Jump to content

Cinemark Oakley announces chaperone policy and cites KI fights as reason why


Recommended Posts

It’s not like there is some proof of legal guardianship ID people can carry in their wallet. The school IDs I have seen do not have age or even grade level on them.  So how is the kid taking the tickets to determine if these 5 teens an adult is with are siblings, foster children or just friends from the drama club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really is a problem. I went to SFOT this spring and the park was on high security and we had no idea why. I was in line for Mr. Freeze when a security guard was scanning everyone’s faces and then immediately a nasty fight broke out. We were around at least three of these. When we left the park I was watching YouTube and found a news video saying the night before there was a fight that resulted in a shooting that injured one person. They didn’t even shut the park down. I’m glad that these restrictions are being put in place, even if they might not work out as planned.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its highly likely Cinemark Oakley wanted to do this for some time, but they saw KI change their policy and could now use their change as an excuse to hide behind.

It's a shame that things like this are being put in place. Have kids in general gotten that much worse than before? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KI Guy said:

Its highly likely Cinemark Oakley wanted to do this for some time, but they saw KI change their policy and could now use their change as an excuse to hide behind.

It's a shame that things like this are being put in place. Have kids in general gotten that much worse than before? 

And yet KI has not changed their policy....and never even mentioned contemplating a chaperone policy nor implementing a policy and then rescinding...yet social media posts have people believing both situations...A local news station suggested that as a policy, but it was never mentioned by the park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And it potentially makes sense to mention KI if KI implemented such policy, but why throw KI under the bus given it is 25-30 minutes between KI and Cinemark Oakley?  It isn't like the kids can walk between the two places.

If it was the former movie theater across the street from KI, then yeah, referencing KI makes a little more sense.

But still, seemed odd to reference KI given the distance between the two and that KI doesn't have a chaperone policy, so mentioning them has a bigger chance at blowback than referencing say closer shopping malls that have implemented a similar policy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Simply because they could use it to their advantage. Cinemark Oakley doesn't care how KI is perceived, but how they're perceived.

If they were looking for even the faintest excuse to implement that policy, the incident at KI provided that cover. 

The incident at KI was caused by irresponsible young people and Cinemark Oakley's policy relates to irresponsible young people.

To them it's better to say an incident at KI resulted in this rather than hurting their own reputation by saying incidents at their theater resulted in this. Ethically questionable for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally understand them wanting to use it to their advantage, but using a place that does not have a chaperone policy in place as their reason I think is worse optics than saying they implemented a policy similar to what other businesses closer to them have implemented.

I find it much easier to say and have people accept "As businesses adapt to changing conditions, we have adopted a chaperone policy similar to what nearby Kenwood Towne Centre implemented" is much better optics than "Kings Island, a mostly outdoor venue where someone can spend 11 hours at in a day that is 30 minutes away had a few fights and did not adopt a chaperone policy is the reason why we implemented a chaperone policy for an indoor theater where someone is here for a couple of hours".

Maybe if KI had implemented a policy it would be more believable, but this sounds like a knee-jerk PR nightmare.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, disco2000 said:

^And it potentially makes sense to mention KI if KI implemented such policy, but why throw KI under the bus given it is 25-30 minutes between KI and Cinemark Oakley?  It isn't like the kids can walk between the two places.

If it was the former movie theater across the street from KI, then yeah, referencing KI makes a little more sense.

But still, seemed odd to reference KI given the distance between the two and that KI doesn't have a chaperone policy, so mentioning them has a bigger chance at blowback than referencing say closer shopping malls that have implemented a similar policy?

This way KI is the bad guy. Smart move on them. They likely wanted the policy regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BoddaH1994 said:

This way KI is the bad guy. Smart move on them. They likely wanted the policy regardless.

I get that, but why not make the bad guy be, um, you know name a place that actually implemented a chaperone policy?

Movie theater patrons will say KI took care of it with increased security, so why couldn't a theater do the same thing as after all it is only a tiny fraction of the footprint of a large amusement park like KI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, disco2000 said:

I get that, but why not make the bad guy be, um, you know name a place that actually implemented a chaperone policy?

Movie theater patrons will say KI took care of it with increased security, so why couldn't a theater do the same thing as after all it is only a tiny fraction of the footprint of a large amusement park like KI.

 But did they take care of it with increased security? They had an incident not long after which made the news. My fear is that the perception is that this is now a regular thing. I think they’re banking on the “kids are out of control these days” mentality, citing the incidents at Kings Island as evidence.  Maybe not the “bad guy” but definitely implying that it was done partially on someone else’s accord. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True LOL and someone will spin it to fit their narrative. Those that wanna drop off kids unattended will be in the "increased security worked" camp, and those that want a chaperone policy will be in the "increased security didn't work" camp.  And then there is the "I don't care" camp either LOL.

