Why dont you check it out and see how simple and cheap it is.? It's ignorant to think that it is. Also just as ignorant for people to think that others are responsible or should watch their things when they can not or will not do it themselves.
It's actually really cheap to get a security setup, especially for a large company like Pokemon. It's easily doable for a couple thousand. I know this because I actually have expertise in installing security cameras. I was the vice president at my university of the campus nightclub (
linked here!), and we threw large parties (~1,000 attendees for the larger events). Obviously, we needed to pay for security, including bouncers as well as cameras.
It's pretty cheap to just go online and buy 2 sets of DVRs with 16 cameras. It's about $400 each on the cheap end, and $800 each on the expensive end. The expensive (wireless) kind would be needed for a large convention center hall. (For example,
this set is only $725, and will adequately fulfill the needs of surveillance at Nationals.) They'll need a tech guy to set it up, but I'm going to assume that someone that works for Pokemon has the expertise to do a simple camera setup. If not, I'm sure many players (like me) would volunteer if asked. 32 cameras are plenty for the league play area and waiting areas (which is generally where things get stolen).
A $1,600+ investment in security and safety of event participants for the second-largest video game franchise EVER? Doesn't sound too expensive to me.
I think the big constraint is not necessarily the money, but the perceived difficulty in getting it done. I don't think the people who make decisions for Pokemon actually know how easy it is to set up security cameras.
Has nothing to do with the discussion.
As I mentioned above, I'm giving examples of why just because a party isn't responsible for taking a certain action, it doesn't mean that the party
shouldn't take some responsibility.
Although I almost certain you're deflecting because you don't have a good counterargument, I'm going to assume in good faith that you actually believe my examples are not applicable. I'm almost certain that you're old enough (as a forum moderator and all) to understand what a rhetorical device is, but nonetheless, I'll play along.
In good faith, I'm going to make these analogies a little more clear for you:
- Just as Pokemon is not responsible for anything lost or stolen at a tournament, you're not responsible for holding the door open for the person behind you. That means you shouldn't do it, right?
- Just as Pokemon is not responsible for anything lost or stolen at a tournament, you're not responsible for helping someone at a Pokemon tournament pick up a coin that he/she dropped on the floor. That means you shouldn't do it, right?
- Just as Pokemon is not responsible for anything lost or stolen at a tournament, you're not responsible for helping split the tab at your friend's birthday party. That means you shouldn't do it, right?
"Adding security is not Pokemon's responsibility" is a reason why Pokemon isn't adding security,
but it is not a reason why Pokemon shouldn't add more security.
Why don't the owners of the stolen items "man up" and take some level of responsibility in both preventing their own goods from being stolen and recovering the loss of their stolen goods? Why? Because it is easier for them to whine about it and blame someone else.
Blaming the victim is almost never the right way to sound intelligent in an argument. The victim may be partly responsible for making his/her property easy to get stolen, but the host of the event also shares responsibility for hosting the event in an environment that makes is conducive for theft to occur. This is called negligence.
I don't want to bore you with examples, but from your previous posts I'm assuming that you're not familiar with this concept. For example, if a person slips and falls in a puddle while shopping at a store, that store can be sued for maintaining a dangerous environment if its shown that employees ignored the puddle on the floor. (This is actually a real case, in which the national chain store settled and paid the medical bills of the victim.)
Ultimately, liability falls on the victim in cases of petty theft unless a perpetrator can be caught. That Pokemon makes no effort to set up a system which the perpetrator of these thefts might be caught (despite the fact that reports of theft at Nationals happen year after year), demonstrates one of three things:
- Pokemon doesn't have the money to add more security to Nationals. (This is probably not true, considering revenue projections that can be found with a simple Google search.)
- People who work for Pokemon don't have the foresight to add more security. (I don't like assuming that people are ignorant, so I certainly hope this is not the case.)
- Pokemon doesn't think the minor cost <$2000 of installing some cameras in the conference center hall is worth the benefit of deterring a potential thief from stealing a deck from a 8-year old kid. (This is probably the case.)
Additionally, security cameras are a great deterrent to criminal activity, as studies in criminal justice have shown repeatedly (and results confirmed) that people are less likely to commit crimes if they know their actions are being recorded.
