DispatchMaster

Yeesh, that service counter being that gross is despicable. How is keeping that counter at least somewhat tidy not drilled into employees from day 0?

Apologies for the double post, but this!!! For the life of me I do not understand the constant "bait and switch" whining and hand wringing over whether the value proposition of a product may change in the future. Either the pass (with or without the add-ons) is worth the cost or it isn't, period, end of story. That anyone spends more than 30 seconds making that calculation in their head is bewildering to me, especially considering these season passes are ridiculously cheap compared to virtually any other entertainment product. And if it's that much of a stressor for some of you, maybe just take BeastFarmer's sage advice here and just not buy it.

How is it "fine print" if it's exactly the same size as the rest of the text? If someone purchases something and expects it to do something they were explicitly told it would not do, how is that anyone's fault other than the purchaser? I'm trying to understand the logic here. Either the pass + add-ons is worth the cost, or it isn't. Per the company selling the product, there won't be additional benefits, period. And if for some reason they decide to add additional benefits down the line, how does that worsen the value proposition?

Oh, thank goodness. And I can see the edge of the plank now that you point it out now.

Decent name, solid, somewhat-unique layout/elements, beautiful color scheme, great interaction with the midway. My only issue is that, with two 20-person trains, capacity won't come anywhere near to GK's lofty people-eater status, but that's a high bar.

Were you... were you eating that thing directly off the table?

It's always easy to identify who has a baseline ability for critical thought and discussion by how quickly they resort to ad hominem attacks on others. Nice of you to out yourself right off The Bat.

Responding to random, anonymous Internet posts on a niche enthusiast platform adds credibility to the claims against him. Ignoring them has the opposite effect. Had Chad gotten into a public back-and-forth with the accuser here, that may well have been a newsworthy story. A few uninformed dorks arguing online (and I include myself in that group) is not newsworthy. First of all, this would be libel, not slander, since the criticisms are written rather than spoken. But more importantly, to sue for libel, the statements made must be provably-false, and must be shown to have caused harm or damage. So, if Chad didn't lose his job as a result of this information coming to light, or wasn't able to secure future employment due to these claims, there would possibly be a case, but even then it's still a long shot.

This assumes a CF/SF chain-wide pass is a priority for the company, and I have no Earthly idea why it should be a priority. It's not like there are that many people who would even be affected by this. If someone purchased SF and/or CF chain-wide passes in 2024, and those same individuals willingly purchase the same chain-wide passes in 2025, then what's the problem regardless of what happens with a combined pass thereafter? Either the individual passes are worth the cost to the individual at the time of purchase or not. That someone else may get a better price or whatever is irrelevant.

Easier said than done. It's not as if back in early/mid-May they had a precise timeline of when the ride would reopen, so it would have been a fool's errand to go through the trouble and expense of planning the substantial overhaul of the infield needed to accommodate lockers that could be accessed by riders as they enter and leave the station, as is the case with SV. It's only with the benefit of mid-July hindsight that there may have been enough time to do so, and even that's not necessarily the case, since it's not exactly a trivial thing to accomplish during the operating season.

I don't dispute that whoever decided on silence had their reasoning. My contention is that their reasoning comes from a place of gross incompetence, rather than experience. I fail to see the legal exposure from CP's statement, and the vague allusions you make do nothing to convince me otherwise. No it has not. Social media has not substantively changed since Twitter came on the scene, and even the change brought by Twitter I would argue is not "drastic". Information traveled fast when FB was the hottest game in town, and it's no different now. The statement from CP above also went out on Twitter, so the idea that things are "drastically" different now is nonsensical. Agreed, which makes the lack of a statement from KI all the more darning! Again, a simple, slightly opaque statement like the one CP put out stating the basic facts, and nothing more, is all they needed to do. And they failed to do that, which, to your point, could make it appear the park is trying to hide something. And it's not Monday morning QB-ing! This is basic, 101-level PR stuff! Getting the basic facts out to the public makes it less likely that misinformation and rumors take hold. And once rumors take hold, subsequent comments by the park look like a response to the rumors, which adds to the "cover up" appearance.

I am not a lawyer, but I fail to see where there's any legal risk to post what CP did in the wake of the Raptor incident, so I fail to see why there would have been any legal risk for KI to do the same when the same thing happened at KI. It's a terrible move to leave an information vacuum to be filled in with rumors and misinformation. Where's the legal exposure in the above statement? Nonsense. The events are virtually identical - a guest lost an item(s) in a restricted area, and circumvented multiple barriers to retrieve said item(s), was struck by the ride and subsequently died from their injuries. KI could quite literally have copied CP's media comment and replaced "Raptor" with "Banshee" and that's it (the medium (press release, Twitter post, etc.) is irrelevant). That they couldn't meet that incredibly low bar is pretty bad.

Dorney Park was able to squeeze half of a B&M dive coaster into where Invertigo was.

