In regard to the internet, I am a big proponent of this. In the past couple of years I've developed a number of solid relationships through the internet that have led to fame and fortune (like being an E-script workshop leader). Lately when theatres have contacted me to request a script I've followed up with a polite email reminding them they can communicate with me in that way, or perhaps asking if we might get together for a drink when I'm in town. Email is still in its infancy, which means people still find it charming. Associate yourself with that charm. Besides, it's easier for them than the mail. But be careful not to email full scripts unless asked to do so. In fact, don't email anything more than a polite "hi" unless asked to do so.

In regard specifically to self-promotion: I don't think any playwright's self-promoting web page is getting serious attention from theatres because it still seems "amateurish." That may change, but bear in mind that theatres are DELUGED with scripts and many (most) of the plays chosen for production are chosen because of a personal relationship. Your goal shouldn't be to get them to your website. It should be to establish a friendly, personal relationship, one that leads to their doing your play.

I will add that I find newsgroups pretty much a waste of time. There's too much JUNQUE in them, many of it not remotely related to theatre (XXX passwords, etc.), and I guarantee you, that's keeping the theatres from taking them seriously. Again, the odor of amateurism. The bigger offense is the self-aggrandizing newsgroup messages in which Playwright Z tells you how great his new play is, and how well it's doing in its new production in an alley behind a restaurant in Dubuque, and then posts said message again and again and again and AGAIN until you want to fly into Dubuque just so you can throw tomatoes.
Back to the questions

Is e-mail a good way to submit your script to a theatre for consideration?

No. Unless they ask for it. Nothing about the online world aggravates me more than having my emailer program get bogged down in downloading something I didn't ask for. The flame I send back has scorched many an eyebrow.
Back to the questions

I get a lot of requests to waive royalty fees. The play in question is a one-act that, by its subject, makes it attractive to schools or young actor/director types looking for a first project.

Is this normal? How often should I actually waive royalty fees?

For me, it's usually an easy process to determine whether or not to waive a royalty. If the answer to any of the following questions is "yes," my answer is usually an emphatic "NO":

1. Is there an admission price for the play?
2. Are other people (actors, director, etc.) being paid?
3. Is the theatre (or producer) asking for subsidiary rights in my play?

The single theme running through these questions is: Are others benefiting monetarily from my work, while I'm being asked not to? Once you reframe the debate in that way, your answer is easy.

However:

There are mitigating circumstances.

1. If your play is a one-act, you should be aware that the market for one-acts is not a lucrative one and is highly competitive. Many theatres (around the U.S. at least) do not pay anything for one-acts. In these circumstances, I insist on at least a token payment so I can sincerely tell people that yes, I was paid (and therefore it was a professional production).

2. You might want to reconsider saying "no" if this production will substantially (and perhaps circumstantially) benefit you. Is this a hot theatre company that will love and adopt you and take you elsewhere? Will the press be coming (and, if they will, do you have confidence in these people to do a good job with your work)? Do you need to build your resume of productions? Will this production enable you to get others to see your work -- agents and other producers -- who will be helpful in the future?

3. Finally, if this is a children's or juvenile-market play, I probably would not hold out for cash on this first production if it's a limited run and you've had no other offers. That's because the big play publishers like Samuel French will consider these plays for submission only after they've been tried out before a live audience of kids. They don't care WHERE -- any school in the U.S. will be just fine -- or if it was reviewed, but they figure once it's been tried it might be worth publishing. Since the way to earn money off children's plays is to get them published and to do that you'll need to get produced, obviously you'll want to take this sort of production opportunity seriously.
Back to the questions

It strikes me that, for obvious reasons, SHORT new plays are easier to get full productions for than are FULL-LENGTH new plays. Do you approach the two forms differently as a reader, looking for different (e.g., commercial?) criteria?

I do approach full-length and one-act plays differently because they fill different slots in our production schedule. Every year we do 3 or 4 full-length plays (for a minimum six-week run), and a one-act festival of between six and eight plays over two evenings that run in rep for 8-10 weeks. We used to do late-night shows, but the audience wasn't building for them, so recently I tried a one-hour comedy on Monday and Tuesday nights as an experiment. That show, HAPPY FUN FAMILY (script by -- I confess -- ME) has been doing very well: great reviews, terrific house. That says to me that I can get people to come on off nights if the show is short and fun -- so now I'm hoping to do 2 or 3 of those a year.

I do think that it's easier for an unknown playwright to get a one-act produced rather than a full-length play, simply because the latter is a bigger gamble for the theatre. (One bad one-act won't deep-six a festival, but a full-length that isn't working will hurt the theatre for its entire run.) My advice for cynical scheming career-minded playwrights like myself is this: actively market your one-acts until your name-recognition grows and you've established reputations with some theatres that like your work, then start sliding them your full-length plays. These people will already like you and be inclined to look at longer work and, if nothing else, you'll probably find that your full-length play will jump ahead about 400 places in the incoming-script pile. (Full-lengths obviously take longer to read than one-acts.)
Back to the questions

Some of my friends and I are thinking of doing a showcase production of one of my plays, and inviting local professionals to come see it. Is this a good way to get your work known? Is it worth all the effort?

This depends upon a number of factors. I'm against actors' showcases in particular in L.A. because usually it means asking an audience to pay to see an actor's job audition and have a miserable time (because the play is often bad, but has "one good role" that has prompted an actor to get the play mounted). I think your hand is always stronger if you have a THEATRE putting up your play -- even if only for a reading -- because a theatre is a regularly existing entity and has more cachet, cachet that therefore attaches to you, the playwright. If theatres aren't interested, though, yes, you should put up your own work and give people an opportunity to come see it. Make sure you don't list yourself as a producer (you want to be known as a playwright, after all), and make sure you like the name you come up with for the production company because you're going to be living with it forever after on your resume. Rememer: self-producing was good enough for Shakespeare and Brecht, so who are we to question?