I'll clarify some of what I said in my reply back to NJC as it's likely confusing without the background. I probably was vague enough so that NJC may not have known exactly what I was referring to either.
Toward the end of year 2014, I posted my first chapter and waited to see how it would go over in reviews. John Hamler, NJC, and a some others were the first reviews I received. Subsequent chapters I posted were only visited for continued reviews by NJC and a couple of others. But the common complaints were all the same, and no one had anything good to say--because there wasn't anything good to say. My baptism by fire went something like this - 1. "This isn't a story, it's a campfire outing with everyone singing Kumbaya and roasting marshmallows. All your characters get along just soo peachy. I hate that kind of character outlay. If no one argues with each other, and no one fights with one another, is there really going to be a story here with no conflict?" - paraphrased from John Hamler's review. 2. "It's hard to read your chapter 1 because the only thing formatted correctly was the part stating its chapter 1. There aren't any paragraph separations for changing topics, you don't have any scene breaks, do you know what a scene break is? You use more pronouns than names so I can't understand which character is saying what or doing what and the POV switches constantly all over the place." -- I forgot the reviewer's name but I did remember she was published from her profile info. so a credible source. 3. "You don't know where commas go, it feels like you just shake them out of a spice jar, and you let them scatter across your work in the hopes they will land correctly. You also don't know how to include a subject in your line so that the line has a clear meaning." -- another reviewer who's name I have forgotten. 4. "I have to keep correcting basic grammar and punctuation in your chapter so much that it's better I just stop my review here. If I say any more I'm just going to upset you and myself more." -- paraphrased NJC review. 5. "You don't know how to construct the basics of a story and you don't understand what is needed for the foundation." - paraphrased Linda Lee review.
I'll skip the rest but you get the idea. The small ball stuff I referred to was just knowing the basics which all of you already do. NJC and others couldn't focus on the big picture items (plot, events, conflict, ideas, etc.) because they were too busy trying to fix basic line and grammar construction for me. I believe I reached a level now (at least Nicholas Andrews thinks so - "Your writing has improved by miles over what it used to be") where NJC and all of you can examine the story's construction per chapter now that it isn't bogged down with the most basic of errors. Anyways, putting aside my tale of woe, I was trying to convey to NJC we've reached a level where I can actually engage in agreements or disagreements with him over plot, events, comma placement, pacing, prose efficiency, etc. that I wasn't able to do before. Unfortunately, as you can see by the length of this clarification, I still have an issue with saying things with less words. No, sorry, you don't get points for reading this lengthy explanation from me 
To the other item discussed about providing a plot outline or such upfront. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle? Any member can just ask if someone is willing to review their plot summary for another pair of eyes to look it over? The member can then arrange to email it to those willing to help and take a look. This keeps the plot off this group forum so as not to spoil it for those who want to continue reviewing without spoilers in advance. What do you think?
