Thunderclap

Author Topic: no repeat rule  (Read 25974 times)

bigpoppae

  • Guest
no repeat rule
« on: August 13, 2009, 10:42:37 PM »
from what i've heard, the rule that says poets may not repeat poems in the finals at NPS has been repealed. is that true?

i think it's a wonderful idea as our finals should be a showcase for the best our community has to offer, plus i as a member of the audience want to see what these teams used to get there.

here's an idea... what about a no repeat rule that states that once a poem is performed at nationals, it must be retired from nationals, that was you cannot repeat year after year?

discuss?

RBrownAZ

  • Haiku
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2009, 10:57:36 PM »
yes, the no-repeat rule was repealed, and the idea of no repeats in consecutive years, at least on finals stage, was brought up but never settled.  i agree with you, and believe that the show needs to be good for the non-slam audience, while i personally would like to see all the best pieces i will inevitably miss in prelims and semis while at nationals.  thats all i got for you man.

Stefan Sencerz

  • Sonnet
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
    • http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/stefan.htm
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2009, 11:48:53 PM »
I would vote for (most versions of) no-repeat from tear to year.

simone

  • Moderator
  • Epic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
    • Boston Poetry Slam
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2009, 11:49:40 PM »
Yes, it has been repealed. I was, and am, heartbroken to hear our community assert that they do not believe that their five-poet teams can come up with sixteen fine, competitive poems for the National Poetry Slam.

The no-repeat in consecutive years idea has been broached previously, but has never been put to a vote, primarily because we cannot find anyone willing to do the enormous workload of keeping records of what has and hasn't been performed at NPS... Nor can we figure out how to enforce such a rule consistently.
Simone Beaubien
SlamMaster, Boston Poetry Slam

TSPrunier

  • Sonnet
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/slamrichmond
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2009, 11:32:52 AM »
I'd pay $5 or $10 more for the NPS DVD if it included prelim bout highlights. Then, instead of just finals stage, we could have the prelims, semis, perhaps the Nerd and Haiku slams and the various showcases. Finals night often does not disappoint (2007 was kinda weak, tho), but there's so much more going on.

I remember cameras in EVERY venue in Austin in 2007 -- including Haiku. Like I said, I'd pay more for a two-DVD set that truly COVERED NPS each year...

... this way, there'd be no need to repeal a no-repeat rule. I'm with Boston (and the rest of the Richmond brood) when I say WRITE PEOPLE, WRITE!

karen_g

  • Epic
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/artamokslamteam
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2009, 01:37:54 PM »
Yes, it has been repealed. I was, and am, heartbroken to hear our community assert that they do not believe that their five-poet teams can come up with sixteen fine, competitive poems for the National Poetry Slam.

The no-repeat in consecutive years idea has been broached previously, but has never been put to a vote, primarily because we cannot find anyone willing to do the enormous workload of keeping records of what has and hasn't been performed at NPS... Nor can we figure out how to enforce such a rule consistently.

I'll volunteer to keep a record.I'm serious.
I think repeating poems keeps things boring.I remember following Nats as a volunteer and audience member
& I thought it made for a less than stellar Finals because I'd already heard the pieces before (though there were two I wanted to hear again, but only 2).But that's my shill.

I would edit such a rule to state that once a piece is performed on ANY FINALS stage (NPS,IWPS,WOW)
that it cannot be used or repeated on any FINALS stage again, should the poet or teams be so lucky to make Finals multiple times.
This should be relatively easy to keep track of because there's DVD evidence.
This would mean the poems can be repeated in any prelim or semi situtation.

I am with you, Simone.If anything, I leave Nationals every year with fist fulls of poems that didn't get heard.I imagine that teams that do this will still operate this way as an integrity issue, just as they did before.

Also, I liked the repeal better as it was originally presented, which restricted it to 2 repeats allowed rather than all four rotations. I think what is most disappointing to me is that in the undertow of discussion, that compromise was lost and we all just wanted out of the room.I feel like we're much more patient at WOW slam master meeting.
I doubt this will be the end of the issue...
nerak_g

Scott Woods

  • Epic
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
    • View Profile
    • http://www.scottwoodswrites.net
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2009, 01:44:31 PM »

johnmiller37

  • Sonnet
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
  • If a poet cant spell they can still speak
    • View Profile
    • Killeen Poetry Slam
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2009, 03:34:36 PM »
I was the SM who brought up the idea of repealing the no repeat rule: Now this was not to advance the art or to make poets write more...Put simpley Some of the best poems get lost in prelims...The Finals is were we should show off our very best work to an audience of NON POETS. This is what drive ticket sales....

While I personally like the no repeat rule because it makes it more of a chess match..Repeating 2 poems on final stage I thought was a fair comprimise...The body of slam masters voted in a no limit on final stage repeat amendment...I forget who proposed this....But I was willing to live with it for the sake of the Show.

Yes we as competeing Poets want wore writting and more creativity...But the dirty secret is we need audiences who will spread our passion world wide. If ESPN can show a Rock, paper, scissor competetion or a spelling bee... for no other reason other than they got a audience. Wouldnt it be nice to have our NPS live on TV.... To do that you got to both draw and please the crowd...The lifting of the no-repeat rule for finals is for that purpose.
I wish I could be just write for you

Scott Woods

  • Epic
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
    • View Profile
    • http://www.scottwoodswrites.net
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2009, 03:53:35 PM »
John,

I agree: your ORIGINAL proposal was a fair compromise.
people should have leftit out alone and tried it out.  We already know what repeats looks like. 
We should have tried 50/50.

