Thanks Libby! You’re the best!

Scoring from 1 for the worst and whatever for the best is never, ever going to work.  It's actually quite foolish to even think it would.

We're reading 20 scripts over a 7-10 day time period.  How in the world could we do that remotely fairly?  I mean, Hell, Warren has trouble with simple math - you really think he knows the difference between small numbers and large ones?  

It should be so simple with a 0-5 scoring system.  But then, again, everyone needs to understand that throwing out 5's to half the entries doesn't help, and doesn't make sense.

Kev thinks I pick on him for bringing him up alot, but I don't mean it in a bad way, but I'm going to do it again now, because I think it's a perfect example.

Kev says over and over that it's very unlikely anyone here is going to put together a truly great script in 72 hours (or 3 or 4, as it usually turns out).  And he's right.  Some are much better than others, but none are perfect, and only a few are even good.  Scores of 5 should rarely be awarded, whether it's an overall score or a category score.

I mean, c'mon, let's face it and be honest....there are alot of very poor entries in round 2.  There's just no way around that, yet, we see the same peeps routinely, over and over gush out praise to scripts that are a 2 out of 5 at best.  I honestly don't get it.

Then, we have others saying that they didn't get it at all, it's a mess, but they really like it.  Huh?  How does that even work?

How in the world can peeps get away with purposely lowering or increasing scores, for their own betterment?  I say Sean posts the actual scores each round from each voter, so we see who the cheats are.  That way, they'd be hard pressed to continue doing it, round after round, knowing their gig is up and everyone knows what they're doing.

Harsh?  Life is harsh.  And, didn't you have a cheater in this last year, who was never named?  Someone trying to increase their scores by creating phantom accounts or something?  I bet whoever that cheater was, they're doing everything they can to better their scores again this year.  Once a cheat, always a cheat.

Quoted from Dreamscale How in the world can peeps get away with purposely lowering or increasing scores, for their own betterment?  I say Sean posts the actual scores each round from each voter, so we see who the cheats are.  That way, they'd be hard pressed to continue doing it, round after round, knowing their gig is up and everyone knows what they're doing. Harsh?  Life is harsh.  And, didn't you have a cheater in this last year, who was never named?  Someone trying to increase their scores by creating phantom accounts or something?  I bet whoever that cheater was, they're doing everything they can to better their scores again this year.  Once a cheat, always a cheat.

I'm also curious to see the individual votes. Would there be any drawbacks to revealing them?

As for cheaters... Any who is caught cheating should be banned from OWC'S/Tournaments. Simple as that.

I wasn't saying let's do 1-20. 1-10 at most. 1-8  ideally.
And there should be and would be a lot of 4s or 5s.

It's going to be a headache to decide where each stand on the scale of 1-20. Many are on the same level even the best ones.

I do have an entry at all fives thistime. Last time it was two. Doc is Out and the other Head Full of Lightening. I'm surprised these are not the best entries. I don't lie when I say I like them the best. If anything I can't understand that everyone else doesn't share my opinion.

This time I think I'm on board with everyone else.

Quoted from Dreamscale Scoring from 1 for the worst and whatever for the best is never, ever going to work.  It's actually quite foolish to even think it would.

Why wouldn't it work? I'm not arguing by the way, I'm just curious. Who would be unable to simply list the entries in order from their favourite to least favourite?

EDIT: I mentioned it being similar to F1 because after 10th place, no one scores any points - The points are also weighted so the point gap between 1st and 2nd is greater than 9th and 10th

Quoted Text Scores of 5 should rarely be awarded, whether it's an overall score or a category score.

Does this not contradict your argument about the difference in top and bottom scores being too low? if we don't use the two extremes in the scoring (I.E 5's and 1's) then won't that result in scores bunching together somewhere in the middle?

Whereas, if we score the entries only against each other, the end result will be a much larger score gap between top and bottom spot

Quoted Text Harsh?  Life is harsh.  And, didn't you have a cheater in this last year, who was never named?  Someone trying to increase their scores by creating phantom accounts or something?  I bet whoever that cheater was, they're doing everything they can to better their scores again this year.  Once a cheat, always a cheat.

