What exactly is a costume?

[ms_spelt]

as for concerns about my absence leaving a lack of expertise to consult...
we have a rules committee which is empowered and capable of ajudicating the rules and providing clarification upon any and all grey areas.
I am but one member of the rules committee.and while i bring a host of expertise to the table it is also made up of our two sitting slammasters, a regular host, and a current high ranked slammer who is new to the scene.that's a great collection of perspectives from which to garner consensus and clarity and rulings.
and should the day ever come when I'm unavailable-that rule committee-regardless of who is sitting on it at the time will likely be able to benefit from the wisdom of those gone before.
the grey area will always be with us-and it should be.
innovation is born in the grey area.
the trick is to ensure that the innovation is in the arena of the art and not in the area of finding a loophole in the rules to exploit.And as i've said-the rules commitee and it's duly elected ,talented and dedicated members will always do their best to ensure that is the case.poets -do your best to understand and play within the rules and engage in artistic innovation and we ,the rules committee will do our best to keep everything as fair as it ever can be.
I'll be officiating throughout playoffs this year so feel free to seek clarity if you need it.otherwise ,don't let yourself be distracted from the challenge before you of making great art in the playoffs.
good luck to all

[Son of Mallin]

Well, I proudly make each topic I bring up about the subject and not about a person.  I mean only to set good precedents for the rules and make them as clear as possible, and like it's already been said, I believe "the gray area must exist".  The way we can grow and contemplate these interesting quandaries is through this kind of discussion.  That's just the philosopher in me coming out. 

Just to be sure I understand, are we certain it's alright to remove an article of clothing in the middle of a piece?  Even though the poet apparently did so only because he was hot or because the hat was in the way, that may set a bad precedent, leading to deliberate strip-teases. 

As for the beer, it's true that it wasn't a scripted phenomenon, and I take that into account in the poet's favour; but while it was spontaneous, it was a reference to an object which he then utilised in the poem, which effected the humour of his awkward dilemma.  The audience laughed with him when he, facetiously frustrated with his forgetfulness, went for a beer, after which the poet depicted himself as less awkward and ready to continue, which the audience cheered on.  So it was a reference to an object which he then displayed and then used, which added to the humour of the poem: an object which enhanced the effect of a line, whether that line was scripted or not.  Are we sure that's not over the line?  Moreover, I don't think a 5-dollar glass of beer is to be thought of as being as easily and universally accessible as the mic or someone's hair; it's not only expensive, but illegal to have if you're under a certain age.  That's no better than a cigarette. 

[ms_spelt]

1st-if you wish to discuss the grey area for clarification that's cool-but when you start citing events at a bout i officiated and basically say i got it wrong-that there were fouls i didn't call-then we aren't discussing rules any more.we are discussing rulings and the perosn who made them and calling those into question.
that being said,i get the impression you do not intend to question my rulings at the bout or to file a protest.simply to seek clarity in the grey area.
so...
the removal of clothes-
this wasn't a rule violation until clebo rainey did it at the 98 nps.
it wasn't a rule violation even then when he shouted that he rips off his shirt and dives into the baptismal waters of arkansas-or words to that effect.all the while ripping off his shirt.
but then....
genivieve van cleefe took issue with it,and protested.
there was no rule that clebo had violated-everyone has a shirt that they can remove.protest denied.case closed.
except it wasn't.genieve got a bee in her bonnet.and insisted a rule be passed that would make clebo's signature performance of his signature piece illegal forevermore.and then when the rest of the slam masters debated and voted she didn't even attend because she was touring europe.
and the rule,regrettably, was passed.
So it's now against the rules to mention removing your clothing and then remove your clothing.
removing the hat ain't against the rules-it's a foul only if you say "i throw my cap in the air in celebration"-and then do.
I still think it's a stupid rule-and it was one of the reasons i suggested the honour code-to police the grey area without giving rise to retroactive legislation.
and while that bad rule still sits on the books-now too does the honour code to prevent future bad rules being passed expso facto.
so the hat was within bounds-just-but within bounds nonetheless.
as for the beer....
"where's my beer?" followed by picking up something every poet has access to-a beer- isn't a foul.even if scripted which this clearly wasn't.
it's the same as a poet suddenly having a dry throat and saying "excuse me I need some water" and taking a drink.it's grey but it's not a foul.
if i talk about climbing up on tables and shouting to the heavens and climb up on a table I'm within the rules-everyone has access to the tabels and can climb onto them.
neither of the things you mention are fouls.
moreover....
even if they were-and as i've gone through great pains to explain,they weren't-we are discussing things done by poets who didn't advance.
so there is zero issue here.
no fouls were committed by any poets in this bout.
and the only grey area occurrred among poets who didn't adavance.
so please,can we drop this already?

