Howl-O-Scream Hypothetical 18+ House Thread

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Swiftman said:
It's not what they couldn't see, it's what they wouldn't see.

In a house where everyone has to be 18+ (21+?), the actors wouldn't have to pay attention to who they're scaring, if they'll going to step on someone's kid, etc. They get to just scare people. The lower crowd levels would enable an "Alone"-like story and setup where smaller groups (10 or so) could be moved through the house at a set pace- room by room. Doing a house like this with your average 14 to 18 year-olds would be a nightmare for everyone involved. I should know. I'm in that age range. Most people my age are flat out stupid.
Click to expand...

If it's an extra-ticket, Swift, who is being inconvenienced? Parents who bring their kids along through haunted house because they are too bothered to take their kids home at 6 PM are not going to shell out extra money to take the kids through the house. If you stagger entrances and only allow small groups at a time, you are not going to hold anybody up with bad behavior. If you make it a cost-added house, people will expect higher quality and won't tolerate hoodlums. Security would be encouraged to do it's job, rather than forced to take a hands-off approach.

If it is not a content related restriction, it is a behavior related restriction, and I cannot understand the mindset of a person who thinks it is acceptable to just flat out bar people who are legally eligible to join the army and drive highly dangerous automobiles from something, just because they don't want to deal with them.

I didn't want to go this route, but I'm starting to get a little upset. If I went out there and found some statistics that said more blonde headed people act up in haunted houses than brown haired people, would you be advocating a brown hairs only house? No...because that would be ridiculous. The point of legitimate age restrictions are to prevent immature minds from being corrupted. They don't exist so enlightened 19 year olds won't have to deal with the 16-year-old rabble.

If there's nothing in the house that is dangerous to the mind of a teen, then let them in. Sorry if you don't want to be inconvenienced by the fact that there are kids in the world.
 
ScoutN said:
Swiftman said:
Most people my age are flat out stupid.
Click to expand...

The worst of it is when they are under 16 and think they are at the maturity level of most in their 20s. That alone speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

That is a generalization in itself.

Busch Gardens is a family park, granted, at this point I am over 18, but in the past I would've been highly disappointed for Busch to create a house such as this. At this point I can say I've been pretty much mature as I am now since I was 14-15.

I couldn't see a reason to do this if I was that age, and I still definitely can't see it now. Not to mention the fact, I can speak far well enough that for the one weekend I go to Howl-O-Scream every year, I've only seen one group/person below the age of 18 act out - the rest were drunk adults.
 
There are plenty of places that ban children just because they're afraid the kids are going to act up, why should a haunted house be any different? You could say that the location is supposed to be family friendly, but that excuse only flies so far when were talking about a /haunted house/, which is inheritly non-family friendly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
DoctorMoneyMD said:
^adults don't misbehave, Wings.
Click to expand...

That's true, they don't "misbehave", they lower the bar for the general expected level of conduct.

You act as if EVERYONE that is going to act like a moron is below the age of 18, but the fact is stupidity doesn't leave with age and some people will be morons until they're too senile to be one. Maybe the REAL problem here is Busch Gardens' security doing a poor job of removing those who rabble-rouse. An age limit is as idiotic and as ineffective as MPAA movie ratings. You can't generalize a trait that comes through personality and not nearly as arguably provable through age.

Now if you were to try and argue the point that there should be a no one under 12, and that everyone under 18 would require parental accompany or consent, that would be far more agreeable, because of the FACT the mind is fully developed around age 12, which means the ability is there to not be a moron, allowing those proven to have mental capacity to partake in the maze to enter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
DoctorMoneyMD said:
If it's an extra-ticket, Swift, who is being inconvenienced?
Click to expand...

The people who have to buy the tickets. There's no reason why someone should have to pay $30 just to walk through a house without a bunch of kids and "tweens" destroying the experience. I'd much rather wait till I'm 18 than pay $30 whenever I want to experience a house.

DoctorMoneyMD said:
Parents who bring their kids along through haunted house because they are too bothered to take their kids home at 6 PM...
Click to expand...

And what is your fix for that?

DoctorMoneyMD said:
If you stagger entrances and only allow small groups at a time, you are not going to hold anybody up with bad behavior.
Click to expand...

Bad behavior will hold up a house no matter what format it's in. In an Alone-like format though, it's crucial that the next room is clear before the next group enters. If it's not, it creates a chain reaction that destroys the house for everyone.

DoctorMoneyMD said:
If you make it a cost-added house, people will expect higher quality and won't tolerate hoodlums. Security would be encouraged to do it's job, rather than forced to take a hands-off approach.
Click to expand...

There's no reason they shouldn't be doing that right now in all the houses. Pull them out of the house right when they start acting up- no exceptions.

DoctorMoneyMD said:
If it is not a content related restriction, it is a behavior related restriction, and I cannot understand the mindset of a person who thinks it is acceptable to just flat out bar people who are legally eligible to join the army and drive highly dangerous automobiles from something, just because they don't want to deal with them.
Click to expand...

