A Few Hours At SF Great Adventure on a Beautiful Spring Saturday 5/4

Wow, dude. You may need to lighten up a little. :-)

I can apply the same type of logic that gets me to the place that indicates the fact that they let the train go with Mike in the back means they didn't have a concern about valleying. That's a pretty big risk to take simply because the guy said no. It seems reasonable to me that if they were concerned about operations and safety, then they wouldn't have conceded. Period.

But really, having that opinion does not make going to the park a downright stressful event for me. :-)

No explanation was ever offered, and I didn't ask for one. The reason isn't important to me, to be honest. And Gonch, if they HAD said I couldn't board until the conditions/weight/whatever were right, I would have waited. It's not important to me to be on the first train of the day. It's important for me to be in the seat I want on MY first train of the day.

Lord Gonchar said:

Actually, that's a horrible example.

What it's more like is visiting the restaurant when they first open and aren't really busy so they only have one small section in the main dining area set up to take seating and staffed (which makes perfect sense - happens all over the place during slow hours). But you insist that you only like the tables in the back near the window and refuse to sit anywhere else in the restaurant.

If you are willing to wait in the lobby until they open up that other section that you like, I don't see the harm.

ApolloAndy said:

If you are willing to wait in the lobby until they open up that other section that you like, I don't see the harm.

Agreed. But if you fight with them about for a few moments beforehand, you're still being a dick.

Seems the consensus among us (myself excluded) is that any dicketry arguing with the park employee is instantly nullified by a final comment of, "I'll wait if I have to." since that's what everyone keeps going back to.

Compromising after being difficult doesn't mean you weren't being difficult in the first place.

Mike Gallagher said:

No explanation was ever offered, and I didn't ask for one. The reason isn't important to me, to be honest. And Gonch, if they HAD said I couldn't board until the conditions/weight/whatever were right, I would have waited.

Yeah, it seems like they could've been clearer about exactly what the point was. But still, I don't understand the need to argue with the guy - no matter how polite the back and forth was. It's odd that the initial attitude is defiance. That seems like the last stance to take with ride ops in a park under almost any situation. And it's even crazier to me that I'm the only one that seems to think that.

Like the most reasonable reaction to being asked if you could move by park employees is to fold your arms and proclaim, "No! I don't wanna!"

Who are you people?

It's not important to me to be on the first train of the day. It's important for me to be in the seat I want on MY first train of the day.

Yeah. That's weird to me.

Maybe it would have been better to nicely ask why. Of course, it would still indirectly mean "No! I don't wanna!" as Gonch stated, but it might have cut directly to the point. Plus you wouldn't have to argue back and forth with the operator.

If I was the one being asked to move though, I doubt I'd have a choice since the employee probably would be a lot older than me.

I also think that the Rolling Thunder hill comes with more surprise to it in the seats toward the front. Sure, the front seats don't have much force, but at times that hill almost feels like overkill. I find the front seat more "fun," though not as exciting, because of the "Whoa! What just happened?!?!" feel I get when I'm sitting there.

The front seat doesn't have as much force? What El Toro have you been riding?

Lord Gonchar said:

Seems the consensus among us (myself excluded) is that any dicketry arguing with the park employee is instantly nullified by a final comment of, "I'll wait if I have to." since that's what everyone keeps going back to.

No, the consensus (yourself excluded) is that what happened wasn't dicketry. You're stuck on the idea that there is no room for negotiation in that situation. That's how you're wrong.

It's odd that the initial attitude is defiance. That seems like the last stance to take with ride ops in a park under almost any situation. And it's even crazier to me that I'm the only one that seems to think that.

Like the most reasonable reaction to being asked if you could move by park employees is to fold your arms and proclaim, "No! I don't wanna!"

Who are you people?

We're the voice of reason. Join us, won't you?

The reason you think it's crazy is because you won't let go of the idea that it was being defiant. You've even translated it in your mind to the folding of arms and proclaiming like a child, "No! I don't wanna!" That just didn't happen, man. It was a grown man as a paying customer requesting to get the experience he wanted in the safest way possible. Even the park employees agreed it was acceptable and allowed him to ride.

Your misconception is painted throughout your last response. You have translated the scene remarkably into a whiny child throwing a tantrum to get his way. Again, that just didn't happen.

Don't get me wrong, El Toro front or back seat has the most insane airtime out of any coaster I've ridden. But compared to the back, I think the front doesn't have as much force. Not by a long shot, more like comparing 55 to 45 percent. What I mean is that that hill in specific just catches me off guard more in the front than in the back. It might be a bit subjective though.

With Great Adventure, the "fill the front of train first" rule may have come from an older ride, such as Rolling Thunder. Some older woodies are known to have roll-backs or stalls. That makes sense on a cold morning, especially after packing the wheels with grease (on a related note, on a cold morning when I worked on the CP Blue Streak, we had a roll back. It was called a "roll back" but the train simply stalled on the ratchets going up to the turn around. It was no biggie; once they got the train moving again, we had to continue riding to break in the grease. What a great way to start the day!).

But, because of confusion and strange operating procedures, the park may have said "ok, we first load the front on ALL coasters on cold mornings..." or something like that. For years, Six Flags had an across the board "no single riders in the back seat" on any of their coasters. They finally ended that rule, what, 10 years ago?

