Control Lab at Inoculation Station

[basseyfish]

The odds of being creeped on like that are so low lmao. Even if you do get "creeped on" by the time you get in the car and leave they are never going to find you. It's not like they can do anything to you in the park. Also I most people go to HOS with friends so whos gonna creep on a girl when shes around people? It just seem so unlikely to me for something like that to happen

 

[Icer]

I'm confused, where did this whole stalker discussion come from? Did I miss something?

 

[basseyfish]

I'm confused, where did this whole stalker discussion come from? Did I miss something?

pretty sure because some mentioned how messed up it is

 

[Icer]

Messed up what is?

 

[Zachary]

Now that we've seen the execution, I believe the risk of some stalker situation is far lower than was true with house webcams or is currently true with the escape rooms.

That is all an entirely different situation than an individual's comfort level with being watched and scared by people at a bar for their entertainment. Even I, myself, am uncomfortable with the idea that I'm becoming a product to be sold by the park. I pay my admission. They are supposed to provide the product—not sell me to other customers.

People just keep talking past each other here. Remove all of this silly stalker talk from the equation. That isn't the issue @Nicole (and others) have repeatedly tried to highlight.

 

[Icer]

Now that we've seen the execution, I believe the risk of some stalker situation is far lower than was true with house webcams or is currently true with the escape rooms.

That is all an entirely different situation than an individual's comfort level with being watched and scarred by people at a bar for their entertainment. That is what @Nicole has repeatedly attempted to highlight.

I agree, I was hoping the stalker discussion wasn't brought up because of Nicole's points. Personal discomfort is entirely merited and something someone is entitled to have, stalker-ism is a totally different discussion.

 

[basseyfish]

Did someone not mention being creeped on the other day? Thats what i was referring to, not nicoles

 

[Zachary]

Well, I think the discomfort with being watched for other people's entertainment results in that feeling of being creeped out.

 

[basseyfish]

Then why would you got to HOS. I always find myself standing in a good area watching others get scared. It's hilarious. I don't see how its embarrassing or how you feel creeped out by that. Sounds like a personal issue rather than a park issue

 

[Icer]

That is exactly it, it is a personal issue. She never claimed it to be a park issue, just her personal opinion.

 

[Merboy]

It's the same crowd that pays to spray people on Pompeii.

Dang if this ain't the gospel right here.

 

[basseyfish]

That is exactly it, it is a personal issue. She never claimed it to be a park issue, just her personal opinion.

Well talking about how its not a good idea for them to have it is kinda saying its a park issue

 

[Icer]

In her opinion, the park should not have it. That isn't a "park issue" as much as it is a "personal issue she has with the park's decision".

It would be more considered a "park issue" if it was entirely unethical to the point of borderline illegal or violating basic morals, which it isn't quite yet. A "park issue" example of something like this would be if they were doing this to the point where you could select a specific guest in attendance that day by name and photograph to follow around the park and scare. That is essentially stalking and is very unethical, where in its current state, it just borders on unethical for those who feel uncomfortable by it.

 

[Zachary]

Then why would you got to HOS. I always find myself standing in a good area watching others get scared. It's hilarious. I don't see how its embarrassing or how you feel creeped out by that. Sounds like a personal issue rather than a park issue

See below. @Nicole covered this.

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.

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a house that doesn't exist in a scarezone. That makes people act differently—perhaps more authentically.

I believe Control Room violates that reasonable expectation of privacy to a point where the park has a consent issue. Attractions featuring Control Room scares should have a sign out front alerting patrons to that fact so that, by entering the house, they are knowingly consenting to being seen and perhaps scared by people sitting at a bar on the other side of the park.

Hell, if the park is right and most people aren't creeped out by this idea, such a sign would only act as an advertisement for the Control Lab. If the park is worried it may creep people out, maybe this whole thing is a bad idea.

Either way, allowing people to make fully informed decisions regarding something like this just seems right.

 

[Nicole]

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.

I am so sorry! That was not my intent. I was merely trying to link back to the discussion, because there were a few intervening posts. Yours was the last on this topic.

I also want to emphasize again that my main objection is that the park has not provided any kind of option. Why not run the Control Room at specific times, so people can choose whether they want to participate. They could rotate which houses are on the TVs with the remote scares, so that there are always a few running, but those who find it uncomfortable can visit all of the houses without fear of being targeted.

 

[basseyfish]

Maybe they can put signs outside the line and 1 in the line

 

[Zachary]

I certainly haven't seen any signage anywhere explaining what is going on.

 

[warfelg]

As someone who DOES NOT want their scares seen (I'm a very jumpy/twitchy person without that); knowing that they would do that without me knowing is making me second guess going again. I can barely stand being laughed at by the people I know for reactions; I don't need that from someone I don't know.

 

[Nicole]

Upon reflection, I see another difference between the screens outside the escape rooms and the screens at Control Lab. In the case of No Escape, I am being used to market their attraction. At the Inoculation Station, however, I am the the product they are selling. While I am thrilled with neither, the latter seems much more exploitative.

 

[Rhaw757]

I can see both sides of this argument and I think a lot of good points have been made from both sides. Personally, the scenario doesn't bother me. I kind of enjoy people laughing AT my expense and half of my humor is self-deprecating humor (is that a coping mechanism for growing up with cripplingly low self-confidence in my younger years? ?) so it doesn't bother me but I understand why it would be bothersome and uncomfortable for many. I do want to ask those who aren't comfortable with it, would it reasonable if only those paying for the scares were allowed to see the screen? Like say they're taken to a private tent with a TV screen so not just any drunk weirdo can stand there for hours watching? Or maybe only allow it for children so those drunken, creepy, man-children aren't blowing all of their money to get a cheap kick out of it at someone else's expense? I'm just trying to see if there is any compromise the two sides can come to to where everyone is happy or at least content.