I'm in that age range. An age restriction would bar me as well. I have no problem seeing the reasons for an age restriction- it's a fact of life. I can't drink. I can't smoke. I can't watch R rated movies in theaters. I can't participate in adult swim at the local pool. I may be mature enough to handle these things, but I'm not allowed to. I see no problem with it either.

DoctorMoneyMD said:
I didn't want to go this route, but I'm starting to get a little upset. If I went out there and found some statistics that said more blonde headed people act up in haunted houses than brown haired people, would you be advocating a brown hairs only house? No...because that would be ridiculous. The point of legitimate age restrictions are to prevent immature minds from being corrupted. They don't exist so enlightened 19 year olds won't have to deal with the 16-year-old rabble.

If there's nothing in the house that is dangerous to the mind of a teen, then let them in. Sorry if you don't want to be inconvenienced by the fact that there are kids in the world.
Click to expand...

Adult swim- a practice that I see no problem with. In fact, I think it's a good thing. People 18 and under get to swim all day. People over 18 only get an hour or so for themselves. There's no difference in the pool during the normal times and adult swim other than the fact that there aren't a ton of kids yelling, screaming, and splashing around. The same can apply to houses.

Wings said:
Now if you were to try and argue the point that there should be a no one under 12, and that everyone under 18 would require parental accompany or consent, that would be far more agreeable, because of the FACT the mind is fully developed around age 12, which means the ability is there to not be a moron, allowing those proven to have mental capacity to partake in the maze to enter.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty great idea...
 
As far as the "there are adults who act up to" issue, it's a matter of numbers. Let's just say half of the troubled makers are under 18 and half are over for this. That means that an 18 + house would have half the touble makers, and I'm fine with that number. An 18+ house would't be a cure, there is none, but it would help a lot.

Wing's idea is great as well and would help a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
studiopzp said:
As far as the "there are adults who act up to" issue, it's a matter of numbers. Let's just say half of the troubled makers are under 18 and half are over for this. That means that an 18 + house would have half the touble makers, and I'm fine with that number. An 18+ house would't be a cure, there is none, but it would help a lot.

Wing's idea is great as well and would help a lot.
Click to expand...

And if I took half of the water out of the ocean there would be half of the amount of lethal jellyfish too.

The fact is that, this problem would be BEST resolved with better security and not inconveniences to guests of any age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kiss_n_tell_102
So as opposed to just simply being better, you should give up on an idea because it's not completly fixed?

Security improvement would be better, but on the 18 up issue, would a security guard pull a crying kid from the house?
 
studiopzp said:
So as opposed to just simply being better, you should give up on an idea because it's not completly fixed?
Click to expand...

No, the point is that, if you remove half of anything, you're going to have half left over.

With our assumption of "half and half" between -18 and 18+, if you're removing half of the guests (below the age of 18), and half of the rabble-rousers with that. You're simply just reducing the amount of guests that can go into the house.

For example, we could have:

Under 18 Group:
2 Poor Behaved Teens
1 Well Behaved Teens

Above 18 Group:
2 Poor Behaved Adults
1 Well Behaved Adults

So, we have 33% well behaved people, if we disallowed everyone under 18 to go in, we'd still have 33% well behaved. So, our problem or situation is not better, its just less people entering the maze, with the same proportion of those misbehaving.


And as for your "pulling a crying kid from the house" I don't think anyone 13 - 17 would cry inside of a house, and if they would, they'd have just as much potential of crying as someone 18+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kiss_n_tell_102
Wings: you have a valid point as far as numbers go, but my expirience tells me a 12 year old is more likely going to screw with actors than a 27 year old. Maybe I'm wrong, I would love to see numbers either way. I admit the 50/50 thing might have been a mistake, but your point is valid.

The crying thing refers to the under 10 who manage to get in, which is a major issue with the houses now.
 
studiopzp said:
Wings: you have a valid point as far as numbers go, but my expirience tells me a 12 year old is more likely going to screw with actors than a 27 year old. Maybe I'm wrong, I would love to see numbers either way. I admit the 50/50 thing might have been a mistake, but your point is valid.

The crying thing refers to the under 10 who manage to get in, which is a major issue with the houses now.
Click to expand...

I'm just going from my experience with a slight edge towards factual matters.
 
Maybe, but I still don't see "it's unfair" as a good reason not to have one. It's even more unfair to stand in line only to have the expirience ruined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
DoctorMoneyMD said:
If it is not a content related restriction, it is a behavior related restriction, and I cannot understand the mindset of a person who thinks it is acceptable to just flat out bar people who are legally eligible to join the army
Click to expand...

You've made this point several times. Can 17 years old enlist in the military? (I really don't know to be honest.)
 
Let me ask the people against it this? What would you think of a house with two identcial paths, scares, actors, ect. Only one could be for anybody and one would be for 18 plus only.

Shafor: 17 with parental consent.
 
Oh sorry, I think they should have security put down the foot and say no kids, if they get scared and reject people that are drunk, annoying etc or somthing, not a 18+ house
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad