All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
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.
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.
Actually, Jeff, both Don and I have individualized our scoring sheets (his has a more professional look than mine, but what can you do?) and in the case of nearly every reviewer AND every script, more 1s were handed out than 5s.
Here's my big issue with what you're saying, Jeff. It's a problem I come across every time I run one of these contests and it gets a bit irritating. See, you believe 5s are rare and that's fine, because you review the way you do, just like everyone does. But, I don't think enough credit is given to the idea that you only have a maximum of three days (remember, it was originally going to be two) to write a script in a genre you may not be well-versed in, using props and locations that don't fit easily together. In my personal opinion, if I were reviewing, I'd be a bit more lenient and understanding that it's a miracle these scripts came out as well as they did. Like I said, everyone reviews in their own way. You shouldn't chastise people who are lenient, just like they shouldn't chastise you for being strict.
If you're going to make a claim that people are intentionally trying to skew the scoring, Jeff, PM me about it and we'll talk about it. But, you can't just make a claim like that without any proof of it. I take things like that very personally, because these scores were gone through by both Don and I (he may or may not have done this on his end. I'm not certain) and there is no evidence of vote tampering. In actual fact, I was surprised by how much in agreement people were with their votes, on average. Now, in regards to posting the scores, no. It's not happening. As I said in the round 1 thread, there are two reasons I'm doing it. One is a personal reason of my own. The second, though, is because we have reviewers who recognize other people's writing styles. I want to dis-incentivize cheating in all forms. Period. I won't discuss the topic of making the scores public during the tournament again.
That's right. There was a caught cheater last year whom we never named. Their inflated score didn't change the scores in the round they were able to do it in. What's your point?
Quoted from Dreamscale
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.
Jeff, you're making accusations of cheating out of thin air. Seriously, what are you doing?
If I remember correct, I gave out no 5's. I gave two 1's, both on story. I think I only listed 3 as not meeting the requirement. I shared no reads or information with anyone. I knew none of the writers, except Jeff's was easy to spot a mile away. I even gave that one some credit because it seemed to me the writer was just trying to keep his skin in the game.
My ranking did not match too well with the ranking that came out. Tucker and Dale and the Package came out on top on my list. Just Stop was my favorite, but scored a point lower because of criteria.
So it went: Tucker and Dale 15 Package 15 Just Stop 14 I'm Being Watched 14 Head Case 14
Scores of five were reserved for a script that hit it out of the park. None came close to that.
Looking at my list, I gave one 4, for prose in Melt, a script that didn't score that high otherwise for me because I thought it was way over the top.