At MK now.....half of Main Street stores are closed

[Victoriasmom98]

What the heck is in the shed!!!!!! That's the true mystery!!!!!

 

[serenitynow]

What the heck is in the shed!!!!!! That's the true mystery!!!!!

Funny, that was my first thought as well. I think I watch too much ID (Investigation Discovery) channel on TV!

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

So a little , but still along the lines of trusting places you're at with your safety. A few years ago, we stayed at a Westin Hotel. After the first night, we're riding the elevator with a lady from the floor above us. She starts talking about the evacuation the night before & we had no clue what she was talking about. Apparently, the smoke alarms had went off & they evaluated the top three floors but didn't notify anyone below. Needless to say this freaked us out. That's a situation where I'd like to be given the option to leave on my own rather wait then be told to evacuate after they find a raging fire. All ended well, we were alive & without a clue to it all til talking to that lady. But really! We won't be staying there again & what's sad is now our DD is always worried staying in hotels because of it.

Come, come, now. If there was real danger, they would have evacuated you as well.

Maybe. As long as the person assigned to knock on your door actually did it.

 

[GPC0321]

If it happens in a school where my child is, then yep. I am notified. Every time. And if there was a security squad trying to disarm a suspected bomb in a Main Street shop on the other side of a wall, then yes, I would want Disney to tell me that too. Now, do I think that that was what was going on? No. I suspect they would evacuate the area completely. But with what went on in Orlando a short time ago, I want more information than a "wall" of college students smiling, telling me to enjoy Main Street leaving me with no information whatsoever from which to make an informed decision. There is rarely a time when telling the truth is a bad idea. We tell our children that every day. Adults should do a better job of practicing what they preach.

They were telling the truth. They said they were there so that guests could enjoy Main Street more. Nothing untruthful about that.

I guarantee you that had there been a bomb scare, the scenario would have played out very differently. I've been through more bomb threats than I care to think about (I teach high school), and the first rule is to get everyone evacuated and as far away from the building as possible. Even when we KNEW it was students doing it as a repeated prank just to disrupt the school day, we still had to follow protocol. So did the local fire and rescue and law enforcement who had to come to the scene each time and investigate the building to make sure there was no threat. We had two a week for a few weeks, it was so absurd.

 

[JimmyV]

They were telling the truth. They said they were there so that guests could enjoy Main Street more.

That is a very odd definition of the truth. Deflection and deception = truth. I don't think so.
What is so very difficult or wrong about any of the following statements:

• A guest got ill and we have to do some cleaning up.
• A guest isn't feeling well and we need to keep the area clear for their privacy and to attend to them.
• An item fell off a shelf and caused a mess that we need to clean up.
• Security is attending to an incident and we need to keep the area clear.

There is nothing untruthful about any of these statements, and there is nothing deceptive about them either. People's willingness and need for organizations to lie to them is rather astounding.

 

[Vijoge]

I can't imagine they'd close all those stores for someone famous. To be honest, I would not even recognize the Queen of England herself in the parks, if she was dressed like other park goers [thinking granny in capris on a scooter ], without all the bodyguards. Maybe I'm not that observant.

Her Majesty will be easy to spot. Just look for the matching hat. She always wears a matching hat.

 

[lizabu]

That is a very odd definition of the truth. Deflection and deception = truth. I don't think so.
What is so very difficult or wrong about any of the following statements:

• A guest got ill and we have to do some cleaning up.
• A guest isn't feeling well and we need to keep the area clear for their privacy and to attend to them.
• An item fell off a shelf and caused a mess that we need to clean up.
• Security is attending to an incident and we need to keep the area clear.

There is nothing untruthful about any of these statements, and there is nothing deceptive about them either. People's willingness and need for organizations to lie to them is rather astounding.

