Quoted from bert I can see how you would think that.  I can. Suppose Don were to post the name?  Right here.  Right now. What comes next? Follow that thread of thought to wherever it leads you -- with an emphasis on worst-case scenarios. That may not convince you entirely, of course.  But that is just one of a couple reasons.

When Dustin was suspended for a year, he did his time and returned. Seriously, Bert, this is bullshit. If the person involved here is suicidal, please tell us.
And this is only one of "a couple of reasons"? I don't buy it.

I’ve got a screenwriting cheater story that relates.

I was reading Nicholl Quarter final scripts on Script Revolution. I read one that I felt was so bad that I felt there was NO WAY it could have made the quarters. It was one of the “feature scripts” on the site too. I just couldn’t let it go. So I looked through the quarter-finalists from the last 3 or so years and nothing. Then the OBSESSION kicked in ( I hate cheaters) and I browsed back like 12 years. Which is longer than the dude claims he’s been writing on his bio. Nothing...his script wasn’t there. He probably didn’t think they posted QF’s on the Nicholl site.

I almost sent the admin a message to tell them that he fabricated his portfolio...I was half way into it... but then I sort of felt like a tattle-tale. Like “who am I to be the screenwriting police”. Also, I felt the writer was cheating himself more than anything. So I left it alone.

I can respect Don’s decision.

I thought the challenge was a great idea and handled well despite voting issues and other challenges. Well done Sean, Don and all the gang!

The cheating, wow! Really? Double wow!

Can you imagine the shenanigans that would ensue if there was actually a prize?!


RJP - you should drop SR admin a note, the writer is lying, pure and simple.  

Quoted from AnthonyCawood Can you imagine the shenanigans that would ensue if there was actually a prize?!

That's probably why there isn't a prize, nor an entry fee.  

It's understandable to me that there is no public reveal of names, so brave move to however say that there was something wrong. That shows backbone and in fact transparency, so kudos to you, page managers.

As I see it, those cheatings happen here and there in our society. But some stuff I don't like here. We shouldn't justify things here with: "it's not about money, there was no harm to anyone" or that odd McDonald metaphor…

I think the integrity of the people here is higher than almost anywhere else. Not everything is about money and fraud. Still. There are still certain rooms in society that have high ethics and values. Like this place here.  

Also I can understand, Henry. I'm even thankful you clearly position against such a fuck-move, so high-five. A heavy rejection of such behavior is absolutely correct.

Quoted from Stumpzian Seriously, Bert, this is bullshit.

You can continue to hold that opinion without my thinking any less of you.

Reasonable people may disagree.  Something that is all-too-often lost these days.

Cheers

I haven't posted in a few days, so I hope nobody thinks it's me. I would never cheat and always point it out whenever I see it. I'd hoped the dynamic here had changed. To hear of somebody going so far as to create multiple accounts is disappointing. However, whoever it was was stupid enough to believe they could get away with it, so surely can't be one of the regulars or quality writers here - hence the votes having no effect.

I would obviously like to know who it is because I'm curious, but it's likely I will not know them anyway so is probably pointless.

I've used several different bulletin board solutions over the years (although not this one) and usually when setting up a vote there is an option to only allow votes from members with a certain post count. I wouldn't expect to need it on a site like this, but it appears it's necessary. Even with a 15 post minimum, we'd likely get some moron trying it on.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I haven't posted in a few days, so I hope nobody thinks it's me. I would never cheat and always point it out whenever I see it. I'd hoped the dynamic here had changed. To hear of somebody going so far as to create multiple accounts is disappointing. However, whoever it was was stupid enough to believe they could get away with it, so surely can't be one of the regulars or quality writers here - hence the votes having no effect.

The other thing this person did was to comment on certain scripts -- and on other people's comments -- in an effort to sway voters in his direction. It didn't work.

I'm certain of the identity of this person. For the record, Dustin, it never crossed my mind that you are the one, and I doubt anyone would think that. But this is the kind worry that comes up when the name is not revealed.

All in all I thought it was a great tournament and a great job by the coordinators. On the cheating I don't care to know who it was but if I were in charge, thank God I'm not, I would suspend them from future contest. I have one suggestion in terms of the framework. I would not do brackets in the first round of 32. Instead I would have the voters rate Allscripts on A1 to 5 scale with the top 16 advancing. Then I would seed the top write in script writer against the bottom rated script writer, Etc. The reason is some peeps really got an unfair advantage when strong writers were paired against strong writers from the get-go. Again great journey

I like Dave's idea of the silent ban, though depending on context I'd probably recommend it be for a limited time (one year?).

I recall back in the days of BBS's that it was pretty common to set up multiple accounts to get an advantage in online games. (And now all the youngin's are looking up what a BBS is.) It wasn't seen as serious because there weren't any real stakes, more like the teenage equivalent of claiming to solve a Rubik's cube when all you did was move the stickers around.

Long of way of saying my assumption would be that this person is immature rather than malicious.

As for first-round voting, I like it in theory, but I'd want to think through the incentives of people voting in that first round. An example of where voting can go terribly wrong is The Weakest Link... where the strongest player would always get voted off in the second-to-last round. Maybe set up the initial brackets by post counts or something (most vs. least, second most vs. second least, etc.)?

Would we not be able to tell what script had a screwy amount of votes and figure it out ourselves? There was a reset I think in the 3rd round? Seems like that was the reason why.

And devil's advocate, is it possible the person just had friends and family create accounts to vote for them? You see this happen in online polls all the time. It's still underhanded, but with the contest open to everybody, it's not unexpected.

Regardless, this was a great event and again, major kudos to all who ran and participated in it. Thanks!

Quoted from CameronD There was a reset I think in the 3rd round? Seems like that was the reason why.

The vote reset was an unrelated technical issue. Instead of calculating the average of all star ratings on a thread, it does a simple average of the current rating and the new rating, then rounds to the nearest half-star. So it's accurate for the first two votes, then from the third vote on the most recent vote is given way too much weight.

I was able to spot the bug in the code, but I don't know enough about the language to propose a fix.

Quoted from FrankM The vote reset was an unrelated technical issue. Instead of calculating the average of all star ratings on a thread, it does a simple average of the current rating and the new rating, then rounds to the nearest half-star. So it's accurate for the first two votes, then from the third vote on the most recent vote is given way too much weight. I was able to spot the bug in the code, but I don't know enough about the language to propose a fix.

It was originally meant to be a standard average progression I was going to do manually as I had done on two previous OWCs. Instead, the star rating was meant as an automatic substitute, but it had issues.

Quoted from FrankM I was able to spot the bug in the code...

Nice spot.