Of course, the rule could simply be so the ride ops don't have to check all the restraints on a mostly empty train. Cedar Point used to shut down the middle of coaster trains (especially Gemini and Mine Ride) during slower times, so riders could still get the good seats (front and back).

Carrie J. said:
It was a grown man as a paying customer requesting to get the experience he wanted in the safest way possible.

Well, that's one way to interpret it. Asking if you could stay is a request. Getting into what the OP called a 'volley' seems like more than a request. It was clearly a back and forth situation.

Even the park employees agreed it was acceptable and allowed him to ride.

No, he gave up, shrugged and sent the train (the original post descibres to me a defeated, "whatever man" scenario)...and the employee shouldn't have.

He describes the exchange as a 'volley' then says the guy 'gave up, turned to his crew-mates and shrugged' - they debated the issue until the employee said, "Screw it."

It may not be folding your arms and pouting, but it's even further from a simple request for an experience in the safest way possible with an employee agreeing that it was a reasonable request.

If I have to put my paintbrush away. So do you.

And all of it still ignores the fact that the park employee was instructing you how to ride. I just don't see how refusing to do as you were asked by the team operating the ride isn't out of line. They're operating the ride as they were instructed or see fit. What authority does the guest have to second guess that? This is what I'd love someone to explain. Why is it ok to question (to the point of 'volleying' with an employee) the parks operating procedure?

blasterboy6500 said:

Don't get me wrong, El Toro back seat has the most insane airtime out of any coaster I've ridden.

Fixed that for you, blasterboy.

The front seat of Toro does absolutely squat for me. Hence, this entire thread :)

Again, Mike the Repair Man does his work! ;-)

For all we know, the guy was telling Mike to move forward as a "no, no, I insist you ride the front" as a courtesy thing. Like holding a door for someone: "no, you first." "No, YOU first." We're assuming that the maintenance guy was requesting Mike to move forward for some unknown procedure reason, when he could have just thought, "hey, I don't understand why this guy is sitting in the back when the front is where it's at".

Also, what would the difference be between him sitting in the station for a back seat ride and leaving the line to come back in a little bit when the back seat is available?

I get where you're coming from, Gonch, in terms of arguing with someone enforcing rules at the park. I typically follow rules and don't give the employees a hard time. However, I'm just not seeing that this was what Mike was necessarily doing. Or if he was, that it was intentional dicketry. Past experiences for him have included empty Toro rides from the back seat, and this is his home park that he's had much experience with. I'd be willing to bet he was speaking more from a point of confusion about change in procedure rather than he thought he'd like to be a confrontational assclown.

I doubt that, bunky. If he had that in mind, I think his tone would have been a bit friendlier. And it wasn't a maintenance guy, it was a ride attendant. I only mentioned the maintenance guy because he was up in the lane for seat two with vest on..which again, lends credence to Krause's thought that he may have needed to do something on that ride/train.

I haven't continued to mention the fact I've rode the back on empty Toro trains many times at various times of the day, because I didn't want to belabor the point. Others are doing that job well.

Mike Gallagher said:

...because I didn't want to belabor the point. Others are doing that job well.

Heh. Consider me done belaboring the point.

I've been in this situation many times before but from the other end (giggity), which is why I agree with Gonch on pretty much every post here. I haven't posted since my initial judgement of dicketry simply because I'd just be repeating what he said and frankly he's a better debater than me.

I just don't comprehend why the situation didn't go like this:

"Can you please ride in the front?"

"Okay."

That should have been the end of it.

Ride in the front until there are a couple more people in the station and the trains are filled, go ride something else and come back, buy a churro, whatever... I just don't see the need for the argument.

I've literally had to hold up dispatches and stack trains because people don't want to sit in a particular seat, and it's extremely annoying.

Mike, this is true. I just threw it out there for one more possibility.

I think from now on, if I am riding back seat on Toro and some guy comes up and says I'm sitting in his seat, I'm definitely gonna move over. Hehehe...

The hell is the big deal? He paid his money to enter the park, so if he politely asks to sit in his area of preference (barring safety concerns) then he should be able to. He is the patron, and Six Flags is providing a service. I know everyone is going nuts trying not to be "that ethusiast" but people have their preferences. Calling someone a name for that seems to be the dick move imho.

Then again, I get called a dick tri-weekly, so draw you inferences there.

kpjb said:

I've been in this situation many times before but from the other end (giggity), which is why I agree with Gonch on pretty much every post here.

I just don't comprehend why the situation didn't go like this:

"Can you please ride in the front?"

"Okay."

That should have been the end of it.

Ride in the front until there are a couple more people in the station and the trains are filled, go ride something else and come back, buy a churro, whatever... I just don't see the need for the argument.

I've literally had to hold up dispatches and stack trains because people don't want to sit in a particular seat, and it's extremely annoying.

This all bears repeating - straight from the park employee's (and not just an hourly guy) mouth.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say since post #2.

They're trying to run a park. You're hindering that. It's a crappy move to make.

When I need a client to do something different than what they are expecting I ask in a way that explains why I need them to do it.

When I rent a car and they try to "upgrade" me to an SUV I don't just accept it because they said so. I don't want an SUV, I want the compact I reserved.

If they were worried about valleying they should have explained that and waited until the train was full.