Chicken nuggets on Millennium Force

Reading these comments, I'm starting to be more accepting of Chicken Nugget Boy's hijinks. Young people do stupid, yet sometimes funny, things. I was also 'hilarious' when I was a kid. As long as it was filmed with glasses, this is pretty much harmless. Although, I would hate to be the rider behind him who gets a face full of Sweet 'n Sour Sauce.

The problem isn't the nuggets themselves. The problem with it is openly flaunting park rules in a public forum. If he had just done it and taken a picture for his friends, it probably wouldn't have been a big deal, but the park absolutely cannot and should not allow a culture of imitators and one-upmanship which results in everybody trying to bring some silly item on the ride and get "YouTube famous" for it.

I agree. I'll admit that I didn't even try to make the point I had in mind. When I first read about this, I was laughing at the kid for being so stupid. I was thinking he was just a really bad kid with no morals. But my last comment was me trying to find a little humanity in the kid. If I were a kid, and the most important thing in my life was "getting more Subscribers", I might have done something like this too. It's funny.

But it does blatantly disregard the park's rules. Anyone making content online should do so with respect and integrity. There is an unwritten code of conduct to follow when making videos. This kid seems oblivious to that.

You're right, Andy.

I left a voicemail for my parents while riding Roar at SFA back when cell phones were new. I deeply regret it and should be publicly flogged and ridiculed.

I blame the algorithms. YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, et cetera ad infinitum aren't inherently bad. All they are wanting to do is keep you engaged for as long as possible. What we've learned about our species is that the things that tend to attract and hold our attention are the not-so-great side of things: solacious stories, crazy stunts, rage bait, conspiracy theories. And so you have people that lean into those vices for personal gain.

If what we craved more than anything were instead things like fundamental truth, acts of kindness, and the fruits of honest, hard work, then these social media platforms would've been the greatest gift humanity has ever gotten.

I think that trying to keep you engaged as long as possible is the problem. That's by design, to sell ads. Exploiting our worst qualities for profit is not exactly a noble endeavor.

Back to nugget-man for a moment, the lifetime ban seems a bit...much.

ApolloAndy:

The problem with it is openly flaunting park rules in a public forum....the park absolutely cannot and should not allow a culture of imitators and one-upmanship which results in everybody trying to bring some silly item on the ride and get "YouTube famous" for it.

Agree completely, and mind you I have yet to manage my first amusement park, but "lifetime ban" seems like the most powerful lever you can pull, reserved for, I don't know...behavior more in the realm of harming others (or putting others in harms way).

Imagine him at 75 years old (if he makes it) being asked by his granddaughter if he can come to Cedar Point with her to celebrate the 125th anniversary of Corkscrew.

"Well you see sweety...grandpa would love to come with you, but in 2026 I ate some chicken nuggets on a ride and....well....".

I can see revoking his pass for the season, but for life?

Nah, I agree with it.

I'd say a lifetime ban would be excessive if someone was, for whatever reason, trying to covertly finish off a meal they didn't eat in line and got caught. Give a warning, throw them out or short term ban for being stupid.

This guy decided to publicly flaunt safety rules the parks reiterate over and over, simply for attention. That is beyond stupid, and putting it on social media encourages other copycat people to flaunt the rules, so the park basically has to ban these clowns. Very similar to the streakers in sports that get lifetime bans from not only the arena they streaked, but any arena in the entire league. When you really really don't want people to do something, you have enforce the harshest penalties to stop it.

Adding for clarity, I'd say excessive punishment here would be the park trying to get the guest prosecuted, or filing suit against him or similar. In this case, SF is simply telling the guest their life choices are incompatible with park safety rules; see ya.

Banning someone for a year from doing something they probably do at most once a year is not really a consequence at all. So the lifetime ban seems like the only way to adequately set an example.

That said, I'd be shocked if they were to actually enforce it for the rest of his life. But a seemingly interminable ban sends a clear message, which is necessary in this case for the reasons Andy mentioned.

LostKause:

Young people do stupid, yet sometimes funny, things. I was also 'hilarious' when I was a kid.

The guy is 26 years old. Where do you draw the line for rationalizing or excusing behavior because someone is young and stupid? I would put it younger than that, but hey, that's just me.

He also acknowledges in the early part of the video that he's breaking a rule. Banning him for life seems harsh, but giving any appearance of not taking a hard line could result in something more serious.

Appropriate (link below):

Also banned for life.

I get it, and everyone's reasoning above is perfectly understandable (and I don't really care what the punishment is because "play stupid games, win stupid prizes").

I almost mentioned the heinous act above because it was a direct assault on another human (vile), while the former is a dumb prank with potential unintended consequences (bad).

I guess I'm viewing these acts on a spectrum.

He should just claim the video is AI and sue them for the ban.

OhioStater:

I guess I'm viewing these acts on a spectrum.

I believe the official CoasterBuzz word for this is slider

OhioStater:

Imagine him at 75 years old

Bold of you to assume that Six Flags still exists in 50 years.

For real though, I do wonder if those kind of bans persist across changes in ownership.

Lifetime bans are the flavor of the day if nothing else:

https://www.espn.com/nba/st...lfie-quest

Ultimately, the goal of the life time bans, to me, is to have a chilling effect on others doing anything similar. Anyone who is a fan of amusement parks (or the NBA with respect to the link I posted above) presumably would find being unable to go again ever as a significant deterrent. Plus if the person violates the ban and does something stupid again, they can bring trespass charges against them. Nothing huge there either in terms of teeth but there are limits to what you can do.

I understand most of the parks (or sports leagues) have appeal provisions which allow those who have been banned to seek reinstatement. Often after some period of time has passed. In the end it may be the case that the two CP incidents carry different penalties. Though the message from the parks with respect to each was the same: don't do either.

djDaemon:

That said, I'd be shocked if they were to actually enforce it for the rest of his life.

They probably wont go out of their way to enforce it until next season when he posts a video of him back in the park.

Lifetime bans are pretty common among parks. You just don't hear about them often because those who are banned don't want to come out in public to state why they received the ban. You can find some police bodycam videos on Youtube from parks like Disney and Universal where you can witness someone being told they are receiving a year, multi-year, or lifetime ban. Giving alcohol to a minor during HHN is the most common ban I have seen, as they take that very seriously.

You say “ a face full of Sweet and Sour Sauce” like it’s a bad thing.

I prefer Sticky Chicky from KFC.