Pay-to-cut: Not Fun For Everyone
Just because you have an opinion that it is wrong does not make it wrong. I want an explination, with facts backing it up, why it is wrong and immoral, unethical, or illegal. Stop evading and start typing:). *** Edited 5/31/2005 4:23:38 PM UTC by TeknoScorpion***
TeknoScorpion said:
No, I have seen personal opinions as to why you think it is wrong. I can argue why Abortion, Murder, Tax Evasion, and Divorce are wrong either Morally, Ethically, or Legally.
Just because you have an opinion that it is wrong does not make it wrong. I want an explination, with facts backing it up, why it is wrong and immoral, unethical, or illegal. Stop evading and start typing. *** Edited 5/31/2005 4:23:38 PM UTC by TeknoScorpion***
I wasn't evading..I just didn't find it worth my time to explain if you were just going to see it as whining. But I will play along. :-)
First off, I will say that "right" and "wrong" are always a matter of opinion. Even when it comes to laws, they are still a matter of opinion. Now on to my explanation:
Straight from SF's website (not picking on them..just using them as an example)
LINE JUMPING
Please respect fellow park guests by waiting your turn in line. Line jumping is strictly prohibited. A Guest may not leave and return to the line for any reason, hold spaces (Bold just for Gonch ;-) ) for other guests, advance in front of other guests or climb under or over queuing. Line jumping may result in dismissal from park property without refund.
Now the rule is there...but you are allowed to break it as long as SF profits from it.
Maybe that's not morally/ethically wrong in your opinion (if so, then there is no further discussion necessary with you)...but it is in mine.
The rules are there for reasons...what those reasons are I suppose is up for debate..but those reasons become unimportant if it adds to their bottom line.
And this doesn't even touch on the point that coastinthru brought up...which I also agree with.
First off, I will say that "right" and "wrong" are always a matter of opinion. Even when it comes to laws, they are still a matter of opinion. Now on to my explanation:
No, there are absolutes in Right and Wrong. Tell me how it is right to Murder someone? Steal something from someone?
Straight from SF's website (not picking on them..just using them as an example) LINE JUMPING...
(explination cut for spacing)Now the rule is there...but you are allowed to break it as long as SF profits from it.
You're still going on the assumption that this is the same thing, when it isn't. If I pay for more, then I can get it. If I pay for nosebleed seats at a concert and try to go sit in the front row, they're gonna boot me out as well. Seat Poaching at a concert is not allowed. But if I pay to sit up close, then they're fine with it. Is that wrong as well?
Maybe that's not morally/ethically wrong in your opinion (if so, then there is no further discussion necessary with you)...but it is in mine.
It isn't, and I've still yet to see an actual reason why it is morally, ethically, or legally from anybody complaining abou it. All I'm seeing is "I don't agree with it, and right and wrong are different to different people, so I'm not going to explain why it is 'Wrong'".
The rules are there for reasons...what those reasons are I suppose is up for debate..but those reasons become unimportant if it adds to their bottom line.
Have you ever considered those rules are put into place to add to the bottom line? Which is the reason Disney has cracked down on unauthorized tours that people pay for. It is causing them to miss out on potential cash from their business because someone isn't following their rules. Go to Wal-Mart and try to sell someone butter in the grocery section for less than they do and see if they don't boot you out.
And this doesn't even touch on the point that coastinthru brought up...which I also agree with.
Which is fine. You agree, and I don't. But, then, I'm not the one saying that the whole system is in some way wronging me...
Using your same arguments against virtual queuing / Q-bot / Fast Pass / what ever, is it morally/ethically wrong for a person to buy a season pass?
I went to SFA and bought a season pass. It cost me 20 or so more dollars than a one day admission. Now with this pass it allows me to cut past the ticket lines in the front of any Six Flags park and use the marked "Season Pass" entrance... thus also getting me into the park quicker than people who have opted for what ever reason not to buy a pass and thus have to wait in two lines. Also, after going to SFA and SFGrAdv already this season, my SF Season pass is paid for, thus, the rest of my visits are in a sense "Free". So, is this fair that I have chosen to pay a little more money up front for the luxury of a season pass?
Obviously, no one has a problem with this... so why have a problem with Virtual Queuing? Like season passes, people who pay for Lo-Queue (or whatever it is called), have paid for a service / luxury, that is available to everyone... and a service / luxury that everyone knows exists.
Last year I questioned the ethics not of the Q-Bot system, but rather SFGrAdv's busienss Ethics surrounding it. Coasters that were running 1 train, ops that were very INEFFICIENT, coasters that were closed. Coincidence, or a calculated move to make the lines longer and make more people opt for the Q-Bot. This year (at least in May) I am happy to say that the rides were running at very good eficiency... and people were still using the Q-bot.
