Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Discussion and announcements relating to unofficial Countdown competitions, held online or in real life. Observation, discussion, reflection, and other stuff ending in -ion.
Post Reply
darren godfrey
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2022 7:47 pm

Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by darren godfrey »

PLEASE READ TO THE END

Hi everyone,

I've been meaning to post this for a while, and given the news story released yesterday it shouldn't be delayed any further. First off, I would like to start by echoing all of the positive thoughts and love shared in the community after the events of Saturday September 14th. Nothing more needs to be said about the happenings on the day, but I really am so proud of how everyone has pulled together since.

I write this post off the back of a FOCAL committee meeting held not long after Blackpool, where we spent a large chunk of time talking about said community, and what could be done to ensure people feel reassured and as safe as possible when attending events in future. We of course welcome any other ideas and feedback, and want to be clear that there will be no overreaction to what happened, but the main points are as follows:
  • To all event hosts - it is our recommendation going forwards that the exact location of the event and the list of attendees is not published publicly where anyone can view them freely. Some alternative options could be:
    • A ‘locked down’ Google sheet containing event details and an attendee list, to which access will be granted once sign up is confirmed
    • The first part of the postcode of the venue added to the C4C post, Facebook page, etc so attendees can have a rough idea of location (to help with transport, accommodation, etc)
  • To all event attendees: we encourage you to be vigilant when attending events. If you see anything suspicious at all, or see someone you do not recognise, please speak with the event organiser or a member of the committee. It may be that the ‘mystery’ person is known to someone, but always best to ask.
  • First aid - while it may not be practical to ensure that the organiser or at least one attendee is first aid trained, as a minimum we can ensure that there is a kit available at all events.
  • Venues - we will pull together a small list of questions that every host should be able to answer prior to an event, and information that can be shared with the committee beforehand. For example: Fire exits and evacuation plan.
Fellow committee dudes - feel free to add anything I've missed.

—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Completely unrelated to the events in Blackpool, I have made the decision to step down as FOCAL chair at the end of the year due to recent events in my personal life. I no longer feel like I am able to give the role the attention and time it deserves, although I will remain a member of the committee if the new chair will have me.

In light of this, we will be holding a vote to determine our new FOCAL chair after the final event of the year in MK at the end of November. If you would like to be considered for the role, please let a committee member know.

Thank you for the opportunity, FOCAL peeps. It's been short, but sweet.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13713
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I totally understand that recent events (well, a recent event) has led people to want to reduce the risk of this sort of thing happening again. Not publishing a list of attendees seems a reasonable thing to do. Not all events do this anyway (I know Braintree doesn't) and people can still discuss among themselves if they are going.

However, I do think that not publishing the venue would be an overreaction to what happened. Events exist all over the country and all over the world, and venues are generally published. The fact that this attack happened at a Countdown event doesn't make Countdown events uniquely vulnerable to this sort of thing. It could happen at any sort of event - it just happened to be a Countdown event on this occasion - so I don't think Countdown events need to take precautions over and above other types of event. Would this change be suggested if the attack had happened at a Scrabble event or a chess event? I'm guessing probably not, but the reasoning to do so or not would logically be the same.

The first part of a postcode can cover a wide area, so would not necessarily be that helpful in determining where someone might want to stay. It could possibly also affect travel plans, and indeed whether someone decides to go at all.

But to finish, thank you for your time as FOCAL chair. FOCAL has continued to thrive and you have been a big part of that.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

We have a lot of invitational only scrabble events though that's normally to keep the trouble makers out by which I mean ' players who constantly badger the TDs'
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Graeme Cole »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2024 9:40 pm I totally understand that recent events (well, a recent event) has led people to want to reduce the risk of this sort of thing happening again. Not publishing a list of attendees seems a reasonable thing to do. Not all events do this anyway (I know Braintree doesn't) and people can still discuss among themselves if they are going.

However, I do think that not publishing the venue would be an overreaction to what happened. Events exist all over the country and all over the world, and venues are generally published. The fact that this attack happened at a Countdown event doesn't make Countdown events uniquely vulnerable to this sort of thing. It could happen at any sort of event - it just happened to be a Countdown event on this occasion - so I don't think Countdown events need to take precautions over and above other types of event. Would this change be suggested if the attack had happened at a Scrabble event or a chess event? I'm guessing probably not, but the reasoning to do so or not would logically be the same.

The first part of a postcode can cover a wide area, so would not necessarily be that helpful in determining where someone might want to stay. It could possibly also affect travel plans, and indeed whether someone decides to go at all.
I agree with all of this. Keeping the venue secret is an overreaction. No other organised sports/games/tournaments have to do this. If we really are saying co-events might not be safe for attendees if we publish the venue in advance, that's the point at which I question whether I still want to go to these at all.

Do we now have to explain to newbies why there's no venue listed on the event page, and that they have to commit to signing up in order to find out? "Yeah, we don't publish the venue since... an incident". Everyone is going to expect the exact location to be published along with the date, time, entry fee, format etc.

It wouldn't even work, anyway. Anyone who has spent a bit of time reading this forum knows where COLIN is every year, for example. And if someone is intent on finding out an event's exact location just to cause trouble, they won't think too much of stumping up £10 to sign up under a fake name.

