I try not to think of slam as a competition, but as a poetry showcase that increases audience particiption by the use of a sham competition.

If there’s nothing objective against which poems are measured, and the same poem delivered the same way two nights in a row can score differently based on a change in judges, the competition is meaningless as a measure of anything except the judges’ reaction.

Imagine a 100 metre dash which was judged by folks in the stadium who were asked to choose whichever runner they liked best, and three of the judges chose a runner because they liked his/her shorts. Would we consider that a true competition worth using as a yardstick to determine who the best runner was?

If we start explaining this to more people, slam might become more playful and less grueling for some.