Comparing (Coasters, Parks, Companies) and Forming Opinions

[Dan]

I know we've had a lot of this type of thread lately, but I think it's pretty important, as it has arisen in many other discussions as of late. Disputes about whether or not we can compare two or more parks, coasters, or companies (I'm sure there are others), and disputes about formulating opinions have become, I think, a huge issue. It should be addressed.

Some, led by the logical Sirloin, think opinions shouldn't be formulated until you have actually experienced something. In reality, we can't follow that rule, no matter how tempting it may be. Sirloin, when you chose to go to Texas instead of California, that decision wasn't just off the top of your head. I'm sure you thought about it a lot, read up on both places, asked people about both places, etc. You can complain about the lack of threads related to anything but SoCal and Florida, but that's where the members are. If I should participate in a Worlds of Fun Future thread, I have to use what I know about the park to formulate my opinions and beliefs, because I have never been there.

And, comparing parks and companies has been linked with comparing apples in oranges lately. You know what I say? Why not compare apples and oranges! Apples are much less juicy than oranges. Both have a part that isn't considered edible (although some eat them, I refer to the peel and the core). Would you rather get rid of the peel first and relax after finishing the orange, or have no problem eating the apple but then having to deal with the core? But, alas! You have to wash apples, but you don't have to wash oranges?

It's possible to compare them. It's just difficult and takes some thought, and thought is the base of thoughtful discussions, which is what I think we all want.

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

This is part of something that aggravates me, so I figure I'll share my perspective.

I, and I know others, get EXTREMELY annoyed when people "jump sides" on the topic of comparing attractions you haven't experienced. That being, the say they won't judge an attraction until experiencing it, then turn around to start judging things, then their back at their original stance...why? It's convenient for them and their debate. Heck, I could make an entire list of names of people that are guilty of this-but I won't because those people know who they are. The fact is, I'm the kind of person that will always put a judgment on things before I ride them. Certainly I'm not going to attempt to narrow a ride down to-the-t and decide how much airtime something has, but I'm not an idiot to realize something like Colossos lacks extreme directional changes.

The only thing I ask is for some to stop trying to stick both feet on each side of the line. It doesn't just annoy your fellow enthusiasts, it makes you look like an idiot-to put it bluntly.

-----

In a more general sense, I think you can compare most things to each other. Obviously a wooden coaster and steel coaster can't be directly compared because of the physical limitation within a wooden coaster, but something simple like Intamin and B&M can be. They both make loopers, they both make hyper coasters. I don't see informality in comparing Universal to a Six Flags park...because they're both designed to offer guests a fun experience of attractions. Heck, last time I checked a "theme park" was still an amusement park at heart. Even most amusement parks pursue the theme aspect while not opting to title themselves a "theme park". In my opinion, a 85 year advantage over Disney's first park is more than adequate time to prevent such a deficit. The location of a park doesn't give an excuse to how it's built or why they do certain things. Last time I checked, people were still ranking dark coasters to outdoor loopers on the polls. Most things can be ranked among one another.

[Mike T]

The only thing I ask is for some to stop trying to stick both feet on each side of the line. It doesn't just annoy your fellow enthusiasts, it makes you look like an idiot-to put it bluntly.

I don't think it makes anybody look like an idiot, but it certainly doesn't propel the discussion in any sort of way if there is a reiteration of what has already been said. But there is definately a difference between taking both sides and understanding the opposition's side in comparison to your own. If you don't understand what anybody is saying, the debate is again... not going to go anywhere. And yeah I'm pretty sure we can substitute your Colossos comment with Shivering Timbers and find ourselves in one of our thorough ;) conversations from the past. Again, yeah I can definately see where you are coming from when you say that, but my suggestion is to see what I'm trying to say in retort. Its nothing against anybody, but I think it makes us all stronger people when it comes to situations like that. It also helps to mediate the situation, while still presenting valid points of argumentation.

And like Dan said, never say never. The sky's the limit on what we can compare. If I wanted to point out the similar qualities of a ProSlide Tornado to a Huss Frisbee, its definately do-able, even though its a bit radical.