However, I could live with losing the public list of attendees prior to the event. If we wanted to change this to "we have 25 signups and counting" or some such, that seems reasonable.
Gavin Chipper wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2024 9:40 pm But to finish, thank you for your time as FOCAL chair. FOCAL has continued to thrive and you have been a big part of that.
This too.
User avatar
Bradley Horrocks
Acolyte
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:53 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Bradley Horrocks »

Obviously a difficult situation, this.

I think we should acknowledge that some events are more at risk than others, through factors such as their location (particularly, proximity to known threats), and the security at the venue itself. We have had some events this year where you have to be buzzed in, for example. There will be events next year where this recommendation may not need to be fully followed. Some event organisers, not least me, will feel uncomfortable providing the full details in the public domain.

Moving the list of attendees to a private space will mitigate the threat - to me this raises the question of whether the identity of the event organiser should be public? Any Joe Bloggs who finds the event details online knows at least that one person will be at a specific place at a specific time.
"And PANTIES, thank you for that, that cheers us up enormously" - NH
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3116
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Graeme Cole wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:57 amKeeping the venue secret is an overreaction. No other organised sports/games/tournaments have to do this. If we really are saying co-events might not be safe for attendees if we publish the venue in advance, that's the point at which I question whether I still want to go to these at all.
Just for balance, it is very normal in the political world when I am invited to sign up for events that we are not normally told the location in advance until a day beforehand, even if it is a public-facing event such as the conference closing party two weeks ago (the venue was booked months in advance but was not announced until the morning of the party).

It is a drastic step but it does happen more than you think, especially where security has to be a concern. Whether a meet-up of Countdowners would classify as such is debatable, but what Graeme says isn't strictly accurate and it is to be noted that this policy does occur.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
User avatar
Mark Deeks
Fanatic
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Mark Deeks »

It is absolutely the right thing to do to stop publicising lists of attendees and it always was. Quite apart from this one incident, you also have weirdos who try to dox those who seek to remain anonymous, and it's just toxic behaviour. I agree with much of the above of not excessively shielding away activities, it won't help anyone, but keeping attendees lists private definitely would.
Last edited by Mark Deeks on Mon Oct 14, 2024 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
David Harrison
Newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2024 11:55 am

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by David Harrison »

Bradley Horrocks wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 10:20 am Obviously a difficult situation, this.

I think we should acknowledge that some events are more at risk than others, through factors such as their location (particularly, proximity to known threats), and the security at the venue itself. We have had some events this year where you have to be buzzed in, for example. There will be events next year where this recommendation may not need to be fully followed. Some event organisers, not least me, will feel uncomfortable providing the full details in the public domain.

Moving the list of attendees to a private space will mitigate the threat - to me this raises the question of whether the identity of the event organiser should be public? Any Joe Bloggs who finds the event details online knows at least that one person will be at a specific place at a specific time.
Surely this goes to far, I for one wouldn’t attend an event if i didn’t know who was organising it.

This is just a risk you take by organising an event.

Given that he’s likely to serve a long stretch inside for this, I suspect it’s unlikely that co-events will be targeted again. Although I do think we need to be very cautious upon his release, if he is indeed convicted.
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Graeme Cole »

Rhys Benjamin wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 5:04 pm
Graeme Cole wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:57 amKeeping the venue secret is an overreaction. No other organised sports/games/tournaments have to do this. If we really are saying co-events might not be safe for attendees if we publish the venue in advance, that's the point at which I question whether I still want to go to these at all.
Just for balance, it is very normal in the political world when I am invited to sign up for events that we are not normally told the location in advance until a day beforehand, even if it is a public-facing event such as the conference closing party two weeks ago (the venue was booked months in advance but was not announced until the morning of the party).

It is a drastic step but it does happen more than you think, especially where security has to be a concern. Whether a meet-up of Countdowners would classify as such is debatable, but what Graeme says isn't strictly accurate and it is to be noted that this policy does occur.
For events attended by politicians, sure, I understand the need to be coy about details. The risk of someone having the desire and ability to do them harm is much greater. But events where a group of largely unknown people meet to play Countdown? That should be in the same category as a competition held by a local bowls club. If we're saying we need security measures usually used for a visit from an MP, we've got a problem.
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Graeme Cole »

David Harrison wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 7:52 pm
Bradley Horrocks wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 10:20 am Obviously a difficult situation, this.

I think we should acknowledge that some events are more at risk than others, through factors such as their location (particularly, proximity to known threats), and the security at the venue itself. We have had some events this year where you have to be buzzed in, for example. There will be events next year where this recommendation may not need to be fully followed. Some event organisers, not least me, will feel uncomfortable providing the full details in the public domain.

Moving the list of attendees to a private space will mitigate the threat - to me this raises the question of whether the identity of the event organiser should be public? Any Joe Bloggs who finds the event details online knows at least that one person will be at a specific place at a specific time.
Surely this goes to far, I for one wouldn’t attend an event if i didn’t know who was organising it.
Have to agree with this as well. There has to be some named individual who can answer questions about the event, and to whom things like Code of Conduct issues can be reported.
David Harrison wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 7:52 pm This is just a risk you take by organising an event.
Long term, I would hope that organising an event is no longer seen as a "risk". Again, if it is... we've got a problem.
User avatar
Ben Wilson
Legend
Posts: 4603
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: North Hykeham

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Ben Wilson »

I've split off and deleted a large chunk of posts from this thread. Keep it civil, keep it on topic and don't say anything that might prejudice a trial. Any repeat offences will result in a time out from the forum.
Phil Stanton
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Phil Stanton »

I held off on commenting on this until I was back home in front of a device with a real keyboard, during which time many of the points I was going to make have been made, but I'll chuck in my thoughts anyway.

