One person voting overly high marks to a script in a collusive manner isn't enough to move the needle significantly; probably something along the lines of .089 points.  That won't move someone from twelfth to second. It might change someone from fourth to third -- maybe.  But if they're already that high to begin with, that means a lot of other reviewers liked the script as well.  But if over half the reviewers only gave average marks to the script, then 5's across the board from one reviewer trying to help someone else isn't going to make much difference.  Plus, the writer of the script can't vote for themself, so it would take a whole gaggle of people in on this nefarious scheme to get any traction on moving a script, and doing that would hurt their own script's standing. None of this makes any sense.

I looked at my scorecard and was pretty close to the actual finish -- there were a couple a little out of the ranges.  I have "Crappy Job" higher than most people, e.g., but obviously a lot of people have a different opinion than Jeff about whether the top two scripts were quality writing.

Art stirs different opinions about quality in everyone. Because we don't all tow the line regarding the quality doesn't make us wrong, and it doesn't make us right.

Peace and love to all,
Gary

Remember, we don't know how many votes each script is getting, and I guarantee you, each script is not getting 19 votes.

You're also wrong in saying 1 or 2 5.0 scores don't have an impact.  They definitely do, and with how close the 1st to the worst script was in round 1 (1.77 points, I think it was), just do the math.  It's fairly simple math.

You're talking about the AVERAGE POINTS scored difference, not the difference in total points. That's a big difference.  For example, if one writer scored an average of 2.23 points and was in last place, that's a pretty marginal score, especially if they received a number of 5's for meeting the criteria.  If the difference was 1.77, then the top score had an average score of 4.0.  That's a very good script by my book (assuming 5 is excellent, 4 is very good, 3 is good, 2 is fair, 1 is poor).

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Gary, you're missing the mathematical difference.  You're missing the classic "Bell Curve" philosophy.

Sean said, as far as I think. that the difference between the very highest scored script, and the very lowest scored script, was 1.77 points.  It should be much closer to 3.0 points.

I'm not making this shit up.  It's common Math and Statistics 101,

Gary, you're missing the mathematical difference.  You're missing the classic "Bell Curve" philosophy.

Sean said, as far as I think. that the difference between the very highest scored script, and the very lowest scored script, was 1.77 points.  It should be much closer to 3.0 points.

I'm not making this shit up.  It's common Math and Statistics 101,

Ooh, some nice early morning reading...

Few things (if anyone cares).

Dave, thanks for the strategy tips. I read very carefully, for the next rounds. Spot on imh.

Dustin, thanks for the compliments re my writing ability. Re Hubby as co-writer - he's my biggest critic. He refuses to collaborate at this stage though (maybe he thinks it'll end in divorce) and his main role is to let me know when to go back to the drawing board.  I am more often than not damned with faint praise which turns out to be a good thing.

Warren, I doubt very much an Aussie standoff at the end of this tournament. I doubt I'll have the points and honestly, I'm not at your level of creating story consistently, yet.  You and others have that over me at the moment. That comes wiith practice. I've watched you evolve fast with your writing cause you're at it all the time. Same with other top-notch writers on SS - Dustin, Dena, Pia, Dave, Rick, you're all at it all the time and the development and the effort shows.

I wasn't in Round 1, and Round 3, I'm tanking - I disliked the 'sanitiser' element vehemently and I still maintain that we'd get more potentially producable scripts out of these challenges if the parameters were still difficult but not verging on silly. Monster in the Whitehouse comes to mind. No offence, Blondie. Rounds four and five may prove beyond me. Who knows, I might not even get an entry in.

I'm going to keep trying though cause at least it's getting my writer hat on, and at least I'm getting the words on the page. I'm trying not to just give up when the first idea that comes fails.

Jeff, remember that 24-48 hour challenge some years back? One of your character's was named Micah - it was one of the best (serious toned) things I've read of yours and I think it was cause you wrote it outside of your comfort zone of bros and hot girls getting schlammied around the spa. Forgot to add: not cool you alluding to cheating.

Finally, Matty, come back!
This is typical OWC /tournament stuff.
You aced it in Round 1!

End of my rant.
Carry on.

Jeff, remember that 24-48 hour challenge some years back? One of your character's was named Micah - it was one of the best (serious toned) things I've read of yours and I think it was cause you wrote it outside of your comfort zone of bros and hot girls getting schlammied around the spa.

Forgot to add: not cool you alluding to cheating.

Of course I remember that script, and actually, I wrote exactly what I wanted to.

And, the script in question, mine from Round 2, had absolutely NOTHING to do with hot girls, bros, hot tubs, or even a single cuss word.



No, you're right, it's not cool, but as I've tried to say, show, whatever I can do, something is not right about this scoring, and if it's simply the system, I do apologize, and if you are 100% innocent, I do apologize, but there's absolutely no way something is not afoot here.

The Bell Curve represents what statisticians call a "normal distribution." A normal distribution is a sample with an arithmetic average and an equal distribution above and below average. It assumes you have an equivalent number of people above and below average, and that there will be a very small number of people two standard deviations above and below the average (mean).

That is not always the case, especially as it applies to something like an OWC. The mixture of writers is going to favored the more experienced -  i.e., there are far more regulars than they are newbies. A bell curve distribution of scores is the last thing one should statistically expect.

Regardless. Gary's point is spot on.  Assume each script averages 12 scores. A script that got ten 2s as an average and two fake 5s is only moving from 2 to 2.5. Similarly, a script that got ten legit 3s and two fake 5s is only going to move from 3 to 3.3.

Most importantly, there is zero evidence that this phenomenon even occurred.

As ALWAYS - the cream will rise to the top.

Just got back to this thread. First, congrats to all those soldiering on an special congrats to the top placements. This is an iron man/woman  contest and I salute all those making the effort.

But the whining and allegations of mis-scoring/cheating etc. is getting old fast. It I ran this site it would probably be the last OWC.

I've been in more than a dozen of these and NEVER EVER have I see an undeserving script finish at the top. Sure, there have been times I would have changed the order of the top three - but a deserving script always took down the challenge. AND - it is okay and perfectly natural for some folks to think one script is a stinker and for someone else to love it. Stop the whining because something you hated someone else liked and vice versa. Call it the Roma principle. Nominated for best screenplay. I read it - I'd give it a 1. Obviously some people gave it a 5.

And there is a strategy to winning these things that you need to follow if you are going to place well.  If you don't employ a strategy - don't whine about the results.  Jeff - I'm going to use you as an example since you've  expressed great angst about your placements in the first two rounds. e.g:



Jeff, you are in the wrong sandbox.  Assuming your two scripts were perfect - which they were not - they never had a chance because you employed a less than optimal strategy for an OWC.

Your Bobble-head entry - Dead on arrival. You have a Japanese woman, speaking in broken English, dressed like a hooker, discussing how she would never tolerate the insertion of a Eli Manning bobble-head doll into her XXX or XXX. Although she'd consider A-Rod.

Even if Aaron Sorkin wrote the rest, that script was doomed right there because it's going to offend several people. Sure - some will be find with it. But too many won't and your score will plummet. You are not writing for yourself - you're writing for an audience of 20 to 30 people.  And don't get me wrong - write whatever you want, as extreme as you want. Just don't be surprised when the extreme doesn't hit the target audience in an OWC.  

Your references are generally too narrow or dated. Here you went with American athletes.  Only some will get it. i.e., think how much broader the understanding is if you substitute Eli and A-rod with Ben Allfeck and Matt Damon.  

Finally, in this script you introduced an entirely unnecessary character (Monty) in the second part of the script. In a short - especially a five pager - clarity and simplicity are sound strategies.

Your second script. I thought - hmm - nicely done.  May have been a top five for me (can't say since I read so few) - but well written with a strategic flaw. Two way many characters (11) to digest in a five pager. Again, clarity and simplicity is king.  Had you narrowed it down to maybe half the characters you could have finished top three.

If you truly want to do better in these, be more strategic - widest appeal, simple as possible. If you just want to write what you want to write - cool. But don't whine when it doesn't land.

Anyway - Long-winded way of saying if those who are whining want to turn this from fun to work - keep it up. You may just literally choke the life out of it.  

Rant over.

You've been awesome this tourney. I hope you reconsider. Maybe just don't read these threads and do your thing. Write a script that makes you happy and leave the rest behind...

We can't lose the good ones.