A few observations from the Writers' Tournament.   A lot of positive things came out of it.  There were a lot of lessons learned. I try to be as transparent as possible insofar as it doesn't out or embarrass anyone on the site.  So, in the spirit of transparency...

Why did it take so long?

voting issues - technical - Clearly the star system doesn't work.  The polls were the easiest to do, however, I think that off line voting sheet was the best way as it prevented bias and made it easier to recheck results.

voting issues - cheating -  Yes, there were attempts at cheating beyond the, "psst, I wrote x script." (note: remember nobody can keep a secret...) .  I don't call folks out on it because it would reveal to the person(s) that his friend can't keep a secret.  And, it has never materially influenced the results.

So, someone created multiple accounts to influence the voting.  As a result, we had to go back through all the votes to see what impact the cheating had.  The fraudulent votes were removed and it was determined it had little to no impact on the results.

Moral: don't cheat, it doesn't work.

schedule - need to establish a complete timetable prior to the event and stick to it.  This pushed back the April OWC.  In the future, I may go with just using the term "1st Quarter OWC" rather than January OWC and 2nd Quarter OWC instead of April OWC".

criteria - I leave it to the reviewers to determine if a script met the challenge or not.  I do a quick read before posting to make sure there aren't any glaring issues, but I leave it to the board as a whole to determine if a script meets the criteria.  

qualification vs disqualification - Other than plagiarism, there isn't any disqualification of a script. To say a script should be 'disqualified' is based upon a personal interpretation of the criteria. If you feel a script doesn't meet the challenge requirements, then vote it down.

Experimentation - I'm willing to fail.  And we don't know what won't work until we try it. I didn't think this Writers' Tournament would be as popular as it was.  Nice to be proven wrong.

Lastly, this is about writing an entertaining script.  And, getting some exposure which one hopes leads to other opportunities.  And learning some new tricks.  

As always, thanks to everyone who participated.

- Don

I thought I had posted this a few weeks ago.  This is the write-up of what happened during the WT in the interest of transparency.  

- Don

Cheating?  Really?  Wow...I guess I'm glad I didn't partake in this, then.

Whoever cheated should be ashamed of themselves.  Seriously ashamed!!

Seems some people will do anything for a mug.  

Oh, hang on, there was no mug, just the honour and prestige.

Thanks for the full disclosure, Don.

This was the most creative competition writing competition I've seen/took part in. And not only writing - I bet Sean would do wonders with American Idol and the like.
And it's a lot of work to both of you, Don and Sean. So, big thanks for the elaborate entertainment.

I'm also wondering what happened to March Madness. I'd bet on Christopher Walken as the ultimate winner. Curious to see if I'm correct here.

I’m confused. Someone created multiple accounts to influence the voting? Strange, I thought Jeff didn’t enter this one.

I think the person who created multiple accounts to influence the voting should suspended, at the very least. Thank you, Don, for catching this and disclosing it.

I'm in favor of identifying the person and, as I said, suspending him or her.

Quoted from Stumpzian I think the person who created multiple accounts to influence the voting should suspended, at the very least. Thank you, Don, for catching this and disclosing it. I'm in favor of identifying the person and, as I said, suspending him or her.

Tar and feather? Yeah, I'm down for that. I want to know who it was.

Only thing, whoever script was voted on with the fake accounts doesn't automatically make them guilty. It's possible that the accounts were made to sandbag another writer or "sabotage" them.

But if they have some sort of proof other than that, I say teach them a lesson.

Looks like there's been two kinds of cheating in this tournament:

1. Folks telling their friends
2. Folks creating multiple accounts to vote for their own. Unless it's a fan or a friend who created multiple accounts which is kind of had to believe.

About the first kind - I haven't told a soul about mine, but I kind of can understand that and don't find it offensive. Maybe just me.
The second kind of cheating doesn't sound good at all, but I don't think the person should be brought to light either. Maybe reprimanded or banned from the site for a period of time but I wouldn't want to see anyones's name in conjunction with something like that.
Just saying.

Quoted from khamanna Looks like there's been two kinds of cheating in this tournament: 1. Folks telling their friends 2. Folks creating multiple accounts to vote for their own. Unless it's a fan or a friend who created multiple accounts which is kind of had to believe. About the first kind - I haven't told a soul about mine, but I kind of can understand that and don't find it offensive. Maybe just me. The second kind of cheating doesn't sound good at all, but I don't think the person should be brought to light either. Maybe reprimanded or banned from the site for a period of time but I wouldn't want to see anyones's name in conjunction with something like that. Just saying.

Yeah, I've had a change of heart on that. I wouldn't want someone to be so embarrassed that they harm themselves or something.

Whoever it was is already feeling the guilt I'm sure.

Quoted from khamanna The second kind of cheating doesn't sound good at all, but I don't think the person should be brought to light either. Maybe reprimanded or banned from the site for a period of time but I wouldn't want to see anyones's name in conjunction with something like that. Just saying.

I disagree completely. We need to be able to trust one another. I think I know exactly who did this -- but what if I'm wrong? We need to know, and he or she needs to be kicked out. This pure bullshit dishonesty should not be allowed to stand.

Exactly. What if you're wrong.

I once was unjustly accused of cheating cause I got near perfect score on a test. Now I don't go around every day thinking about that, but it stays with me to this day.

Let's not become a lynch mob.

Don and Sean discovered the ruse, it did not affect the ultimate vote, there was not hundreds of dollars at stake, and we are privy to what went on, I suspect, as a caution to those who might consider doing a dastardly deed   in future.

