No re-entry after 7? Kings Island.

Rather silly security move but rationality and security never seem to go together. Why let anybody in at all?

Maybe it is a security issue, but it still makes no sense whatsoever. If someone feels absolutely compelled to drink before entering a park, they're just as likely to do it at 10am as they are at 5pm. Ditto for smoking up, shooting up, whatever poison you're going to toss into the conversation. I don't understand how denying people re-entry into an amusement park is going to make the places any safer. People feeling the need to break the law or park policy are going to do it regardless.

I think it's less about preventing the behavior, and more about giving people fewer reasons to be in un-patrolled parking lots vs. a heavily staffed theme park. Simple risk management.

Does it matter? I don't know. I'm with millrace; I rarely try to combine security with common sense. For instance, don't get me started on the complete uselessness of TSA. Well, it does have one purpose---people who don't think about it for 30 seconds will *believe* they are safer.

I failed to mention that most of the younger people didn't show us until the haunt started.

The only people I know that drink at 10:00A.M. either work 3rd shift or are full blown alcoholics. What time is beer-thirty? I still don't know. It seems that most drinkers do so later in the day. I also think that if there were a conflict, it would be far more likely to happen in the parking lot. These events feel like a party where lots of negative things could happen.

Believe it or not, I actually agree. As a security measure it doesn't exactly seem useful.

I'd say the same thing about metal detectors and bag searches.

As a way to keep the crowd captive, it's an incredibly effective policy. :)

^I believe that Jeff was TOLD it's a security measure plain and simple...my instinct is that the "People Who Know" could be spreading propaganda in the hopes that the landscaping won't need as much fertilizer.

But I have to admit I find Gonch's logic much more....believable.

---

RatherGoodBear said:

They're telling you that you can't leave the park because you might get drunk and come back in and cause trouble.

---

That's why I drink inside the park ;)

It has to be a security measure. At least inside the park they check ID's at the bars.. I mean really, who wants some dumbass 16y/o drunk kid puking on babies and getting into fights with the ghoul who scared his girlfriend?

While I may not agree with it - and while IMO there are better ways of controlling this issue*, there really isn't a whole lot we can do to change it.. Plus next year it'll be a moot point anyway.

* Security is already at the gates, so if they applied themselves, they could easily check for intoxication right there as they're trying to re-enter. If someone appears wasted or smells like booze, ID the guest. If they're underage, well then tough sh*t and you're not allowed in. That's how I'd do it... But then again, I'm no security expert.

---

rollergator said:
But I have to admit I find Gonch's logic much more....believable.

---

Hell, I even believe that the "people who decide" are doing it for security purposes. I just don't think it's particularly effective.

Luckily, they'll reap the benefits of a captive audience in the process.

Kinda like trying to make brownies and screwing up and ending up with fudge. It's all good. :)

If everyone would just go to IB's *ride session* idea, along with Lake Winnie's "bring an adult with you" policy, then MOST of the security issues would take care of themselves.

I must be missing something, because I recall beatings and stabbings, and shootings in parking lots, etc., from years past...but I've heard almost nothing about thsat kind of stuff THIS year. Is this a case of locking the barn door while the cows are grazing?

---

rOLLocOASt said:
It has to be a security measure. At least inside the park they check ID's at the bars.. I mean really, who wants some dumbass 16y/o drunk kid puking on babies and getting into fights with the ghoul who scared his girlfriend?

---

I'm glad someone is thinking like a person who has to look after the safety of guests. Is it an effective deterrent? I don't have an opinion. Is it the least expensive route to keep people from causing problems in the parking lot (and possibly bring the problems back in)? Yes. Many of the suggestions revolve around training people or staffing up, both of which cost money they don't want to spend. Remember how many jobs they've been cutting at the former Paramount Parks. They're not going to go back in the other direction.

Like I said, whether or not it's effective is a separate issue from whether or not it's really intended as a security issue.

---

Brian Noble said:

For instance, don't get me started on the complete uselessness of TSA.

---

A TSA employee (of all people) once told me it stood for Thousands Standing Around. Needless to say I agree with you and Joe.

^ So we all pretty much agree then? It's a security thing, but one that likely makes no sense at all as far as security is concerned?

---

rOLLocOASt said:

I mean really, who wants some dumbass 16y/o drunk kid puking on babies and getting into fights with the ghoul who scared his girlfriend?

---

And after the 16 y/o pukes on the baby, security will tell the baby's dad he's not allowed to go out to the parking lot for a change of clothes for security reasons. Makes perfect sense to me.

Based on this logic, places like Hershey and Knoebels should be pits of extreme violence, drunkenness and depravity.

Good Bear, Hershey and Knoebles are not near big cities like KI is. Add the fact that their Halloween Event is marketed towards the teen/young adult crowd and you have the reason why HH is different then Hershey (and their Halloween event) and Knoebles.

Exactly! I don't understand why everyone wants to apply the same rules to every park in every scenario. "If A, why not B?" Well, because of C through Z.

^^ A fact that I am most thankful for, touchdown. Also glad that I'll likely never encounter certain people at those parks.

But I was also referring to the comment someone mentioned that the no re-entry policy at Halloween events may just be a "dress rehearsal" for chain wide policies at all corporate parks within a year or two. Not all of them are near large cities either.

Since when do big cities have a monopoly on drunkeness? Anyone who travels the backroads across the country will see that the one certainty in every one-horse town is a bar.

As for drugs, who was it that called Conneaut meth lab central?

I believe it was a girl I dated, who is a social worker in the area. Not the park, but the general area. Funny how you like to morph things out of context into whatever suits you and enables you to use sarcasm instead of make a logical argument about something. That, and Conneaut Lake has exactly zero to do with this topic.

Fact: Urban areas have a higher concentration of crime. Cincinnati is an urban area, and it's next to Kings Island. That's why KI has metal detectors and "backroad" parks don't. See Touchdown's comment and my follow up about applying universal rules.

Cincinnati may be an urban area but Kings Island is not in Cincinnati or in anything remotely resembling an urban area. It's in the middle of a sea of low-density suburban crap.

If people come to the park to make trouble, how is letting them in once but not a second time going to make any difference?

Kings Dominion isn't in Richmond and SFA isn't in DC, but they are close enough that there is a high concentration of visitors from both (high crime) cities. Both of these parks have metal detectors.

And, if I recall, both parks have had violent incidents in the parking lots that made the news. Has anyone heard of anything like this at Knoebels' or Conneaut's parking lots? I'm guessing no.

*** Edited 10/17/2007 4:15:12 PM UTC by Vater***

I read millrace's post three times, and I didn't pick up on any substantial sarcasm. (I should know, being the reigning overlord of the craft.)

His point was that crime, drunkenness, and drug use are not exclusive to large urban centers. It was completely relevant to the discussion at hand.