Poetry Slam Playoffs Rule Change Suggestion: no repeats in consecutive years

[admin]

Hey gang,

I have a rule change suggestion, and I'm curious to see what people in the community think about it. I've also asked the Rule Committee to analyze this suggestion when they have time.

The suggestion is: you can not perform the same poem in any of the playoffs we hold (Team, IWPS, WOWps) in consecutive years.

Here are my reasons:

   1. It prods poets to create new work. This is good for the poets, and good for our audiences. No one likes coming to playoffs and hearing the same poems. Think especially of the audience that comes just to playoffs to hear the best work and then hear the same thing they heard last year – how stale our scene must seem to them!

   2. It prevents successful poets from resting on their laurels, and creates more chances for a wider variety of poets to succeed in the playoffs. For instance, if poet A has his 4 ace poems that he uses to get on the team and he can't use them the next year, he will be forced to come up with 4 new aces, which will be very difficult. Thus making it easier for poet B, who might always be falling short, to succeed with their poems. Having more poets succeed in playoffs is a huge positive for those poets' confidence, and thus for our poetic community as a whole.

   3. For the team playoffs, it makes a stronger team for the Canadian Festival of Spoken Word (CFSW) where a "no repeated poems in consecutive years" rule already exists. This was a problem at last year's CFSW when some of the Van Slam team could not use the ace poems they'd used to make the team because they had already used them at CFSW the previous year.

As a sidenote, many poets already believe that it is bad form to bring the same poems to playoffs as you did last year. It certainly causes a poet to lose some peer respect. But this is a minor point because I don't know how many poets feel this way. The major points are outlined above.

I would also be open to the proposal that once you have performed a poem in playoffs you must retire it from that playoff competition, meaning that you must have completely new work each year (but you could, for instance, use the same both once in both IWPS playoffs and Team playoffs). I have a feeling that most people will feel that's going too far... but I think it would just push everyone to be more creative.

Thoughts?

[ms_spelt]

1st let me say I have some serious reservations about this policy.
But as a member of the rules committee I'd rather discuss it's relative merits-pro and con with the rest of that august body before offering comment.
that being said, I'd like to invite the members of the family to not just remark upon Chris's suggestion but also upon any element of playoffs they'd like to see remain, altered a bit, or done away with in whole or in part.
The rules committee will be presenting a sign up system and selection process at the family mtg that may well address the issue chris is targetting without having to use the method he suggests.
so I'd like to get that resolved 1st and then the rules committees next order of business is examining changes to playoffs themselves.
this includes-
how to seed the semi brackets
whether or not the sacrfices at playoffs earn their slots via the regular season or are appointed by the slam masters
whether or not we do showcases at playoffs.
how the rotations at playoffs both semis and finals work.
do we go with a rotation at finals similar or the same to the one we had this past year-or a "cut from below" system.
and now...
to what extent do we employ a "no repeat" rule.
we already employ one but does it go far enough?
all stuff that needs examining and all stuff on the agenda for us already-with now the added issue raised by chris.
This is big stuff and everyone has a passionate stake in it.
which is one of the key reasons the rules committee exists.so we can hash it out amongst us 5 and then bring forward comprehensive strategies-rather than the ad hoc tactics of the past-and have an informed measured rational discussion that examines all the potential ramifications.
and here I'd like to add...
a  story about mongooses(mongeese?)
in the time period that Hawaii 1st became a major port on the trade route to asia for sailing ships it quickly developed a rat problem.all those ships had rats.the rats disembarked in paradise and had no major predators.
so to "cure" the rat problem the ships brought mongoose/mongeese from india and asia to hawaii to fix that.
today...
hawaii has a mongoose problem.
so epic is it that the term "mongoose problem" has become jargon even for using a tactic without viewing the long term.
So the rules committee is going to vet all this stuff to ensure that nothing we implement creates a "mongoose problem"
not saying that chris' proposal wil or won't do that.
just saying we need to examine every element of the process.
as surely as we couldn't draft a proper and efficient new selection process without alos examining sign up we can't fully examine playoffs till we have the selection process in hand.
so thanks to chris and all for bringing forward your ideas, but i humbly ask that the rules committee be allowed to also do it's due dilligence on the entire system as a whole.
and then let us come back and show you what we've come up with as the options to best adress your raised concerns.
one last thing here-on the issue of poets not resting on their laurels...
chris, i think you are gonna like the new selection process proposal.

 

[Zaccheus]

I'm in favor.