Did someone actually do that? That's the saddest thing I have heard in a while lol

Quoted from Dreamscale Scoring from 1 for the worst and whatever for the best is never, ever going to work.  It's actually quite foolish to even think it would. We're reading 20 scripts over a 7-10 day time period.  How in the world could we do that remotely fairly?  I mean, Hell, Warren has trouble with simple math - you really think he knows the difference between small numbers and large ones?   It should be so simple with a 0-5 scoring system.  But then, again, everyone needs to understand that throwing out 5's to half the entries doesn't help, and doesn't make sense. Kev thinks I pick on him for bringing him up alot, but I don't mean it in a bad way, but I'm going to do it again now, because I think it's a perfect example. Kev says over and over that it's very unlikely anyone here is going to put together a truly great script in 72 hours (or 3 or 4, as it usually turns out).  And he's right.  Some are much better than others, but none are perfect, and only a few are even good.  Scores of 5 should rarely be awarded, whether it's an overall score or a category score. I mean, c'mon, let's face it and be honest....there are alot of very poor entries in round 2.  There's just no way around that, yet, we see the same peeps routinely, over and over gush out praise to scripts that are a 2 out of 5 at best.  I honestly don't get it. Then, we have others saying that they didn't get it at all, it's a mess, but they really like it.  Huh?  How does that even work? How in the world can peeps get away with purposely lowering or increasing scores, for their own betterment?  I say Sean posts the actual scores each round from each voter, so we see who the cheats are.  That way, they'd be hard pressed to continue doing it, round after round, knowing their gig is up and everyone knows what they're doing. Harsh?  Life is harsh.  And, didn't you have a cheater in this last year, who was never named?  Someone trying to increase their scores by creating phantom accounts or something?  I bet whoever that cheater was, they're doing everything they can to better their scores again this year.  Once a cheat, always a cheat.

It's a good idea to show the scores. Although some disparity is to be expected, it will still be very interesting cross-analysing who voted how and for what. Probably not everybody's idea of fun.

Quoted from DustinBowcot It's a good idea to show the scores. Although some disparity is to be expected, it will still be very interesting cross-analysing who voted how and for what. Probably not everybody's idea of fun.

Boy, you think there’s backbiting and anger between writers on this board now, wait until Jeff finds out Warren gave him a 2 for story or dialogue.

I think you wind up with the undesired effect of scripts being rated way too highly because there are some people who just don’t like confrontation and don’t want to create difficult feelings with another writer.  I try to stay clear of fire around here, and would likely continue to do so, but I’m not going to stand for people always sniping at me because they thought I was being unfair with their grading.

Just my two cents, as always.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Why wouldn't it work? I'm not arguing by the way, I'm just curious. Who would be unable to simply list the entries in order from their favourite to least favourite?

Well, as I said, these reads take place over a 7-10 day period.  Many of the reads are "fast".  Peeps have all sorts of things going on in their lives.  You really think you could  put 20 scripts in order, taking the above into account?  I sure couldn't.

I could tell you the best few and the worst few, but dolling out points in between is totally up in the air.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Does this not contradict your argument about the difference in top and bottom scores being too low? if we don't use the two extremes in the scoring (I.E 5's and 1's) then won't that result in scores bunching together somewhere in the middle? Whereas, if we score the entries only against each other, the end result will be a much larger score gap between top and bottom spot

No, not at all.  In any "set" of anything that are produced randomly, by completely different people, of completely different degrees of talent, there should be some sort of "bell curve", in terms of quality or whatever you want to call it.

This means (taking into account a 5 point scoring system of 1-5) that you should have some below 2.0 and some above 4.0, and based on the "set" of peeps we have, who all have different ideas on how they score, in reality, you should have some at 1.0, and  some near 5.0,

The differential between high and low should be over a 3.0 point differential.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Did someone actually do that? That's the saddest thing I have heard in a while lol

I didn't partake last year, but there was quite a bit of buzz over it with some peeps calling for a public lynching and others saying no big deal.

It was a big deal, though.

Quoted from Gary in Houston Boy, you think there’s backbiting and anger between writers on this board now, wait until Jeff finds out Warren gave him a 2 for story or dialogue. I think you wind up with the undesired effect of scripts being rated way too highly because there are some people who just don’t like confrontation and don’t want to create difficult feelings with another writer.  I try to stay clear of fire around here, and would likely continue to do so, but I’m not going to stand for people always sniping at me because they thought I was being unfair with their grading. Just my two cents, as always.

