Event SCarowinds 2022
- Thread starter Zachary
- Start date
According to their website, it doesn’t open on Sundays until October:
So, unless that is a new schedule, yesterday’s early closure is not the reason for its being closed today.
If anyone interested, this happened:
Direct Link to Embedded Media Source
So, unless that is a new schedule, yesterday’s early closure is not the reason for its being closed today.
If anyone interested, this happened:
Direct Link to Embedded Media Source
Matter of time until most of these Halloween events are an up charge… and I wouldn’t be against it.
I would prefer a "no unaccompanied minors" rule
Looks as if Carowinds will be introducing a chaperone policy, starting September 20, based on the events from this past Saturday:
Carowinds to implement chaperone policy following ‘unruly behavior’ by minors over weekend
Carowinds to implement chaperone policy following ‘unruly behavior’ by minors over weekend
absolutely needed after saturday. it was ridiculous what happened. from what i witnessed, a large group in harmony hall about 830 caused a rush mob 2 different times until security came, then later about 1030 another rush mob came from county fair past the line for paranormal inc, after that a woman was on her phone with her child saying there was a shooter at fury and people were hiding, then finally at 11 they closed the park. as my friend, her son, and i just exited the park the largest mob started stampeding in a frenzy back into the park through the metal detectors and ropes. i guided them over to the plaza sign to get against it so none of us would get trampled. there was no gun, no gun shots, nothing but stupid kids causing mass panic and getting people hurt. bring this policy on please.
Hopefully KD (and other parks) will implement the same and avoid anything like this happening.
Carowinds released the details of their chaperone policy today. But has anyone seen how dysfunctional it seems.
The new policy (for a thread posterity perspective):
The policy is all well and good, except up through the last paragraph; where once inside the park, it sounds (at least to me) as if the chaperone can simply bid farewell to the younger guests they're accompanying, as long as they keep their cell phone on them.
So what's the point of a chaperone policy, if the kids are only be chaperoned into the park itself - where once inside, the chaperone is free to find a bar for the rest of the evening. And the kids in turn meet up with other kids, and create the rush mob incidents, like @Executioner822 mentioned above. Or as I've heard from other (unconfirmed) sources from SCarowinds on Saturday, of setting off fire crackers - which sound like gunshots - in order to induce panic.
So if (unaccompanied) kids are given the chance to ruin the haunt experience for other guests, how exactly does calling the chaperone after the fact, help in any way? (But I really hope that I'm missing something.)
Of note, it seems the new SCarowinds policy completely matches the current Knott's policy introduced this summer... but I want to say that the phone aspect was a revision to the original policy.
The new policy (for a thread posterity perspective):
The policy is all well and good, except up through the last paragraph; where once inside the park, it sounds (at least to me) as if the chaperone can simply bid farewell to the younger guests they're accompanying, as long as they keep their cell phone on them.
So what's the point of a chaperone policy, if the kids are only be chaperoned into the park itself - where once inside, the chaperone is free to find a bar for the rest of the evening. And the kids in turn meet up with other kids, and create the rush mob incidents, like @Executioner822 mentioned above. Or as I've heard from other (unconfirmed) sources from SCarowinds on Saturday, of setting off fire crackers - which sound like gunshots - in order to induce panic.
So if (unaccompanied) kids are given the chance to ruin the haunt experience for other guests, how exactly does calling the chaperone after the fact, help in any way? (But I really hope that I'm missing something.)
Of note, it seems the new SCarowinds policy completely matches the current Knott's policy introduced this summer... but I want to say that the phone aspect was a revision to the original policy.
It says, "Guests ages 17 years old or younger who are found inside the park unaccompanied by a chaperone will be subject to ejection". So if the chaperone did leave them on their own the kids would potentially be ejected. Hopefully they actually carry that out. That solves the problem you note.
@Crunchewy - Right; kids 17 and younger, if found unaccompanied, will be ejected from the park.
However if the chaperone leaves the kids, and if the kids are indeed found by security, how many security officers does it take (1, 2, or maybe 3) to detain the group of kids while the (1 to many) chaperones are contacted - where is it the responsibility of the park to track the chaperone's phone number. Or what happens if the kids can't remember the number, or give some other random person's number (thus slowing the process).