Yes, some may think it's a matter of principle but I think the person reading all this (and a prior talking to from Don) already will have that stomach-sinking feeling and have learnt from it.

I say let it go.

Quoted from LC I say let it go.

Whether it affected the vote is of no consequence.

It was a chicken-shit thing to do. If it is allowed to stand, that is chicken shit, too.

Quoted from SAC I’m confused. Someone created multiple accounts to influence the voting? Strange, I thought Jeff didn’t enter this one.

Back in the day on the OWC's, there was a string of chickenshit peeps who routinely cheated, ganged up on peeps, etc.  I was younger back then and and never gave in to it, and always tried to make it clear to all who these cocksuckers were.

I may be older, but I haven't changed in my opinion and agree completely with Stump.

Completely unacceptable and a public apology would actually be best.  Hopefully, they learned a lesson here, but if they can't own up to it, maybe no lesson was learned.

Glad I didn't enter this one or I would most likely be banned for life with the things I would be saying.

Quoted from LC Let's not become a lynch mob. Don and Sean discovered the ruse, it did not affect the ultimate vote, there was not hundreds of dollars at stake, and we are privy to what went on, I suspect, as a caution to those who might consider doing a dastardly deed   in future. Yes, some may think it's a matter of principle but I think the person reading all this (and a prior talking to from Don) already will have that stomach-sinking feeling and have learnt from it. I say let it go.

Exactly the conclusion we arrived at.

IMO, it was a sucky thing to do, but what did anyone lose from this? Money? Time? Effort? No one lost anything, so why ban or publicly shame? We're all trying to do our best here on this free site...

Quoted from Dreamscale ... or I would most likely be banned for life with the things I would be saying.

Based on what?  

Quoted from Grandma Bear IMO, it was a sucky thing to do, but what did anyone lose from this? Money? Time? Effort? No onelost anything, so why ban or publicly shame? We're all trying to do our best here on this free site...

Who cares whether anyone lost anything? That's not the point. You can't be serious. "We're all trying to do our best here on this free site"? Who? The person who fabricated comments and votes? Why would anyone want to be part of such a thing? I'm not calling for "public shaming." I'm calling for honesty about this. You're a long-timer: You're okay with this? I guess you are.

Quoted from Don Based on what?

Don? You, too? You need to say who did this -- and suspend him or her.

Quoted from Stumpzian You need to say who did this -- and suspend him or her.

Why?

To this point, I have made no mention of what actions I took.  There are a lot of assumptions being made.  

But other than you, who says I 'need to say who did this' and I need to 'suspend him or her'.

I've handled it to my satisfaction, I've ensured it has no impact on the contest and I'm taking steps it won't happen again.  

- Don

Like I said, It was a sucky thing to do. The person was called out by Don. The mods know who this person is. The person knows we know. It wasn't a real competition where anything of high value was at stake.

This OWC or WT won't be remembered in the future except for maybe a few people that participated. The attempt at cheating did not affect the outcome, so why ban or publicly out someone? Just to hurt them?

You're calling for honesty? Someone did attempt to cheat, but was found out. Why do you need to know more?

Quoted from Don Based on what?

Joking, Don.  Just thinking back to earlier times when I said things that shouldn't be said and was a nuisance.

Quoted from Don Why? To this point, I have made no mention of what actions I took.  There are a lot of assumptions being made.   But other than you, who says I 'need to say who did this' and I need to 'suspend him or her'. I've handled it to my satisfaction, I've ensured it has no impact on the contest and I'm taking steps it won't happen again.   - Don

I disagree with your decision, Don.

Quoted from Stumpzian I disagree with your decision, Don.

When I go to McDonalds, I have a handful of choices to pick from. When I go to BJ's Brew House I have a hundred or so. It's easy to make a choice at McD. It's harder at BJ's. More choices. Have to make a decision on all the information provided. Let's just say you have the McD menu while we have the BJ's menu. The decision was made after studying the menu for a long time...

Quoted from Stumpzian I disagree with your decision, Don.

Henry,

I respect that you disagree with my decision.  I knew that would happen.  After spending a long time looking into what happened and discussing with the moderators asking their input, I ultimately made a decision and took a course of action.  The integrity of the contest was preserved.  However, I will not be releasing the name of the person who cheated.  

- Don

Quoted from Dreamscale Joking, Don.  Just thinking back to earlier times when I said things that shouldn't be said and was a nuisance.

We're good.

- Don

Quoted from Don I ultimately made a decision and took a course of action. - Don

What was the course of action?

Quoted from Stumpzian Don? You, too?

And me.  Although I totally -- respectfully -- get where you are coming from.

But there were lots of reasons driving the decision Don made.  I think he did the right thing.

He's been running this house for an awfully long time.  Trust his judgement.

Quoted from bert And me.  Although I totally -- respectfully -- get where you are coming from. But there were lots of reasons driving the decision Don made.  I think he did the right thing. He's been running this house for an awfully long time.  Trust his judgement.

I think Don does a wonderful job. He's wrong on this.

Quoted from Grandma Bear When I go to McDonalds, I have a handful of choices to pick from. When I go to BJ's Brew House I have a hundred or so. It's easy to make a choice at McD. It's harder at BJ's. More choices. Have to make a decision on all the information provided. Let's just say you have the McD menu while we have the BJ's menu. The decision was made after studying the menu for a long time...

So, let's hear the BJ's menu choices. We need to know when writing scripts for future OWCs.
I can't tell you how disappointed I am in how this has been handled -- and responses such as yours.

Quoted from Stumpzian I think Don does a wonderful job. He's wrong on this.

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.

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.