XplicitKontent, you said "structure is important", but these guys don't know what that means. You have to assume they are 100% clueless. You didn't really give them anything specific to look out for or fix, you just said that the vets would help them out. You need to give them some sort of guidance and not write them off for the time being completely.
Row, I felt you could have maybe said their flow was good or something. A slight uplifter to get them motivated. I felt you listed some things which will help them improve though. The only real downside was congratulating them on filling the box. Thats like congratulating a bird for flying.
Nick, I think you might have scared them off with the set up rhyme - punchline rhyme stuff. That's a lot to take in for their level. I also didnt think that you were clear enough after you exampled some multis, because to them it could look like capping words is all you need, which is my biggest annoyance on LB. All the same, I think you were insightive enough, and at the beginning of your vote explained some stuff in a simplistic and clear fashion.
Lockhart, "major", "serious", "hard work". These terms really make the guys feel like this is going from a bit of fun to a lifelong hobby, and unless you're me, that's a bad thing
. You want to make it seem like they could work on it, but keep it fun. You helped them out by listing their flaws, but I feel in this case you went into too much detail and they wouldn't have read or understood all of it.
Los, although a tiny bit of confusing around punchlines, I think you were very simplistic and would motivate them to go at it again. Not too much to be said on it as there wasn't really any downsides.
prospectJS, I think you were very motivational to them in telling them their upsides to a lot detail, and then mixing the bad in with the good. Besides letting who you voted for slip, I think that although you went into depth, you didn't seem to scare them off and they would have been able to follow the vote all the way through.
1. Los
2. prospectJS
3. Nick
4. Lockhart
4. Row
5. XplicitKontent