No, that isn’t what anyone is discussing here.
I’m not sure why you repeatedly fall back on rhetoric and insults.
I’m not sure why you repeatedly fall back on rhetoric and insults.
Last edited:
Busch Brawls
- Thread starter Murphy
- Start date
I’ve made no insults. You all say whatever you say, make assumptions about what will happen when what you say is enacted, for sure. I agree you haven’t explicitly said “I want less people at the park”
But mostly the reason you feel they way you do is because you would like less people at the park AND you are able to pay a higher price.
Even when provided with empirical evidence that fun cards aren’t the problem (the people involved in the fight were from out of state) y’all keep the drum beat marching on.
Last edited:
Again, no hard evidence on either side to prove this unless you're privy to something official that everyone else on here hasn't seen.
But riddle me this - if your previous sentiments indicate that there's a high quantity of guests accessing the park with a Fun Card on any given operating day, and the general sentiment is that park operations is vastly overwhelmed, how is reducing the guest to staff ratio necessarily a bad thing for the overall guest experience if we ignore the immediate profit your statements indicate is the park's only motive in this equation?
We can surmise that while there still may be fights, they become less common and more outlier events with the overall less people around and more staff to watch over whom is actually there.
The only other direction to fix the staff to guest ratio is more staff, which appears already hard enough to maintain at current levels without going KD's single-shift route - this is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Also, to counter your argument with pricing for the fun card - currently per their website sans any special promotional pricing it is $172 for both the regular season fun pass and CT fun pass to be able to visit all seasons but you can only pay full price up front; a basic 1-park membership is $168 for 12 months of park access and also allows for installment payments. If one didn't have a whole lot of money but wanted to go, the $12/month payment is way more affordable than coughing up $103 for the regular season and HoS then another $69 for CT per person.
Once again, I am not making any claims about what is causing the increase in violence, so please stop directing your arguments at me. As each time before, I am only commenting on your debate tactics, which I believe are adding unnecessary heat to this discussion.
Your comments have been consistently rude and insulting towards anyone with whom you disagree. Moreover, your repeatedly accusing people of believing things without any evidence and then criticizing those fabricated positions is merely more offensive rhetoric.
Finally, the fact that one set of people who are being prosecuted are from NC proves nothing. There are people from out of state who have memberships, in fact. But regardless, Fun Cards were only one of the cost-based issues raised. Single day ticket prices were also highlighted. So, once again, you are building a straw man and knocking it down.
I know. Your just being rude and shouting straw man over and over again instead of 1) specifically saying what the straw man argument was in relation to the argument I was making ( because we have talked about several different things in the topic) or 2) addressing the arguments at hand. BTW, a rolls eyes emoji is also rude and a weak form of expression.
The person I was talking to admitted they had no data. So if that’s the case then defacto, they are believing in things without evidence.
I didn’t say I knew what the price elasticity of demand or marginal cost of a guest was, but that I am sure Busch Gardens knows what it is and has chosen the appropriate revenue maximizing price point accordingly.
The closest someone has came to providing any evidence that the violence is caused by low prices is a study that people value higher priced things more. So we are all talking with limited data or evidence. We have a little of anecdotal evidence, most of which discredits the popular theory on this forum.
I don’t think the vendiagram of price value and violence perfectly over lap.
Shouting straw man over and over again while pretending to not make an argument is rude. straw man straw man…. Pointing out what limited evidence we do have partially discredits a theory is not a straw man argument. Your making a lot of accusations simply because you disagree with what I am saying. I haven’t been rude to anyone but if you insist on clapping at me it’s only fair to expect a clap back
Last edited:
well, what we have seen is what the park (who is privy to this information) has chosen to do.
The argument my post was refering was that getting rid of fun cards would increase revenue. Optimizing guest experience is different than optimizing revenue. I agree that less people would make the experience better for the (fewer) people that were there. But it seems like the fights occur for kicks not because people are dissatisfied.
In the griffon fight one lady got mad because somebody made fun of her for being to large to sit in the seat. Fun card or not, that fight still happens.
the fights are already outlier events….
So then, getting rid of fun cards won’t make a difference, I agree with me!
Last edited:
This is Day 15 of this btw. The true Brawl is always on the internet.
Last edited:
First off, blatant appeal to authority falicy here. I normally wouldn't really care, but you're using it to try to shut down someone's totally innocent, good faith theorizing of possible solutions and you're attempting to employ it on a topic where there's likely a wide range of "right" answers—see the differing approaches to this sliding scale of prices vs guest experience throughout the industry.
