5x3: Tonight's the night to rap
Reading Guy's post about this today compelled me to write up something on it from the perspective of someone who voted for it, but is still queasy about it.
I've played this issue pretty close to the vest outside of the Columbus scene, and I won't reveal TOO much here now, but I will say this much:
Having been at the meeting where this was voted into play, I was distressed by the wishy-washy-ness of the SMs on what was, to me, a simple and reasonable proposal.
I would be about 90% okay with this development - even as a band-aid to include more teams - if we had simply said "3 poets per team, period." That's not what happened, and I found the way we got to a 3-5 poet team unnerving. You could hear the wheels spinning in people's heads as they thought about what poet they WOULDN'T be able to take if they went down to 3 poet teams, or how they were going to break it to their audience back home that they were now sending fewer poets (never mind that it meant WE could send MORE teams; what about OUR needs?!). I like the idea, but I dislike this amendment. I voted for it, and I think it's important for people to taste their own medicine (be their ailment greed, non-forward thinking or non-involvement).
Thinking back on the issues of overseas teams and small venues and the 63 team NPS we just cobbled together to accomodate teams that shut themselves out of registration, I find this development very telling about the value system of many slam organizers who send teams to NPS. The desire to not be the local bad guy, to not have to shave a poet off of an alreayd-formed team, or to not be the harbinger of increased individual poet budgets on a team that pays its own way OUTWEIGHED ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES OF INCLUSION THAT THEY WERE SCREAMING ABOUT OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, AT LEAST.
I'm having a local public meeting tonight (our team is picked in May) with anyone in the community who has an opinion on the matter to talk about it, and then I'll make my decision after tonight about how many we're sending (as the SM, not as a coach, for the record). There are pros and cons each way in various areas. I think Taylor could have shut down the amendment and stuck to 3x5, but he thought it might be kind of cool. He's that kind of cat, and he can control a team. Unfortunately, I don't think most SMs will be "kind of cool" about it. There are some tough calls that are going to be made on-site at NPS and I ain't gonna be the one making 'em. What we send is going to be sent with all the cards on the table.
--------------------
SOMEONE HERE (to date): I think we should send 5 poets, with the understanding that not everybody on the team will get to read if it means we do better. *
ME: Okay, so what you're saying is that if you make the team you're going to be okay with someone sitting you down during the bout and saying "look, if you don't read tonight, we'll do BETTER. If you don't share your heartfelt work - work that got you on the team in the first place - we will score BETTER."
This is okay to you?
SOMEONE HERE: (pause) I hadn't...it sounds so BAD when you say it like that.
ME: Well, that's what's being said when you're not busy sugar-coating it.
I don't care HOW much you tell people what to expect, when you get to NPS, it's a whole 'nother ball game. When you see that hot room filled with people there for poetry and youre' told "hey, you can't read", how can that be a good thing? And what about that ride home when you guys sit someone down two nights straight and you STILL don't do well?
SOMEONE HERE: (pause) (more pause)
(even more pause)
Anyhow, we'll see what happens tonight. We've never had an open meeting like this before because thingds were always pretty simple and Columbus poets tend to not care that much. We'll see if that changes tonight. I'm not making this decision alone, so to speak.
Scottcrest, out!
* - A chilling statement I heard from someone here, which is funny considering we've never cracked the top 40 at any NPS to date. Do better? To what end? lol.
I've played this issue pretty close to the vest outside of the Columbus scene, and I won't reveal TOO much here now, but I will say this much:
Having been at the meeting where this was voted into play, I was distressed by the wishy-washy-ness of the SMs on what was, to me, a simple and reasonable proposal.
I would be about 90% okay with this development - even as a band-aid to include more teams - if we had simply said "3 poets per team, period." That's not what happened, and I found the way we got to a 3-5 poet team unnerving. You could hear the wheels spinning in people's heads as they thought about what poet they WOULDN'T be able to take if they went down to 3 poet teams, or how they were going to break it to their audience back home that they were now sending fewer poets (never mind that it meant WE could send MORE teams; what about OUR needs?!). I like the idea, but I dislike this amendment. I voted for it, and I think it's important for people to taste their own medicine (be their ailment greed, non-forward thinking or non-involvement).
Thinking back on the issues of overseas teams and small venues and the 63 team NPS we just cobbled together to accomodate teams that shut themselves out of registration, I find this development very telling about the value system of many slam organizers who send teams to NPS. The desire to not be the local bad guy, to not have to shave a poet off of an alreayd-formed team, or to not be the harbinger of increased individual poet budgets on a team that pays its own way OUTWEIGHED ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES OF INCLUSION THAT THEY WERE SCREAMING ABOUT OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, AT LEAST.
I'm having a local public meeting tonight (our team is picked in May) with anyone in the community who has an opinion on the matter to talk about it, and then I'll make my decision after tonight about how many we're sending (as the SM, not as a coach, for the record). There are pros and cons each way in various areas. I think Taylor could have shut down the amendment and stuck to 3x5, but he thought it might be kind of cool. He's that kind of cat, and he can control a team. Unfortunately, I don't think most SMs will be "kind of cool" about it. There are some tough calls that are going to be made on-site at NPS and I ain't gonna be the one making 'em. What we send is going to be sent with all the cards on the table.
--------------------
SOMEONE HERE (to date): I think we should send 5 poets, with the understanding that not everybody on the team will get to read if it means we do better. *
ME: Okay, so what you're saying is that if you make the team you're going to be okay with someone sitting you down during the bout and saying "look, if you don't read tonight, we'll do BETTER. If you don't share your heartfelt work - work that got you on the team in the first place - we will score BETTER."
This is okay to you?
SOMEONE HERE: (pause) I hadn't...it sounds so BAD when you say it like that.
ME: Well, that's what's being said when you're not busy sugar-coating it.
I don't care HOW much you tell people what to expect, when you get to NPS, it's a whole 'nother ball game. When you see that hot room filled with people there for poetry and youre' told "hey, you can't read", how can that be a good thing? And what about that ride home when you guys sit someone down two nights straight and you STILL don't do well?
SOMEONE HERE: (pause) (more pause)
(even more pause)
Anyhow, we'll see what happens tonight. We've never had an open meeting like this before because thingds were always pretty simple and Columbus poets tend to not care that much. We'll see if that changes tonight. I'm not making this decision alone, so to speak.
Scottcrest, out!
* - A chilling statement I heard from someone here, which is funny considering we've never cracked the top 40 at any NPS to date. Do better? To what end? lol.