I agree that reviewing how events are run in the light of Blackpool is sensible and necessary, but we should perhaps also bear in mind that everyone on the FOCAL Committee was present at Blackpool, it was a traumatic event, and it's still pretty recent and fresh for everyone, and possibly that's affecting some people's judgement. (Not meaning anything negative with that comment, just putting it out there.)

As for the suggestions which have been made:


Not publishing the exact location of the event

This is impractical, may affect attendance, and won't really work anyway.

* Speaking as an event attendee, the exact location of an event is a significant factor in my planning of what hotel to book; half of a postcode just won't cut it.

* Speaking as an event organiser, I publicise my event widely, as I want to attract newbies, so that's FB, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, DMs, friends/family, flyers at networking events, my email sig, etc. Having only a vague location on my publicity will look odd, and will raise questions about why that's necessary. Answering that question honestly will hardly encourage people to attend.

* Other than political events as alluded to elsewhere, pretty much no other event does this.

* Several events, e.g. COLIN, have well-known locations anyway.


Not publishing the attendee list
I feel slightly less strongly about this, but I'm still against it.

* The announcement of sign-ups on FB, in whatever entertaining (citation needed) ways event organisers choose to do that, generates fun and interest around the event.

* A published attendee list affects other sign-ups, particularly towards the end of the FOCAL year, when people are paying attention to their points totals and chances.
Some people are also encouraged to sign up based on who else is going to be there.
The fact that Jeff doesn't publicise the Braintree attendee list (even behind a "paywall" to paid-up attendees) is a source of frustration to many.

* Unless you also stop publicising events on FB in the way they currently are, you're not going to stop people commenting (e.g. "I'm definitely going to this"), or indeed simply marking themselves as "Going" on the FB event page. Whilst that's not a reliable indicator, it does give a pretty good idea of who's going.

* Even without a published attendance list, there are some people who you can pretty much guarantee will be at most events anyway.


Both of the above suggestions are pretty easy to circumvent anyway, as others have said. Spending £10 or £12 to get access to the above info is not much for someone with pre-meditated bad intentions and a hitherto-unknown alias. I had 7 newbies at COLON 2024, some of whom were virtually or totally unknown to the rest of us. It's not practical for hosts to have to do some kind of vetting on unrecognised names.


A further question is how will these recommendations/policies be enforced?
If they're going to be adopted as requirements that all FOCAL event hosts have to abide by, then what will the sanction be if they don't? All I can think of is that they lose their FOCAL affiliation, and if that were to happen once an event has been publicised and has received sign-ups, it's going to hurt the attendees as much as anyone else.

If these will just be recommendations, then you'll get some hosts following some/all of them, and some not, so you won't have consistency across events, which kind of renders the recommendations a bit pointless.


There was also a comment about not publicising who the event organiser is.
Again, there's a practical issue here ... assuming an event organiser wants to actually promote and publicise their event, how are they going to do that anonymously? Will all promotion and announcements have to come through FOCAL only? That will cause a lot of work for FOCAL.
As I said, I promote my event widely, through various channels ... it's obvious that I'm the event organiser.

Besides that, it's pretty well known who the organisers are for most of the events anyway.


The suggestions about first aid and venue info (fire exits, evac plan, etc.) are sensible, although I suspect (hope) that pretty much every venue we've used in the past already ticks all these boxes, as they're a requirement for places like schools, pubs/bars, shopping centres, community centres, etc. The only recent event I can think of which wouldn't have already had that in place is Galway 2022.
Still, wouldn't hurt for the event organiser to ask their venue for all that info.


There may be other points which I've forgotten about, but the bottom line is that we need to be mindful of not putting too many barriers up to our events purely as a reaction to a single and very rare incident.
A bad actor with pre-meditated intentions will always find a way, and really all we can do is be vigilant, which we all naturally will be following this incident.
It's worth remembering how isolated this one incident was, in the large number of successful events we've had. Not to mention the fact that the alleged perpetrator was promptly arrested and is now facing trial, which should act as a deterrent in the unlikely event that there is a similarly-minded oddball out there who was thinking of doing the same thing.

Let's absolutely learn from this and take positive, sensible steps, but let's not over-react and cause ourselves and our community more difficulties in the future.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13713
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Gavin Chipper »

On publishing the attendee list - it's definitely something I would miss and it's nice to know who's going, but it's not something I would deem essential so if people think it will improve safety, or at least the perception of it, by not having it, it's not something I would strongly argue against.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

I think for any new newbies going to a co event it might be better for someone to vouch for them for safety sake
Mind you I may have shot myself in the foot here.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

Bradley Horrocks wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 10:20 am Obviously a difficult situation, this.

I think we should acknowledge that some events are more at risk than others, through factors such as their location (particularly, proximity to known threats), and the security at the venue itself. We have had some events this year where you have to be buzzed in, for example. There will be events next year where this recommendation may not need to be fully followed. Some event organisers, not least me, will feel uncomfortable providing the full details in the public domain.

