no repeat rule

[Scott Woods]

J, I think the only way it won't come up at the next SM meeting is if the people who are pro-No-Repeat are too tired to put it back on the agenda.  History does not bode well for it.

Casie has the minutes though.  Let's see who did what.

[Mike Simms]

Said,

Respectively

To your first point, no repeat rule being “an extreme case of micromanagement” so do you support being able to repeat in semi’s? Audience members pay to get in semi’s do they not deserve the best show possible?  Why don’t we make it so that you can’t repeat during prelims but you can repeat during semis?

Why not…because it’s stupid that’s why

Your micromanagement point is invalid, because we have rules that govern what poems a team can choose for the entire competition, and I don’t see you up in arms about that, so why not finals…


To your second point, I have been to nationals twice, in the last three years, both of which I was on that “non-competitive” finals stage as you saw it. Ask Austin, Boston, Louder Arts, Nuyo, Denver, etc... If it was competitive, they will say yes. So your second point is also invalid.

Your third point is valid, and I think the core of where the rub is with this situation, some of us are writers and believe that the no repeat rule pushes teams to push their art, and come with 16 FIRE poems between 5 people, so they can claim the title of THE BEST for a year. There are others who are entertainers and don’t really care about the art, they care about the crowd and the entertainment of said crowd,

And to be fair some of us are in the middle on this issue, understand both arguments, and are just leaning one way or the other

[Stefan Sencerz]

I made an amendment. The reason why was twofold -- the same arguments that support the idea of allowing two repeats (in essence, it's better for the show), support the idea of no-limit repeats. Furthermore, no-limit repeats rule (i.e., that everythng is a fair game on the final stage) is the rule easier to police.

People who argue that we should have a no-repeat rule support the idea by claiming that it encourages writing. That's a good argument, I think. But there is another way to achieve just that objective, I thought. Namely, we can have a no-repeat-from-tear-to-year rule. That is, any poem used on the final stage cannot be used on the final stage in subsequent years.

So, that was my reasoning when I proposed the ammendmen.

Again, I would be willing to compromise. You may convince me that allowing two repeats is the happy golden mean.  

[Stefan Sencerz]

BTW, Scott, please do not hate me/us. I have not made this amendment in a whimsial way; I had reason to do so. In fact, there are good reasons on both sides of this debate (that's why we continue it). If the matter was simple, it would have been resolved many years ago w/o further revisits. (Plus, you owe me a bear anyway.)

[Steve]

There are some "debates" that a never resolved because of the revolving door in the SlamMasters Council. Frankly, I'd be happy with one decision if it was forced to stay the same for 3 or 4 years before we could look at the exact same issue, with the exact same debate again. My personal preference leans one way. My professional opinion is that regardless of whether my personal preference is currently in vogue or not, that we have ground this flour far too fine and are in danger of harming the millstones now.

[Scott Woods]

Stefan, the thing that divides the "good" of two repeats versus the "good" of all repeats is that we wouldn't be having this argument (this way) if the compromise would have been achieved.  This community has got to learn to stop doing things in the interest of how THEIR team likes to play and leave the field open for all versions of play.  We all need to learn that what helps Slam isn't sharpening the rules to an infinite level, but good poetry; not hammering out every strategic possbility, but generating interest in artistic risk.  And so on.  If we don't learn that then we lose good people in these discussions who are just tired of fucking with stuff just because it can be fucked with and not because it has any - ANY - discernable effect on the show, the scores, the poetry, the audiences or Slam beyond personal opinion.  It should take more than this to change this stuff back and forth every year.

I love Steve's suggestion of stuff like this having to stay in place for more than a year.

[simone]

1. The no repeat Final rule was an extreme case of micromanagement. Let individual poets and teams decide how many poems and what manner of poems, they will write, and whether or not to repeat them on Finals stage if they make it. Slammasters Council SHOULD NOT be in the business of micro managing teams. Individual Slammasters may chose to assert that their local community come up with sixteen new poems whenever or however they want.

Said, I think you have cut right to the heart of the argument with this statement. You and I have a deep philosophical disagreement on this issue, which I think Scott and Mike have already touched on a bit, and which I think represents the deep divide in our community you have taked about.

I would like to imagine that the slam community I come from encourages growth and progress in writing and performance. I think that is the job of every SlamMaster, and I think that the vast majority of us take it very seriously. There's no question in my mind that every person posting to argue or agree here believes that their community works hard to write and perform well, and that every one of you believes in fostering your community in its efforts to do so.

The disagreement is here: I believe that PSI --and, by extension, NPS-- should also foster growth and progress in writing and performance. I don't think the no-repeat rule is micro-management. I think it meshes perfectly with the PSI mission statement:

The mission of Poetry Slam Incorporated (PSI) is to promote the performance and creation of poetry while cultivating literary activities and spoken word events in order to build audience participation, stimulate creativity, awaken minds, foster education, inspire mentoring, encourage artistic statement and engage communities worldwide in the revelry of language.

NPS is a PSI event. It should enable the things stated above, including "creation of poetry." I think that repealing the no-repeat rule in favor of enabling teams to be more competitive is against our mission, plain and simple.

Danny Solis probaby stated it best at the SM when he argued against the no-repeat rule by stating that we were trying to "legislate writing." It is our duty to make our poets write, and the entire burden of that duty should NOT fall on the individual communities. It falls on the body as a whole. If it comes down to legislation to tell a community that they must "WRITE MORE POEMS" (Rachel McK), then I am for it.

What I choose to do in my local community only impacts my local commuity. What we have is a national community. I will continue to argue for what I believe the national community deserves.

[Scott Woods]

Simone win!

