This may have been raised before but when a NEW SCRIPT is posted, should the writer chime in first to acknowledge that he/she is around and waiting?

I wonder if sometimes, a new member drops a script in and waits by to see the praise come in only to watch it sink to the bottom and into obscurity.

Maybe they are afraid to be the first ones to say hello for fear of people thinking he/she is simply bumping their own script.

I, myself try to be one of the first posters on my script when it drops in to say hello and thanks.

Any new members have a thought on this and what do the old timers think?

Shawn…..><

I think this is a good idea.  I think Don, at one time, posted the user names with the scripts.


Phil

I agree - I personally feel that I'd be more likely to read a script from a new member if they introduce themselves a bit first...

Doesn't he still Phil?

Oh, wait, I see...

quick sock puppetry at play here.

You fighter of bromadrosis, you...

I've seen many posters say something to the effect of...

"I'll wait to hear from the writer before I go any further"...

But that doesnt apply to the established writers here. Everyone knows they will be around.

Should a new writer introduce themselves to show they are not simply doing a script dump?

Shawn......><

I think people mostly used to try to be the first post on their own script so that they could put in favourable reviews in the post directly under the description.   Like this one.

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-action/m-1097460189

This was mostly a practice on features, however.

I used to delete posts that said, "I will read this if the writer is around."

But then I changed my mind, and figured a single post calling out the author does have value -- but if they answer "I am here", you should at least go back and give a look.

It bugs me when people just blow it off after the writer appears.

It makes that first post look very disingenuous.

Michael,

That's fucking funny!

Quoted from mcornetto I think people mostly used to try to be the first post on their own script so that they could put in favourable reviews in the post directly under the description.   Like this one. http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-action/m-1097460189 This was mostly a practice on features, however.

I wasn't the one that started this 'list the reviews' thingy.  I just followed the others.


Phil

Quoted from Ledbetter This may have been raised before but when a NEW SCRIPT is posted, should the writer chime in first to acknowledge that he/she is around and waiting? I wonder if sometimes, a new member drops a script in and waits by to see the praise come in only to watch it sink to the bottom and into obscurity. Maybe they are afraid to be the first ones to say hello for fear of people thinking he/she is simply bumping their own script. I, myself try to be one of the first posters on my script when it drops in to say hello and thanks. Any new members have a thought on this and what do the old timers think? Shawn…..><

My current views on a new writer posting to his/her thread after posting is it is a good thing.  It signals to others that the writer is indeed around and folks would be more likely to leave a review for someone who is around.  

Initially, like Bert, the "Is the writer around" posts annoyed me, but, like Bert, changed my mind and found it to be useful to call folks out since it does seem a bit of a waste to write a review for someone who isn't going to read it.

So, in short, a new writer to the board should, by all means, do an initial bump to signal that they are around and ready to receive reviews.  It is also a good opportunity for 'old timers' to post the usual, "read and review other scripts and others will review yours".

As for bumping. personally, what I find acceptable is:

"Hey [name] thanks for the review.  Thank you for your comments.  I can understand why you were confused when Sally killed the kitten.  I was trying to convey that the kitten represents evil..."

unacceptable:

"Any other reviews?"
"Why hasn't anyone read my script?"

In short, responses that foster the community of the board are good.

Don

One thing that annoys me is that some of this "don't bump this script, the writer is not around" stuff is that I can't read and comment on what I want. What if a script just intrigues me, but the writer is nowhere? Should I just read t and keep my thoughts to myself so active board member's scripts can stay on the portal??  

Quoted from Grandma Bear One thing that annoys me is that some of this "don't bump this script, the writer is not around" stuff is that I can't read and comment on what I want. What if a script just intrigues me, but the writer is nowhere? Should I just read t and keep my thoughts to myself so active board member's scripts can stay on the portal??

Read and comment on what you want, even if the writer isn't around.  I certainly don't want to limit expression.  

Don

Quoted from Don Read and comment on what you want, even if the writer isn't around.  I certainly don't want to limit expression.

But I do!


Phil (snarl)

Maybe there should be a 'newbie' section on simplyscripts? Not sure what the quailifying criteria would be, maybe if you've been writing for less than 6 months and/or this is your first feature or short.

I think alot of new writers find it hard to understand where the constructive criticism on their master piece comes from or what it means and break into a new online community at the same time.

There may be some very young, but extremely good minds that could be brought along and they might not quite understand how things work/should work.

Because of that, it might be a good idea to have some kind of FAQ place for new writers coming to the site.

I guess that's to be said irregardless of age. There are ESL people and people in general that may be interested and have loads of real life experience, but they just don't know internet boards or the S.S. boards. We can't assume that everyone understands what is expected.

Sandra

Quoted from Ledbetter Doesn't he still Phil? Oh, wait, I see... quick sock puppetry at play here. You fighter of bromadrosis, you...

Hey, I'm not a sock puppet!  Though, thanks for teaching me a new word (bromadrosis).  I think....   ;D

That aside, I *think* there *is* a newbie board already (IE: getting to know you.)  Though there's alot to be said for just plunging into the water, and learning as you go with the rest of us....

Quoted Text That aside, I *think* there *is* a newbie board already (IE: getting to know you.)  Though there's alot to be said for just plunging into the water, and learning as you go with the rest of us....

That doesn't always work in practice - from the outside it can seem like a very clique type of board. This is also compounded by the fact that reviews of new scripts by experienced writers can seem repetitious and pointless when it comes to reviewing work of new writers. There's only so many reviews you can do where you keep pointing out the same formatting mistakes. Eventually nobody even posts a comment.

If scripts like this were in a newbie section, it would be more benefical to both writers and reviewers to treat them as such and offer advice with that in mind. I think Sandra's suggestion of an FAQ newbie section is a better one. Just my opinion.

bromadrosis...

Can someone embed the video by FRANK ZAPPA called STINKFOOT?

It will explaine it perfectly.

Shawn.....><

Yeah, I've heard that one.  Never seen a video though...  :)

Gimme Joe's Garage, any day....

You guys assume that a member new to these boards will possess sufficient navigation skills to locate an FAQ section devoted to their queries.

To wit:

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-cc/m-1124159895/

Bet you didn't even know that dusty little corner of the board was there, did you?

As for a section to house "newbie" scripts, I feel you, but we are not likely to see that, as the exclusivity -- your perceived "cliques", real or not -- would only be enhanced by such a change.

A number of us have petitioned Don on numerous occasions to only accept scripts that meet a certain threshold of quality -- in terms of formatting at the very least -- only to be rebuffed.

He has many times defended his "accept (nearly) everything" position, and while it drives some of us bananas, you do have to respect his position on the issue.

Quoted from wonkavite Gimme Joe's Garage any day...

One-two-three-four
Let's see if you've got some more!

Quoted Text You guys assume that a member new to these boards will possess sufficient navigation skills to locate an FAQ section devoted to their queries. To whit: http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-cc/m-1124159895/ Bet you didn't even know that quiet little corner of the board was there, did you? As for a section for "newbie" scripts, I feel you, but we are not likely to see that, as the exclusivity -- your perceived "cliques", real or not -- would only be enhanced by such a change. A number of us have petitioned Don to only accept script that meet a certain threshold of quality -- in terms of formatting at the very least -- only to be rebuffed.

Your tiger style is strong . . .

Read that when I first came here and it was helpful, but had forgotten about it since. I can see the argumant against there being a newbie section a fear of community segregation, which is a valid point. Maybe then it's an issue of expanding upon the FAQ section that's already in place, by appending some formatting guidelines and in terms of navigation, making the site layout a bit more user friendly? I know having James McClung's Complete in red makes a big difference . . .