Is the security team you refer to hired professionals or just a group of conners assigned the role? After all various experiments like Stanford and Milgram show what can happen if you give someone control who has no idea how to handle it.
If they were supposed professionals, I hope they were fired promptly. (Assuming they weren't given an appallingly bad mandate in the first place from the committee.)
If not well then...
Rather than concom being security or even getting another member of the con to do it, actually hiring a professional security guard may be worth considering. Whilst this costs money in an overall cost analysis it wouldnt be significant and just having the uniform strolling the hallways/communal areas would provide a visual sense of security.
Should there be a more hands on need for security the person would be appropriately trained and completely impartial. (No con member letting their friends get away with something they step on others for)
Futhermore, the liability of having to forcibly remove someone in a worst case scenario would be transferred away from the concom. Which works not only in the case of the person being ejected complaining, but also in the case where if someone was assaulted then concom (for any number of reasons) doesnt do anything the victim could accuse the con of not providing a reasonably safe environment.
Also let me finish by saying I think it sucks immensely that such considerations are even thought of by me or anyone else. Unfortunately people suck even more, which is why do.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 09:03 am (UTC)If they were supposed professionals, I hope they were fired promptly. (Assuming they weren't given an appallingly bad mandate in the first place from the committee.)
If not well then...
Rather than concom being security or even getting another member of the con to do it, actually hiring a professional security guard may be worth considering. Whilst this costs money in an overall cost analysis it wouldnt be significant and just having the uniform strolling the hallways/communal areas would provide a visual sense of security.
Should there be a more hands on need for security the person would be appropriately trained and completely impartial. (No con member letting their friends get away with something they step on others for)
Futhermore, the liability of having to forcibly remove someone in a worst case scenario would be transferred away from the concom. Which works not only in the case of the person being ejected complaining, but also in the case where if someone was assaulted then concom (for any number of reasons) doesnt do anything the victim could accuse the con of not providing a reasonably safe environment.
Also let me finish by saying I think it sucks immensely that such considerations are even thought of by me or anyone else. Unfortunately people suck even more, which is why do.