robinxe
8th April 2002, 16:14
OK, I stopped readon the "official response" thread when I encountered far too much bs for even my bs-retardant personality to handle, and it seems that was even before I got to all the flames which are supposedly on there.
Let me first of all point out that I have no real preferance whether PA is at future i-events or not, I will still find a way to meet up with the people I like in the community and have a laugh. I like, respect and get on well with every member of MPUK staff I have met, and therefore have no interest in insulting or criticising any of them personally. However, I do take exception to the way this whole charade has been played out, being a firm supporter of the rare commodities known as "truth" and "fair play".
It seems patently obvious to me that the real issue we are looking at here is a shortfall in MPUK's staffing levels and qualifications. Allow me to elaborate:
One has to ask, what is the purpose of security, at an event like this or anywhere? The obvious answer is a person or persons responsible for ensuring no "rules" are broken, be those the rules of the event or the laws of the land. This requires as much a degree of prevention as of reaction.
I myself have worked for security in the student union at the University of Birmingham, and have commented before on the notable "understaffing" of security at i-events. Even at nights with less than half the attendees of an i-event we would not opperate without, I would estimate, at least four to five times the number of security staff evident at i-events. This allows entrances and exits to be manned, as well as regular patrols to be mounted, and by the very constant presence of security personnel incidents are prevented. This also means security staff are also close to hand to react and diffuse a situation before it escalates to "criminal" level.
To blame a gaming community for the transgressions of any proportion of its members in a situation such as this is beyond ludicrous. MPUK, not any individual community, is responsible for supplying security to an event, and so when a breach of security occurs there is only one place to look when apportioning blame. Is this really such an abstract concept to grasp?
Furthermore, the obvious issue of theft and vandalism is not the only shortfall of staffing levels, vigilance and qualification:
The, by now well known, "cards" that were circulated at the event, while possibly not offensive to some, or even any, of the attendees, are clearly in contravention of the MPUK rule of "no pornography" so well-touted at the events, coming clearly under the legal definition of "softcore pornography". While many may make light of it, were I the parent of a 13 year old child, I would not want them exposed to such material. As an aside, on a business level, it seems unusual that MPUK would let people advertise at their events without a degree of vetting and remuneration. When someone walks in with a stack of pornographic cards the security staff should challenge and diffuse the situation before it gets to the stage of having to recall the cards from every single desk at the event.
Yet another shortfall, the presence of qualified first-aiders amongst the staff at the event. I know of 2 urgent first-aid cases arising at the event. In the first an ambulace was called, I contest unnecessarily, to asses the condition of someone who had had too much to drink. Had anyone been on hand with the necessary first aid training, and had assesed his vital signs, situation and responsiveness, this ambulance, at expense to the service and to other more urgent calls, would not have been necessary.
In the second instance a young man fell and suffered cuts and bruises. I myself, a qualified first-aider but considerably inebriated at this point, had to tend this patient. To their credit the MPUK staff were able to provide a First Aid kit, however, to their detriment it contained none of the equipment I was looking for to treat his injuries, and required considerable improvisation to make use of. Even assesing his condition and enquiring as to whether he had hit his head to rule out possible concussion was beyond the first aid skills present in the staff.
Granted both these instances invoved members of the PA community, but had a CS player fallen from his chair and injured himself the situation would have been the same.
In this light it should be plain to see that no blame can be laid at the door of Planetarion for the events arising at i10, the inadequacy lies in the MPUK staffing, and this is something they will hopefully address in future, should they wish to continue running their high-quality LAN Parties.
On a final note, the issue of "dwindling PA numbers" at i-events. While I do not have the facts and figures at my disposal that Wizzo no doubt does, I have been to every event since i7 and have seen nothing but an increase in the numbers of PA people there. Have the numbers really fallen so drastically?
As I said before, I have no bias one way or the other as to whether PA is present at future i-events, but come on, can we not at least be forthcoming and honest if we request that people respect the "reasons" behind decisions?
Let me first of all point out that I have no real preferance whether PA is at future i-events or not, I will still find a way to meet up with the people I like in the community and have a laugh. I like, respect and get on well with every member of MPUK staff I have met, and therefore have no interest in insulting or criticising any of them personally. However, I do take exception to the way this whole charade has been played out, being a firm supporter of the rare commodities known as "truth" and "fair play".
It seems patently obvious to me that the real issue we are looking at here is a shortfall in MPUK's staffing levels and qualifications. Allow me to elaborate:
One has to ask, what is the purpose of security, at an event like this or anywhere? The obvious answer is a person or persons responsible for ensuring no "rules" are broken, be those the rules of the event or the laws of the land. This requires as much a degree of prevention as of reaction.
I myself have worked for security in the student union at the University of Birmingham, and have commented before on the notable "understaffing" of security at i-events. Even at nights with less than half the attendees of an i-event we would not opperate without, I would estimate, at least four to five times the number of security staff evident at i-events. This allows entrances and exits to be manned, as well as regular patrols to be mounted, and by the very constant presence of security personnel incidents are prevented. This also means security staff are also close to hand to react and diffuse a situation before it escalates to "criminal" level.
To blame a gaming community for the transgressions of any proportion of its members in a situation such as this is beyond ludicrous. MPUK, not any individual community, is responsible for supplying security to an event, and so when a breach of security occurs there is only one place to look when apportioning blame. Is this really such an abstract concept to grasp?
Furthermore, the obvious issue of theft and vandalism is not the only shortfall of staffing levels, vigilance and qualification:
The, by now well known, "cards" that were circulated at the event, while possibly not offensive to some, or even any, of the attendees, are clearly in contravention of the MPUK rule of "no pornography" so well-touted at the events, coming clearly under the legal definition of "softcore pornography". While many may make light of it, were I the parent of a 13 year old child, I would not want them exposed to such material. As an aside, on a business level, it seems unusual that MPUK would let people advertise at their events without a degree of vetting and remuneration. When someone walks in with a stack of pornographic cards the security staff should challenge and diffuse the situation before it gets to the stage of having to recall the cards from every single desk at the event.
Yet another shortfall, the presence of qualified first-aiders amongst the staff at the event. I know of 2 urgent first-aid cases arising at the event. In the first an ambulace was called, I contest unnecessarily, to asses the condition of someone who had had too much to drink. Had anyone been on hand with the necessary first aid training, and had assesed his vital signs, situation and responsiveness, this ambulance, at expense to the service and to other more urgent calls, would not have been necessary.
In the second instance a young man fell and suffered cuts and bruises. I myself, a qualified first-aider but considerably inebriated at this point, had to tend this patient. To their credit the MPUK staff were able to provide a First Aid kit, however, to their detriment it contained none of the equipment I was looking for to treat his injuries, and required considerable improvisation to make use of. Even assesing his condition and enquiring as to whether he had hit his head to rule out possible concussion was beyond the first aid skills present in the staff.
Granted both these instances invoved members of the PA community, but had a CS player fallen from his chair and injured himself the situation would have been the same.
In this light it should be plain to see that no blame can be laid at the door of Planetarion for the events arising at i10, the inadequacy lies in the MPUK staffing, and this is something they will hopefully address in future, should they wish to continue running their high-quality LAN Parties.
On a final note, the issue of "dwindling PA numbers" at i-events. While I do not have the facts and figures at my disposal that Wizzo no doubt does, I have been to every event since i7 and have seen nothing but an increase in the numbers of PA people there. Have the numbers really fallen so drastically?
As I said before, I have no bias one way or the other as to whether PA is present at future i-events, but come on, can we not at least be forthcoming and honest if we request that people respect the "reasons" behind decisions?