2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

[suziqsmith]

We should all have a system that removes that pressure from any one person. A clear, identifiable, system which would produce the same results everytime.

Perhaps this should be discussed at the spring SM meeting.

[dlhoratio]

All y'all who are saying "don't let the waitlist in" - you're right.  I know you're right.  I've argued your position in the past.  I'm just sad and grumpy about it this week.  Move along.  I'll jump in, ready to host (Suzi, who should I talk to about hosting? Erik? Bill? Someone else?) my ass off and cheer my people on.

That said, Rachel, doesn't a past championship guarantee you a spot?  Isn't that one of the prizes?

Also, Omni: right on, about not making Abbey the poor goat that has to have this all come down to her.

[AmyD]

We should all have a system that removes that pressure from any one person. A clear, identifiable, system which would produce the same results everytime.

Perhaps this should be discussed at the spring SM meeting.

If people want to discuss this further, I suggest resurrecting the thread on it here in the forums and trying to hash out the conflicting priorities in advance. Bringing it up at the SM meeting is bound to be a trainwreck unless there is a widely supported proposal to put before the body.

(In reality, though, it's been brought up for years, every time a tournament list goes up and people are outraged, and then it is just as quickly forgotten because nobody can ever reach a consensus on what should determine Storms)

[rachel_mckibbens]

Past championships are taken into account if you are applying as a storm, sure,  but they don't lock you in. Especially if you accidentally refreshed your page while registering, thinking you paid for the items in your cart, when in fact, you did not. 
 
That said, I think the Last Chance Slam needs to have a defined game plan. I have never seen it ordered the same way, year-to-year. But that's a whole 'nother topic...
 

[Scott Woods]

We should all have a system that removes that pressure from any one person. A clear, identifiable, system which would produce the same results everytime.

Perhaps this should be discussed at the spring SM meeting.

...or not.

I would recommend someone actually do what was already proposed months ago in this 5-page thread on this very subject here:
http://www.poetryslam.com/forum/index.php?topic=7244.0

Come up with a proposal that takes into account all of that discussion and present it to an EC member. Presenting it at the SM meeting just makes it a discussion item because SMs don't get to vote on tournament size. At the end of the day someone would need to recommend an alternative method for this to change. Hasn't happened.

More alarming is the short term subject memory and follow-through on this issue. This issue consumed weeks of people's attention over multiple threads. The threads/issue only dried up in November...less than three months ago. If someone - anyone - had spent even two, three or even four weeks creating a proposal after the heat died down and presented it to the EC at that point this would have been weighed and voted on well in advance of this event. Now, I'm not someone who thinks it should change, but there were people who were very adamant about it and they just petered out. This could have been changed if a compelling enough case were made for it 2-3 months ago. Don't need to be an EC member to affect policy, folks.

[Scott Woods]

That said, I think the Last Chance Slam needs to have a defined game plan. I have never seen it ordered the same way, year-to-year. But that's a whole 'nother topic...
 

Last Chance Slam changes every year because the HC gets to run it the way they want. It is technically not a PSi event at all. It just has a PSi prize at the end of it.

But don't think the EC hasn't talked about it.

[rachel_mckibbens]

Wait. Are you telling me the Host City can have a cupcake eating round if it wants!?!?!?

[karen_g]

In response to what part of what Suzi said, "We should all have a system that removes that pressure from any one person" I think the ED should have a clear back-up person, that "contact anyone on the EC to answer questions" has shown itself to be too vague. (If I were waiting for an answer, having done that, I would still be waiting).
 Pressure on one person *is* too much. I advocate more than one voice box.As well as cool towels for the rest of us (as per Jesse's list on another thread).
Okay, but that is a tangent.
I really hear a need for a proposal.
On that other thread, I think Syd brought up a list for one.

"A clear, identifiable, system which would produce the same results everytime"

What about a randomizer? A computer program that takes into account distance, no-venue, etc.? Could one be written like one used to random-draw slam order? We could try it alongside of an actual list and see if the results are about the same?
Also, it would only be, for, say, what, 5-10 slots?

[karen_g]

Wait. Are you telling me the Host City can have a cupcake eating round if it wants!?!?!?

Clearly, if this is the case, we need to plan to host a WOW together, yes?