It just seemed like they would have picked a business closer to them that had a chaperone policy and take the "everyone else has one" approach or site another theater that has one than to say because of fights 30 minutes away they are implementing a chaperone policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, King Ding Dong said:

I thought the switch to country was supposed to be the fix. :P

Did you know in some neighborhoods 24 hour places like gas stations blare symphony music outside to deter loitering? There’s actually a gas station in South Fairmont that does just that. 
 

Not sure if it’s relevant to the conversation, but it’s interesting. :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years back there was a news story on a device that played loud obnoxious noises but at a pitch only those under about 25 could hear. The news crew interviewed some teens outside a convenience store with it installed and they had some choice words about it.
 

Did the devices become become commonplace?  I would never know.  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do think they should do chaperoning. I feel strange saying this being a minor, but for the safety of children it really does need to happen. And yes, kids really have gotten that bad. It’s really sad to see some of my childhood friends doing stuff that makes me sick to my stomach even thinking about it.

Depressing note now aside, KI also should have the security to keep an eye on this stuff so I would be surprised if this does happen lol. But I really do think that this chaperone policy should be a thing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ThrillKingsFitzy said:

I really do think they should do chaperoning. I feel strange saying this being a minor, but for the safety of children it really does need to happen. And yes, kids really have gotten that bad. It’s really sad to see some of my childhood friends doing stuff that makes me sick to my stomach even thinking about it.

Depressing note now aside, KI also should have the security to keep an eye on this stuff so I would be surprised if this does happen lol. But I really do think that this chaperone policy should be a thing.

You sound like the very kind of kid that gets penalized because of a chaperone policy!

There are many more respectful, courteous, respect authority and boundaries types of kids, but it is always the few bad apples that ruin for everyone.  And that goes for adults too.

Just let them continue to do stuff that makes you sick to your stomach and not partake in their shenanigans and you will come out on the better end of the teenage years than they do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2021 at 11:24 AM, KI Guy said:

Its highly likely Cinemark Oakley wanted to do this for some time, but they saw KI change their policy and could now use their change as an excuse to hide behind.

It's a shame that things like this are being put in place. Have kids in general gotten that much worse than before? 

Yes, 1000% YES they have.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IBEW_Sparky said:

Yes, 1000% YES they have.

I can validate this. Working in a school, I can tell you it was a very rough year when they got back into the school building. Just in general rude behavior and more fighting with each other. It was like they were catching up from the time lost while being virtual .

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IndyGuy4KI said:

I can validate this. Working in a school, I can tell you it was a very rough year when they got back into the school building. Just in general rude behavior and more fighting with each other. It was like they were catching up from the time lost while being virtual .

One could infer from this that school provides much more discipline and structure than these kids get at home.  And the apple doesn't fall far from the tree analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is kind of a cheap shot by Cinemark to blame Kings Island for their security problems. They tried to make it sound like their theater has had no issues, but they wanted to be extra safe after what happened at Kings Island. I know Cinemark doesn’t care, but it just isn’t a very respectable move. It is bad sportsmanship, especially when Cinemark and Kings Island are barley competitors. I guess the teenagers who got banned from Kings Island decided to make Cinemark their new stomping ground? LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2021 at 11:57 PM, disco2000 said:

You sound like the very kind of kid that gets penalized because of a chaperone policy!

There are many more respectful, courteous, respect authority and boundaries types of kids, but it is always the few bad apples that ruin for everyone.  And that goes for adults too.

Just let them continue to do stuff that makes you sick to your stomach and not partake in their shenanigans and you will come out on the better end of the teenage years than they do!

Penalized? No, I’m not being half forced to say this lol. I just really do think a chaperone policy should be set in place. I’m just stating that this is a real problem these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By penalized I mean there are many teens that are responsible enough for a little bit of freedom to grow and learn, but a chaperone policy because of a few bad apples deprives you of that freedom and responsibility that you have earned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

By penalized I mean there are many teens that are responsible enough for a little bit of freedom to grow and learn, but a chaperone policy because of a few bad apples deprives you of that freedom and responsibility that you have earned. 

Well I still think they should do the policy. I know I have the freedom to grow and learn, but last year we had this problem with a kid trying to attack one of my siblings with a knife a couple of separate times. Sorry if I’m misunderstanding this again, but I am all for this policy because teen violence really is getting worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThrillKingsFitzy said:

Well I still think they should do the policy. I know I have the freedom to grow and learn, but last year we had this problem with a kid trying to attack one of my siblings with a knife a couple of separate times. Sorry if I’m misunderstanding this again, but I am all for this policy because teen violence really is getting worse.

At KI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, King Ding Dong said:

At KI?

No not at KI lol. That happened at school. I’m just saying if that can happen at school, it can happen anywhere.

And yes I know they have security and metal detectors, but you won’t believe some terrible fights that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...