So given all this time transpired - where these officers are detained contacting, and potentially waiting for the chaperone to make it to the other side of the park - let's say you then have another other groups kids where of course additional officers are needed. Then think about how potentially exponential this becomes, from a resource perspective, on packed Saturdays.
Also think about how easy it is for a large group of kids to text eachother, to meetup at say Harmony Hall at a certain time, where they promptly start an incident. So only if all these kids are immediately found after leaving their respective chaperone, does the policy work - but at that point does the park have more security on hand than scare actors
.
Maybe I'm overthinking this (likely so). But again this policy seems rather dysfunctional, and not easily enforceable; where the policy would make much more sense if chaperones were actually forced to chaperone.
EDIT: And apologies @Crunchewy. It was not my intent to direct this post to you, as I was instead just further backing up my previous post. So apologies in advance.
However if the chaperone leaves the kids, and if the kids are indeed found by security, how many security officers does it take (1, 2, or maybe 3) to detain the group of kids while the (1 to many) chaperones are contacted - where is it the responsibility of the park to track the chaperone's phone number. Or what happens if the kids can't remember the number, or give some other random person's number (thus slowing the process).
So given all this time transpired - where these officers are detained contacting, and potentially waiting for the chaperone to make it to the other side of the park - let's say you then have another other groups kids where of course additional officers are needed. Then think about how potentially exponential this becomes, from a resource perspective, on packed Saturdays.
Also think about how easy it is for a large group of kids to text eachother, to meetup at say Harmony Hall at a certain time, where they promptly start an incident. So only if all these kids are immediately found after leaving their respective chaperone, does the policy work - but at that point does the park have more security on hand than scare actors
.Maybe I'm overthinking this (likely so). But again this policy seems rather dysfunctional, and not easily enforceable; where the policy would make much more sense if chaperones were actually forced to chaperone.
EDIT: And apologies @Crunchewy. It was not my intent to direct this post to you, as I was instead just further backing up my previous post. So apologies in advance.
Last edited:
I think, to some extent, you are over thinking this. Minor(s) without adults next to them can be escorted to an office somewhere where they could hold multiple groups if need be. One of the biggest reasons for making these policies is solely for enforcement reasons. If you find a minor doing something that's borderline against policy an argument could ensue but with this policy in place there's nothing to argue about.@Crunchewy - Right; kids 17 and younger, if found unaccompanied, will be ejected from the park.
However if the chaperone leaves the kids, and if the kids are indeed found by security, how many security officers does it take (1, 2, or maybe 3) to detain the group of kids while the (1 to many) chaperones are contacted - where is it the responsibility of the park to track the chaperone's phone number. Or what happens if the kids can't remember the number, or give some other random person's number (thus slowing the process).
So given all this time transpired - where these officers are detained contacting, and potentially waiting for the chaperone to make it to the other side of the park - let's say you then have another other groups kids where of course additional officers are needed. Then think about how potentially exponential this becomes, from a resource perspective, on packed Saturdays.
Also think about how easy it is for a large group of kids to text eachother, to meetup at say Harmony Hall at a certain time, where they promptly start an incident. So only if all these kids are immediately found after leaving their respective chaperone, does the policy work - but at that point does the park have more security on hand than scare actors
Maybe I'm overthinking this (likely so). But again this policy seems rather dysfunctional, and not easily enforceable; where the policy would make much more sense if chaperones were actually forced to chaperone.
EDIT: And apologies @Crunchewy. It was not my intent to direct this post to you, as I was instead just further backing up my previous post. So apologies in advance.
Personally I think this is something that really isn't going to be actively enforced inside the park unless someone is causing trouble -- what this does is give more enforcement and a stronger means of dealing with issues.
I agree on the fact that I am over-thinking things 
. But as one final post on the point I've been trying to convey... I feel the original Knott's policy from late July to be a more effective policy:
But I can see it from the park's view as well, where they do not want to impose additional responsiblities on the chaperone; as it would make for a less-entertaining evening, and potentially discourage them from visiting in the first place. And of course how it punishes respectful teens in being shadowed by an adult.