All I'm suggesting is that everybody has fun. I'd rather come out of a debate defeated, only to learn something new from the person arguing with me, rather than being the guy who is victorious all of the time. Again, this all alludes back to the thread about being open minded :).

[sirloin]

Dan, you are correct on me taking time to think Texas vs. California through. Funny thing is, I asked the writer of that Amusement Park Guide (Tim O'Brien, is it?), and he recommended Cali, lol.

I do think that many things can be compared, but some things just don't work. Scream! vs. Batman-The Ride, up against each other and with no other rides involved, don't really work together on their own. A "Best B&M at SFMM?" thread would have worked better.

The trick to a good debate is to find the common ground between the two sides, rather than arguing about every aspect. Most of the time, there will be alot of common ground. However, you do need to avoid very bizarre duos as well (see the Scream! vs. B-TR thread), because really, what's up with that? Now I think perhaps an El-Toro vs. Superman at SFNE would be a possible thread, because they're both airtime machines with twister finales. But an El Toro vs. Great American Scream Machine thread? Not so much.

And to be fair, sometimes jumping sides is OK. I say this because if you and I are debating, and suddenly, you believe I'm right, what's wrong with that? I convinced you, which is what I was aiming to do. Now if you jump sides simply because you think a debate is leaning heavily in the opposite direction from what you were arguing, that's cheap and that's lame.

And again, don't judge a ride until you've ridden it. You can argue, "Obviously, it wasn't good enough to keep people interested, because every review of it is negative." Note that nowhere in that comment did you say, "The ride sucks." Sometimes, the choice of even one word can make the difference between having your argument taken into consideration and getting blasted for pre-judging something. To be fair, in most cases, it's better not to jump into that kind of situation because it's very easy to slip up and kill your credibility.

[Dan]

Dan, you are correct on me taking time to think Texas vs. California through. Funny thing is, I asked the writer of that Amusement Park Guide (Tim O'Brien, is it?), and he recommended Cali, lol.Ah, but have you been to the California parks yet? Sometimes it helps to have experienced neither of something...it helps prevent a bias from forming. For example, someone who hates Scream! But hasn't been on Batman will probably defend Batman though they haven't ridden it. However, if that person has ridden neither, they will more clearly see the pros and cons of each ride. Which brings us back to the idea of being open minded...'tis all a big circle.


And to be fair, sometimes jumping sides is OK. I say this because if you and I are debating, and suddenly, you believe I'm right, what's wrong with that? I convinced you, which is what I was aiming to do. Now if you jump sides simply because you think a debate is leaning heavily in the opposite direction from what you were arguing, that's cheap and that's lame. The problem is when people jump back and forth. I've no problem with people switching sides, but once you start flip-flopping, the problems arise.

[sirloin]

I have not been to the California parks yet. SFMM is coming in just over a month, though. I'm just saying, Texas, for whatever reason, called to me more.

And as it turns out, it was the better decision because had I not gone to Texas, I would've missed out on Astroworld.

[Top Thrill Dolphin]

Some, led by the logical Sirloin, think opinions shouldn't be formulated until you have actually experienced something. In reality, we can't follow that rule, no matter how tempting it may be.

You can say a ride looks good or you've heard good things about it without having ridden it. Saying that ride is good implies that you have ridden it. Why would you say say you've ridden it if you haven't? You can't really know if you'd enjoy it until you experienced it. To put it bluntly, it makes you look like a poser.

As far as jumping both sides, part of being a good debater is seeing the point of view from both sides.

[Dan]

As far as jumping both sides, part of being a good debater is seeing the point of view from both sides.Understanding, sure. I understand why some people don't like Cedar Point, but I can still defend why I like it...the problem is, some people switch their belief systems every time they hear a convincing argument coming from the other side.

[rollercoasterfreek]

I think the Arrow company rides are very annoying. Alot of the trains hurt my neck after I exit the ride. (I might have picked the wrong company but I know there is one company that makes this kind of train). B&M has the nice and smooth feeling to it. There is no heavy banked turns that ruin my back or anything.

PS: It's good to see that open-minded thread closed. It was turning into a trench war