the point of slam-as conveyed to me by marc smith-is for the judges,not politics to be the feedback to poets.
as marc smith invented slam...
i tend to side with him on this.
I've picked judges at the highest levels of competition and the challenge is always the same-to come up with 5 judges that represent the most diverse cross sample you can-you need judges that are fresh and judges who are experienced.
and judges of every other demographic you can get.
problems of this kind-a lack of prolific quality-are usually systemic and thus the answers frequently are as well.
what i'm saying is that a tactic of this kind doesn't address the cause-it goes after a symptom.
the cause lies in the selection process-and to a lesser degree how many rounds there are in playoffs.
if poets must submit themselves and their work to the judges more often -in a system designed to reward both consistent output and excellent output without one ever displacing the other the problem rights itself.
this tactic doesn'r adress the root of things in selection-the ability to qualify for playoffs with 2 poems and a 2cnd place finish-and then only needing 4 different poems to qualify for the team.
and while banning poems that have occurred in playoffs before from occurring in them again adresses the output issue-doesn't adress the quality issue.
it bans poems that win.
and thus poems of lesser quality-but from poets of more quantity are unopposed and can run up the middle.
the trick lies in having a system that makes _all_poets poems hvae to prove themselves through a rigorous testing.
one night isn't a reprsentative sample-but under our current system it is allowed to be.
several nights?....
different story.
great poems-and I mean GREAT poems stand the test of time.
so...
a system that puts poems and poets more regularly to the test over time does a good job of seperating good from great.
if the judges-a broad array of judges every night-time and again tell a poet a poem is great-fantastic.It's been tested time and again against the braodest sample we can muster.
send that poem to nps.
if a poet overstays a poem...
a broad sample of judges time and again will catch that-and send a message to the poet to write more and write better.
but that's the judges place to say-not ours.
what we require is a system that empowers those judges to properly hold poets to account.
which means more time in front of more judges.
I 've looked at this a bit and I assure you the systemic approach is the way to go here.
I agree with the goal.
but i want the best way we can muster to get there.
and that means a look at the entire system and a system change.