Moving the list of attendees to a private space will mitigate the threat - to me this raises the question of whether the identity of the event organiser should be public? Any Joe Bloggs who finds the event details online knows at least that one person will be at a specific place at a specific time.
You could makes this forum a closed forum so nobody dodgy can lurk
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Graeme Cole »

Marc Meakin wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:37 am I think for any new newbies going to a co event it might be better for someone to vouch for them for safety sake
Marc Meakin wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 8:06 am You could makes this forum a closed forum so nobody dodgy can lurk
Well-intentioned though both of these ideas undoubtedly are, in both cases I think this is how communities die. It's a mostly online community, and newbies will naturally find Apterous/C4C, join and then start going to events without yet knowing anyone personally.

When I went to my first co-event in 2011, I hadn't met any of its attendees before. I only vaguely knew them through Apterous. I don't think anyone would have been in a position to "vouch for me". Sure, some people recognised me from my then-recent appearance on Countdown, but what does that prove? This introductory experience is probably true of loads of other now-regular co-event players too.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

Graeme Cole wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:23 am
Marc Meakin wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:37 am I think for any new newbies going to a co event it might be better for someone to vouch for them for safety sake
Marc Meakin wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 8:06 am You could makes this forum a closed forum so nobody dodgy can lurk
Well-intentioned though both of these ideas undoubtedly are, in both cases I think this is how communities die. It's a mostly online community, and newbies will naturally find Apterous/C4C, join and then start going to events without yet knowing anyone personally.

When I went to my first co-event in 2011, I hadn't met any of its attendees before. I only vaguely knew them through Apterous. I don't think anyone would have been in a position to "vouch for me". Sure, some people recognised me from my then-recent appearance on Countdown, but what does that prove? This introductory experience is probably true of loads of other now-regular co-event players too.
Bottom line is there is an element of risk wherever you go in public place.
Minimising the risk can create an element of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If you pay for a security guard or ask for bag and body searches you might deter some people though when going to the Theatre , a sports venue or a concert these are quite common.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
David Harrison
Newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2024 11:55 am

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by David Harrison »

Some excellent points there, Phil.
Phil Stanton wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:56 pm
Not publishing the exact location of the event

This is impractical, may affect attendance, and won't really work anyway.

* Speaking as an event attendee, the exact location of an event is a significant factor in my planning of what hotel to book; half of a postcode just won't cut it.

* Speaking as an event organiser, I publicise my event widely, as I want to attract newbies, so that's FB, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, DMs, friends/family, flyers at networking events, my email sig, etc. Having only a vague location on my publicity will look odd, and will raise questions about why that's necessary. Answering that question honestly will hardly encourage people to attend.

* Other than political events as alluded to elsewhere, pretty much no other event does this.

* Several events, e.g. COLIN, have well-known locations anyway.
Totally agree with this one, especially the second point about the practicality.
Phil Stanton wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:56 pm Not publishing the attendee list
I feel slightly less strongly about this, but I'm still against it.

* The announcement of sign-ups on FB, in whatever entertaining (citation needed) ways event organisers choose to do that, generates fun and interest around the event.

* A published attendee list affects other sign-ups, particularly towards the end of the FOCAL year, when people are paying attention to their points totals and chances.
Some people are also encouraged to sign up based on who else is going to be there.
The fact that Jeff doesn't publicise the Braintree attendee list (even behind a "paywall" to paid-up attendees) is a source of frustration to many.

* Unless you also stop publicising events on FB in the way they currently are, you're not going to stop people commenting (e.g. "I'm definitely going to this"), or indeed simply marking themselves as "Going" on the FB event page. Whilst that's not a reliable indicator, it does give a pretty good idea of who's going.

* Even without a published attendance list, there are some people who you can pretty much guarantee will be at most events anyway.
This is an interesting one. Most co-events have Facebook pages anyway, maybe make the conversation on those pages private and only grant access to people whose names are on the going list? Whilst this isn’t full proof it may go some way in reducing the risk.

If people want to say that they’re going, then that’s fine IMO. That’s their choice and they understand the risk they take by making such comment.

So whilst I agree that attendance lists should be removed from the c4c post, I do believe that they should be available to signed up participants on a private sheet or something similar, as Chairman Godfrey suggested.
Phil Stanton wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2024 8:56 pm Let's absolutely learn from this and take positive, sensible steps, but let's not over-react and cause ourselves and our community more difficulties in the future.
My thoughts exactly. Well said. [mod edit - at the risk of repeating myself, DO NOT POST PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THE SUSPECT THAT MIGHT PREJUDICE ONGOING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. This includes talking about him as if he's already been convicted. - GC]
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Graeme Cole »

Hello everyone. Yes, I'm putting the hat on again.

Yet another reminder to everyone to be careful what they're posting. There are worthwhile discussions to have about safeguarding at future events, and this is the ideal thread to have those discussions in. For that reason I don't want to lock the thread. However, Ben and I can't keep watching it all the time, so that option remains on the table if we keep seeing comments about the suspect or the incident that could prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings.

Moderation on this subject might seem heavy handed, but there are strict laws about this kind of thing, over which we'd very much prefer to err on the side of caution.