[Son of Mallin]

We can each drop this at any time, surely.  I'm very glad to have been explained a level of detail that I had previously never heard.  I now more thoroughly understand why I was warned all those years ago: not because I removed sunglasses, but because it was conjoined with a declaration of doing so.  Anyways, since you don't wish to go on, you're under no obligation to answer, but I'm curious (after having heard your dissertation on the history of clothes violations) where the line is technically drawn: while I know no nudity is allowed, is removing more clothing than just an accessory allowed? how much?

[admin]

Hey everyone,

I have my webmaster hat on here, and I'd just like to remind everyone in this very interesting discussion that this is precisely what the forum is for! Discussions, yay! At the same time, it's always important to remember when having discussions to be respectful of other viewpoints, and avoid ad hominem arguments. So far, this discussion has been going well, but I'm just popping in to encourage everyone to keep a level head.

So keep talking, and discuss away, but remember to do in respectfully and in accordance with the VPH Forum Rules & Etiquette.

http://vancouverpoetryhouse.com/forum/smf/index.php/topic,183.0.html

Cheers,
Chris

[Shannon]

i called a clean bout and i called it fairly.
your comments seem to imply that i did not.
i stand by the bout i called .it was clean.

Not sure if this is referring to me or not, but just thought I'd mention that I am certainly not thinking anything unfair has ever happened, certainly not to me.

I knew very well that showing up in a skirt that *looks* like a tutu had the large potential to be docked considering I was doing poem about swirling tutus     I could see how someone might think differently, but that was as deep into the grey area that I would ever go.

I just want clarity on the grey area.    Mostly because I have heard conflicting things about it.  Thinking back it would have actually made MUCH more sense just to ask Angus. 

Next time I will. 

Here's the other thing I have heard conflicting ideas on: bringing a poem on stage.  Is there ever a moment when the actual poem clutched in one's hand is a prop?  What if the poet is pointing with the poem/cue card in hand?  Is that fine?  I would think/hope so!

But, the grey area might be if the poet is fanning themself during the word 'hot'.  If they didn't have anything in their hand, they could fan themselves with their hand, and that would be fine, but if they can't remember their piece and bring the poem on stage with them, what would happen?  I don't know the answer to this.

[Shannon]

Thanks Chris.

Silly question; what is "ad hominem argument"?

I will do a google search.

[Son of Mallin]

Hi Shannon.  "Ad Hominem" is a term used a lot by philosophy students when talking about critical thinking and logic, including those who engage in professional-style debates.  I forget sometimes that it's a kind of jargon, so here you go, straight from the horse's (my) mouth:

Ad Hominem

Literally, Latin for "to the man"; as opposed to "to the argument".  An ad hominem argument is one in which the debater attacks the person's character, intelligence, family, or some aspect of the person, instead of peacefully refuting the opponent's points.  This happens in elections all the time: the Republican party recently tried to depict Barack Obama as a secret muslim, in order to associate him with everything the fundamentalist right is belligerent against.  Every "your mom" joke is an ad-hominem argument.  And, more subtly, it's an ad hominem argument when a person responds to a point by coming up with reasons in that person's background or character to explain why he thinks that way; or, any tangent from the points to instead describe something about a person's character. 

The controversy here in this thread recently was whether it is an ad hominem attack to make a logical point that is relevant to the discussion that may as a side-note lead to a conclusion about someone else's personhood.  I never mentioned anything personal, but the controversy is whether the speaker is culpible for all the logical implications of what he says in addition to what he actually said. 

Now, as for your questions, I'll try to respond with my amateur though logical eye: again, having your poem there wouldn't innately make it a prop, unless you're doing more than just reading off of it.  It would be a problem only if you pointed at the page, or crumpled it up and threw it. 

I think fanning yourself is alright, but only if it's evident that you're doing it because you're hot: that is to say, if you say a very sexual line, and then portray yourself as steamed up by fanning yourself, that's not alright.  You see the difficulty?  It's all about judgements about intent, except when the violation is blatant.