Secondly, even if I grant you your premises—which, to be clear, I do not—part of the case people repeatedly make to you is that maximizing short term revenues is very often the wrong approach to maximizing stakeholder or even shareholder value. Hence, this argument does nothing for your case.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know this goes back a second, but getting rid of the Fun Card doesn't necessarily "keep out poor people", because as @Jonesta6 pointed out for someone with cashflow issues the $12/month for the basic membership is more budget friendly. What getting rid of the Fun Card does is prevents people that come from further away from having a "cheaper" way into the park and a "return trip" without spending the same as a single day pass. Like with the current Fun Card deal, if you come from further away and come 1-3 times a year, it's actually stupid to buy a single day ticket.
To me it's less that BGW should raise rates, and more that BGW needs to find ways to reduce paths for multiple entries for the same or lesser price than a single day ticket. We're having this conversation regularly where I were at right now, we're busier than ever, our time is at a bigger premium than ever, but we aren't doing anything to restrict the flow into the business funnel; so were all having people book things then never use it. BGW is busier than ever, serviceable capacity is at a premium, and staff is at a minimum; but profits are so important they aren't finding a way to tighten their funnel of business.
To me it's less that BGW should raise rates, and more that BGW needs to find ways to reduce paths for multiple entries for the same or lesser price than a single day ticket. We're having this conversation regularly where I were at right now, we're busier than ever, our time is at a bigger premium than ever, but we aren't doing anything to restrict the flow into the business funnel; so were all having people book things then never use it. BGW is busier than ever, serviceable capacity is at a premium, and staff is at a minimum; but profits are so important they aren't finding a way to tighten their funnel of business.
No silly. You need to brush up on what appeal to authority is:
Appeal to authority is the misuse of an authority's opinion to support an argument
Firstly, I didn’t use an opinion of Busch Gardens. I used an action of Busch gardens. Secondly you haven’t shown I misused Busch Gardens actions to support my argument.
It is true they are certainly privy to the information we are discussing, where as we are certainly not. We have to use the information we do have.
Or maybe you just assume every time someone uses an “authority” to back up something they say they are making an appeal to authority fallacy. Well, if this is the road your going to go down, every time someone uses an expert to back up their claim, you better be shouting appeal to authority “Dr faux said…” APPEAL TO AUTHORITITTY MAN!!!
Here is an idea. Instead of arguing about the argument, which is a logical fallacy, why don’t you argue about what was said.
.
how do you know fun cards only maximize revenue in the short run? You’ve made another assumption with no basis in fact.
Last edited:
That is fine, but the crux of what was being argued was that fun cards decrease the cost of going to the park and if you made going to the park cost more people would get into less fights.
Last edited:
I suspected there was an underlying cultural factor which has been glossed over in some of this, so i popped into some recent journals.
During the pandemic, we have seen a 50% increase in domestic violence hotline calls. 1 Simultaneously, there has been a severe reduction in funding and staffing of social services and support systems. 2 The pandemic is not only a physical health crisis, but deeply also a mental health crisis--one which gets overshadowed. Additionally, we have seen a sharp increase in state crime and corruption figures. 3
I do not dispute that BGW is understaffed, nor do I find this acceptable. But addressing the root cause of this uptick in violence is likely significantly more complex than single-target corrective and preventative actions. This is going to be an ongoing struggle in our society for years to come and I certainly don't think BGW is going to solve it.
During the pandemic, we have seen a 50% increase in domestic violence hotline calls. 1 Simultaneously, there has been a severe reduction in funding and staffing of social services and support systems. 2 The pandemic is not only a physical health crisis, but deeply also a mental health crisis--one which gets overshadowed. Additionally, we have seen a sharp increase in state crime and corruption figures. 3
I do not dispute that BGW is understaffed, nor do I find this acceptable. But addressing the root cause of this uptick in violence is likely significantly more complex than single-target corrective and preventative actions. This is going to be an ongoing struggle in our society for years to come and I certainly don't think BGW is going to solve it.
- World Health Organization. (2020). ADDRESSING VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN, WOMEN AND OLDER PEOPLE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: KEY ACTIONS. World Health Organization.
- Bettinger-Lopez, C., Bro, A., & Nargund, R. (2020). A Double Pandemic: Domestic Violence in the Age of COVID-19. Council on Foreign Relations.
- Gordon, N., and Green, P. (2020) “The acceleration of death precipitated by Covid-19 exposes state crime”, Open Democracy, 21 April.
I am not arguing with you @belsaas but I am surprise that funding has been cut for social services during the pandemic when you consider the increase in funding for unemployment benefits and child tax credits.
What this study refers to specifically is mental health resources, such as addiction recovery centers, developmental resources and behavioral services. Unfortunately, while you are correct regarding financial support of individuals during the pandemic, these programs have not been so fortunate 
I think it's fair to say that the calls for measures to increase guest satisfaction and increase staffing ratios through adjusting admissions practices wasn't being suggested as the long-term solution, nor that the park could always 100% solve what's become a societal issue.
