I think they probably should've opened earlier on the Friday and had a dedicated couple of hours to chrono everyone's guns.
Usual opinion on that: pre-game chrono is theatre. It confirms that honest players are honest, or will punish them for being inadvertently a bit hot (but honest enough to show up).
Rogues - and we seem sure they were in evidence - will simply cheat or avoid it. They'll even get a thrill out of that.
The "holiday rules" aspect of an expensive event like that is also going to lead to it, and if they
pre-announced that there was going to be no chrono, they practically invited it.
You either catch rogues in game, or not at all. No warnings, no excuses, no "I'll put it in the car", they're off the site.
Given the paucity of marshals, that was clearly never going to happen.
I'll be heading to the next one. We've given a lot of feedback, so fingers crossed they listen to it.
Shouldn't your support (and money) be conditional on their behaviour changing? If not, why would they bother?
I find it insane that any insurer is crazy enough to offer cover to airsoft events that don't use a mandatory chronograph. Broken eyepro levels of hot gun is just crazy.
That's assuming that they'd been honest in their disclosure. Actually, it's assuming that they were insured at all. Given the likely cost of cover for a one-off event, they might have decided to just chance their arm.
And I say "they", but if you'd lost an eye, who
exactly would you sue? An individual? A limited company? A limited company with no assets set up just to run these events?
And on what grounds? Having eye-pro shot off or through doesn't automatically mean a hot gun, and accidents don't always mean liability. Eye pro can be insecure or insufficient. As I keep noting, EN166-F glasses are not and
can not be rated for airsoft energies, and yet many folk wear them.
The only case I can think of is one where a rental lad got blinded by being shot in the eye, in a safe zone, point blank, and claimed that the site had said nothing about removing mags, hadn't checked them, and hadn't prevented dry-firing. You'd think that would be open and shut, but even at that, the site argued the toss on liability and I don't know how or if it was resolved.