's all good.

Quoted from eldave1 Tabling the issue of 1 point for not meeting the criteria for a moment. I don't see how scoring a script in categories (e.g., Story, Dialogue, etc) is a problem. They do that for contests all the time. Coverage is often done along those lines as well. So they seem to be pretty good rating categories. At a minimum, they're not out of bounds or wacky. In terms of the category for not meeting the criteria and the relative weight (giving incentive to writers to tailor old scripts because as there is only a 1 point penalty for missing the criteria). Maybe - I just doubt it. If a script does not comply with the criteria, it's only eligible to receive 84% of the total points. It's cap is basically a B grade. Would someone do that intentionally?? And I still believe that even if some would - certainly the best scripts won't and as always the cream will rise to the top. I'm also not sure if this is really all that different from other OWCs.  They are basically average rather than accumulative scores. Let's say a script in a prior OWC got ten reviews. It received 6 scores of 3 and 4 outright DQs.  It's average score would still be 3 (I think). i.e., I don't think  zero points are typically allocated for a DQ.  If I am right about this, the scoring impact of not meeting the criteria for this OWC is actually more penal than it was for prior ones.

Criteria is also part of the scoring. Ordinarily a script that failed to meet the criteria in an OWC would lose a lot of points. Usually so many that even a good script would be trashed. In this new scoring system, a script that misses the criteria completely can still get a good round score to take into the next round.

Criteria should be more important than all other scoring points. If a prod co was looking for a comedy horror and they get comedy with a horror scene attached to the end they would throw it int he bin.

If a comp asked for Western scripts and you sent them a straight drama, would you expect to get a score on character and plot or would you expect them to send you the script back alerting you to your mistake?

Quoted from DustinBowcot Criteria is also part of the scoring. Ordinarily a script that failed to meet the criteria in an OWC would lose a lot of points. Usually so many that even a good script would be trashed. In this new scoring system, a script that misses the criteria completely can still get a good round score to take into the next round. Criteria should be more important than all other scoring points. If a prod co was looking for a comedy horror and they get comedy with a horror scene attached to the end they would throw it int he bin. If a comp asked for Western scripts and you sent them a straight drama, would you expect to get a score on character and plot or would you expect them to send you the script back alerting you to your mistake?

I don't think we have any disagreement philosophically.  The most important task is to meet the parameters of the challenge. I've often been accused of being too harsh in that regard (prior OWCs). But obviously, without the parameters one could simply submit a previously written short. That's patently unfair to the ones that wrote a short for a particular challenge. If it were me, once a script got three DQ ratings it would be out. So on the premise - i.e., the number job is too meet the parameters - we are in sync.

My comments really focus on whether this particular scoring system skews the results in that regard. My theory is that it won't because (a) generally the best scripts are the ones that meet the parameters anyway and (b) there is essentially no penalty in the prior OWC scoring systems used for a script since no points were associated with meeting the parameters. If five people gave you a rating of 5 and two people DQ'd you - you're getting a 5. Here - if you don't think a script meets the parameters you are taking away 16% of the total points. I like that it general except I would have made it even more severe - probably would weight it around 40% - but it is a step in the right direction, IMO.

Well, what if "others" disagree with somebody who considers a script as 'criteria not met'.

Then, if the impact of a criteria not met scoring was much higher, that would flip the coin completely, since few are able to kill a script off when turning their thumb down. Just a balance thing I guess…

Quoted from eldave1 I don't think we have any disagreement philosophically.  The most important task is to meet the parameters of the challenge. I've often been accused of being too harsh in that regard (prior OWCs). But obviously, without the parameters one could simply submit a previously written short. That's patently unfair to the ones that wrote a short for a particular challenge. If it were me, once a script got three DQ ratings it would be out. So on the premise - i.e., the number job is too meet the parameters - we are in sync. My comments really focus on whether this particular scoring system skews the results in that regard. My theory is that it won't because (a) generally the best scripts are the ones that meet the parameters anyway and (b) there is essentially no penalty in the prior OWC scoring systems used for a script since no points were associated with meeting the parameters. If five people gave you a rating of 5 and two people DQ'd you - you're getting a 5. Here - if you don't think a script meets the parameters you are taking away 16% of the total points. I like that it general except I would have made it even more severe - probably would weight it around 40% - but it is a step in the right direction, IMO.

Actually, when an OWC script is DQ'd, as far as I'm concerned, it receives the lowest score possible (0 or 1) to average in with the other scores.  At least that's how I do it - if I DQ an entry, I just give it the lowest score I can, because I did read it and I'm going to rate all entries.

Quoted from Dreamscale Actually, when an OWC script is DQ'd, as far as I'm concerned, it receives the lowest score possible (0 or 1) to average in with the other scores.  At least that's how I do it - if I DQ an entry, I just give it the lowest score I can, because I did read it and I'm going to rate all entries.

Okay.  But that is how you do it. Not necessarily how it's designed.  You're way would yield an appropriate result

Quoted from eldave1 Okay.  But that is how you do it. Not necessarily how it's designed.  You're way would yield an appropriate result

I think it is designed to be that way, as several of us have commented - if a script misses the parameters, it should get the lowest overall score it possibly can.

Prose, dialogue, characters, and story don't even matter, because it has missed the challenge parameters.