A lot of points put forward and as usual Slag comes with a good sum up 
I shall be taking a more steps when approaching a critique thread in the future. This won't take away from it if anything adding some more structure to the commenting should help writers improve their work.
Hope everythings pretty much cleared up here 
n.b. I think for posters on critique it wouldn't hurt to give a one line summation. On what you want from critics.
e.g. I am sending this to news revue.
or I just did this for a lark.
or i don't think this works, what can I change?
or this worked on stage, I thought I'd share it.
The lad SlagA's done tremendous!
He seems to have understood exactly what I was saying and good to hear that perhaps I haven't gone mad after all. I was honestly beginning to wonder.
I may have ago at updating the Critque rules, upto people if anyone actually read them or not 
Lively debate...
On the subject of good manners for the critique section... I personally haven't posted any of my work on the critique forum. However, in trying to be ethically-minded, this does mean I don't visit the critique section as I don't feel I have earned the right to read or crit other people's material.
Not saying that that should be a pre-requisite for critique, but it's something to bear in mind.
Yes writers do have to get used to editing but I think that the editing should be done in a supportive and helpful way. When a writer in a professional situation has their work edited it's done on a one to one basis. Surely the script editor doesn't go in front of the entire production team:
"Galton and Simpson have written something so awful that I'm going to have to rewrite it and show them where they've gone wrong. Aren't they silly billys?"
Surely it's about degrees here is it not? Yes, we all have to live with and get used editing but how it's handled is the key thing. I'm referring to basic good manners. It costs nothing and is something we should all strive for.
When someone is a raw newcomer to script-writing they usually haven't even got the slightest idea how to lay it out and how to write stage directions, as well as having inadequacies in the dialogue.
In such cases it is far easier to critique by re-presenting the script in a manner closer to what is required of a submission script this inevitably involves doing the entire sketch, even tough only a small part of the dialogue might be changed and the stage directions re-rwitten to show the format and the style required.
It should still be recognisable as the original script, yet teach far more than a critque which says say: "the punchline is weak".
On-line discussions invariably seem 'harder' than real life as one cannot see the body language. If you interpret a guiding revamp as:
>"Galton and Simpson have written something so awful that I'm going to
>have to rewrite it and show them where they've gone wrong. Aren't
>they silly billys?"
you are being hypersensitive. If it is your own work that you feel has had this done to it then it's time you got a writing partner so that you argue each line into place in your scripts.
[quote name="billwill" post="122774" date="March 17, 2008, 5:49 PM"]
If it is your own work that you feel has had this done to it then it's time you got a writing partner so that you argue each line into place in your scripts.
No Bill, it's not my own work that has come in for this treatment as I have been going to great pains to point out. And in fact I do have a writing partner for some things and for others I don't.
However I contend that some of the critiquing methods adopted by some on here are at best arrogant and rude and at worst ungracious and downright ignorant.
Now you may well say "That's life old son" and so it is but in my life I like to keep things fairly civil. That's all.
I have been about here for a while and have had ample opportunity to observe the increased incidences of this behaviour and it's getting up my chuff.
Therefore I had to say something about it - for as others have pointed out - we all have freedom of speech. I was merely exercising mine.
Right heres how I see it.
If you put your work up for criticism then the form of that criticism should be whatever the critiquer feels necessary to get over their point of view. All this thread is doing is putting off people from critiquing work. Whats the point in trying to offer a free opinion on a piece of work if you may then be told 'sorry you can't say that, you're breaking rules.' Its ridiculous. I hope you reconsider making a new rule Paul as it will help no-one.
People, I don't think the issue has been about the NATURE of the crit. I think Blenkinsop has been clear he accepts good and bad crit and isn't concerned whether he gets either.
What he's talking about is the tendency to cut across someone's sketch by railroading it off-track either by totally 'rewriting' the sketch or posting random off-thread comments.
It must be very frustrating for a poster when they try to garner crit and the thread ends up a talk about how someone else did a much better and unsolicited rewrite.
How about a new approach to critiqueing based on how far up the BSG forum writing ladder you are. People like SlagA, Perry and Seefacts can basically write anything they want about a critique including sleeping with the writers wife and rubbing rotting fecal material into the owners eyes. Others who have perhaps had a sketch performed on Treason or Newsrevue can comment normally, but anyone who's had no real success and is really a bit shit must limit themselves to single positive words of encouragement.
Quote: Rob B @ March 17, 2008, 8:01 PMbut anyone who's had no real success and is really a bit shit must limit themselves to single positive words of encouragement.
Smashing
Then I'd have to limit myself to one-word responses too, Rob.
So did anyone see he footie last night?
>_<
I'm jesting.
Quote: SlagA @ March 17, 2008, 8:03 PMThen I'd have to limit myself to one-word responses too, Rob.
So did anyone see he footie last night?
>_<
I'm jesting.
There is a definate uber poster on these forums. You Mr Slag are perhaps a C-List uber BGS member.
Do you object to my suggestion because you know the wives of such losers won't be worth the bodily fluid you'd have to expend in shagging them
No, I object because I've probably already been there. 
Mentally 
All the critters (used in non-USA sense) have an equal voice on this forum. Even the most successful writers here can be equally as wrong as everyone else. But that's only my opinion.
Uber poster, who is this mysterious figure?