Industry professionals have divided over the circulation of a 'name and shame' list of alleged scammer event attendees, as the anonymous authors behind it say "we've done our job".

Reactions to the controversial list are varied, with some events professionals saying it was time to "root these fraudsters out" while others call it 'unprofessional', arguing it is the organiser's responsibility to properly screen attendees.

The blacklist in question was distributed on Monday from a Gmail account, and lists in detail the characteristics, contact details and attendance history of 31 people alleged to have no valuable connection to the events industry. The list was emailed to attendees of the Association Meetings Conference, prompting conference hosts to quickly stress they had nothing to do with it.

Speaking with M&IT, one of the authors of the list said: "If it's [sic] kickstarted a debate and will make some people think twice before attending events, then we've done our job. This isn't something that can be solved venue by venue, event by event."

Asked what the make-up of the authors of the list were, the spokesperson said it was a mixture "suppliers, some venues, some caterers, photographers, etc". The spokesperson said research was done face to face with "some of the largest venues and event agencies, leading hotel chain and conference organisers" in order to obtain the details of the 31 alleged scammers.

The spokesperson continued: "Over the past few years, we've been watching the same folks come to all kinds of events and you cannot help but  "compare notes" even inadvertently. After a while, patterns emerged, yet nothing seemed to change. We thought maybe it was because other people didn't know, so the idea was to try and gather as much information from as many people as possible (sometimes clandestinely) and then synthesise the results. Some of it might seem a bit harsh, and the creative names aren't ours, but if that's how people are known or can easily be described, then we've kept them. It's not about being mean, but if you strip away all the "colour" it can be hard to identify the people and then the wrong people might be identified (it's hppaned) as it can be difficult to tell by pointing when people are always together or work for the same organisation. So that's us in a nutshell."

One M&IT reader commented: "Hosts are responsible for who they invite to events/fams, if they get their fingers burnt by the odd freeloader it is down to them to learn from their mistakes and compile a different invite list next time. Simple."

Another added: "I recognise that this is a problem sometimes but surely to curb it, all it takes is a little more vetting of the invite list and a more rigorous door policy?"

Elena Clowes from the International Live Events Association (ILEA) called it "v unprofessional" and Kevin Jackson agreed, adding: "The professional thing to do would be to check credentials and validate every name."

But support has also been expressed for the list, with Chetan Shah of Micebook saying: "I agree it is up to each organisation to vet their attendees but also if there are some serial fraudsters then it would be good to know…"

Another anonymous M&IT reader added: "I would love to take a look at that list and compare it to mine which I have been compiling over the last few years … let's root these fraudsters out!"