Instead, these suggestions are tangible solutions that can be immediately (or relatively quickly) enacted instead of holding out hope that society figures out and actually solves the overall issue - funding is only part of the problem.
Instead, these suggestions are tangible solutions that can be immediately (or relatively quickly) enacted instead of holding out hope that society figures out and actually solves the overall issue - funding is only part of the problem.
It’s funny everyone knows there is a huge problem with mental health (domestic terrorism, suicide rate, especially amount vets) as well had a huge drug problem (opiate crisis) yet we cut the the programs that can help. Another topic!What this study refers to specifically is mental health resources, such as addiction recovery centers, developmental resources and behavioral services. Unfortunately, while you are correct regarding financial support of individuals during the pandemic, these programs have not been so fortunate
No silly. You need to brush up on what appeal to authority is:
Appeal to authority is the misuse of an authority's opinion to support an argument
Firstly, I didn’t use an opinion of Busch Gardens. I used an action of Busch gardens. Secondly you haven’t shown I misused Busch Gardens actions to support my argument.
It is true they are certainly privy to the information we are discussing, where as we are certainly not. We have to use the information we do have.
Or maybe you just assume every time someone uses an “authority” to back up something they say they are making an appeal to authority fallacy. Well, if this is the road your going to go down, every time someone uses an expert to back up their claim, you better be shouting appeal to authority “Dr faux said…” APPEAL TO AUTHORITITTY MAN!!!
Here is an idea. Instead of arguing about the argument, which is a logical fallacy, why don’t you argue about what was said.
Oh my. This will be a fun one.
The idea that an appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy only when it is appealing specifically to a perceived authority's stated opinions and not their actual actions is preposterous.
A very common appeal to authority fallacy lately has been COVID denialists citing instances of irresponsible behavior by certain big name doctors or politicians as justification for disregarding COVID mitigation efforts. This is an improper appeal to authority based solely on a perceived authority's actions even when they run directly counter to that perceived authority's stated opinions and beliefs.
So no, your definition of an appeal to authority is incorrect. Opinions or actions of a perceived authority figure are clearly both possible fuel for an appeal to authority fallacy.
Now, you attempted to create a parallel between your appeal to BGW's authority and appeals to medical professional's authority. Those are wildly different things and I'm confident you are aware of that fact. That said, to answer your question, your appeal to authority is cherry picking a single actor in a large industry with a wide variety of actors taking a wide variety of approaches to the issue at hand. There does not seem to be an authoritative consensus around which you can soundly base an argument.
ThoughtCo describes the following as per how to establish a legitimate appeal to authority:
I would question whether or not BGW's positions qualify under any of those standards, but the one I will happily argue for vehemently is the third condition. There is clearly not agreement amongst experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.
Disney is currently massively limiting attendance by holders of pass products through their park reservations system, jacking up prices at an astonishing rate across the board, eliminating a number of promotions, and reducing max park capacity (and hence attendance) in an effort to improve the guest experience.
Do you believe that Disney is not attempting to act in the best interest of its shareholders by not maximizing shareholder value? I don't. I believe there is clear disagreement in the industry.
Finally, on your last point there, I tried arguing with you on the merits of your case and you repeatedly refused to engage—chosing to dodge and toss out ad hominems instead. I decided arguing the merits with you wasn't worth my trouble. That said, you continue to lash out at folks who are just trying to engage in some thoughtful brainstorming with aggressive, bad faith arguments. So yes, as long as that continues and for as long as I find this entertaining, I will sit on the sidelines and call out your most egregious logical fallacies instead of attempting to refine my case with you.
Lastly, to deal with this:
Dude. I was literally responding to exactly what you said. Direct quote:
What people keep trying to tell you is that revenue maximization is different from value maximization. Businesses can have a ton of value that is not realized directly through revenue. I believe you are likely correct—BGW is likely acting to maximize revenue—not shareholder or stakeholder value—and that is a problem in my opinion. You can disagree, but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop mischaracterizing my argument at every turn.
PS: Shout-out to @belsaas for the best post in this thread thus far.
Last edited:
OK, I agree.
I agree that observing what Busch Gardens does and using that as evidence is different from listening to what a medical expert says and calling that an appeal to authority.
That’s why mentioning evidence that Busch Gardens believes fun cards are a way to maximum value for shareholders (the evidence is that they are doing it, saw the returns, and are continuing to do it) is not an appeal to authority. It’s just an observation.
Disney and busch gardens are very different parks which market to very different guests. Does Disney even have a “fun card”?
What we were discussing regarding that quote was whether or not getting rid of fun cards would increase revenue. Not stakeholder value.
Last edited:
could you quote a personal attack I made against you? I told you I didn’t think the question you were asking was relevant and you chose not to defend its relevancy.