[Scott Woods]

In response to what part of what Suzi said, "We should all have a system that removes that pressure from any one person" I think the ED should have a clear back-up person, that "contact anyone on the EC to answer questions" has shown itself to be too vague. (If I were waiting for an answer, having done that, I would still be waiting).
 Pressure on one person *is* too much. I advocate more than one voice box.As well as cool towels for the rest of us (as per Jesse's list on another thread).
Okay, but that is a tangent.
I really hear a need for a proposal.
On that other thread, I think Syd brought up a list for one.

"A clear, identifiable, system which would produce the same results everytime"

What about a randomizer? A computer program that takes into account distance, no-venue, etc.? Could one be written like one used to random-draw slam order? We could try it alongside of an actual list and see if the results are about the same?
Also, it would only be, for, say, what, 5-10 slots?

Karen, I hate to, but I disagree here.

First, you're blending two separate issues: workload on one person (which is why registration had an issue this year...that was rectified quickly, mind you) and one person determining the eventual outcome of the competitor list to everyone's satisfaction, which was never going to happen no matter what the system is. The minute there were people on the wait list, one of them was going to say, "Hey, can we expand the tournament? And who gets to decide this, anyway?" It happened when Steve used the same system as ED for years and it's happening now. This isn't a new system.

Which brings me to the other impression you describe, which is that you "hear a need for a proposal". I disagree. You hear a fraction of people asking for none, but I wouldn't rush to call that a "need". Nor should we dismiss the fact that nothing has been said about this so-called need for three months after hundreds of posts about it ending in November. If there was an actual need or even just some basic follow-through this would have been addressed a long time ago when it was hot, or shortly after when something could still be done or at least investigated. Some of the people who were clamoring for this "need" haven't said anything about it since, and a couple of them are running for EC. I don't see not having followed-up on generating a publicly-decried proposal in their bids. I'm not taking swipes here. I'm saying don't call something a need just because a handful of people were unhappy about something for a brief period of time. A need exhibits its necessity on an ongoing basis, across many mouths and probably numerous effects. This ain't one of them.

I am sorry this thread has gotten so far off track. I would recommend anyone who still cares about coming up with a system in time for the next event to do so in the thread that already exists for this express purpose.

[Scott Woods]

Wait. Are you telling me the Host City can have a cupcake eating round if it wants!?!?!?

Technically, yes. We would be forced to advise against it because many of our members have no sense of humor, but we couldn't stop an HC from doing this.

[amcehn]

I'm not saying the system we have now is the best. But I am inclined to think it's the most "fair". I'd be happy to do it a new way as long as you can take someone who has been on the FInals stage 10 times and the rookie poet and get them both in. It's a hard task. If we only take those that have been around for 25 years we will never grow and we then lose out on new voices and techniques. If we take new people only we lose out on great talent and big names. Lose lose I guess.

[Scott Woods]

Or win/win.

[BrianOmniDillon]

- I dunno, call me the idealistic idiot here, I just don't see why its not just a simple thing to add six, like we did for iwps. Wowps is an incredibly cool thing for a poet to be involved in. It saddens me that many of the issues raised against it are reasons to actually not do it.

- Rachel you're probably right. You've been doing this for a decade longer than me and maybe those formats you describe were far superior. As a newer person to the party I don't hate the 12/13 poet bouts at all. I love them. You have perspective I don't so I can't really argue.

- Scott. I think the problem again is when we talk about the "system" being the same "system" that Steve used.  Because to date we still don't have a system, but a list of factors that get weighed in an unknown way to "rank" lists of poets. I'll apologize for disappearing off that thread. I was finishing a novel and booking the tour/touring from thanksgiving till about when I started annoying you again on the threads.

I'll go back. And make a proposal myself to the EC after gathering thoughts from whoever else has some.  It is important to me. And in the effort to build a proposal it would be great to hear in anymore detail how those factors are combined to choose who "should" get in. I'd like to reiterate, Abbey does enough and has enough on her life plate to spend time answering my questions. I'm sure someone else knows the system. If anyone could supply me/us with that info it would be helpful in determining if a new proposal is actually new.

[BrianOmniDillon]

I think the system should absolutely find a way to balance old/new poets, geographical diversity, etc. And as someone whose thought alot about it, I appreciate how wildly difficult that must be to pull off. Again I'll try and come up with something and compare it to how you all have done it. And maybe some fresh ideas will spark a system that will lessen the arguments. I truly believe most of the fighting is because folks just don't have any idea how these poets got in, and others did not. Those factors are helpful. But how they're combined is what's important to keeping people from screaming about it. Or, screaming less.