Scott Woods

  • Epic
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
    • View Profile
    • http://www.scottwoodswrites.net
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2009, 03:57:42 PM »
Yes we as competeing Poets want wore writting and more creativity...But the dirty secret is we need audiences who will spread our passion world wide. If ESPN can show a Rock, paper, scissor competetion or a spelling bee... for no other reason other than they got a audience. Wouldnt it be nice to have our NPS live on TV.... To do that you got to both draw and please the crowd...The lifting of the no-repeat rule for finals is for that purpose.

And while you mentioned it, the reason why we're not cable ready or primetime ready or live ready is because we curse and talk abotu naughty things general audiences may not want beamed in their homes under the rubric of "sport".  The things you describe don't allow players to shout "fuck" fifty times a game on TV.  Different subject, though, but understand that our WORK is the biggest hurdle here, not our general market viability.  The no-repeat rule doesn't have anything to do with that.

Faldwin

  • Limerick
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2009, 04:21:37 PM »
And while you mentioned it, the reason why we're not cable ready or primetime ready or live ready is because we curse and talk abotu naughty things general audiences may not want beamed in their homes under the rubric of "sport".  The things you describe don't allow players to shout "fuck" fifty times a game on TV.  Different subject, though, but understand that our WORK is the biggest hurdle here, not our general market viability.  The no-repeat rule doesn't have anything to do with that.
I don't know how this would work, but what about Pay-Per-View?  As I understand there are no content limitations there?

Scott Woods

  • Epic
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
    • View Profile
    • http://www.scottwoodswrites.net
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2009, 04:37:31 PM »
And while you mentioned it, the reason why we're not cable ready or primetime ready or live ready is because we curse and talk abotu naughty things general audiences may not want beamed in their homes under the rubric of "sport".  The things you describe don't allow players to shout "fuck" fifty times a game on TV.  Different subject, though, but understand that our WORK is the biggest hurdle here, not our general market viability.  The no-repeat rule doesn't have anything to do with that.
I don't know how this would work, but what about Pay-Per-View?  As I understand there are no content limitations there?

How about starting a new thread?

simone

  • Moderator
  • Epic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
    • Boston Poetry Slam
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2009, 07:07:54 AM »
I was the SM who brought up the idea of repealing the no repeat rule: Now this was not to advance the art or to make poets write more...Put simpley Some of the best poems get lost in prelims...The Finals is were we should show off our very best work to an audience of NON POETS. This is what drive ticket sales....

Actually, I think what drives ticket sales is publicity and good press. A good finals drives DVD sales and repeat customers, yes. But there is no way for the quality of the poetry at an event to drive ticket sales before it takes place.

Ultimately, the thing I dislike about your "best poem" argument is the suggestion that our Finals teams are unable to save high-quality work, even their best work, for finals. For the record, three of the four poems the Cantab performed on Finals stage last year were the poems we had saved for NPS and most wanted to perform; we took a risk not playing those in semi-finals and it paid off for us.

Do you think Charlotte's 2008 poem with Bluz and Black Swan was some leftover piece they just played on Finals stage? Do you think JeanAnn Verlee's poem to a freed man was a tertiary piece she didn't practice? If you don't think that was the best work they had to offer, I really don't know what you want.

Simone Beaubien
SlamMaster, Boston Poetry Slam

Scott Woods

  • Epic
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
    • View Profile
    • http://www.scottwoodswrites.net
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2009, 07:11:53 AM »
I personally believe you should pay to watch the events, thats how they keep putting on events. My problem with this rule is that in most countries USA included, viewing a stream for a PPV event without paying for it is actually legal. So what is MMAWeekly considering an "illegal stream" by their definition?

Again, new thread.

Scott Woods

  • Epic
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
    • View Profile
    • http://www.scottwoodswrites.net
Re: no repeat rule
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2009, 07:13:20 AM »
I was the SM who brought up the idea of repealing the no repeat rule: Now this was not to advance the art or to make poets write more...Put simpley Some of the best poems get lost in prelims...The Finals is were we should show off our very best work to an audience of NON POETS. This is what drive ticket sales....

Actually, I think what drives ticket sales is publicity and good press. A good finals drives DVD sales and repeat customers, yes. But there is no way for the quality of the poetry at an event to drive ticket sales before it takes place.

Ultimately, the thing I dislike about your "best poem" argument is the suggestion that our Finals teams are unable to save high-quality work, even their best work, for finals. For the record, three of the four poems the Cantab performed on Finals stage last year were the poems we had saved for NPS and most wanted to perform; we took a risk not playing those in semi-finals and it paid off for us.

Do you think Charlotte's 2008 poem with Bluz and Black Swan was some leftover piece they just played on Finals stage? Do you think JeanAnn Verlee's poem to a freed man was a tertiary piece she didn't practice? If you don't think that was the best work they had to offer, I really don't know what you want.


Agree with Simone.  Everybody doesn't play the game that way, John.