Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: The Individual World Poetry Slam, October 3rd-6th in Fayetteville, Arkansas

« on: September 25, 2012, 05:04:10 PM »

semi-related. is it conceivable that a poet who is storming and already in the tournament choose to slam at Last Chance, win - and then get their storm spot refunded and take the 'free' registration? Hypothetically, of course.

2

General Discussion / Iwps Reps?

« on: August 31, 2012, 04:13:05 PM »

Not trying to be all DANNY FUCKING STRACK about it. But can i hear who yalls reps are?

The Intangible Slam will be repped by Steph Holmbo.

3

General Discussion / Re: Streaming Slams

« on: March 31, 2012, 10:46:35 AM »

This response if for the collegiate program I run at NYU. we do not stream the Intangible Slam. For whatever reasons many locations in nyc, ours included, have funny rules about video, notably streaming.

-How often do you live stream at your slam?

  We stream most of our on campus slams, if not all.

-If you do, to what purpose? Publicity? Fundraising? Document-archive?

  In the future we would love this to provide a fundraising component. For now, its more just for out of towners, and friends of ours in the collegiate natiional scene to peek in on our events. We also dont tend to announce the stream through our team FB until a few hours before the shows, so as not to dissuade kids from not actually attending as opposed to watching in their rooms.

-If you charge to view, what do you charge?

we dont as of yet, but i see that as a part of our future

-What system do you use? Ustream or some other?

we do use ustream, yes.

-What camera or equipment do you use? (I-phone, the mic and camera on a laptop, etc)

we just set up a laptop on a front row chair facing the mic.

-Does your equipment come from your slam's budget or is the use of it donated?

being a team funded by an exorbinantly wealthy university, we could probably ratchet up the technology a bit. that being said, the technology we use now suits the needs of our audience fine. (my laptop, the internet)

-How much money do you budget to do this or is it donated?

zero.

-Are your quality expectations low or high (HD, someone's laptop, doesn't matter, it's the content that counts)?

again, in the future we'd love to take this to the next step and have better quality streams, but it appears that a good amount of people will watch regardless. we average 40-60 per stream.

-What challenges, problems, solutions did you find in doing this; your trials, errors, and fixes?

Again ours is a very simple set-up, the only hitch in the plan is aiming the laptop perfectly so it doesnt stream peoples knee-caps for two hours.


additional thoughts:

I could be wrong, but im pretty sure the absolute height of regular slam streaming technology is NYC-Urbana. Its a super-good quality, its done weekly, and back when i was involved in the managing the series, the slam averaged about 200 views every week (more than there ever is in the actual room at the BPC). The urbana series is the most technologically advanced slam ive seen (in-line phone patch so Mali can call the stage from Qatar or wherever he is). I highly advise anyone inquiring about streaming to get in touch with the folks on the Urbana Committee.

Also, Aaron Samuels of WU Slam has a pretty slick and consistent streaming operation. He's been streaming his college's preliminary bouts at CUPSi since way before i thought that technology existed.

4

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 29, 2012, 05:05:54 PM »

Steph Holmbo*

5

General Discussion / Re: Questions for all EC Candidates

« on: February 24, 2012, 03:21:07 PM »

also just wanna give a nod to swoods for this posting process. infinitely infinitely better way of handling this.

6

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 22, 2012, 01:50:21 PM »

http://www.poetryslam.com/forum/index.php?topic=7018.30

that should be the right one for those who wanna talk about something new in terms of how storms are chosen.

7

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 22, 2012, 01:34:55 PM »

freaking awesome. you also know alot more about this shit than i do, so im glad youre interested. im gonna attempt to resurrect the thread scott referenced. youll see an update at some point. i guess just give whatever insight, input you have.

8

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 22, 2012, 01:23:23 PM »

I'll also stop polluting the wrong threads.

9

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 22, 2012, 01:19:41 PM »

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.

10

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 22, 2012, 01:15:24 PM »

- 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.

11

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 22, 2012, 12:03:27 AM »

I agree Scott, that major changes to the structure, notably ones that involve the headache of additional venues (not to mention the cost of those venues) is something to be weighed heavily by those who know best; and by those whose job that is. But I don't think adding six poets, and not another venue, is a terribly large change. Further, I believe if we made that exception for the immediately preceding, all-gender tournament, it's worth making the argument that we owe the same exception ( a big deal for those poets) to these six women. And in terms of audience experience, the prime objective, I'd like to imagine the six poets added to iwps served to only enhance and enrich the experience of our crowds (some of whome were worthwhile enough to our patrons that they were put on final stage for their work that week).

12

General Discussion / PSi FB Discussion Tab

« on: February 21, 2012, 06:51:18 PM »

curiosity...but has the Psi FB Discussion tab been deleted?

13

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 21, 2012, 06:34:34 PM »

abbey has clearly busted her behind through floods/children. this isnt about Abbey at all. its about a system which forces the decision on "who should be allowed in the tournament" (quoted from abbey's much-pasted priority post) onto a single person. Its not fair that Abbey should have to deal with all that crap. 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.

but in the meantime. i repeat, to whoever's decision it is to make:

if the EC, or the Host City made the call on it's own, without a SM vote, to expand by six poets IWPS2011. Why shouldnt the same availability be made for WOWPS2012? Youre talking about less than five minutes of additional time in each show. If we can do it for iwps, i dont see why we shouldnt be held to the same standard for wowps. If im missing info, im open to hearing it. But from my standpoint, to whoever is in charge of these decisions:

please! let six more poets in to wowps!

14

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 21, 2012, 06:19:52 PM »

Also @Dylan i completely disagree that adding fifteen minutes of poetry wildly alters how the slam functions. Everything else you said i like.

And, again to everyones point about the 'queue'. As this same debate happened in october for iwps: again, the system includes "many factors". which are not "prioritized". So theres really no way to know how these specific names came out, other than to say: everyone should fully fill out their apps, because ive been made to understand that your answers to those questions in the bottom third of the app weigh heavily. distance is a factor, but not everything. generally, i agree with anyone who wants a firm, clear, easy to understand list of priorities. we dont have that now, and i think these debates and headaches for everrrrrybody would go away if we had that.

15

General Discussion / Re: 2012 WoW COMPETITOR LIST

« on: February 21, 2012, 06:10:00 PM »

as someone whose had this argument before, i would like to see us at least consider doing for wowps what was done for iwps. If you wanna argue 15/16 person prelims is too much, yould have trouble arguing that 13 poet prelims dont work. Since we just made an exception for iwps. And in an effort to see the tourneys reflect eachother as best as possible in terms of how poets are included - - i think its only fair to at least open the floor to discussing making these prelims 13 poet prelims as well. (add the first 6 from the list). i didnt hear any complaints about that in cleveland, or since. Lets make wowps mirror iwps as best as possible, and give the next six poets a spot in 13-poet prelims.

no?