I've always been a proponent of the No-Repeat rule, and have applied that to myself continuously since my first year in Slam. I agree w/ Chris that it helps endorse development and keeps poets from being lazy, fosters creative writing, and also conditions poets for finals. 

Big up, Van Slam.

[ms_spelt]

As I've stressed-this discussion is premature.
The rules committee has been and continues to be hard at work developing a comprehensive strategy whereby the entire system from sign up to finals is retooled in a way that balances and addresses all our various concerns and interests.
and to stir up this conversation before anyone outside the rules committee has even looked at what we are bringing to the table distracts our attention from finishing the work at hand.
it is the job of the rules committee to guide such discussions after we have given them thorough review.
we haven't yet had a proper chance to do that and as such cannot do our job on this issue properly if the conversation takes place while we are busy elsewhere.
I could break down point by point why I think this is a bad policy,but frankly that is a discussion to be had 1st with my colleagues on the rules committee and then we shall lead this discussion here when we have taken a full look at this and the other options for playoffs.
and we will.It is in fact-up next.the entire playoffs-not just this tactic.which ill used and hastily rushed through will have dangerous ramifications for the entire scene.
I do not appreciate that we are not being granted the time to get to it in proper order.
and I really don't appreciate using the forums as a way to end run the rules committee.
which is what this feels like.
the correct order of things is to notify the urles committee of a policy change you'd like.then we meet and discuss it and come back with our findings and guide discussion.
but this is letting the rules committee know that you are about to decide the matter without them while they are busy with other matters-at least that's how it plays.
I don't like it.
This is not the place for this discussion at this time.
this should be a place to offer suggestion for the rules committee to examine.
not a place where the forums acts as a defacto rules committee and cuts the elected body out of the equation.
we got the point and we are on it.
soon.

[admin]

Discussions happen everywhere in our community. They happen at poetry slams. They happen at the bar after the poetry slam. They happen whenever poets meet up and feel chatty. This online discussion on the forum is no more formal, and no more official than those discussions. But it does have the added benefit of being public and inclusive, in a community where many have complained of undue secrecy and clique-y-ness (a new word I have just invented). In the democratic model that we have adopted for the Van Slam, open and inclusive discussions need to happen more often, not less often.

To be clear, this discussion is in no way meant to usurp or circumvent the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has important work to do, and I eagerly await its comment on the ramifications of this proposed rule change.

In the meantime, I encourage all members of the community to express their views on this idea in this public space.

[sue]

Any policy changes we may consider are adopted through a process of slam family voting. I anticipate that the rules committee will discuss this proposal, come up with a recommendation, and bring it to the slam family in due course.

In the meantime, I support its discussion, and discussion of any other ideas about how to make our slam the best it can be by all members of the community. The forum was created to open up discussions and make them accessible to anyone who cares to participate.

In all likelihood, it will remain as an item of discussion until the rules committee brings it to a meeting.

In the meantime, it may be discussed here. Discussing it will not damage the slam. When the rules committee comes around to it, it will still be an idea, just that. In the meantime, community members will have worked through their thoughts about it, and the rules committee may have an idea of some of those thoughts, to give them a leg-up in their deliberations.

[sue]

A post has been removed from this thread because it contained personal comments of a derogatory nature, from one member to another.

As President of Poetry House, I requested our administrator to delete this post.

We may disagree strongly with each other here, but negative personal comments are not appropriate, and posts containing them will be removed.

[ms_spelt]

bottom line for me here-
due process is the only way to make policy.
and the constitution spells out that the rules committee is supposed to steer these conversations.
that's a fact.
and we are aren't presently at liberty to do that-a fact.
and so discussion without the rules committee steering it is premature.
fact.
and yet here we are having a discussion about a rules change that isn't able to be steered.
fact.
this should be a thread where people suggest things they'd like the rules committee to review and then we review them in camera and come back and steer the discussion.
i said that to chris before he started this thread.
and he refused to heed me.
fact.
i state again-
playoffs is up next for our review and we welcome all suggestions-not just chris'
and the other reason that this discussion is premature is that there are changes coming in the proposal for the selection process that will likely make this conversation moot.
but I'm not allowed to discuss that yet.
so please.
let the rules committee work.
don't push us.
we're getting to it.
wait on this discussion till we've
A) brought forward the sign up and selection process changes.
B)have given a full review to all playoff changes and brought forward the best options and are able to steer discussion.
let us do our job.
you claim to not want to interfere with the committee but when i-a member of the rules committee say that is becoming the result you refuse to listen.
please.
back off a bit.
we're elected reps doing a hard job-not a clique.

 

[Shannon]

I am in favor as well.  Thanks for bringing it here.  Poets have been chatting about this for a while now.

