Score Creep

[Duffman]

Hey...

I was talking to Sean after the $7 Bill feature at the Burlington Poetry Slam last night (you guys were awesome btw).  We were talking about score creep and he mentioned that you guys have a new system to try and counter-act that.

Before he could lay it out the conversation switched and I left soon after.

Were you talking about the season points system you guys are using this season?  I guess that would help relieve the overall effect of score creep over a season. 

But for an individual night?  It only works if you don't have elimination rounds.  Like @ BSP where slammers get to go both rounds with the order reversed in the 2nd.

[Sean]

Duffman,

It was great meeting you last night and it was really fun.

The thing I was talking about before we all had to skeetdadle was what we did at IWPS this year in Berkeley. Basically, myself and Mike Henry took turns talking to the judges before hand explaining to them

a) that their job for the show was important
b) that they are right despite what the audience says
c) that score creep does exist (explaining what it is to them)
d) and that if they feel that a poem in the last round is less strong than something in the first round they should score it accordingly
e) 0.0 is the worst score ever, the poet should be asked never read that poem again and that 10.0 is a life changing experience, spontaneous orgasms throughout the room, etc.

I think a combination of the two of us saying it to them and taking the time to explain it to them really helped. That being said, putting too much pressure on the judges at a regular slam may disinterest people from coming back so I would utilize the tactic that we used at IWPS judiciously. Save it maybe for a finals night or for a big regional tournament.

Other ideas for combating score creep include having the judges keep track of all the scores through out the evening, and...   

[Duffman]

Hey Sean,

Thanks for replying so quickly.  It was great meeting you & Chris.  It always seems like I never have enough time to just chill and talk with people before & after slams.

I hope the Toronto show was awesome and the rest of your tour (Ottawa & London) goes well.

Thanks for the ideas.  It sounds like it would work.  But like you said, best reserved for a regional tournament or season finals.

Of course in the end we need to remind ourselves that ULTIMATELY... points are not the point, poetry is the point.

Have fun ripping those mics and travel safe.

[rpriske]

We have found that simply explaining score creep to the judges helps.

It doesn't eradicate it, but keeps it to more mangeable levels.

[RCW]

Also to help alleviate score creep it would be useful for the host to keep reminding the judges "to remain consistent" as the night progresses.

At Urbana they remind the judges after each poet has performed..."Judges remain consistent"  That way no one poet can feel like they have been singled out.

[Duncan Shields]

Yeah, that's a good idea.

[ms_spelt]

the other thing about score creep is to understand _how_it happens if you wish to combat it.
scorecreep does not happen as a gradual increase in point over the night where every poet gets progressively more creep.
what happens 1st is a thing called flashpoint.
the poet's scores will all be pretty clustered to start-judges will reward good poems but they are still being conservative and then...
one poet hits the stage and tears it up.
the room goes off and the scores jump-flashpoint.
thereafter all the scores are now clustered in that higher range and _now_creep begins.even a poet that falls a bit flat,but does so after the flashpoint will have their downturn in scores cushioned by the fact flashpoint has occurred.
so pronounced is this effect i can -and have-predicted with reasonable accuracy what the cut off score for the 2ncd round would be based on the flashpoint poets numbers.
so...
how do you mitigate that?
well...
in round one it's pretty damn hard outside of what sean,duncan and randy have said.
but if you're doing multiple rounds in a playoff bout the cumulative adding of scores _combined_with scorecreep can knock a solid poet out of contention.
that's where"cut from below" comes in handy.
if on finals night you have 8 poets reading through 3 rounds-
you cut your bottom two poets from round one and clean slate the scores for round two and then cut the next and so on.
it prevents the scorecreep effect from becoming a cumulative snowball and keeps it down to that small manageable effect.

[Shannon]

writing down scores is also useful
as it operates as a reference point
such as 'poem a was better than poem b but not as good as poem c, therefore I will give it something in between'.

it is difficult to remember what score we gave, so having a sheet to handout to judges might be useful

we can tell judges to be consistent, but without a way to *remember* what we assigned to what poem, creeping will still probably occur

[Duncan Shields]

That's an interesting idea, Shannon.  It might keep the judges cognizant as the beer flows.

[Lisa]

They do it at the major PSI tournaments, as well.

[Shannon]

Would you like me to design such a score sheet?

I'd be happy too! 

(This is part of my 'If I am going to suggest we do something to make things better than I should probably be one of the people that helps to do the something!)

[Sean]

Do it, please Shannon. That would be awesome.

[Duncan Shields]

Yes.

[Shannon]

Okay.

Could you send me one of our score sheets, so I can incorporate some of its info, such as how many people slam in any give day.
Email it to

shannon dot rayne dot poetry at gmail dot com

[boylesbian]

someone please send that to shannon if it hasn't been done yet.  i'm looking forward to having this implemented.