My own sense of "cheapness", not ethics, kept me form opting for Q-bot.
Onceler got the "my wife stands in line" analogy perfectly.
freakylick said:
I always assumed that both parents waited in line with child and they each rode just on different trains. The only times that I have seen it used, this is how it was done. Are the parents allowed to have just one parent wait in line???
As far as Baby Swap, I've only used it at CP a few years back. They give you a pink slip of paper at the gate/office. We went with my sister and her man and their baby. One couple would get in line and the other stayed with the baby. After they rode, they gave the paper to a ride attendant. They'd exit, take the baby and we'd enter through the exit and be given a ride on the very next train. Essentially two people in line covered four riders.
Curious as to how other parks handle it/officially state it, I looked around a little:
---
DISNEY:
Child swap is available on every attraction at Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure. With a child swap the first person, after getting their child swap pass, will actually stand in the queue (either the FastPass or the standby line). After the first person has completed the ride, the pass is then given to the non-rider who will enter through the exit to enjoy the attraction without having to wait in line. The benefit of child swap, in addition to being available on all attractions, is that with this pass a second person can ride each time. If you have an older child he or she can ride the attraction with both parents.
CEDAR POINT:
Under this program, one responsible person may wait with your child on the midway near the exit of a ride, while other guests in the party enter the line. When the party in line has ridden and exited, the person who waited with the child may enter the ride through the exit and ride. A child of appropriate height in the party may ride twice (once with each parent) if so desired.
UNIVERSAL:
These areas are available at each attraction at each park so parents may take turns watching their child while the other rides. This makes it possible for every guest to enjoy our rides. For further information or instructions, please ask a ride attendant.
HERSHEYPARK:
If you have smaller children in your family and would like to ride height-restricted rides, let the ride attendant know you would like to take advantage of Kiddie Swap. The Kiddie Swap program allows for two parents to take turns riding while the other parent stands to the side with a child who is too short to ride, or when one parent has two children who need to be accompanied by an adult on a ride, the children may swap places.
---
In all cases, the people in line are placeholders for others waiting to ride and in some cases double rides are offered.
Damn them! That's so unfair that just because someone has a small child they don't have to wait in line. It's line cutting plain and simple and it's been going on for years! Why should someone be given preferrential treatment just because they procreated!?
So by Freakylick's definition, the Child Swap at many parks is line jumping and it's been going on for a long time. :)
rc-madness said:
Plenty of points have been made why its not cool to pay to cut in front of someone, lengthening someone else's wait so you can have a shorter one.
Keep saying it, maybe eventually it will become true.
dexter said:
You just gave a good reason for the unfairness of the free systems as well. To me free or pay, they both seem wrong.
You want some more examples of how the 'fair' free systems pale in comparison to the pay systems?
Disney & Universal both use in-park kiosks that require a park entry ticket to be inserted to receive a FastPass ticket.
In the past (and I have no problem admitting this) we have been at the park with the kids (4 tickets) but my son is too small to ride a given ride and my wife doesn't want to. This leaves me and my daughter wanting to ride. We go to the kiosk and insert all four tickets and get 4 FastPasses for a given time. At that time my daughter and I ride instantly via the FastPass line. After our ride, we get off and immediately use our other two tickets to ride again. We just got back to back rides while people are standing in a big ol' line.
You cannot pull this with the pay system that SF uses, it's impossible.
Just another way the 'free to everyone' setups are a joke while the pay systems are fair and equal waits for all.
(note: CP's Freeway stops this by using the handstamp and limiting each guest to one handstamp per hand and no double stamps for the same ride - so it lands in middle ground in this aspect, but still randomly chooses people to randomly toss to the front parts of the line)
*** Edited 5/31/2005 5:13:56 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
No, there are absolutes in Right and Wrong. Tell me how it is right to Murder someone? Steal something from someone?
I didn't say that I thought either of those things were right. But in some peoples opinions, there are times when it is okay to murder and/or steal.
You're still going on the assumption that this is the same thing, when it isn't. If I pay for more, then I can get it.
If you don't see it as the same thing, then this discussion is over.
It isn't, and I've still yet to see an actual reason why it is morally, ethically, or legally from anybody complaining abou it. All I'm seeing is "I don't agree with it, and right and wrong are different to different people, so I'm not going to explain why it is 'Wrong'".
