I presume the the link you refer to is the "Letter to Attendees", as the others don't seem relevant.
Let's deal with the specifics mentioned there one by one.
*"This year's incidents include two plumber calls, a flooded bathroom that soaked the offices underneath...
Security does not and never will patrol bathrooms. As I walked around the puddle caused by the "bathroom incident", I was told that the damage had taken place inside an individual stall. As for the other "call", we have no details to work with.
*...towels stuffed into a hot tub pump...
I dealt with that in my original comment.
*...and multiple petty vandalisms and thefts."
Again, we have no idea where-- in a very large venue-- these specific incidents took place. There are certainly more nooks and crannies in the Hilton than can be patrolled, and mischief-makers tend to seek them out.
*"We had to send three people to the hospital...
For all we know, three attendees had heart attacks. I'm sure it was worse than that-- experience and context both suggest that at least one or two of the incidents were probably drug or alcohol related. Yet... How could increased security prevent overdoses of either in a convention environment?
*"...and call the police twice."
Again, we totally lack specifics. Everything is mere speculation. From my personal experience, at an event that large and of such long duration two police-calls isn't totally out of line.
*"By Sunday morning of con this year, the hotel was so exasperated that they were threatening to evict attendees for single noise complaints."
While again this statement is annoyingly nonspecific, the mention of "evictions" suggests that the noise in question was likely coming from individual rooms, where con security has no authority to operate.
There is one statement in the "Letter" that tends to support your case.
*"For the last few years, the Hilton sustained more damage during Rain Furrest than it did from every other event at the Hilton the entire rest of the year..."
"Letter" also specifies that this damage wasn't limited to guest rooms. However... Again, we lack _so_ much data! "Damage" includes things like accidental drink-spill stains on carpets and people innocently-- not deliberately!-- breaking fragile decorations. Nor do we know where in the very large venue these incidents took place. Would more security have helped? While we lack too many details to say for sure, this is the strongest evidence I'm aware of that it might've. Yet I'm still doubtful, because elsewhere in "Letter" it states that no less than five attendee badges were pulled. This does _not_ imply a weak, indecisive security force/con staff. Rather, it's proof that numerous individuals _were_ in fact out and actively doing their best to enforce order.
I stand by my earlier position. While an increased security presence is certainly worth considering, on the evidence we have there's no reason to assume it's a solution to the problem at hand. That's the only part of your posting that I took issue with.
I presume the the link you refer to is the "Letter to Attendees", as the others don't seem relevant.
Let's deal with the specifics mentioned there one by one.
*"This year's incidents include two plumber calls, a flooded bathroom that soaked the offices underneath...
Security does not and never will patrol bathrooms. As I walked around the puddle caused by the "bathroom incident", I was told that the damage had taken place inside an individual stall. As for the other "call", we have no details to work with.
*...towels stuffed into a hot tub pump...
I dealt with that in my original comment.
*...and multiple petty vandalisms and thefts."
Again, we have no idea where-- in a very large venue-- these specific incidents took place. There are certainly more nooks and crannies in the Hilton than can be patrolled, and mischief-makers tend to seek them out.
*"We had to send three people to the hospital...
For all we know, three attendees had heart attacks. I'm sure it was worse than that-- experience and context both suggest that at least one or two of the incidents were probably drug or alcohol related. Yet... How could increased security prevent overdoses of either in a convention environment?
*"...and call the police twice."
Again, we totally lack specifics. Everything is mere speculation. From my personal experience, at an event that large and of such long duration two police-calls isn't totally out of line.
*"By Sunday morning of con this year, the hotel was so exasperated that they were threatening to evict attendees for single noise complaints."
While again this statement is annoyingly nonspecific, the mention of "evictions" suggests that the noise in question was likely coming from individual rooms, where con security has no authority to operate.
There is one statement in the "Letter" that tends to support your case.
*"For the last few years, the Hilton sustained more damage during Rain Furrest than it did from every other event at the Hilton the entire rest of the year..."
"Letter" also specifies that this damage wasn't limited to guest rooms. However... Again, we lack _so_ much data! "Damage" includes things like accidental drink-spill stains on carpets and people innocently-- not deliberately!-- breaking fragile decorations. Nor do we know where in the very large venue these incidents took place. Would more security have helped? While we lack too many details to say for sure, this is the strongest evidence I'm aware of that it might've. Yet I'm still doubtful, because elsewhere in "Letter" it states that no less than five attendee badges were pulled. This does _not_ imply a weak, indecisive security force/con staff. Rather, it's proof that numerous individuals _were_ in fact out and actively doing their best to enforce order.
I stand by my earlier position. While an increased security presence is certainly worth considering, on the evidence we have there's no reason to assume it's a solution to the problem at hand. That's the only part of your posting that I took issue with.