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.
If one of your posts comes up "missing", I'll bet that 9 times out of 10, you already know why it's gone.
But for that other 10% that feels compelled to ask "Hey, where did my review go?" -- either publicly or by PM -- this thread will hopefully answer your question.
Much of this was drawn from earlier threads seeking input from active members, and therefore represents a general consensus with very little dissent:
1) Your review is completely unsubstantiated: It does not matter whether you are praising the script or trashing it. "This rocks!" will be deleted as quickly as "This sucks!" Nobody expects you to write a novel when reviewing a script, but if you are a person of few words, one of those words needs to be "because".
2) You attack the author: This really needs no explanation, but note that this is completely different from attacking a script. Sometimes it is a fine line. These are judged case-by-case.
3) You attack the boards: If you feel you must malign our little corner of the internet, then, just, leave, you know?
4) Your post is unrelated to the script: Sometimes threads will go off on wild tangents, and grow to 30+ posts debating who would win in a fight between Michael Myers and Jason, or how great Celtix software may or may not be. Those threads will get cleaned out.
5) You are "piling on" five years too late: I call this one "The Cabin Rule". If there are 30 posts on an ancient thread stating how wretched a script is -- and the author has never even responded anyways -- what are you even doing there? Please don't wake these threads up with another "me too" post.
6) You plan to read the script later: Please do not post that you may or may not read a script at some unspecified point in the future. Nobody cares. Come back and post when you actually have some comments for the author.
7) Your post is nothing more than an advertisement for your own script: "This is great -- now go read mine!!" No. I don't think so.
8 ) Your advice is flat-out wrong: We try not to let the uninformed muddy the waters with really poor advice.
9) You double-post on your own script: Posting on your script to let people know you are around for feedback is great. Once. But repeatedly bumping up your script to ask for new reads is bad form. Particularly when the only thread you ever post on is your own. Commenting on the works of other authors is the best way to draw attention to your own work.
10) Crimes against English and grammar: if u wnt 2 pst lik this, that is gr8, but go fnd a brd that is not 4 writers.
11) "Total Trashing" of a script: The review is an unprofessional trashing that casts a negative image on the site as a whole -- more concerned with amusing yourself at how clever you can be as opposed to delivering any actual feedback. A more thorough discussion specific to this relatively new guideline can be found here.
Thanks to the numerous members who have contributed to these general guidelines over the years.
There should hopefully not be a lot of chatter on this thread, but if I overlooked something, we can certainly add it to the list.
Leaving the above up so that Dr. Newcomer hisself can delete. On a serious note, this is great information. However, in the event I delete Dogglebe, Sniper or Sheepwalker's posts, I will use, "Bert's Post" as the reason.
Leaving the above up so that Dr. Newcomer hisself can delete.
Nah...there's room for a few smart-alecks on the thread -- and look -- the usual suspects, too. Go figure. Some people just can't help themselves, I suppose.
This thread is just another moderator tool -- so we can respond with a quick link as the need arises -- instead of a long, involved explanation -- and it can easily be amended as new scenarios arise -- as they always seem to do around here.
But since Don popped it into sticky mode (thanks for the validation), let's please not let it spiral completely out of control, eh?
And burning snot...I just don't get that. I honestly don't. And I am a very generous tipper.
All kidding aside, the people here should learn to write more than "this script rocks!" or "this script sucks." We need to know more than this and, since there are no perfect scripts here, there are problems in all of them.
All kidding aside, the people here should learn to write more than "this script rocks!" or "this script sucks." We need to know more than this and, since there are no perfect scripts here, there are problems in all of them. Phil
True. If you've had an unproduced script doing the rounds for awhile you need to ask yourself why it hasn't been produced. Honest feedback could help you answer that question.
But if you think having a deleted 'review' is bad; the other day I read a feature length script and when I sat down to write the review the author had had his script removed.
5) You are "piling on" five years too late: I call this one "The Cabin Rule". If there are 30 posts on a four-year-old thread stating how wretched a script is -- and the author has never even responded anyways -- what are you even doing there? Please don't wake these threads up with another "me too" post.
This is probably my favorite one. Too often, a new person will dig up a script that has long since been abandoned by the author as well as the group. If you want to read such a script, that's fine. Before you post a comment, though, you should click on the author's profile to see if he's around anymore. If he hasn't signed on in the last six months, chances are he or she won't read your comments.
That could be fixed by taking off scripts from the unproduced part of the MESSAGE BOARD that are by non members and just having members scripts.
The main site contains lots of scripts not on here so it's not like they would get deleted but if we have less "clutter" scripts that people can read we won't have so many of the Cabin Rule's posts going on but of course that would be difficult... Wait, no, it wouldn't.