I guess if you don't agree with someone, then it's not an "actual reason"?!?! I did explain it..If you don't agree with my reason, fine. But if you read my response as "I'm not going to explain why it is 'wrong'", then I clearly did waste my time.
Have you ever considered those rules are put into place to add to the bottom line?
Yes I did consider that. Did you consider the multitude of other reasons that those rules are in place?
Gonch..I guess your wife stands in line analogy is above my head. It is still placeholding which is against park rules. Maybe I will get it someday.
Regarding child swap policies...Without having put much thought into this..I will say that it is line-jumping. It is there mainly to give everyone an opportunity to ride. It is not there merely for the profit of the park. (Yes tekno, I realize that a quality policy does affect the bottom line.) They break the rules so that everyone has an opportunity to ride...that is morally acceptable IMO.
In the past (and I have no problem admitting this) we have been at the park with the kids (4 tickets) but my son is too small to ride a given ride and my wife doesn't want to. This leaves me and my daughter wanting to ride. We go to the kiosk and insert all four tickets and get 4 FastPasses for a given time. At that time my daughter and I ride instantly via the FastPass line. After our ride, we get off and immediately use our other two tickets to ride again. We just got back to back rides while people are standing in a big ol' line.
Do you have no morals?!?! ;-)
You cannot pull this with the pay system that SF uses, it's impossible.
Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't you just use someone else's q-bot to turn back around and get in line? Or are they "smart"? (i.e.-Are they programmed with the childs restrictions and thus the machines at the rides can prohibit certain q-bots from being used there)
Like when we get one (me, the wife and the kids) we'll pay to have two people put on it. You still physically receive only one q-bot but it shows on it's little screen that two people are allowed access. It doesn't matter if it's me and the wife, me and my daughter, my wife and son, whatever - you get the idea.
There's no way to pull that scheme without paying to receive a second physical Q-bot device and at that point it just makes more sense to pay for the Gold Q-bot and receive shortened wait times.
But in short, the whole group does not receive individual Q-bot devices. You receive one that is programmed with the number of guests you paid for to use it.
freakylick said:I didn't say that I thought either of those things were right. But in some peoples opinions, there are times when it is okay to murder and/or steal.
No, you said: "right" and "wrong" are always a matter of opinion...
I'm not talking about opinions here. I'm talking about right and wrong. If something is wrong, like murder, then someone's opinion doesn't matter, it is still wrong. The same thing if something isn't 'wrong'. You're disagreeing opinion doesn't make it wrong. You try to make a grey area out of something that truly is black and white.
If you don't see it as the same thing, then this discussion is over.
I could say the same thing to you about not backing up your opinion with facts of why it is wrong. You still have not done that. You've only expressed your (non mattering) opinion.
I guess if you don't agree with someone, then it's not an "actual reason"?!?! I did explain it..If you don't agree with my reason, fine. But if you read my response as "I'm not going to explain why it is 'wrong'", then I clearly did waste my time.
For the first part, whatever. I never said anything like that. In fact, I have said quite the opposite, you seem to be the one saying that someone who doesn't agree isn't an 'actual person', because, to you, this is over since I don't agree with you. You haven't explained anything other than your opinion. I can argue something even if I don't hold that opinion. I'm not asking you why you think this is wrong, but actual facts as to why it is, in our society, wrong in three ways. You still avoid explaining anything other than your opinion.
I only wish that the parks would spend the resources devoted to virtual queues to improving capacity. I think in the long run they will be better off.
As stated before, virtual queueing does nothing to improve capacity, it only uses lower capacity to sell more systems. Thats not good for anyone except the companies that make the systems.
COASTINGTHRU said:
is it controversy you enjoy? or arguments?
Coming from some posting in a controversially argumentative thread in the first place?
Does it matter either way? This is a discussion board. It is what we do here. Kinda the point behind it all.
Virtual queues are not about morals or ethics. It's business. It is a process that is supposed to increase profits.
Couldn't agree more except to add "by offering a service to guests who choose to pay to avoid standing in the queue"
You have to be getting something extra in return for the extra money spent and in this case it's he privledge of not standing in the queue while you wait.
I only wish that the parks would spend the resources devoted to virtual queues to improving capacity. I think in the long run they will be better off.
But any given ride has an established maximum capacity. The only way to increase that (assuming the park already runs efficiently - and admittedly many don't) is to build rides capable of moving more people. I'm not sure how "using resources devoted to virtual queues" is supposed to translate to making the kid in the station check restraints faster. If it were that simple, it would have been done.
As stated before, virtual queueing does nothing to improve capacity...
But it doesn't hurt it either.
...it only uses lower capacity to sell more systems.
