The Worst Slam Scoring System Ever
Say what you want about the many developments of Slam over the years: time clocks, 3-minute rule, team rotations, 5x3...none of this compares to the scoring system I saw in place last night at the OSU Heritage Festival Slam.
When you only deal with slam once a year - and in a vacuum at that - you're going to want to mess with the formula. Maybe you do it so that poets don't feel bad, maybe you do it because you thought it didn't work the year before, maybe you do it because you just can. Whatever the reason, you run the risk of doing something bad to your slam when you mess with the formula too much, or at least without any insight as to why the elements exist. Many people who only have fleeting contact with slams don't get why poems have to be 3-minutes long (which is not, in fact, the rule) or why you often shouldn't have music (because someone is going to spend 3 minutes setting up) or any of a number of other things.
But it's a rare person who wants to change the very nature of the scoring system.
Now, it's not uncommon to have slams where judges write down scores and don't show them. I even condone this in many educational environments, especially where children are involved. Even not having five judges is forgivable. But what I saw last night broke every law of slam sensibility, math and, in some moments, the very physics of space and time.
There were 5 judges (one of whom was so engaged as to whip out his cellphone during a poem near the end to read text messages), of which I was one. My co-founder of the night, Vernell, was a judge as well, which was funny, since I think they thought we didn't know each other. Go Research!
We were instructed to score in 4 categories: "Showmanship", "Content", "Creativity" and "Timing".
10 points allowed for each category.
When each round (3 total) were complete, you passed your scores down to the scorekeeper (who was a math major. I asked) for totals and averages.
Yeah, averages.
THEN all of these averages were combined for a poet's total score.
No judges' scores were dropped (I don't think).
Time was noted by colored cards held up by a timekeeper at 2:50, 3:00 and 3:10 minutes.
Question: How long does it take a math major to total, average and add 5 judges' scores for a poet, let alone 8, not counting any resultant time penalty?
Answer: Longer than it takes a college drop-out to slit his wrists.
It was insane. I don't know how they came up with some of the scores I saw passed back. I don't even know why the organizers thought this might be a good idea. Making something different does not by default make a thing better. Thank God they had a math major on it because she's the only person who would have been able to handle the scores. Come to think of it, I should be more upset than I am: they asked me beforehand how they should handle the scores and I sent them the sheet we give judges. Ay carumba!
I think it's great that they have that slam every year. It gives some well-meaning tudents a chance to express themselves and be stars for something other than being popular or an athlete or pretty or any other base thing for a little while. I just wish they'd keep it simple and kepe the show moving. The scoring system alone had to add an easy 30 minutes to this show.
Ah well: I got a very nice plaque out of it. And me and Vernell will have some good banter for tonight's open mic.
Go Heritage Week! I wish I hadn't gotten kicked out of OSU before I had a chance to participate in one.
When you only deal with slam once a year - and in a vacuum at that - you're going to want to mess with the formula. Maybe you do it so that poets don't feel bad, maybe you do it because you thought it didn't work the year before, maybe you do it because you just can. Whatever the reason, you run the risk of doing something bad to your slam when you mess with the formula too much, or at least without any insight as to why the elements exist. Many people who only have fleeting contact with slams don't get why poems have to be 3-minutes long (which is not, in fact, the rule) or why you often shouldn't have music (because someone is going to spend 3 minutes setting up) or any of a number of other things.
But it's a rare person who wants to change the very nature of the scoring system.
Now, it's not uncommon to have slams where judges write down scores and don't show them. I even condone this in many educational environments, especially where children are involved. Even not having five judges is forgivable. But what I saw last night broke every law of slam sensibility, math and, in some moments, the very physics of space and time.
There were 5 judges (one of whom was so engaged as to whip out his cellphone during a poem near the end to read text messages), of which I was one. My co-founder of the night, Vernell, was a judge as well, which was funny, since I think they thought we didn't know each other. Go Research!
We were instructed to score in 4 categories: "Showmanship", "Content", "Creativity" and "Timing".
10 points allowed for each category.
When each round (3 total) were complete, you passed your scores down to the scorekeeper (who was a math major. I asked) for totals and averages.
Yeah, averages.
THEN all of these averages were combined for a poet's total score.
No judges' scores were dropped (I don't think).
Time was noted by colored cards held up by a timekeeper at 2:50, 3:00 and 3:10 minutes.
Question: How long does it take a math major to total, average and add 5 judges' scores for a poet, let alone 8, not counting any resultant time penalty?
Answer: Longer than it takes a college drop-out to slit his wrists.
It was insane. I don't know how they came up with some of the scores I saw passed back. I don't even know why the organizers thought this might be a good idea. Making something different does not by default make a thing better. Thank God they had a math major on it because she's the only person who would have been able to handle the scores. Come to think of it, I should be more upset than I am: they asked me beforehand how they should handle the scores and I sent them the sheet we give judges. Ay carumba!
I think it's great that they have that slam every year. It gives some well-meaning tudents a chance to express themselves and be stars for something other than being popular or an athlete or pretty or any other base thing for a little while. I just wish they'd keep it simple and kepe the show moving. The scoring system alone had to add an easy 30 minutes to this show.
Ah well: I got a very nice plaque out of it. And me and Vernell will have some good banter for tonight's open mic.
Go Heritage Week! I wish I hadn't gotten kicked out of OSU before I had a chance to participate in one.