I successfully stoped a group of line cutters!!!

[blackthidot]

[QUOTE

My answer: Blame whitey. [/QUOTE]

I agree.

 

[Ziffell]

You're free to ignore line jumping or other infractions if you choose. But to suggest that others ought to do the same is inconsistent with that that very philosophy.

I disagree. To "suggest" something is not the same thing as taking action to prevent someone from doing something. If I were bothered by line jumping, I would do just that essentially... I would "suggest" to the person that they not do it. And I would be willing to bet that that approach would be infinitely more effectively (and considerably less likely to result in an altercation of some kind) than the strategies being mentioned here. I think as a general rule, people don't like it when you play games with them and behave in a childish manner. Rarely, if ever, is the outcome a good one when dealing with issues in this way.

 

[LoriMistress]

My answer: Blame whitey.

I agree.

It's the only reasonable answer.

 

[blackthidot]

It's the only reasonable answer.

Logical as well. My iPhone is white...I am about sick of him as well.

 

[tizzo]

By taking a passive aggressive approach, you only antagonize the situation.

Snowpony's "battle plan" does not exhibit any passive aggressive traits. He or she simply creates a situation in which someone who would seek to cut in line is required to act in an aggressive manner - one befitting the nature of the act of cutting in the first place - in order to do so.

The theory - one that seems sound to me - is that most line jumpers are merely inconsiderate, not aggressive, and that by making it difficult to do without aggression, you deter almost all violators.

You do have a point in that if Snowpony does happen to come upon the odd line jumper who really is aggressive and not just inconsiderate that a confrontation is likely to occur. I would not go so far as to say that Snowpony had antagonized the situation - that lies entirely at the feet of the person trying to jump the line. But that is Snowpony's risk to take. And in this particular context, in which you let another person's behavior go rather than risk an altercation, especially if you would feel victimized by doing so - is a characteristic of passive aggressive behavior.

 

[snowpony]

Actually, step 1 is the unspoken message (for the sake of all vacationing guests and their children's ears), and if they still try to cut, it goes on to step 2, which is a very verbal message.

:fork:

As someone who scrimps and saves to be able to go to Walt Disney World every couple of years, I want to make the most of my time and see as much as I can see while I'm there. All those line-cutters you don't worry about increase the wait times for everyone, which may eventually come down to me not being able to experience certain attractions by the end of the day. People can do what they want if it only affects them, but if it affects me (and everyone else behind me), then there's a problem.

And believe me, as a hockey player of 15 years, it's in the line-cutter's best interest to not get in a confrontation with me or even try....we hockey players excel in the art of trash-talking and confrontation.

Why send an "unspoken" message if it bothers you so much? Why not confront the person in a non-threatening, non-adverserial, adult tone? I've never found that to fail in any type of situations which warrant a confrontation. By taking a passive aggressive approach, you only antagonize the situation.

 

[Ziffell]

Snowpony's "battle plan" does not exhibit any passive aggressive traits. He or she simply creates a situation in which someone who would seek to cut in line is required to act in an aggressive manner - one befitting the nature of the act of cutting in the first place - in order to do so.

The theory - one that seems sound to me - is that most line jumpers are merely inconsiderate, not aggressive, and that by making it difficult to do without aggression, you deter almost all violators.

You do have a point in that if Snowpony does happen to come upon the odd line jumper who really is aggressive and not just inconsiderate that a confrontation is likely to occur. I would not go so far as to say that Snowpony had antagonized the situation - that lies entirely at the feet of the person trying to jump the line. But that is Snowpony's risk to take. And in this particular context, in which you let another person's behavior go rather than risk an altercation, especially if you would feel victimized by doing so - is a characteristic of passive aggressive behavior.

It's clear you're not familiar with the term "passive aggressive", because letting something go is not a description of that term. Passive aggressive behavior, in a nutshell, means dealing with something WITHOUT directly dealing with it. It's like when someone gives you the silent treatment when they are mad at you. Clearly they are letting it bother them, and they are trying to get back at you by not speaking to you. That's playing a game, and most people tend not to care for that type of behavior. Likewise, trying to come up with a way to just block someone's path in line is not a direct way of dealing with something.

And as I mentioned before, is it really that big of a problem? Does it really happen so often that a person has to stand in line for a ride constantly worrying about who is going to cut in front of them? I would hate to spend my day at WDW (or any theme park for that matter) that way. Not exactly my idea of fun. I think if it was that much of a problem, and it bothered me so much that I was constantly on alert for it, I wouldn't spend my vacations there.