And that low capacity is either:
A. Simply a result of the way the ride was designed to run
or
B. Buying into the conspiracy theories that certain parks intentionally lower capacity to sell their virtual queue. (this wouldn't apply to the free systems as they aren't selling you a damn thing)
Nothing can be done about option A and from what I've seen, the parks under the option B umbrella were running crappy capacity before they implimented these systems - so I don't buy into it.
And even if every ride at the park ran perfect capacity against what was possible with any given ride, I'd still be inclined to purchase a virtual queue device just as to avoid the annoyances of standing in line. I prefer to wait elsewhere when the option is given.
Hell, I think it'd be great if parks eliminated ride queues all together and replaced them with the "take a number" systems like at the grocery store deli. You get a number and wait for the "now serving" sign to show your number and the you immediately enter the ride. ;)
I go to ride coasters and rides. Any day that I go to a park and don't have to spend the entire day in lines is a great day at a park. I don't understand why people simply can't accept 'queue management' systems, but accept having to stand in line for hours for a ride that may or may not last over a minute...
It'd be deceptively simple to do with a centralized system that knows the capacity of all the rides and who has reservations for what and when.
I imagine it'd be offered as part of a package for resort guests and still wouldn't eliminate the 'traditional' queue, but I can easily see where a majority of rides given would be by reservation.
Simply catering to the people who put the $$$ in their pockets and creating as hassle-free and seamless of an immersive get-away vacation as possible.
In other words, the continuing effort to keep a step ahead of the 'average' experience. :)
Lord Gonchar said:
There's no way to pull that scheme without paying to receive a second physical Q-bot device and at that point it just makes more sense to pay for the Gold Q-bot and receive shortened wait times.But in short, the whole group does not receive individual Q-bot devices. You receive one that is programmed with the number of guests you paid for to use it.
Okay Gonch...just trying to understand the system here, but:
You are saying that if you get a q-bot for say 4 people. You punch it at a ride at say 3pm and the systems tells you that your ride time is 3:45-4pm. You and your wife come back at 3:45 and ride. Couldn't you and your wife then turn around at say 3:55 and use the other "two people" in your q-bot allowance. Or do all 4 people have to be redeemed at once?
I'm not talking about opinions here. I'm talking about right and wrong. If something is wrong, like murder, then someone's opinion doesn't matter, it is still wrong. The same thing if something isn't 'wrong'.
Tekno, my point is that we are talking about opinions. I do think that murder is wrong, but that doesn't make it fact. You say that "Murder is wrong" is a fact. But it's not fact. And since facts can be proven...prove that murder is wrong. Better yet, don't...That is way off topic and another discussion for another place.
In fact, I have said quite the opposite, you seem to be the one saying that someone who doesn't agree isn't an 'actual person', because, to you, this is over since I don't agree with you.
I said that the discussion was over because we view the same thing in an entirely different way. End of story. You presented your side, I presented mine. You don't agree with my side, I don't agree with yours. Hell, we don't even agree on how to argue this. You don't see this as a matter of opinion, but I do. Thus my point of discontinuing an excercise in futility. Unless we can agree on whether "right and wrong" is a matter of fact or opinion, it really doesn't make sense to discuss these q-bot systems. And as I said, that's another discussion for another place.
For the record, I don't know how saying this is over because we disagree equates to you are not an actual person because you don't agree. I never said that and I certainly don't believe that. Whether I agree with you or not, I will respect what you say. *** Edited 5/31/2005 7:13:10 PM UTC by freakylick***
Essentially all 4 are redeemed at once regardless of how many show. It's just good for up to 4 guests at a time.
(note: I'm pretty sure - I've honestly never tried to use it in that way)
It's still almost a moot point though because the additional cost of adding guests that don't exist/ride would be better put to a Gold Q-bot which allows you to shorten the wait anyway thus getting multiple rides in the same time frame.
*** Edited 5/31/2005 7:25:09 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
TeknoScorpion said:
No, there are absolutes in Right and Wrong. Tell me how it is right to Murder someone? Steal something from someone?
In the interest of Public Safety, it is okay to murder those who, left alive, would kill supposedly innocent people. Dont believe me? See the so-called "War on Terror" or the "Beltway Sniper" for examples.
Furthermore, it is okay to steal money from those who have it in order to help feed and clothe those who otherwise could not feed and clothe themselves. Dont believe me? See your Federal/State taxes and the Medicaid/Medicare and Welfare systems.
:) lata, jeremy
zacharyt.shutterfly.com
PlaceHolder for Castor & Pollux
You must be logged in to post