[Mike Simms]

1. The no repeat Final rule was an extreme case of micromanagement. Let individual poets and teams decide how many poems and what manner of poems, they will write, and whether or not to repeat them on Finals stage if they make it. Slammasters Council SHOULD NOT be in the business of micro managing teams. Individual Slammasters may chose to assert that their local community come up with sixteen new poems whenever or however they want.

Said, I think you have cut right to the heart of the argument with this statement. You and I have a deep philosophical disagreement on this issue, which I think Scott and Mike have already touched on a bit, and which I think represents the deep divide in our community you have taked about.

I would like to imagine that the slam community I come from encourages growth and progress in writing and performance. I think that is the job of every SlamMaster, and I think that the vast majority of us take it very seriously. There's no question in my mind that every person posting to argue or agree here believes that their community works hard to write and perform well, and that every one of you believes in fostering your community in its efforts to do so.

The disagreement is here: I believe that PSI --and, by extension, NPS-- should also foster growth and progress in writing and performance. I don't think the no-repeat rule is micro-management. I think it meshes perfectly with the PSI mission statement:

The mission of Poetry Slam Incorporated (PSI) is to promote the performance and creation of poetry while cultivating literary activities and spoken word events in order to build audience participation, stimulate creativity, awaken minds, foster education, inspire mentoring, encourage artistic statement and engage communities worldwide in the revelry of language.

I wish there was a "likes this" button on this forum like on facebook. I would have just pressed it 10 times

[Detroitphoenix]

Me too, Mike.  Simone captured the heart of what I'm feeling.  I could laundry list why repeating poems on Final Stage is utter bullshit.  Simone being more eloquent, however, has cleared that issue for me.

I'm pressing the "Likes This" button 50 million times with you.

~La Shaun phoenix Moore

[Scott Woods]

Finally, a quote from Joe Jackson (the 80s musician, not the corporal punishment giant):

"Perhaps I am an elitist, but if so, it's in the sense that if I go to see Manchetser United, I want to see the elite of football.  I'm not going to apologize for that.  What, after all, are artists for?  I don't think they're there to be the "voice of the People," even if it sometimes seems to work that way.  I think artists are there to amaze, to inspire, to challenge, and to open our minds and hearts.  On a basic, tribal level, I think the artists should be the shaman.  All too often, in our culture, he's the village idiot."

[Stefan Sencerz]

Stefan, the thing that divides the "good" of two repeats versus the "good" of all repeats is that we wouldn't be having this argument (this way) if the compromise would have been achieved. 

Personally, I do not think it's a bad argument (or bad way to argue).

This community has got to learn to stop doing things in the interest of how THEIR team likes to play and leave the field open for all versions of play.  We all need to learn that what helps Slam isn't sharpening the rules to an infinite level, but good poetry; not hammering out every strategic possbility, but generating interest in artistic risk.  And so on. 

I agree with all of this.

Just to clarify, I wanted to add that, personally, I was not motivated at all by what is in the interest of my team (in fact, we have not had team at the NPS for two year) or even my scene.

[Stefan Sencerz]

There are some "debates" that a never resolved because of the revolving door in the SlamMasters Council.

True. But also, they are unresolved because there are very good reasons on both sides of the issue.

Frankly, I'd be happy with one decision if it was forced to stay the same for 3 or 4 years before we could look at the exact same issue, with the exact same debate again. 

I think the rule was at place, first time, during Austin (II), then Madison, then WPB. That's 3 years, if I'm correct.

[TSPrunier]

This:

We all need to learn that what helps Slam isn't sharpening the rules to an infinite level, but good poetry; not hammering out every strategic possbility, but generating interest in artistic risk.

and this:

I would like to imagine that the slam community I come from encourages growth and progress in writing and performance. I think that is the job of every SlamMaster, and I think that the vast majority of us take it very seriously. There's no question in my mind that every person posting to argue or agree here believes that their community works hard to write and perform well, and that every one of you believes in fostering your community in its efforts to do so.

The disagreement is here: I believe that PSI --and, by extension, NPS-- should also foster growth and progress in writing and performance. I don't think the no-repeat rule is micro-management. I think it meshes perfectly with the PSI mission statement:

The mission of Poetry Slam Incorporated (PSI) is to promote the performance and creation of poetry while cultivating literary activities and spoken word events in order to build audience participation, stimulate creativity, awaken minds, foster education, inspire mentoring, encourage artistic statement and engage communities worldwide in the revelry of language.

NPS is a PSI event. It should enable the things stated above, including "creation of poetry." I think that repealing the no-repeat rule in favor of enabling teams to be more competitive is against our mission, plain and simple.

Danny Solis probaby stated it best at the SM when he argued against the no-repeat rule by stating that we were trying to "legislate writing." It is our duty to make our poets write, and the entire burden of that duty should NOT fall on the individual communities. It falls on the body as a whole. If it comes down to legislation to tell a community that they must "WRITE MORE POEMS" (Rachel McK), then I am for it.

What I choose to do in my local community only impacts my local commuity. What we have is a national community. I will continue to argue for what I believe the national community deserves.

are game, set and match in this argument. I would like someone to dispute these.

The Joe Jackson quote isn't bad, either. Kudos and thanks, Scott and Simone.

[Steve]

While I tend to agree with Simone more than others most of the time, the citation of the Mission Statement doesn't cause this argument to be a slam dunk.

The Mission is not anti-competition.

Nor does the mission or the rules "legislate writing." Our system, supposedly, rewards the best poems and the best performances. The question inside those parameters is "how many of the best poems does a team have to perform?"

I'm not taking a position on no-repeat. I'm trying to clarify the grounds of the argument inside the parameters of the mission.