Or the silence is simply an indication that they don't have any new updates to share, rather than indication of some conspiracy or whatever. Are they supposed to give daily "updates" where they say nothing has changed since their last comments on the ride?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would anything change now that SFA is owned by the same parent company as any other park in the area? Assuming the parent company is operating their parks competently, they can either survive in the presence of other parks or not. Agreed. They can keep the CF Passport pricing and include all SF parks, and attendance won't meaningfully change. The number of people going to multiple parks in one season is relatively tiny.

Yeah, anonymous "trust me, bro" claims like OP's should by default be treated with enormous skepticism, especially when done in a forum that is clearly more than conducive to the "Chad is literally Satan" line of thinking. Also, two things can simultaneously be true: OP doesn't actually work at the park, or at least not in PR, and The park handled this event with stunning incompetence

Nonsense! TT2 lasted 5 days too!

Again, it's a fool's errand to try and make something "foolproof". Sometimes there isn't anything that can practically be done, and that's ok. And sometimes trying to protect guests can actually backfire, such as the case with Raptor's air gates - a (poorly conceived) device intended to protect guests - causing a guest injury. Wait, how many such incidents have occurred? I'm only aware of a few, going as far back as Flight Deck in '98. From a purely practical standpoint the sum total cost of lawsuits for any given operator would have to be more costly than the additional steel (and foundations, etc.) required to build their coasters higher, and steel is not cheap. Given the voluntary nature of these incidents, I don't imagine settlements are costly. The woman who, through no fault of her own, is now disabled thanks to the mishap at TTD rightfully got a big payout. The idiot who ignored multiple park employees, broke posted rules, climbed multiple barriers, purposely disobeying several "DANGER" signs along the way? Not so much. Well, there's ASTM, to which, in Ohio at least, adherence is required to obtain a permit, as I understand it. Though I don't know if ASTM's purview extends to low zones, LOTO, etc. But a standard does exist already.

I'm not being argumentative, I'm asking the question - how does B&M have any responsibility for keeping guests out of low zones? My understanding - possibly wrong! - is that B&M delivers the roller coaster itself, along with instructions on how to assemble it, and with various requirements specified, etc., one of which would be to identify low zones. But do they also specify, for example, the type of fence to be used? The signage? The color? I would think all of that would be covered under local ordinances. That locally-approved fence designs are incorporated into site plans doesn't, to me, imply any assumed responsibility on B&M's part. I could be wrong, but I am looking for more than a "because I think that's the way it is" as evidence. Also, I know that CF is self-insured (what was that you were saying about splitting hairs to be argumentative? pot, meet kettle, etc.). That's why I said the underwriters would be the entity that would advise CF on whether or not their existing low zone security is adequate. That CF has underwriters to answer to would also be another reason that B&M would not be involved in specifying what type of fencing to use or whatever. But whatever, my comment was only that I would be surprised if B&M has any involvement whatsoever in an incident that was not in any way a result of their product's failure.

Does B&M also specify the characteristics, signage, etc., for low zone fencing? My understanding is that the manufacturer denotes any areas where the ride is below "X" height, and the rest is left to the other parties involved in the design.

No, it would be the park's/chain's underwriters. This incident was not due to a failure of the attraction. It was due to a guest purposefully circumventing an attraction's restricted area barrier.

As Douglas Adams said, "a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

They're also hiring a painter and a forklift operator, so this is much ado about nothing.

True, but being a teacher does not guarantee robust critical thinking skills. I speak from experience, as my brother, a teacher with a master's degree, is evidence of that. Great teacher, but on other issues... not so much. Based on the description, this seems to have occurred in the pretzel loop low zone. If I understand the area correctly (a big "if"), this guy circumvented at least a couple of "employees only" barricades and signage, ran ~100 yards across backstage areas and a service road, and entered a heavily-marked "DANGER DO NOT ENTER" area with a difficult-to-climb barrier, and didn't anticipate nor hear a massive coaster train heading down a predictable path toward his location. So, there is a series of very, very poor choices there. Very sad, but if I'm being honest, I feel far more for the injured rider than I do this guy. Play stupid games...

Generally speaking, the parks had fewer attractions twenty years ago than they have now. So they grew their lineup, but only to a certain point and not to infinity. There's a limit, and it's almost always based on what they can realistically operate and maintain, rather than a geographical limitation, with the obvious exceptions of some very small parks. To Don's point, if they cannot maintain and operate what they have now, there's no sense in adding anything at this point. Look at the geography of Diamondback. With the exception of the in-park footers that were poured prior to 2007 (if memory serves), the vast majority of the work occurred outside of the existing park boundary, so that meant they could work without disturbing day-to-day park operation. Even DB's station was located in an area that allowed for work during the season. Same for Mystic Timbers. Adventure Port and Camp Snoopy required work in areas that were open to guests, which precluded an early start to the projects. Yes, because in the case of Wild Mouse, that whole area was inaccessible to guests, and could be accessed by construction crews without going through guest-accessible areas. And for TT2, they had multiple years where that whole area was closed off. The same is true for KD's new wing coaster - it's on the edge of the property with an access road leading to it, so easy to get started during the season and debut on opening day. But just because that's sometimes the case doesn't mean it's always the case, and ascribing the different debut/opening day alignments to parks not caring or whatever is, in most cases, misguided.