However, for me, I would like to see it applied only to each playoff.  So another words I couldn't do the same two poems for the Van Slam Team playoffs.  But I could do the same two poems at WOWS and then later at IWPS.

[Duncan Shields]

I'm totally in favour of a no-repeats policy for finals and semi-finals.

I agree with spelt that due process must be observed when and if we make that idea into policy. 
Also, I don't think that the August meeting is the place to decide it.

But I like the idea.

[ms_spelt]

The changes we are are looking at are going to make this discussion moot.
and for the record I don't like it.
it censors top poems out of competition.
and removes the authority of the judges to say when a poem has been done too often.
that strikes at the heart of a poetry slam in a dangerous way.
do we need a better way to increase productivity -yes.
is this the way?-absolutely not.
we are going to be bringing forward changes that promote, and make it essential in fact, for poets to be consistently excellent all season long.
under our current system you can ride two poems into playoffs on a given night and then with only 2 more poems make the team.
the changes we are finishing a proposal for are going to make that a thing of the past.
without ever censoring a poet's top work as this proposal suggests.
and the changes to playoffs that lisa and i have begun discussing as well, if passed, will require 7 poems to make it all the way through semis and finals.
once again-without every telling a poet to retire work.
and letting the judges do their job as opposed to a bunch of people-many of whom compete-making legislation that does the judges job for them.
we are hard at work doing the job of overhauling the system to make it far more efficient at balancing and addressing every concern.
Building such a comprehensive strategy from opening night sign up all the way to finals night curtain takes a little bit more time than proposing ad hoc tactics-but it FAR more beneficial. And of the reasons we have a rules committee.
please-let us do our job.
we are on this.
I really don't like the prospect of the notion that while we are trying to build a better system-as we have been elected to do- that others-who are unelected- are trying to act as a de facto rules committee and build support for counterproductive policy.
absolutely suggestion can and should be made to the rules committee to examine.
but then you have to step back and let us examine it and come back and then steer the discussion.
and that isn't happening here.
we all want to come up with a solution to producing more consistence,more excellence and more prolofic poets.
let the rules committee take these well heard concerns and do their job instead of trying to do our job for us.

[ms_spelt]

