The kink that happened is I think we are trying to tackle too much at once. And with a fast-paced thread, things get lost in translation.I mean I guess because it's still trying to be somewhat realistic in terms of "well it could be built technically".
Idk. It's a good conversation to have. Maybe we go down a more realistic road (we're only a week into brainstorming after all). Maybe our park owner is the OLC and they have a ton of money lol. I just don't think we should take ourselves too seriously or have hurt feelings and such.
Ultimately though it's up to the people who started this thread and project - which isn't me. I'll be happy to go with whatever the decision is.
My personal opinion is that I don't want to see us get bogged down in a "scenario" that causes limitations and confusion if there are bigger ideas in play. The simpliest solution I can find is that this is just an "Ultimate" land -- no attachement to any theme park, no location is relevant, nothing. Just our version of the ultimate Fantasyland.
This would negate any necessity for a reliance on realism, what would and wouldn't fit etc. And with this understanding though, I think we all need to slow down. It's exciting to see so much activity involved in the brainstorming but it does us no good if over half the people involved fall behind and have no clue what the direction is anymore because it changed.
The main direction of the project should be vague enough where everyone can agree on it and it doesn't change. You should be able to take a few hours off, and come back to the thread knowing that your idea hasn't been axed or the goal of the project has shifted.
A simple ultimate Fantasyland should end all of that. It allows 100% creativity, but at the same time, it doesn't warrant a few people making all of the attraction decisions. Everyone should have a say and be able to do what they want if its a blue sky project.