 

[tizzo]

I disagree. To "suggest" something is not the same thing as taking action to prevent someone from doing something. If I were bothered by line jumping, I would do just that essentially... I would "suggest" to the person that they not do it. And I would be willing to bet that that approach would be infinitely more effectively (and considerably less likely to result in an altercation of some kind) than the strategies being mentioned here. I think as a general rule, people don't like it when you play games with them and behave in a childish manner. Rarely, if ever, is the outcome a good one when dealing with issues in this way.

I don't disagree with gentle verbal confrontation as a means of countering the kind of behavior we've been talking about. In fact, that is my preferred approach. But that's not the same thing as saying everyone should ignore it because it's such a small thing, which is how you came out of the gate (at least as I read you).

But Snowpony's approach is just as valid. It may or may not be effective - it actually depends on the violator.

I'm not sure what you "disagree" with in the first sentence of your post. Nothing you said contradicts the portion you quoted from my post.

 

[Ziffell]

All those line-cutters you don't worry about increase the wait times for everyone, which may eventually come down to me not being able to experience certain attractions by the end of the day.

Seriously?? I mean, really, it's happening THAT often? You don't think maybe you're exaggerating just a bit? You really believe that in any given day, you're cut in front of so many times that the time is going to add up to you missing multiple attractions (or even one for that matter) as a direct result of it? Sorry, but I just find that very hard to swallow.

 

[Ziffell]

I don't disagree with gentle verbal confrontation as a means of countering the kind of behavior we've been talking about. In fact, that is my preferred approach. But that's not the same thing as saying everyone should ignore it because it's such a small thing, which is how you came out of the gate (at least as I read you).

You should read my posts more carefully. I'm not saying "everyone should ignore it". I'm saying that when I go to WDW, I don't let things like that bother ME. I also stated that if it DOES bother someone, that a passive aggressive approach is not an effective way to handle it. You may think that by using that approach you are somehow bettering society, but in most cases, you've not solved the larger problem. Sure, a person may not cut in line in front of YOU because they are intimidated or don't feel it's worth it. But speaking to them about it in an adult manner is going to be much more likely to get them to not do it to others as well. Assuming that's your goal. Again, call me selfish and uncaring about society if you want, but when I go to WDW, I'm not there to solve the world's problems. I'm there to enjoy the vacation that I scrimped and saved to go on.

 

[Ziffell]

I'm not sure what you "disagree" with in the first sentence of your post. Nothing you said contradicts the portion you quoted from my post.

(see below)

But to suggest that others ought to do the same is inconsistent with that that very philosophy.

I disagree. To "suggest" something is not the same thing as taking action to prevent someone from doing something.

 

[tizzo]

It's clear you're not familiar with the term "passive aggressive", because letting something go is not a description of that term. Passive aggressive behavior, in a nutshell, means dealing with something WITHOUT directly dealing with it. It's like when someone gives you the silent treatment when they are mad at you. Clearly they are letting it bother them, and they are trying to get back at you by not speaking to you. That's playing a game, and most people tend not to care for that type of behavior. Likewise, trying to come up with a way to just block someone's path in line is not a direct way of dealing with something.

Actually, I looked it up before I made my comment, but thanks anyway. Letting something go in the real sense - in the sense that you don't let it bother you - is not passive aggressive. It's great that you're able to do that but it's not always a choice. Ignoring something that does bother you rather than deal with it, which is what Snowpony would have to do in order to take your advice, would be. In other words, while how you react to something is in your control, how you feel about reacting or not reacting is not. If your personality is such that it would bother you to see someone cut you in line - and while different people have different reactions it is certainly in no way a character flaw if it would - then not doing anything to stop it would be a characteristic of passive aggressive behavior.

It seems evident to me that Snowpony's described technique is sharply distinct from anything that could be considered passive aggressive. If the technique works, it avoids the problem altogether, leaving there nothing to deal with or avoid dealing with, and making the term passive aggressive meaningless. If it does not work, it guarantees a confrontation, which a passive aggressive would avoid at all costs.

And as I mentioned before, is it really that big of a problem? Does it really happen so often that a person has to stand in line for a ride constantly worrying about who is going to cut in front of them? I would hate to spend my day at WDW (or any theme park for that matter) that way. Not exactly my idea of fun. I think if it was that much of a problem, and it bothered me so much that I was constantly on alert for it, I wouldn't spend my vacations there.

As I said in an earlier post, it depends on your personality and your situation. It makes no difference to me if I'm delayed a couple of minutes getting on a ride. If I'm not going to make it out of Buzz Lightyear on time to see Wishes, no matter - I saw it a couple of weeks ago, and I'm going to see it in a couple more weeks. I don't eat in the parks so never have to be on time for ADRs. I don't have kids so don't have to worry about what they're seeing or how they're going to interpret what other things are doing and how those actions are received. Indeed my only real interest in defeating line jumpers would be on behalf of others on whom it has a greater effect than it does on me. But I have to make room for fact that everyone else's situation isn't the same as mine.

 

[Ziffell]

not doing anything to stop it would be a characteristic of passive aggressive behavior.

Nope. Not correct. Sorry. It would be "passive" behavior to not do anything at all. "Passive" and "passive aggressive" are two very different terms. I would suggest looking it up again.

In other words, while how you react to something is in your control, how you feel about reacting or not reacting is not.

That's not at all true. Emotions, believe it or not, are not an involuntary function. You have complete control of how you feel about something. I would suggest looking that up as well. Try a search on the term "emotional intelligence".

As I said in an earlier post, it depends on your personality and your situation. It makes no difference to me if I'm delayed a couple of minutes getting on a ride. If I'm not going to make it out of Buzz Lightyear on time to see Wishes, no matter - I saw it a couple of weeks ago, and I'm going to see it in a couple more weeks. I don't eat in the parks so never have to be on time for ADRs. I don't have kids so don't have to worry about what they're seeing or how they're going to interpret what other things are doing and how those actions are received. Indeed my only real interest in defeating line jumpers would be on behalf of others on whom it has a greater effect than it does on me. But I have to make room for fact that everyone else's situation isn't the same as mine.

I think you misunderstood what I was asking. What I asked was is it really that big of a problem. In other words, is it really something that happens so much and so often, that people have to come up with ways to strategize on how to combat it. It's difficult for me to imagine that it happens so much that it actually causes a noticeable delay in reaching the ride's loading area, or that it disrupts a person's schedule for the day in any way. People here are behaving as though it does.

 

[tizzo]

What you posted after this:

(see below)

was not as illustrative as this:

You should read my posts more carefully. I'm not saying "everyone should ignore it".

My mistake then, but a reasonable one since you were responding to someone who is bothered by the behavior in question in such a way as to suggest that they ought to be more like you. A sentiment that I don't disagree with, but again it's not always a choice.

I'm saying that when I go to WDW, I don't let things like that bother ME. I also stated that if it DOES bother someone, that a passive aggressive approach is not an effective way to handle it.

...yes, to someone who hadn't described or advocated a passive aggressive approach, I remember...

You may think that by using that approach you are somehow bettering society, but in most cases, you've not solved the larger problem. Sure, a person may not cut in line in front of YOU because they are intimidated or don't feel it's worth it.

... which for some people might be enough.

But speaking to them about it in an adult manner is going to be much more likely to get them to not do it to others as well. Assuming that's your goal.

Not always, but usually, which is why that is my preferred approach.

Again, call me selfish and uncaring about society if you want, but when I go to WDW, I'm not there to solve the world's problems. I'm there to enjoy the vacation that I scrimped and saved to go on.

Nothing selfish about that. Pragmatic actually, because I don't think you're going to change the other person's overall behavior either way.


Clarifying since not all the quotes made it through and I'm too lazy to go cite them, my comment about your admonition to let it go being inconsistent with itself was made in the context of my misreading of your original post, which I took as you trying to tell someone else not to do what they were doing because it was better to let other people do what they want to do. What you quoted in response to that didn't really add anything to the conversation, but what you posted in the immediately preceding post clarifying your original intent did, thus my opening line in this post. If that makes sense.

 

[Wishes 1971]

MY vacation time is too short to let it get to me. I mean is this really that pervasive of a problem? I seriously cannot think of even a handful of times when it has happened to me. Maybe I'm just lucky. I tend to have a great time any time I'm in WDW. I get the impression a lot of people here are too focused on getting annoyed with other guests and allowing themselves to get upset. Why even go, if it's such an upsetting experience to be there?

You must be....We stopped by Magic Kingdom for 1 day earlier this month, and had it happen/attempted three times!

I understand your perspective....I have observed some heated exchanges while at the "happiest place on earth." I didn't (and don't) let it consume me and ruin my day. I think what bothers me the most is the lack of consideration for ANYONE ELSE these people display.....Our family still had an enjoyable day.....

 

[tizzo]

Nope. Not correct. Sorry. It would be "passive" behavior to not do anything at all. "Passive" and "passive aggressive" are two very different terms. I would suggest looking it up again.

I'm no expert, all I had to go on was Wikipedia. But according to what it says there, letting someone do something that bothers you, and then sulking of feeling victimized by it, is one of the diagnostic elements of passive aggressive behavior. They also cite fear of competition, and to the extent that you're letting someone do something that you don't think you should let them do for fear of coming up short in a confrontation would seem to fit the bill as well.

