Control Lab at Inoculation Station
- Thread starter Zachary
- Start date
Because I replied to something you said that I misread and realised what I said didn't make sense. Big deal.
So is it the responsibility of a bully when they pick on someone and make them uncomfortable? How about a skin head? how about a rapist? I ask because surely there is a point when someone becomes responcible for how their actions impact a person. I just want to know your incite. Where does the demarcation line belongs. You know, just so I know when to stop, "making someone uncomfortable."
In polite company when we realize that we have made a mistake that has had an impact on a person, we apologize.
Just saying.
as facinating as this philsophical debate is... we do not need to clutter up this thread.
Why yes, you are correct I made a spelling mistake. I apologize.
See what you did @Thomas ? Your expletive made Luke's avatar hide in a bag.
I think the difference here is that in one senario the person has to be within site line, you can see them, and can reasonably assume that you can at least see what they are doing and remove yourself. In the other you have no earthly idea.
you have no way to know that. I hardly put it past some boys to use the tech to follow certain girls around.
Nope same thing for them. Don't like that either
valid point
they're fixed cameras and only five in very spread out spots, with no controls to move them; I'd say this sounds more like Big Brother paranoia, but that is a valid point for some
fair enough
I know others have different opinions on why they like/dislike this attraction, but here is mine: I'm not so much concerned about anyone being an actual stalker. I take issue directly with the park here, because their implementation of this attraction essentially turns their paying guests into a product. By entering the park (using the admission they paid for), guests are forced to consent to the possibility of becoming an uncompensated BGW attraction, earning the park additional profit from the other guests BGW charges to scare/watch them, while receiving no additional benefit in return. I understand the rational economic and business sense behind the park's effort to capture as much consumer surplus as possible, but this attraction seems to cross an ethical line, if not a legal one. For BGW to profit from turning its paying guests into unwitting products while providing no additional compensation in exchange seems unscrupulous at worst and insulting at best.
I understand it could be argued that anyone purchasing and wearing a BGW t-shirt or some other park-branded item essentially becomes a "product" in the sense that they are providing free advertising for the park. The difference is, customers purchasing and wearing BGW branded items do so willingly and receive the benefit of owning and using the item in return for this advertising. In this case there is mutual consent, with both the park and the customer fully aware of what they are receiving from the transaction.
And what happens if one of the guests participating in the Control Lab does turn out to be an actual stalker? It seems the park could be dragged into a completely avoidable lawsuit in which, regardless of whether they're ultimately proven liable, the legal fees and PR damage alone could end up costing the park way more than any additional profit they could gain from this attraction.
I'm all for the park incorporating more immersive experiences, but I think all parties involved should be given the choice to participate and understand what they're contributing and receiving.
(Am I overthinking this? Probably.)
I think everyone is overthinking this control lab thing, though I haven't been there this season to see it. I think it is a bit far-fetched to assert that someone pressing a button to trigger a mechanical scare halfway across the park is going to act as a catalyst for guests to engage in any behavior which could be deemed as stalking. The scares that are being triggered are probably even less focused towards an individual than a little water jet at Pompeii, the person is pushing a button which will trigger something to startle everyone in a dark room, you can't target a specific person. You also can't repetitively go after the same person, correct me if I am wrong, it is one scare in each of the areas; you're not getting a camera which follows one guest around for the rest of the night.
You probably would have more weirdos staring at you on a line for 45 minutes, or going in mazes themselves with the intent on watching other people get scared.
If anything, I would be more concerned about Pompeii and Roman Rapids where they can follow the person if when they get off the ride; and there, they aren't watching you on a nightvision camera they're watching you in living color.
However, I don't agree that there's anything nefarious or sinister about pushing a button to trigger a prop - unless you're getting more than a few moments of novelty enjoyment from it.
You probably would have more weirdos staring at you on a line for 45 minutes, or going in mazes themselves with the intent on watching other people get scared.
If anything, I would be more concerned about Pompeii and Roman Rapids where they can follow the person if when they get off the ride; and there, they aren't watching you on a nightvision camera they're watching you in living color.
However, I don't agree that there's anything nefarious or sinister about pushing a button to trigger a prop - unless you're getting more than a few moments of novelty enjoyment from it.
I apologize for my rudeness to Nicole but this is what I meant to say. I just couldn't find the right the right words for it.
I'm not sure what that has to do what I personally said. I object to the park not giving me a way to opt out of being the source if other people's callous amusement. I do not enjoy being laughed at, nor do I find it funny to watch other people looking awkward.
Last edited:
To be fair, the scare zone comparison applies here too. There never is an option to "opt out" of being seen by people if you are scared, and many people find it amusing to see someone get scared. You may be laughed at there as well, and if you don't have the same sense of humor as those that laugh, so be it.
Just like how it has always been with scare zones, if you wish to "opt out" of being seen by people if you are scared, your only option is to not go.
I think the Control Lab isn't that big of a deal, since it is essentially the same thing as sitting on a bench in a scare zone and watching.
Though you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your opinion for thinking the Control Lab is dumb, I do think it isn't the park's job to give an option to "opt-out". It is unfair to harp on them for that.
For me, Control Lab has key elements that no other component of the event boasts.
Unlike a scare zone there is an expectation of privacy (for lack of a better term) that scare zones lack. In a house the scare is more intimate; it is between you and the actor. For me, it provides an environment where I can let my guard down and allow myself to be scared. Additionally, there is the security of anonymity to the Control Room that a scare zone lacks. The victim cannot see the person inserting him or herself into the experience.
Unlike the screens outside the No Escape rooms (which I don't love either), there is an interactive element. While both encourage uncomfortable voyeurism, the person watching an escape room can't do anything but observe. The Peeping Tom at the Nurse Bar, however, can participate in my experience without my explicit consent. Additionally, I can choose not to pay to participate in No Escape. My only option with the Control Room is not to go to HOS. That is exactly what some of my friends did, by the way.
I agree that the park is free to do anything legal that they want at their event. That doesn't mean that I can't object. People complain all of the time about changes or problems that are affecting their park experience. I am saying that the Control Room is creepy and has me wishing I didn't have to attend HOS at all this year. Honestly, if I didn't have an obligation to report for BGWFans, I wouldn't.
I will also say that several responses to me on this issue have been either patronizing, rude, or both. No one has the right to tell me whether my visceral discomfort with this atttaction is valid. Nor does anyone have the right to tell me I should not express my concerns.
I do hope that this is not including me, as I said you are entitled to your opinion, and I am allowed to disagree with it just as much as you are allowed to have it.
That being said, the purpose of my response was to address your "opt-out" statement, not to say you aren't allowed to feel discomfort. If you misunderstood my post, I apologise, but I never once claimed you aren't allowed to feel the way you feel.