Do you truly expect this level of detail to be revealed to you in order to consider it "truth"? How much detail is too much and how much is not enough? If any details are left out would you still consider it deflection and deception? For example, do you need to know if someone vomited or do you need to know who specifically vomited? Is it enough to know male/female child/adult or should they point the person out to you? Is it important to you to know the colour of the vomit? What was eaten prior to the vomitting? Where is the line between need to know information and being nosy? Is your knowing specifically what happened going to make a significant difference in any way?

 

[JimmyV]

Her Majesty will be easy to spot.

It'll look like this:

Maybe in Morrocco at Epcot??

Maybe at the Contempo Cafe??

Or at Les Halles in Epcot's French Pavilion???

 

[JimmyV]

Do you truly expect this level of detail to be revealed to you in order to consider it "truth"?-Yes
How much detail is too much and how much is not enough?-My examples were clear.
If any details are left out would you still consider it deflection and deception?-If the statements are on point, then they are not deflections.
For example, do you need to know if someone vomited or do you need to know who specifically vomited?-No
Is it enough to know male/female child/adult or should they point the person out to you?-Don't need to know any of that.
Is it important to you to know the colour of the vomit?-No
What was eaten prior to the vomitting?-Maybe. If I, too, suffered vomiting and the CDC wanted to investigate a potential outbreak of food poisoning, then I would want to know if there was a commonality between what I ate and what others suffered from.
Where is the line between need to know information and being nosy?-The line exists where the information can and will be used to guide my decisions.
Is your knowing specifically what happened going to make a significant difference in any way?-That is the root question. But only I can decide that, and only after having enough information to determine if a difference is going to be made.

Let's take as an example the recent alligator incident. Fortunately, there were enough witnesses where the truth came out. But suppose a CM had been walking along the edge of the lake and a 7 foot alligator snapped at him. Fortunately, in this example, no harm was done. Do you think it would be OK for Disney to put up a rope and say nothing more? Or should they inform people that there is a 7 foot alligator in the water? Should they post a few CMs at the lake's edge who deflect and say, "we want you to stay away from the lake because we want you to spend more time at the pool", or should they say: "we want you to stay away from the lake because there is an alligator in there." You can try to be consistent and conclude that you don't need to know anything about why the CMs are at the edge of the lake. But if we are being honest with each other, we would want Disney to tell us that there is a 7 foot alligator in there that has a propensity to snap.

 

[lizabu]

Let's take as an example the recent alligator incident. Fortunately, there were enough witnesses where the truth came out. But suppose a CM had been walking along the edge of the lake and a 7 foot alligator snapped at him. Fortunately, in this example, no harm was done. Do you think it would be OK for Disney to put up a rope and say nothing more? Or should they inform people that there is a 7 foot alligator in the water? Should they post a few CMs at the lake's edge who deflect and say, "we want you to stay away from the lake because we want you to spend more time at the pool", or should they say: "we want you to stay away from the lake because there is an alligator in there." You can try to be consistent and conclude that you don't need to know anything about why the CMs are at the edge of the lake. But if we are being honest with each other, we would want Disney to tell us that there is a 7 foot alligator in there that has a propensity to snap.

I dont think things that are dangerous and things that are not dangerous are equal or that they have to be treated the same way. You are equating an incident that poses a threat to guests with one which does not.

 

[JimmyV]

You are equating an incident that poses a threat to guests with one which does not.

So....tell me exactly what the incident was yesterday that was not dangerous. Ahhhh...you don't know. It is not I who is equating a "non-dangerous" incident with a "dangerous" one. It is you who is equating a "known" incident with an "unknown incident". And how do we move an "unknown" incident into the "known" column? With information. See how that works?

 

[DizBelle]

Her Majesty will be easy to spot. Just look for the matching hat. She always wears a matching hat.

A hat that matches what?

 

[SaintsManiac]

All these pages and still no story?

