For me it depends on a parameter:

If a parameter calls for a five pager and the script is 6-page long - I'll mark it down for it.
If a parameter says the scripts need to end with "these exact words" - I'd want to see "these exact words" at the end and I'll mark the script down if it doesn't follow the rules.

But some parameters get loose interpretation by writers through no fault of their own. For the first round, I wrote a ghost script. The parameter called for sci-fi. I immediately thought that ghost already means a sci-fi. I asked Sean and he said yes, it does. He even gave me a few examples of the movies. So, I thought if two of us think that then it must be true. I did think SSers might object but this thought occured to me only after I finished writing.
Same goes for other genres. Like comedy - some people might see a script as funny, others will not.
My point is some parameters call for various interpretations.  

Quoted from PKCardinal Point is, from my view, parameters make the contest. They force us to find solutions to crazy problems. They lead to creative breakthroughs. .

I very much agree with it.

I haven't been on the site long enough to witness too many OWC's, but I think a mix of explicit and squishy parameters allows for creativity to shine through. Bonus points if they comport with what one might find on a real writing assignment.

Explicit requirements like page counts and ludicrously specific settings (i.e., trapped in an automobile, one character never tells the truth, etc.) put some structure around the challenge even if they serve no other purpose than to ensure no one is dusting off an old script. They're also part of the fun of achieving the "impossible."

Squishy requirements (i.e., a parable about haste makes waste, a skeptic is confronted by the paranormal, etc.) allow the writers to explore in and around a theme, give the contestants freedom, but also make the scripts comparable.

Quoted from DustinBowcot They don't need to do that until after the vote. So a script that doesn't meet the parameters may come first in the vote but then is later disqualified. The parameters make the challenge more worthwhile as they add an element of fun. If a writer chooses not to follow the parameters then we as readers shouldn't dwell on that, and should rather vote for the best story. Voting for a weaker story that we enjoyed less just because it met the parameters and the other didn't doesn't sit right with me. I'd be far happier voting for the best story and then see it disqualified by the organisers for breaking the rules.

Not sure that is ever going to happen - i.e., organizers looking at scripts for parameter compliance. Who knows.

Don't agree with your 2nd point. I would dwell on whether they met the parameters or not as it is what level the playing field. If one writer follows them and the other doesn't - then how can you simply vote for the best story? You may just be voting for something that's been in the can for a year while the other writer had to write something under a one week constraint - apples and oranges.

PS - not applicable to this current round as obviously both writers captured the same basic themes and both obviously wrote them specifically for this challenge. But when you got 30 or so entries and are not going to hold folks accountable for the parameters - then I just don't get the
premise of the OWC - it would just be a short challenge

But I haven't said that folks shouldn't be held accountable for not sticking to the parameters. I have said the opposite. I just don't think it is down to us to do the accounting.

The length of time the scripts are up gives Sean (or whoever) plenty of time to check for compliance. Plenty of us here manage to read all of them. If a script manages to sneak through with a loose interpretation of the parameters then it shouldn't be a bone of contention for the readers. This type of misconception can lose legitimate scripts votes.

Quoted from DustinBowcot But I haven't said that folks shouldn't be held accountable for not sticking to the parameters. I have said the opposite. I just don't think it is down to us to do the accounting. The length of time the scripts are up gives Sean (or whoever) plenty of time to check for compliance. Plenty of us here manage to read all of them. If a script manages to sneak through with a loose interpretation of the parameters then it shouldn't be a bone of contention for the readers. This type of misconception can lose legitimate scripts votes.

yeah, I know what your point was. And if someone work going to review the scripts for compliance, then we're on the same page. I just don't think that's going to happen

I've added the parameters:

Who: Hitman.
What: Has to keep a Presidential candidate, his estranged wife, alive.
Where: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
When: Tuesday, November 7th, 2028 (election day).
Why: A hit has been put out on her to stop gun control legislation she intends to pass.

Quoted from Don I've added the parameters: Who: Hitman. What: Has to keep a Presidential candidate, his estranged wife, alive. Where: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. When: Tuesday, November 7th, 2028 (election day). Why: A hit has been put out on her to stop gun control legislation she intends to pass.

Thanks Don!

That's cleared that up.  Both scripts stuck to the parameters.  Control was my fav out of the two.

Quoted from eldave1 I just don't think that's going to happen

It already happens. I cannot pinpoint an exact example, but I'm pretty sure scripts have been disqualified before for not fitting the parameters.

Why do the members feel the need to police this? Why can't we just read the script and say whether we enjoyed it or preferred it over another and leave it at that?

Why the need to take fun so seriously?

Quoted from DustinBowcot It already happens. I cannot pinpoint an exact example, but I'm pretty sure scripts have been disqualified before for not fitting the parameters.

I seem to recall one as well - again, can't pinpoint it but I recall something like that happened. But, that's anecdotal and not indicative of whether moderators routinely do this. I can't imagine that they do given the volume of scripts typically entered. Again - we are not disagreeing on an ideal approach - just disagreeing on whether it is a practical approach.

Quoted Text Why do the members feel the need to police this? Why can't we just read the script and say whether we enjoyed it or preferred it over another and leave it at that?

I'll answer the question with a question - why can't we allow both? In past OWCs I have DQ'd scripts from my vote because I did not think they were close to the parameters. Other peeps did not because they thought they were close enough. What's the problem with letting each reader decide how they want to approach it?

Quoted Text Why the need to take fun so seriously?

"Fun" and rules are not mutually exclusive. You play chess - if your opponent starts playing checkers midway through the match - the fun is over. I play tournament poker - if someone says during the game that threes are not the highest card in the deck - then my fun is over.

Yes - fun is paramount. The existence of rules does not undermine that. They undermine anarchy.

And again - I'm cool with OWC with no parameters - but if you're going to have them - have them.

Quoted from Don I've added the parameters: Who: Hitman. What: Has to keep a Presidential candidate, his estranged wife, alive. Where: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. When: Tuesday, November 7th, 2028 (election day). Why: A hit has been put out on her to stop gun control legislation she intends to pass.

What? No shiny black limo?

Quoted from JEStaats What? No shiny black limo?

Also note that no one said the goodguy hitman or the badguy hitman had to use guns. I've never seen a script for an extended martial arts action scene, but it could have been interesting.

Jet Li (his character has a name, but no one remembers what it is) performs several minutes of overly elaborate martial arts moves, ends with punching Henchman Five.

Wasn't in love with either but I wanted to like Shall Be Infringed. Very well written. Knowing the parameters after the read make it a little clearer looking back though I still think the script has flaws. If the concept was fleshed out a little it could easily be a full length feature.

What is the time frame for voting?

Since the poll is visible, I presume the Who Wrote What and the star-studded Hollywood award ceremony would follow almost immediately.