But again, I'm no expert.

That's not at all true. Emotions, believe it or not, are not an involuntary function. You have complete control of how you feel about something. I would suggest looking that up as well. Try a search on the term "emotional intelligence".

I'll have to take your word for that. Everything I could find on emotional intelligence was over my head.

I think you misunderstood what I was asking. What I asked was is it really that big of a problem. In other words, is it really something that happens so much and so often, that people have to come up with ways to strategize on how to combat it. It's difficult for me to imagine that it happens so much that it actually causes a noticeable delay in reaching the ride's loading area, or that it disrupts a person's schedule for the day in any way. People here are behaving as though it does.

I think I acknowledged this in an earlier post, but it might posted while you were writing this, or even after you posted it. I think it happens with sufficiently little frequency that you're right, the impact in generally minimal. All I would add is that this would perhaps not be the case if no one stood up to it.

Also, I don't know if you made the mistake of reading the whole thread like I did, but there's an emotional component driving some of the responses here also. There were a couple of trolls earlier, evidently just egging people on, claiming things like that line jumping is just being smart. In fact I'm actually starting to feel like part of some kid's psych project.

 

[Ziffell]

You must be....We stopped by Magic Kingdom for 1 day earlier this month, and had it happen/attempted three times!

I think if you add up all the times I've been to WDW over the years, the number of times I've had someone cut in front of me would not even add up to three. And you had it happen three times in one visit? Maybe it happens and I just don't notice it. I'm curious though, if you add up the time that those three line cuts delayed you from getting to the ride, do you think the time was significant?

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Live for the now man, dont make with the negative waves, infact if someonej umsp past you in the line, dont worry just suck it in and cream up, you should offer them a sook of your lolly or a quick swadge of the Doris and a swally of your drink too. . we should all just chill.

 

[Ziffell]

I'm no expert, all I had to go on was Wikipedia. But according to what it says there, letting someone do something that bothers you, and then sulking of feeling victimized by it, is one of the diagnostic elements of passive aggressive behavior. They also cite fear of competition, and to the extent that you're letting someone do something that you don't think you should let them do for fear of coming up short in a confrontation would seem to fit the bill as well.

But again, I'm no expert.

Wikipedia is not always the best resource for accurate information. They go to great lengths to preserve the integrity of the site and the information that's posted on it, but I have seen inaccuracies on it. The description you're citing is not entirely accurate. It leaves out the intent to affect the other person in some way. So going back to my earlier example of giving someone the silent treatment (which is generally a classic example of passive aggressive behavior), then intent is usually to "make the other person feel guilty" or to frustrate or even manipulate the other person. That's the "aggressive" part. The "passive" part is in the individual's indirect approach. Sometimes people take a "time out" from an argument. That's not being passive aggressive. That's just allowing time to cool off. Likewise, if I go to a theme park and notice that people are cutting in line in front of me, but I don't care, then I'm neither being passive nor aggressive. If I do let it bother me, but I don't do anything about it, I'm being passive. If I let it bother me, and decide the way to handle it is to just block their path without looking at them or communicating with them in any way, then I'm being passive aggressive. I hope that helps.

Also, I don't know if you made the mistake of reading the whole thread like I did, but there's an emotional component driving some of the responses here also. There were a couple of trolls earlier, evidently just egging people on, claiming things like that line jumping is just being smart. In fact I'm actually starting to feel like part of some kid's psych project.

I thought I had been reading the entire thread, but I missed that part. I do recall reading a post where someone made reference to it though. Taken out of context, I can't really comment on it, but on the surface, it sounds like a silly remark to make.

 

[GoofyFan1]

Seriously?? I mean, really, it's happening THAT often? You don't think maybe you're exaggerating just a bit? You really believe that in any given day, you're cut in front of so many times that the time is going to add up to you missing multiple attractions (or even one for that matter) as a direct result of it? Sorry, but I just find that very hard to swallow.

If you are a person that only gets to go at peak season, (I teach and while parents don't mind taking the students out to go to WDW they have a fit if the teachers try it, but that is another whole arguement,) then yes it does matter. When wait times are 30mins., 45 mins., or over an hour long, then people cutting lines, esp. groups, do affect my time and ability to get to all the attractions.
What it really comes down to is common courtesy. Wait your turn. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
I'm interested, do you live in Florida where you can make multiple trips. Because I know the only way I could be as laid back is if I can make multiple trips or go during a slow season where wait times don't matter.