 

[Baklava]

So a little , but still along the lines of trusting places you're at with your safety. A few years ago, we stayed at a Westin Hotel. After the first night, we're riding the elevator with a lady from the floor above us. She starts talking about the evacuation the night before & we had no clue what she was talking about. Apparently, the smoke alarms had went off & they evaluated the top three floors but didn't notify anyone below. Needless to say this freaked us out. That's a situation where I'd like to be given the option to leave on my own rather wait then be told to evacuate after they find a raging fire. All ended well, we were alive & without a clue to it all til talking to that lady. But really! We won't be staying there again & what's sad is now our DD is always worried staying in hotels because of it.

SOP in large hotels is to evacuate the floor where the alarm is, the one above and the one below. It is safer to wait to evacuate the rest of the hotel than it is to try to evac everyone at once which often produces panic. Especially when the fire is at the top, it's counter-intuitive but it really is safer. Most fires are small and easily contained.

If you stay at a Hyatt, a Marriott, a Double Tree... that's policy. It's what emergency services recommend.

 

[Srbright]

Come, come, now. If there was real danger, they would have evacuated you as well.

Maybe. As long as the person assigned to knock on your door actually did it.

I'm not knocking on the door until I know what's in the shed.

Stacy

 

[GPC0321]

That is a very odd definition of the truth. Deflection and deception = truth. I don't think so.
What is so very difficult or wrong about any of the following statements:

• A guest got ill and we have to do some cleaning up.
• A guest isn't feeling well and we need to keep the area clear for their privacy and to attend to them.
• An item fell off a shelf and caused a mess that we need to clean up.
• Security is attending to an incident and we need to keep the area clear.

There is nothing untruthful about any of these statements, and there is nothing deceptive about them either. People's willingness and need for organizations to lie to them is rather astounding.

Possible reactions to your suggestions:

"What do you mean 'isn't feeling well' and what kind of cleaning up? Why did the guest get ill? Was it food poisoning? Where did they last eat? Is it contagious? Could I or my family get ill too? You have to clear three shops to attend to one sick guest? What aren't you telling me??"

"An item fell off a shelf and caused a mess that closed down three shops? That's a honey of a mess, and could have seriously hurt someone. Why isn't Disney being more careful about how they stock their shelves? That's inexcusable, and frankly unbelievable! What aren't you telling me??"

"An INCIDENT?! What KIND of 'incident'? Is it a bomb? A threat? Someone with a gun? A gas leak? Am I in danger? Is my family in danger? Should we leave? What aren't you telling me??"


See? None of those would go over particularly well with guests who are prone to think the worst. Much better to smile and say, "Helping you enjoy Main Street more," which is absolutely what they are doing if they're preventing guests from seeing or experiencing something that would lessen their enjoyment of Main Street.

 

[scrapquitler]

I find it odd they "pounded on him" instead of performed the Heimlich Manuver. I assumed all restaurant employees (especially Disney) were taught that.

MG

When I take first aid for work, we are taught to alternate 5 back blows with 5 abdominal thrusts. Always try back blows first.

 

[JimmyV]

See? None of those would go over particularly well with guests who are prone to think the worst.

They can always move toward deflection after giving an initial explanation. Just because some percentage of guests will persist and want to know more is not a good enough reason to deny all guests a base level of information. Each of your examples can be easily met with a polite: "That is all I am authorized to tell you. Have a magical day."

 

[scrapquitler]

What the heck is in the shed!!!!!! That's the true mystery!!!!!

Probably the same thing that was in the brown paper bag the neighbor dropped into the window. We will never find out.

 

[GPC0321]

They can always move toward deflection after giving an initial explanation. Just because some percentage of guests will persist and want to know more is not a good enough reason to deny all guests a base level of information.

But guests don't NEED that information. If they are not in immediate danger, then there's no reason to tell them anything. It could be a safety drill, a celebrity, a medical emergency, a snake in the store that they are having a hard time catching, a shoplifting situation that they are reviewing before reopening, an electrical issue, or any number of things that we haven't even thought of.

And come on, even if the CMs gave a vague explanation of what was transpiring, half the people who heard it wouldn't believe it and would still claim Disney is "lying" to them about what's "really" going on. So why bother?