So it's unfortunate any park needs to implement a chaperone policy. But it looks needed (at least for now), given how crazy things have become. So I hope the current policy is effective at both Knotts and Carowinds... as the last thing I want to see is any additional headline for an amusement park closing early, most especially at a park like KD or BGW.
. But as one final post on the point I've been trying to convey... I feel the original Knott's policy from late July to be a more effective policy:- Chaperones must accompany their party during entry, remain with their party at all times during their visit to the park, and be available by phone throughout their stay.
- Chaperones must accompany their party during entry, remain inside the park during their visit, and be available by phone throughout their stay.
But I can see it from the park's view as well, where they do not want to impose additional responsiblities on the chaperone; as it would make for a less-entertaining evening, and potentially discourage them from visiting in the first place. And of course how it punishes respectful teens in being shadowed by an adult.
So it's unfortunate any park needs to implement a chaperone policy. But it looks needed (at least for now), given how crazy things have become. So I hope the current policy is effective at both Knotts and Carowinds... as the last thing I want to see is any additional headline for an amusement park closing early, most especially at a park like KD or BGW.
On reddit there was someone from Kennywood that posted that just having the policy has virtually eliminated fights/incidents in the park. I think the policy stands on it's own and does what it's meant to do without park interaction 90% of the time and then in the other 10% security has an easier time having something to enforce.I agree on the fact that I am over-thinking things
Whereas the current, more relaxed, policy for both parks is now:
- Chaperones must accompany their party during entry, remain with their party at all times during their visit to the park, and be available by phone throughout their stay.
So where the original policy placed more responsibility on the chaperone (instructing them to "remain with their party"), the current seems to place all responsibility on park security - which is likely less enforceable - as security must confront and question (now a potentially higher number) of unaccompanied 17 and unders. Generally this would be okay. But I see all too often in national headlines, and even from personal conversations with park personnel at KD, the legitimate hesitancy in confronting business patrons these days, not knowing how they will physically react.
- Chaperones must accompany their party during entry, remain inside the park during their visit, and be available by phone throughout their stay.
But I can see it from the park's view as well, where they do not want to impose additional responsiblities on the chaperone; as it would make for a less-entertaining evening, and potentially discourage them from visiting in the first place. And of course how it punishes respectful teens in being shadowed by an adult.
So it's unfortunate any park needs to implement a chaperone policy. But it looks needed (at least for now), given how crazy things have become. So I hope the current policy is effective at both Knotts and Carowinds... as the last thing I want to see is any additional headline for an amusement park closing early, most especially at a park like KD or BGW.
Trying to think back when I was a kid, there was a big difference if I knew my parents were in the vicinity vs being somewhere far away. My friends and I never were ones that caused trouble but even from that point of view, if I went to the mall by myself I would act differently than if one of my parents was somewhere in that same mall. In this sense I think it boosts self-control in most kids/teens and doesn't really put any additional responsibility on anyone.
I totally get where you are coming from but I think you are looking at this as the absolute worst case scenario in which incredibly evil teenaged people are filling the parks. I genuinely don't think the majority of the people causing problems are at all evil.... they are literally just being kids (even if there's a little less self-control nowadays).
If only BGW would implement a policy like this. Way too much happens during HOS for them to not have one.
Probably greatly reduced the number of kids going to the park, though especially those planning to be wild and unsupervised. Also suppresses some bad behavior once there as you said, but mostly before even getting that far.
This is really sad that these restrictions are even being contemplated. I really haven't experienced anything that would warrant it in over 100 visits of haunt events, but I don't go on Saturdays. Focusing restrictions on the most crowded nights would help even out the crowd, although that wouldn't be in my benefit and most places are only open 2-3 days a week.
According to multiple reports on FB Carowinds now REQUIRES a state issued ID for anyone over 18 entering Scarowinds and they are reportedly scanning them to insure that they are real and that you CAN NOT reenter if you leave.