Quoted from Penoyer79 interestingly enough the Regs rarely seem to go after each other.

Yeah, right.  Sure they don't!!!  Phil and a couple others are notorious for getting "Regular Members" banned for life...and they're proud of it.

And, BTW, "elitist" is a good way of looking at a number of these people.

Writing is a product of passion and if someone phrases something not to a writer's liking, there's a propensity to believe it's personal - if that writer ultimately thinks their work is rather good. Some people are not really looking for alternative perspectives, but rather affirmation of what they perceive 'ready' in its current form.

I roll my eyes when I see an over the top review that is more about the reviewer coming off as knowledgeable and clever; but I also roll my eyes when a writer basically throws your effort back in your face. I'd call those peeps ungrateful. If I read your feature, for example, I at least expect some acknowledgment that you've addressed my points. Even if you disagree. Stuff like that. Above all, we should appreciate people giving their time for free. It's not a big deal, to be fair, but more of a pet peeve.

If I read a script, I've done it as a favour, or from a request, or simply to give a perspective. I hesitate to use the word "help", 'cos to me help would be someone with an ability to make it better based on experience or talent. If Spielberg read my script and gave pointers, that's what I'd call help.

Looking for motivations behind reviews, or assessing the review on the basis of how you view the person, or being unnecessarily defensive are really just symptoms of not being in touch with your gut. There's a technical learning curve, as well as a constant evolution to harness your skills (and that's why differing perspectives are great), but you have to put it through your own lens of what is right for your story. That's where the talent comes in, I think. Anyone can write a script. Not everyone can filter it through their lens and know in their gut what works.

I agree with Phil, though - this topic has run its course!

And I'm surprised to say this, but I agree with Andrew, pretty much 100%.

Let's let it die now, can we?  A new OWC is on the horizon, so let's start shifting our gears from reviewing to writing, because, really, that's what it's all about, isn't it?

Andrew brings up an interesting point about responding to reviews. I have not yet determined where the right balance is. One doesn't want to seem like they are being argumentative or defensive, or expecting the reader to be even more generous with their time. At the same time, engaging them in further discussion recognizes their points, and sometimes leads to an improvement in the script.

As far as the topic running its course...are you kidding me? If you're tired of it, don't check in and read the thread. I never get how people make comments like that. No one makes anyone read a thread. That's where the elitism comes into play at SS, and it's more a clique kind of thing. You'll hear a regular grumble, "well, this has been covered." Then just be quiet and stay of the thread for crike's sake!

THIS more than anything else scares away new members at SS. Not harsh reviews. It's the sense that it's a clique, a tone that seems to reveal itself from time to time. People can say what they want about Jeff, and I've had my issues, but he's not cliquey.

i have to agree with leitskuv here

letting this thread die completely would be a mistake. it needs to be left open for a bump once in a while as a"friendly reminder".....because lets face it -we've hit on some issues with this board....

there's a reason this thing is 13 pages long, 6 years old, and still going strong. i made 1 post the other day...and 20+ responses.

one of your own mods just posted a Poll the other day about Tolerance when it comes to this very same issue!

obviously this isnt a problem that will ever go away completely...but we can at least do our part to regulate it to a minimum

a periodical review of the contents in this thread and some discussion on it can go a long way. plus it doesnt hurt anyone.

with a OWC on the horizon - this was the perfect time to bring this back.

Quoted from Dreamscale Yeah, right.  Sure they don't!!!  Phil and a couple others are notorious for getting "Regular Members" banned for life...and they're proud of it. And, BTW, "elitist" is a good way of looking at a number of these people.

I have to correct you here.  It's not easy to get banned for life from this site.  And it has nothing to do with what "Phil or the Regs" do or think.  The responsibility for that lies solely on the person banned.  

Quoted from mcornetto I have to correct you here.  It's not easy to get banned for life from this site.  And it has nothing to do with what "Phil or the Regs" do or think.  The responsibility for that lies solely on the person banned.

Well, Michael, I will respond and be done here, but you and I both know of a very good example in which Mr.  Sock Puppet did everything in his power to make a certain someone respond in ways which got him banned.

I understand Don made the decision and based that decision on a number of things, but I for one know damn well that PuppetHead went out of his way to make it happen.

Quoted from Dreamscale Well, Michael, I will respond and be done here, but you and I both know of a very good example in which Mr.  Sock Puppet did everything in his power to make a certain someone respond in ways which got him banned. I understand Don made the decision and based that decision on a number of things, but I for one know damn well that PuppetHead went out of his way to make it happen.

And Jeff, I am only responding to this because I don't want you filling peoples heads with misinformation.  You might see it like that, but you're not looking at it objectively.  Banning people from the site is not a subjective decision.

lol i remember that. good times.
in other words....its okay phil, we don't blame you... we blame the sock!!
you have to admit its quite entertaining when you rile up the lil monster.

im hungry. think i'll go have myself a ba-

oh nevermind.

This is a thread that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends,
Some people started posted in it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue posting in it forever just because,
This is a thread that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends,
Some people started posted in it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue posting in it forever just because....

C'mon people. Sing with me!!!  

I'm certainly not colluding as part of a clique to silence the righteous cause of keeping this thread going!

To be fair, I only suggested it had run its course 'cos the thread pops up every now and again (usually when someone's disgruntled with a review) and the same convo then happens over and again. It seems to deviate away from Chris' original post  - which was more concerned with discouraging teenagers who could blossom into fine writers without unnecessary barracking of their work. That seems quite different from general disapproval of reviewing that is more for the reviewer's kicks (something I have poo poo'd as a concept before). I'd imagine that's why bert started a fresh thread from this one, but as I don't collude with him in an Allen/Newcomer clique, I can't say for sure. Plus, I'm probably wrong about his intentions there.

But seriously, man, I don't think that's an active on-going attempt to curtail freedom of speech on the site, nor do I think retention of new members is dependent upon 'I think this thread has run its course'.

Quoted from JB Let's let it die now, can we?  A new OWC is on the horizon, so let's start shifting our gears from reviewing to writing, because, really, that's what it's all about, isn't it?

I agree with this completely.

This is the type of topic that needs to continue as it seems to always be an issue. In fact that's one of the main reasons I left the site originally was due to being tired of reading a review of someone's script and seeing people just being jacka$$e$ .  

Just as there's proper ways to write the script, there are proper ways to give feedback. There's nothing wrong with harsh, direct feedback but IT HAS TO BE HELPFUL.  If a review just consists of "man you didn't even try, this is crap, I was so mad reading your script" and the like, you can bet that person is going to start ignoring your feedback right then and there.

Read your feedback out loud before posting it. Would you say this to the person's face? if not then rewrite your feedback. Good lord, when I gave people feedback on the job or their annual reviews, I'd never even think of saying the type of things that here may pass for "constructive".  

Some get it...there are some fine reviewers here.  Some just want to punch people and see them crumble so they can feel superior.

I can take all the negative feedback there is. I know I've written some good, solid scripts, and some crap.  Usually I know when it's crap.    But, especially when you're dealing with someone who maybe has submitted their first script...it pays to be honest, direct...but in a helpful manner.

When someone wants to offer help...and that's the key... "offer help", people will gladly take it.  

Bottom line, and this may sound trite but it is NEVER WRONG: there's no excuse for rudeness.  

So says Mary Poppins.

I had to go back to see if my words in any way suggested  "collusion". Naturally, they did not. No collusion was suspected, implied or imagined. Strange. Or maybe not.

The topic of the thread is "constructive criticism". The purpose of the website is for writers to review each others work. Those reviews by necessity involve criticism. So the topic will never run its course. Just like format issues, it will be relevant as long as the site exists. And with new members always joining, they not be familiar with the viewpoints raised in 2009.

Will arguments get rehashed? Will people raise matters that were raised before? Of course they will. Will regulars who've been here for years want to read those remarks, the same things that pop up every couple of years? No. And they shouldn't. Unless they're bored and want to kick in and contribute. Same as other arguments, like bold slugs.

To a new member, when someone suggests a conversation has run its course, they will read that as "shut up". In fact, they'll probably read it as "shut up, we've heard this before, you're disturbing us". Yeah, cliquey.

i think the bottom line is... you dont need to be an elitist asshole to get your fucking point across. i mean really....thats what this is all about. its not directed at any one individual... so dont get your panties in twist.

i think we're all in the same boat here.... amature writers in our own social network trying our best -- with a little help from our friends -- to get better.

lets take advantage of this medium we have here... not abuse it because of EGO.

we're not making a million dollar... this isn't hollywood... time isnt money... if you're here you dont have a hot date. don't just read scripts because you want to get read... read scripts because its what you LOVE to do.

writing and reading go hand in hand here.

i can understand the "i scratch your back..." mentality i do.... but some of us take it waayy too far. writing scripts and well as READING them should be YOUR PASSION, not a fucking chore!!

you know what i mean?

  

Oh, come on, Kev. Don't take it so seriously. You used the word clique three times, which invited the sarcasm. Clique, coterie, cadre, cabal - all describing the same thing: a group working in a small set (hence the collusion), typically for a common purpose, which you alluded to as 'shutting down the conversation' - the impact being a decrease in member retention.

You seem to be one of those blokes that can dish it out but not take it. Don't forget that I'm a Brit and we like to banter and take the piss, which is simply what I did in the last post. If you're just being passive aggressive about the last round of political debate, then just PM me and we'll have a lovely discussion that will finally resolve our differences. I'm assuming you'll judge my sarcasm better now.