F&O

[SgtTalbert]

Hi All,

 

Attended The Embassy again on Saturday, 2nd time now - brilliant site - starting to really like CQB style play.

 

TreeBeard (Head Marshall) during the safety brief said that due to a recent decision by F&O Midlands (19th OCtober was last time I went there and it was allowed then), no filming or still photography was allowed on any F&O site until further notice

 

Anyone know why?

Cheers Tal

[Rock-climby-Dave]

It's any F&O Midlands site, AFAIK northern sites are fine for cameras, but check with the site owner on the day.

 

The long and short of it is this:

1. It's easier

2. Fewer people kick up a fuss/get wound up

3. F&O can. It's their property, so they can say who films what and where.

[Ian_Gere]

People kick up a fuss about being filmed?

[Rock-climby-Dave]

people do sometimes kick up a fuss about being filmed.

 

People also tend to become armchair marshals in their free time and will often point out a hit that wasn't taken, a poor call by a marshal or something else like that which reflects badly on F&O (or indeed any site which allows filming)

The only reasonable response to this is to, unfortunately, make the call to not allow cameras. It's not a decision that was taken lightly and is still being discussed, but for the time being 'what will be, will be'

[Ian_Gere]

people do sometimes kick up a fuss about being filmed.

I spose they do, I've just never heard of it happening in relation to airsoft. I'd have thought everyone would like film of their spectacular successes and surely we all accept the risk of looking a cock when we dress up to play a game?

People also tend to become armchair marshals in their free time and will often point out a hit that wasn't taken, a poor call by a marshal or something else like that which reflects badly on F&O (or indeed any site which allows filming)

The only reasonable response to this is to, unfortunately, make the call to not allow cameras. It's not a decision that was taken lightly and is still being discussed, but for the time being 'what will be, will be'

I disagree. That is a response, but it isn't reasonable IMO. The only reasonable response is to train marshals to be better and only retain those whose decisions do not become the subject of justifiable complaint regularly, that way the site owners/managers can say with complete honesty "we take all complaints seriously and the performance of marshals is under constant review - in this particular instance the decision was in line with our policy on bla bla bla / what the film doesn't show is bla bla bla that was taken into account by the marshal / the marshal in question has a good track record of decision making, but we're all human / we have received a number of complaints about this particular marshal and their employment has been terminated".

 

Assuming that good customer service is the driving force behind the retention of marshals, the honesty will speak for itself and a good reputation will follow - if however it's all about jobs for the boys and/or players' experience is treated with contempt, banning visual evidence of it wont help!

[remus]

your other problem is is minors are playing legally you need permission to film/photograph them, least most other organisations do so it could well be related to that?

[Ian_Gere]

You only need permission from the site owners and the knowledge that their ikle darling/s may be filmed/photographed added to the disclaimer which parents have to sign.