If you have something to say about safeguarding at events, you're very welcome to post it. It's a discussion we need to have. But if you're thinking of posting specifically about the person who's been charged, then please ask yourself if it's really necessary, and if in doubt, don't bother.
User avatar
Jeff Clayton Quiz
Newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2023 12:18 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Jeff Clayton Quiz »

The fact that Jeff doesn't publicise the Braintree attendee list (even behind a "paywall" to paid-up attendees) is a source of frustration to many.
I used to publish them years ago, but the specific reason why I stopped is that I believe the provisions and requirements in GDPR do not entitle me - or you - to publish names of attendees without obtaining consent to do so.

In a previous line of work, I used allocation software to supervise and manage staff's rotas, shifts and pay. I remember a story in training that, if a member of staff came to the counter and asked what shift another employee was working, we couldn't tell them. In this particular example, person A was asking about person B in that workplace because they were former lovers, A had been jilted, and with the benefit of an answer to their seemingly innocent question at the counter, A then knew when to expect B's car to pull out of the depot on their way home that night. When GDPR was adopted, I and other system users had to pass an annual refresher test to maintain access to that software - and therefore to keep our jobs - because the ICO can inflict serious damage on company turnover where GDPR principles have demonstrably been breached or just not upheld.

Those principles are still relevant here for the sake of evolving good practice in a voluntary arena. You and I both arrange things in function rooms where not everyone knows each other, and we take money from those people to cover the costs of doing so. Whilst the safety risk will never be zero, that risk can be mitigated and reduced in advance. When someone confirms they are coming to one of my events, they trust me to run it in full, properly and safely. Their personal circumstances, and perhaps what they're running away from, are none of my business, but we must ensure that doesn't become someone else's.

If people want to tell each other that they are going, or they are thinking of going, then great - it encourages word-of-mouth and that's why I offer a discount on two people signing up at the same time - but, that has to be their prerogative. Phil is basically suggesting that conference organisers, or even larger scale concert organisers, would be entitled to publish names of people who buy tickets for their events, and that these lists should be publicly available.

Jeff
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Graeme Cole »

Jeff Clayton Quiz wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 5:17 pm
In a previous line of work, I used allocation software to supervise and manage staff's rotas, shifts and pay. I remember a story in training that, if a member of staff came to the counter and asked what shift another employee was working, we couldn't tell them. In this particular example, person A was asking about person B in that workplace because they were former lovers, A had been jilted, and with the benefit of an answer to their seemingly innocent question at the counter, A then knew when to expect B's car to pull out of the depot on their way home that night. When GDPR was adopted, I and other system users had to pass an annual refresher test to maintain access to that software - and therefore to keep our jobs - because the ICO can inflict serious damage on company turnover where GDPR principles have demonstrably been breached or just not upheld.
Genuinely didn't know this. Is this why at work I can't look up apparently useful and innocuous things like "is colleague X working or on holiday tomorrow"?
User avatar
Jeff Clayton Quiz
Newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2023 12:18 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Jeff Clayton Quiz »

Yup!
User avatar
Callum Todd
Legend
Posts: 1196
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Callum Todd »

A reminder that Daz's message about publishing venue and attended list was given as a "recommendation" to event hosts, not a rule of mandate.

Given the good points raised by Phil, Jeff, and others: perhaps then it would be advisable for event organisers to make it clear before accepting sign-ups whether or not they intend to publish a list of attendees? That way, if a player does not wish to be publicly listed, they can request not to be. But if they do consent to their name being listed then they have given consent so GDPR issues should be covered.

Personally I will request not to be publicly listed should I sign up for co-events in future. If an event organiser told me they would not respect that request, I would not enter their event.

Quick edit just to say that as this is my only response to initial post which also covered Daz's FOCAL future: Daz has been a wonderful FOCAL chair. I'm so grateful we have him in our community and very appreciative of his efforts. Top bloke. ALAW.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 2094
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by JackHurst »

Attendee lists should be private by default. I've wanted this for a long time. Publicly naming sign ups in lists or announcement posts should require consent from that person to do so. Simple.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

I know in some Scrabble tournaments WhatsApp groups are created for attendees but apart from invitational there is always a database on The ABSP website.
I prefer to have a database to look at to see what division I will be in but FOCAL and Co events don't need a database as there are not divisions per se
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Fiona T »

Jeff Clayton Quiz wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 5:17 pm
If people want to tell each other that they are going, or they are thinking of going, then great - it encourages word-of-mouth and that's why I offer a discount on two people signing up at the same time - but, that has to be their prerogative.
Haha that just showed I was billy no-mates :D
Adam S Latchford
Acolyte
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:47 am

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Adam S Latchford »

I think hosts having first aid training should be something that is enforced after this. We can't always get lucky and have a doctor on stand by. I know likely most events will have somebody with first aid training on board, but host is usually first person there, an issue where first aid is needed might happen with only a handful of people. I'm sure focal can assist with paying for these and take back out of earnings.

List of who's coming can go both ways but it's undoubtedly a motivation to X. I'll miss the sign ups because I like to know who's going to events, but maybe a work around could be the host sets up some form of group chat, then asks once a person has signed up if they wish to be added to it. Helps create that co event hype to have SOMETHING. But it can still be private.

Advertising venue makes sense, people need to know where it is and newbies have to be welcome. We don't want to keep it a circle jerk of the same 30 people, more new people better. To mitigate risk, having a register right by the entrance where the host + one other person stay can help make sure only the right people are coming in. Admittedly it makes these people I guess slightly more at risk, but the fact of the matter is this was a completely rare occurence so risk should be minimal. I'd be happy to be on door duty at any event I went to anyway if that's something people wanted to have.