I have tried and failed to get this toothpast back in the tube.
this damm cat just won't walk backwards.
sigh.
okay, here it is folks.
One of the things we found looking athe system from top to bottom was 8 plus years of little to no changes to sign up and selection and 10 years of ad hoc changes to playoffs.
the patient wasn't exactly critical-but it had some stuff that wasn't being attended at all and other stuff that was getting band aids.
So...
what you're going to see at the next family mtg from us is this-
a sustainable strategy.
from opening night sign up through to finals curtain.
and every piece is designed to fit into the other pieces in a finely tuned highly efficient comprehensive system.
the sign up we're bringing forward-without getting into details until we have our last rules sit down before the slam family mtg-will provide greater equal even access to all.
from that level field we will be employing a season long system that promotes consistent excellence.it will no longer be feasible to ride two poems to playoffs.
the last slam will be a wild card slam-a new variation on the last chance slam deisgned to ensure that those slammers who are good but who have had abbreviated season for whatever exigent circumstance have shot at playoffs.
form there-back to evens/odds brackets.
it's the simplest and most even bracket distribution-ever-anywhere.
and for playoffs...
we haven't reviewed this yet....
but as we seem to already be discussing playoff reform without the rules committee here it is...
we are going to examine a playoff structure that would see 20 poets make playoffs.
and then each semi would be three rounds of cut from below with a clean slate in each round.
so 10 would become 8 would become 6 would become 5
and then in finals we'd do three rounds of cut from below with those ten and clean slate every round-
10 becomes 8 becomes 6 becomes 4 and then a 1 minute lightning round to crown the champ.
with the no repeat rule remaining as it stands.
you'd need a lot of constant testing of new and old material to make playoffs and then you'd need 6 top flight 3 minute poems to make the squad and one exceptional 1 minute poem to be champ.
7 poems.
that's enough to run the table at CFSW 2 years in a row with a 1 minute spare and never repeat a poem.
and we'd never have to ban a poem to do it.
and we'd make the poets write more-and write more quality to boot.
and because poets are being tested in fron of the judges more often-the tactic of riding two poems to the playoffs gets stopped in it's tracks by the judges-not our politics.
we'd expand our playoffs to accurately reflect that we now have more viable contenders.
and those poets...
would have to have 7 playoff caliber poems.
and we'd eradicate score creep entirely in playoffs.
that's right-no more score creep in playoffs.
now...
there are those who may give me some flack for posting this here.
they will say that I have spoken too soon.
I wish to state firmly that I wished to wait on this.
I did all I could to wait on this-and the in depth details of this stuff will wait til the rules committee has met again before the slam family mtg.
But....
this discussion was proceeding without any viable counterpoint to a tactic i consider highly dangerous.
so I felt compelled to offer up a comprehensive system as opposed to the ad hoc tactic.
if we are going to discuss this let's have a fully informed discussion.
no one seemed willing to believe me that we had an option-because they couldn't see even the tip of it.
well here is the overview.
there.
transparency.
I now implore everyone-
take some time and take serious steps back and think about this.
this tactic will ban poems.winning poems.
it will weaken the authority of judges.
it will open the door to poets with lots of poems-without ever having those poems tested against the best poems the community has-because those poem are banned.
it's a bad policy.
that said-Chris is a dedicated and devoted member of this scene. A talented repeat member of the team whose body of work on and offstage is exemplary.
When he says he wants to see more poets do more work instead of resting on their laurels I agree.
I do not dispute his motive behind this rules change proposal.he doesn't need excellent poems banned to win.In fact-this rules change might hurt his chances-something he has admitted to me. A man doesn't propose a rules change that hurts his chances to qualify unless he really feels it's in the bets interest of the scene as whole.
as for the means he has gone about opening discussion on it-I would have preferred he wait to be sure.
but that doesn't mean I didn't want to have this discussion.
I just wanted no one to rush to judgement without having all the relevant info on that table and felt restrained from offering it because of protocols.
but there isn't a hard fast rule that says I can't say this here at this point.
anymore than there was a hard fast rule that said chris couldn't open the discussion when he did.
and that's an issue we need to adress at a certain point in the near future-
what exactly is due process when it comes to rules changes?
we need a clear and definitive process by which an idea goes from discussion over drinks to the forums to the rules committee to the family to actual ratified policy.
a step by step that empowers and checks the powers of everyone involved in proper balance.
one that is well known and seen by all so that there isn't even the appearance of ceratin ideas getting different levels of vetting than others.
if chris and I can fall to discord over this-and we're rather sober folks who believe in each other-then when less cool folks who mistrust each other fall out...
so let's put that on our plate for some time soon.
but for the right now...
please consider the rules committee hard labours to build a sustainable system of consistence excellence.
that never bans a single poem to do it.
thank you.

 

[Shannon]

One of the downfalls of trying to pick judges that have never been to a slam before is that they are not in a position to judge whether a poem has been read too many times before.

To state that we should leave this up to the judges is not a fair point if the judges are usually new to the slam.

I am hearing from the audience (repeatedly) that one of the reasons why they personally take breaks from the slam from time to time is for them (and for me) many poems are repeated within a season.  Its a great idea to have a no repeat rule at semis and finals for many reasons. 

1)  We can have a lovely CD with NEW poems every years.
2)  Poets have to keep writing new fresh stuff!
3) It makes the event much more enjoyable to watch and listen to.
4) It takes the predictability/strategy out of the equation for competing.

I even think it would be cool if you can't win two slams with the same poem. 

[ms_spelt]

Shannon-
I have made clear-as has lisa-that picking judges is one of the most important aspects of the slam.
as a friend of Marc Smith, I feel rather strongly, that you need to let the judges -who are picked form the audience be the voice of the audience.
Any one of us can claim that anonymous samples from the audiences confirms our feelings.
but the judges scores are the only hard facts we have.
absolutely we need to have a proper demographic spread in our judges-all those who were at the host orientation know that I have made that plain.
we need judges that have been before and we need judges that haven't we need the complete cross section.
and poets do poems that win again.
but under our current system a poet can do two poems that win and make playoffs.
so why do anything other than those poems?
so we're bringing forward a system that requires consistent excellence all season long-under the system we're going to propose using two poems all season will be a thing of the past.
but banning poems is simply never good policy.
and banning winning poems is horrible policy.
the problem is systemic and a systemic solution is the way to fix it.
banning winning poems is censorship of excellence no matter how you dress it up.
it favours productivity and punishes quality.
I shan't support it-now or ever.
and given that I and the rules committee have a viable sustainable alternative that does a better job of adressing the issue at hand...
why are we even thinking about banning proven poems when we don't have to to get the desired result?

[Shannon]

I agree with the judge thing.

I brought it up to counteract the argument that one should leave it up to the judges to decide if they have heard a poem too many times.  That is a mute point if we pick judges that have never been to the slam before.