My bet is that Warren definitely purposely rates up or down when he knows the writer, based on whether he's in love with that person, or hates them.

I also bet that several peeps involved here share which one is theirs with a certain circle, in hopes of getting better scores from them.  

I honestly do.  I've seen it before in OWC's.  In fact, I saw a post from someone giving glowing praise to a script, and then, 20 minutes later, the post was deleted, and it was all very negative, because someone told this person who had written the script, and they wanted to trash anything and everything this person wrote.

It was quite funny, but very sad, too.

Quoted from Gary in Houston Boy, you think there’s backbiting and anger between writers on this board now, wait until Jeff finds out Warren gave him a 2 for story or dialogue. I think you wind up with the undesired effect of scripts being rated way too highly because there are some people who just don’t like confrontation and don’t want to create difficult feelings with another writer.  I try to stay clear of fire around here, and would likely continue to do so, but I’m not going to stand for people always sniping at me because they thought I was being unfair with their grading. Just my two cents, as always.

Yeah, exactly.

Quoted from Dreamscale It should be so simple with a 0-5 scoring system.  But then, again, everyone needs to understand that throwing out 5's to half the entries doesn't help, and doesn't make sense. Kev says over and over that it's very unlikely anyone here is going to put together a truly great script in 72 hours (or 3 or 4, as it usually turns out).  And he's right.  Some are much better than others, but none are perfect, and only a few are even good.  Scores of 5 should rarely be awarded, whether it's an overall score or a category score. I mean, c'mon, let's face it and be honest....there are alot of very poor entries in round 2.  There's just no way around that, yet, we see the same peeps routinely, over and over gush out praise to scripts that are a 2 out of 5 at best.  I honestly don't get it.

What are your expectations? That an OWC or one of these 72 hour entries is going to compare to a fully polished professional script?

If you only give scores of 1-4, or worse 1-3, all you're doing is narrowing the spread even further. There is very little difference in score between the best and worst script.

Quoted from Dreamscale I honestly do.  I've seen it before in OWC's.  In fact, I saw a post from someone giving glowing praise to a script, and then, 20 minutes later, the post was deleted, and it was all very negative, because someone told this person who had written the script, and they wanted to trash anything and everything this person wrote. It was quite funny, but very sad, too.

This has actually happened to me. I won't name names... But I saw it. The original review was quite positive, then the review was deleted a redone like an hour later and it was brutally negative. Lol. Just petty.

I was checking out Nichol's yesterday and stumbled upon their criteria.
Voice and Magic - we have dialog instead. The rest is the same - they have craft for the prose, which is essentially the same thing perhaps. Actually dialog and prose together qualifies as craft.
I like their criteria though. Don't get exactly what Voice means. Consistency perhaps.
But Magic is a good one.

We're a bunch of amateur writers undertaking a challenge with no entry fee and no prize attached.

If anyone is sad enough to go to the lengths as described in some of the above posts then the simplest solution is to get rid of the scoring entirely.

If there is some great need for a 'winner' then let Don or whoever is running the challenge pick one on whatever basis they see fit.

We're sure as hell never going to get consensus.

Quoted from ReneC   What are your expectations? That an OWC or one of these 72 hour entries is going to compare to a fully polished professional script?

No, not at all, which is what I've said multiple times.

But, let's understand, we're not talking about "fully polished professional scripts".  That has nothing to do with it.  A script should stand by itself for what it is, how it's written, how it looks, how it flows, etc.

And, the bottom line is that very few of these will be 4's and 5's...BUT...

Quoted from ReneC If you only give scores of 1-4, or worse 1-3, all you're doing is narrowing the spread even further. There is very little difference in score between the best and worst script.

A difference of 3 points on a 5 point scale is actually alot.  The max is 4 points, so c'mon, man, do the simple math.

The point, however, is that 1 or a few will be heads and shoulders above the very worst.  In Round 1, based on the fucked up scoring and actual grading by the peeps, didn't turn out that way, which proves the flaw.

I think the problem here is that many, like Warren, just don't understand numbers and how they work.

A score of 5 vs. a score of 4, is not merely a 1 point differential.  You need to divide to see the real difference.  Obviously the same with a score of 4 vs. 1.  HUGE differentials!!