Finally, thanks for all the work to all the previous focal chairs and good luck to whoever wants to run it in the future.
Phil Stanton
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Phil Stanton »

Callum Todd wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 8:40 pm A reminder that Daz's message about publishing venue and attended list was given as a "recommendation" to event hosts, not a rule of mandate.
Which comes back to my point that different hosts will take a different view, and there won't be any consistency. Whether we then see a correlation between following the recommendations and attendance numbers remains to be seen.

Callum Todd wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 8:40 pm Given the good points raised by Phil, Jeff, and others: perhaps then it would be advisable for event organisers to make it clear before accepting sign-ups whether or not they intend to publish a list of attendees? That way, if a player does not wish to be publicly listed, they can request not to be. But if they do consent to their name being listed then they have given consent so GDPR issues should be covered.
For London, this is mentioned on the C4C and FB pages and (now that I've quickly edited it!) also on the event page on the FOCAL website.
I nicked the idea from another event page, possibly Reading, and it's a sensible idea. FOCAL could easily mandate that it's done that way for all events.

Adam S Latchford wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:57 am I think hosts having first aid training should be something that is enforced after this. We can't always get lucky and have a doctor on stand by. I know likely most events will have somebody with first aid training on board, but host is usually first person there, an issue where first aid is needed might happen with only a handful of people. I'm sure focal can assist with paying for these and take back out of earnings.
I don't think this is a bad idea, although you might find that this is already covered by the venue in many cases. (Citation needed!)

Adam S Latchford wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 7:57 am To mitigate risk, having a register right by the entrance where the host + one other person stay can help make sure only the right people are coming in. Admittedly it makes these people I guess slightly more at risk, but the fact of the matter is this was a completely rare occurence so risk should be minimal. I'd be happy to be on door duty at any event I went to anyway if that's something people wanted to have.
This was my intention for London, but it didn't happen for several reasons:

* Not enough tables at the venue
* Too busy running around getting everything set up, even though 2 or 3 people were helping me
* Some attendees turning up incredibly early, before a sign-in table could even be set up, despite the timings on the event page. I might have to nick Bradley's "Please don't arrive before this time" line his Blackpool page.

Hopefully I'll be on top of some of those issues for my next event, and door-duty volunteers are very welcome.
I think that this should be a thing at all events anyway, not just for security, but as part of a well-run event ... my plan was for people to be greeted at the sign-in desk, ticked off the attendance list, given their name sticker, etc., to give a better welcome to newbies in particular.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Fiona T »

darren godfrey wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2024 8:44 pm
Completely unrelated to the events in Blackpool, I have made the decision to step down as FOCAL chair at the end of the year due to recent events in my personal life. I no longer feel like I am able to give the role the attention and time it deserves, although I will remain a member of the committee if the new chair will have me.

In light of this, we will be holding a vote to determine our new FOCAL chair after the final event of the year in MK at the end of November. If you would like to be considered for the role, please let a committee member know.

Thank you for the opportunity, FOCAL peeps. It's been short, but sweet.
Thank you for your contribution and hard work Darren!

Is the role of chair defined anywhere? (No worries if not - but if it is, might be useful to share the expectations of the chair)
JackHurst
Series 63 Champion
Posts: 2094
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by JackHurst »

Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 5:18 am I know in some Scrabble tournaments WhatsApp groups are created for attendees
Just FTR, if this is opt in, then that's ok, but if hosts are doing that without asking people first, that's really out of order. I would be absolutely furious if I got added to an attendees WhatsApp group without my prior consent. Unlike things like Facebook where you can block people, being added to a WhatsApp group leaks your phone number, which is a whole other level of privacy invasion.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Fiona T »

JackHurst wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:23 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 5:18 am I know in some Scrabble tournaments WhatsApp groups are created for attendees
Just FTR, if this is opt in, then that's ok, but if hosts are doing that without asking people first, that's really out of order. I would be absolutely furious if I got added to an attendees WhatsApp group without my prior consent. Unlike things like Facebook where you can block people, being added to a WhatsApp group leaks your phone number, which is a whole other level of privacy invasion.
Yeah I'm pretty sure I don't have the phone numbers of most attendees anyway. But I think you can create a group (either whatsapp or facebook) with a "join" link that you could share with attendees who can choose to click it or not.

But even that is problematic - at the moment we ask for no information when an attendee registers for an event - we assume their name from their paypal. We don't have their email address. Many new attendees can be found and messaged on facebook, but there were a few attendees at Reading that I was unable to contact before the event, so they would be excluded from any chat invitations or whatever. Just very aware these things can become cliquey if newbies aren't included!
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13713
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Gavin Chipper »

As an aside, some (but not all) running races that I do have a list of sign-ups. I wonder how they would respond to complaints.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

JackHurst wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:23 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 5:18 am I know in some Scrabble tournaments WhatsApp groups are created for attendees
Just FTR, if this is opt in, then that's ok, but if hosts are doing that without asking people first, that's really out of order. I would be absolutely furious if I got added to an attendees WhatsApp group without my prior consent. Unlike things like Facebook where you can block people, being added to a WhatsApp group leaks your phone number, which is a whole other level of privacy invasion.
These are always opt in groups.
FB groups are good too but weirdly more Scrabblers have What'sApp than Facebook
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

Going back to signing in at FOCAL/Co events , wouldn't fire regs expect a list of attendees as a duty of care , especially a room in a bigger establishment?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Graeme Cole »

Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2024 5:15 pm Going back to signing in at FOCAL/Co events , wouldn't fire regs expect a list of attendees as a duty of care , especially a room in a bigger establishment?
The organiser already has a list of attendees. You can't build a fixture list or standings table without it. The organiser also notes who's arrived and who hasn't, so that no-shows can be removed from the first round draw.

