Messages

46

General Discussion / Re: Sober alternatives for PSI events

« on: March 31, 2011, 09:57:47 AM »

Great! Jen, we are already planning to hold a Recovery Reading as one of our day events... Although I do realize that one event on one day is not adequate support for the whole community.

Please post your ideas, folks. I'll be sure to keep an eye on this thread.

47

General Discussion / Re: looking for the 2009 NPS commercial

« on: March 08, 2011, 05:38:43 PM »

We've located a copy we think we can edit. Thanks, though!

48

General Discussion / Re: Sad news out of Chicago

« on: March 08, 2011, 07:49:38 AM »

So sorry to hear it, Billy. I'm sorry to have never met her. Sending love to Chicago.

If you like, please get in touch with Mike Henry and/or Christian Drake about some possible memorial ideas at NPS.

49

General Discussion / looking for the 2009 NPS commercial

« on: February 18, 2011, 05:42:07 PM »

Hey, does anyone here happen to have access to the NPS commercial from 2009? It was a 60-second clip featuring Anis Mojgani that was originally produced by Mike Henry. We'd like to revive it to help promote NPS 2011.

Mike's a busy guy and not able to help us much right now, but I'm wondering if anyone else has access to this video. Even the low-res version has been removed from YouTube.

Anyone?

50

General Discussion / Re: Have you seen the WOW 2009 DVD?

« on: October 06, 2010, 01:57:54 PM »

PSi films everything they can for the archives; sometimes select events (like the youth slam or PG slam) are produced separately as DVDs if they think they can be marketed to teachers as classroom tools.

If you know someone in the event who wants footage of their performance, you can also contact the fiilmmaker directly.

51

General Discussion / Re: Best Host of Nationals 2010?

« on: August 28, 2010, 07:24:21 AM »

I agree with Matt on all counts: Nick was super in both bouts I saw him in. He is always high-energy, but spot-on with numbers and mindful of the sensitivities of the judges and competitors. Lynne Procope also hosted one of the bouts I competed in and I thought she was great, too; it was a very hot room with exciting performances, and she was level-headed and endearingly snarky (just a bit!) with the audience.

Naz (the Finals host) is an enthusiastic and efficient host, and someone I enjoy watching, but I think she was a little handicapped by the cavernous venue and inability to interact with the audience. I saw her host semi-finals years ago (St. Louis?) in a well-filled and well-lit room and I remember thinking at the time that she was the best host I'd seen.

52

General Discussion / Re: NPS 2010 Recap

« on: August 15, 2010, 11:11:58 AM »

how about with a much earlier cut off date? something like 2 or even 3 weeks before the date of the tournament. that would give you ample time to take care of things in the office at your leisure and there'd be that much less paper to be carted around.

I think what Abbey is saying is that even with deadlines, people will continue to pass them and fax and email stuff to her well after the set date. Our community tends to play fast and loose with deadlines.

53

General Discussion / Re: Surge in Spam Members/Posts

« on: August 05, 2010, 01:07:02 PM »

I love when spammers identify themselves by posting in the appropriate thread.

54

General Discussion / Re: hotel

« on: July 27, 2010, 05:59:06 PM »

You can try messaging Rushelle on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/rushelle.frazier

55

General Discussion / Re: 2010 Bout Draw

« on: July 18, 2010, 02:32:19 PM »

Yeah, we're wordy. And whut?

56

General Discussion / Re: abigail ehn

« on: May 06, 2010, 08:48:39 PM »

Awww. Congrats to everyone!

57

General Discussion / Re: New Slammaster In Berkeley

« on: April 11, 2010, 06:45:34 AM »

The end of an era, Chaz.

Wishing you the best.

58

General Discussion / Re: no repeat rule

« on: August 19, 2009, 11:34:02 PM »

This is like saying Game 7 of the 1983 NBA Championship was a lousy game because everyone was tired from the previous six. Maybe we should have let the Lakers and Celtics rest up for a week before playing it. I'm sure that would have been a much better game technically, right?

Um, the Dr. J- and Moses Malone-led Philadelphia 76ers won the 1983 NBA Finals. And there was no Game 7 - it was a sweep. 

Great. Now I've undermined any credibility I had in this thread!

My error: I meant the 1983-1984 season, which obviously culminated in a 1984 Finals. 

59

General Discussion / Re: no repeat rule

« on: August 19, 2009, 05:49:10 PM »

Can we agree that although we want to promote poetry and encourage and empower others to write and participate. But THE NPS is a Competition. wrapped in a festival. The final stage should be about showing your very best work. It may be the only time a first time visitor sees or hears what we do.

Yes! Ideally, I'd like NPS to be a capital-F Festival wrapping on a small-c competition creamy center.    But, yes, I think we are essentially in agreement.

But here is my competition philosophy: if you have a "best" poem you want to share on Finals stage, then you save that poem for Finals stage. That is how competition works. If you want a showcase of "best" poems... Well, maybe we should scrap Finals and create a show of the sixteen best poems we saw at NPS.

if we can agree that possibly some of the best work COULD be used in prelim bouts that have limited visibility, is it not our duty to show the world why we think that these 4 teams are OUR very best....and shouldn't our very best be able to show what they feel is their very best work.

What you are saying here is a return to the idea that Finals is somehow worse without these "best" poems. I thought everyone was already in agreement that we cannot quantify how much better or worse a show Finals is with the no-repeat rule in place. I still don't see how the four Finals teams can guarantee a "better" show for an audience who has never seen them, and I think this is unprovable. I don't think a first-time visitor to the event has any inkling of what a "better" or "worse" show is.

This is like saying Game 7 of the 1983 NBA Championship was a lousy game because everyone was tired from the previous six. Maybe we should have let the Lakers and Celtics rest up for a week before playing it. I'm sure that would have been a much better game technically, right?

Buy removing the no-repeat rule we are not saying you have to re-peat a poem but you have a option. ...But Nothing says that you Have to re-peat anything...and I am sure some of you wont  on a principle issue. But Finals should be about A teams best work against other teams best work.

It's true: you don't HAVE to repeat a poem. But some teams will. And that means that you are permitting teams with only 12 poems to become MY national champions. I want the team I point to as champions to have more poems than that!

Again I thought allowing only 2 possible repeats in finals was a good middle ground. That way you MUST have 2 new poems and MAY repeat 2 poems used in prelims

John, it is a good middle ground. I personally believe we should require no-repeat, but I concede that our community wants it otherwise --I am arguing in the hopes of bringing folks who haven't thought hard about it over to my thinking, not trying to drum up support for another sad run at the no-repeat rule.

Yours is a reasonable compromise between two kinds of purists. It doesn't satisfy me, but I see it as a vast improvement over our current situation.

60

General Discussion / Re: no repeat rule

« on: August 19, 2009, 02:01:33 PM »

Not being contentious, only thorough:
Simone said,

Steve, I think we all agree that our system does not reward "best" poems or performances. It rewards poems liked best by a random set of bar patrons.

...It's the way we play the game and the intent is to find the "best poems" inside the parameters of our rules and our mission. Might think of this as part of a semantic game, but I think it is a distinction with a difference. We know the judges can end up not picking our favorites. But we make them the judges anyway.

This debate about "best slam" vs. "best art" is fascinating to me every time I have it --and it feels like at least once per week. But it seems to me to have deviated from the question at hand, which was: is no-repeat supported by our Mission Statement or not?

I'm always happy to delve into this argument. But I think we're way off on a tangent.