The only thing this wouldn't take account of is people who are there to spectate and not play, but this is rare and when it does happen the organiser knows about them too.

Currently the "sign in" phase involves walking into the hall, perhaps toddling around aimlessly looking for the tea urn, until at some point the organiser spots you from across the room and ticks you off on a list. Sometimes people shortcut this process by wandering up to the organiser's table to say hello. Newbies generally do this anyway, perhaps with an implied "so what do I do now?"

If the purpose of a more formally-defined "sign in" phase is to prevent people who have no legitimate reason to be there from even entering the building in the first place, it would have to be someone on the door taking people's names and ticking them off a list, as Phil suggested further up the thread.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Fiona T »

Whilst I agree it sounds like a sensible idea to have a door person, it is a barrier to event organisation - it requires an extra volunteer, who by the nature of their duties can't also be helping with putting out tables/other setup tasks. How long do they stay there for? Can they also play? What if the unwanted guest arrives after everyone else or after the games have started? What if an expected player hasn't arrived by the time the games start? Basically for it to be of use in preventing an incident like Blackpool, it would have to be someone who was prepared not to play, not to join in with pre-event/between round socialisation, and someone who was confident enough to tell univinted guests (who will 99.9% of time be legitimate friends of players or people just nosy to see what's going on) to bugger off. For it to be effective against a determined armed univited guest, you'd need a bouncer, and I imagine that would add £500 or more to the cost of an event - do event-goers feel the risk is high enough to stump up an extra £15 per head to cover this?
Adam S Latchford
Acolyte
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:47 am

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Adam S Latchford »

Fiona T wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2024 9:51 am Whilst I agree it sounds like a sensible idea to have a door person, it is a barrier to event organisation - it requires an extra volunteer, who by the nature of their duties can't also be helping with putting out tables/other setup tasks. How long do they stay there for? Can they also play? What if the unwanted guest arrives after everyone else or after the games have started? What if an expected player hasn't arrived by the time the games start? Basically for it to be of use in preventing an incident like Blackpool, it would have to be someone who was prepared not to play, not to join in with pre-event/between round socialisation, and someone who was confident enough to tell univinted guests (who will 99.9% of time be legitimate friends of players or people just nosy to see what's going on) to bugger off. For it to be effective against a determined armed univited guest, you'd need a bouncer, and I imagine that would add £500 or more to the cost of an event - do event-goers feel the risk is high enough to stump up an extra £15 per head to cover this?
If the preparation is solely against stopping armed people from coming in then yes, you'd need at least two bouncers.
As a way of mitigating (even slightly) early risk, helping people feel safer about the early prospects of coming to the event and also just inviting newbies in a much warmer nicer atmosphere, having a door person makes more sense. If someone is intent on basically a terror attack, there isn't a plausible way of stopping it. Thats just the reality of it. Unless we take the USA approach and arm everybody who is legitimately going to the event as well which is as insane as it sounds.
Person can then of course play as the event doesn't start until everyone is there (except for occasions where people run late).
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13713
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Gavin Chipper »

As said, a door person will do very little or nothing to prevent an attack.

As a separate thing you could definitely have someone at the door to welcome people, but it's a completely different discussion at this point.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

What is the cost of a metal detector these days (not the ones for finding treasure ) ?
Edit : 28 quid from Amazon
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Graeme Cole »

At some point we have to ask ourselves what are "reasonable steps". We could go down the route of things like metal detectors or hired security, making every event prohibitively expensive. Alternatively, we take a step back and do a sensible assessment of the risk.

The incident at Blackpool was the first time anything like it had happened in over 100 events since they started nearly 20 years ago. Fresh in our minds though it may be, it's still fair to describe it as very low probability, a freak occurrence of which we don't expect a repeat. As I mentioned before, some socially awkward nerds gathering in a village hall one Saturday afternoon to play the Countdown board game is about the same risk level as a low-key tournament at a bowls or bridge club.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasonable steps proportionate to the risk - losing the public list of players before the event, for example, is zero-cost, has a minimal effect on players and organisers, and makes things a bit safer for everyone. More drastic measures like keeping the venue secret and hiring security guards would, in my opinion, adversely affect events and their costs far out of proportion to the risk.
User avatar
Jeff Clayton Quiz
Newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2023 12:18 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Jeff Clayton Quiz »

wouldn't fire regs expect a list of attendees as a duty of care , especially a room in a bigger establishment?
Yes, the Fire Service would expect what in professional terms is a Site Responsible Person to be able to account for everyone. This is something which Rachel and I have separately gleaned from our respective lines of work.

On the tick list of names which Tim uses to decide who picks the letters rounds, the first three columns on the left are: paid, arrived, fire.

In case we lose that paper copy, the file is backed up on electronic devices.

Jeff
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1287
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by David Williams »

Spain is the only country I know of that has airport-style security to board trains. I can't imagine Spain is any more vulnerable than any other country, so either all countries should do it, or Spain's stance is disproportionate. So why do they do it? Because 193 people were killed by bombs on trains in Madrid in 2004. And, strangely, the checks are only on high-speed trains, whereas the bombings were on commuter trains.
James Laverty
Enthusiast
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:45 pm
Location: West Bridgford

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by James Laverty »

I don't think having the venue as a secret is a good idea. As Phil stated earlier, knowing the venue can be a big influence on the day, with hotels being the main factor in this.

I am actually in favour though of not publishing the attendees list. It's never happened at a Co-Event, but I've had a previous experience of being listed as attending on Facebook, and found afterwards another attendee had googled everyone on the list to "get to know" everyone. I didn't like this, and it is why I rarely mark myself as attending on FB events- Countdown or otherwise, unless I know they are listed as Private.

I like the idea of What's App groups being created for events, and actually I'm a little surprised this hasn't been done before. We had one for participants and audience attendee's for CoC XV, and it worked really well for meeting up over the weekend. Obviously, as Jack said, this should be strictly opt-in only, but in terms of event information and organisation, it would be a helpful tool to allow news and any last minute changes for events during the day.
Definitely not Jamie McNeill or Schrodinger's Cat....
Phil Stanton
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Phil Stanton »

James Laverty wrote: Fri Oct 18, 2024 5:37 pm I am actually in favour though of not publishing the attendees list. It's never happened at a Co-Event, but I've had a previous experience of being listed as attending on Facebook, and found afterwards another attendee had googled everyone on the list to "get to know" everyone. I didn't like this, and it is why I rarely mark myself as attending on FB events- Countdown or otherwise, unless I know they are listed as Private.
The problem with Private FB events is that it limits their reach in terms of findability, letting people other than the host publicise them, because they're only visible to people who are invited to them.
James Laverty wrote: Fri Oct 18, 2024 5:37 pm I like the idea of What's App groups being created for events, and actually I'm a little surprised this hasn't been done before. We had one for participants and audience attendee's for CoC XV, and it worked really well for meeting up over the weekend. Obviously, as Jack said, this should be strictly opt-in only, but in terms of event information and organisation, it would be a helpful tool to allow news and any last minute changes for events during the day.
As Jack said, WhatsApp groups are an absolute no unless they're opt-in only. Even if you make them WhatsApp "announcement only" groups, which only the admin can post to (because all group chats have members who incessantly post irrelevant stuff), they still require gathering everyone's phone numbers, all of which are then visible to everyone else. And if they're opt-in only, then as soon as someone chooses not to opt in, the purpose of the group is largely defeated.

Most co-event attendees will have sight of at least one of FB/C4C/Apto, so it's pretty easy to communicate stuff to them.
The thing which requires most organising (in my experience of hosting one event so far!) is the group meal afterwards, and I managed to that without having to use a group chat.
Phil Stanton
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Phil Stanton »

Just to show that there's always a positive to be found, someone who was on Countdown in 1994 and had no idea Co-Events existed has now found out about us after having read about the Blackpool incident in the press, and will be coming to London :)
User avatar
Ben Wilson
Legend
Posts: 4603
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: North Hykeham

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Ben Wilson »

Phil Stanton wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 11:40 am Just to show that there's always a positive to be found, someone who was on Countdown in 1994 and had no idea Co-Events existed has now found out about us after having read about the Blackpool incident in the press, and will be coming to London :)
And they say Damian's out of touch with the community.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13713
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Ben Wilson wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 3:20 pm
Phil Stanton wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 11:40 am Just to show that there's always a positive to be found, someone who was on Countdown in 1994 and had no idea Co-Events existed has now found out about us after having read about the Blackpool incident in the press, and will be coming to London :)
And they say Damian's out of touch with the community.
:lol:
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

With regards what's app groups , I'm sure you can post without your phone number being visible
Or is that only people who have blocked me ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Phil Stanton
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Phil Stanton »

Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 10:36 pm With regards what's app groups , I'm sure you can post without your phone number being visible
Or is that only people who have blocked me ?
You can't stop your phone number being visible in a WhatsApp group.
You can in a WhatsApp Community, but that's a different thing.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6733
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Marc Meakin »

Phil Stanton wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 11:16 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 10:36 pm With regards what's app groups , I'm sure you can post without your phone number being visible
Or is that only people who have blocked me ?
You can't stop your phone number being visible in a WhatsApp group.
You can in a WhatsApp Community, but that's a different thing.
So you can create a community for FOCAL and Co events presumably ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Phil Stanton
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:59 pm

Re: Post Blackpool and FOCAL bits

Post by Phil Stanton »

Yes, there could be a WhatsApp Community for events.
However, that would mean getting the phone numbers off all the attendees, so that's another piece of data which has to be collected, if people are happy to give it, plus it requires them to be on WhatsApp, which not everyone is.

The vast majority of attendees are on Facebook, which makes them immediately contactable on Messenger, and can be added to a Messenger group chat if necessary (assuming they're happy to be added, of course).

Some organisers do just that, and it works fine.

WhatsApp group aren't going to add any value for the extra effort involved, IMO.
Post Reply