RMC Streak Photo Update - May 7, 2017

I've seen some of you and your type in person...all Billy Badass while hiding behind the computer, but in person, wouldn't say a confrontational word to the persons you argue with on here...ROTFLMAO!

^^I mean, it's been asked several times to not do it here...You're new so you may not have seen the previous discussions, so no harm man. It'll always be found though and talked about to some degree, as that's what Notenoughshwagus Forwattheychargus will always do...find every shred of Coaster ever to discuss ;)

^

Brandon, how is it a "dick move" to legally use property open to the public adjacent to a business just because that business doesn't like it?

Was it a "dick move" when people went to the public park across from the Point during the offseason and took photos of RMC MS?

No difference at all between that and legal drone flight. The airspace is just as public as the park. The pilot simply photographed the coaster from an adjacent public space.

If CP had "prohibited" anyone from taking pictures of MS from the public park or from their boat on the lake what would be your thoughts on that?

Would you not consider that an overreach?

It would be no different- they have no right to tell you what you can do at that nearby public property.

The principle is exactly the same for the airspace above.

Have you ever stayed at a hotel just off point? I'm sure CP doesnt like that either-they'd much rather have you spending your money at their property. Is that a "dick move?" What about going to Kalihari instead of CP Shores? Or eating at the McDonalds just off point before heading into the park to save a few bucks off of the park food?

In these scenarios, you are legitimately utilizing property open to the public, in close proximity to or adjacent to CP, despite the fact that what you are doing goes against CP's business interests and is not what they would prefer that you do.

The simple fact that the drone pilot's interests and CP's business interests are at odds in this case doesn't make anyone a dick.

If the drone pilot were standing on CP's property and piloting the drone from there, then I agree it'd be a dick move.

As far as your neighbor comment, if your next door neighbor hated kids, would you really prohibit your kids from playing in your own backyard to placate your neighbor?

Give me a break.

Should pilots who tow banners for a living not fly ad banners over someplace just because a business on the ground doesn't like it?

Is it a "dick move" when Universal Studios puts billboards up on the highways approaching Disney World?

Sometimes people simply have conflicting interests and each person ends up doing what they perceive is in their interest, and nobody is a dick.

I don't have a dog in the drone fight. I don't own a drone. I simply desired to correct fallacies that had been bandied about such as "restricted airspace" etc.

My only real beef is this hostile and self-righteous demonizing of someone who apparently didn't do anything wrong.

Agree that it is legal use of the airspace, however the consumer drones are not certified airframes like regular airplanes are and people flying them may have dubious skills. I think it is just common sense for people's safety not to fly drones over the park when the park is open and populated. Think if something goes wrong and you get a drone in the face while riding Maverick. Not pretty. Even if it is legal as far as the FAA is concerned, the smart thing to do is to respect CP's wishes and not fly drones over the property.

DA20Pilot said:

Brandon, how is it a "dick move" to legally use property open to the public adjacent to a business just because that business doesn't like it?

That video was shot over CP's private property, including over Perimeter Road while several cars were present. Including while there were presumably pedestrians present at LHP. Including while there were presumably construction workers present.

CP has expressly asked people not to fly drones over their property. Hence, dick move. It's not anymore complicated than that.

The principle is exactly the same for the airspace above.

Illegal, no. Dick move, yes.

I don't have a dog in the drone fight. I don't own a drone. I simply desired to correct fallacies that had been bandied about such as "restricted airspace" etc.

Great, we all understand that what the drone "pilot" did is not yet illegal. Thanks for the input.

My only real beef is this hostile and self-righteous demonizing of someone who apparently didn't do anything wrong.

*sigh*

Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by the use of "wrong". If you mean "didn't do anything illegal", then yeah, that is well understood. But if you're suggesting that he didn't do anything immoral or unethical, then I vehemently disagree.

Calling people a douche is a dick move.

Spending time on a coaster forum calling people douches, during working hours when you're being paid by a company to do actual work, is most definitely a dick move, not to mention immoral and unethical.

But see, the trolls all quietly continue to ignore this, because it doesn't fit into their narrative that they are perfect, supremely moral human beings while the rest of us are the reason for everything wrong with society.

djDaemon said:

That video was shot over CP's private property...

Over private property, but not on private property.

That's the point.

Property adjacent to private property is not an extension of said private property, whether over it or alongside it.

You seem to create an imaginary distinction between adjacent property in the vertical plane versus adjacent property in the horizontal plane.

DA20Pilot said:

Brandon, how is it a "dick move" to legally use property open to the public adjacent to a business just because that business doesn't like it?

What makes it a dick move is this. Hint, scroll down to the bottom and read "Cedar Point drone policy". When you do something after being told don't do it, then it is a dick move.

^ So if I wrote a policy that said you are not allowed to drive your car on public roads, and you drove your car on public roads anyway, then by your logic you would be making a "dick move."

The point is, I have no right to tell you you cannot drive your car on public roads, and CP has no jurisdiction to say what someone can or cannot do on public property adjacent to theirs, such as the public airspace above their private property.

CP CAN dictate that nobody can pilot a drone while on their property, (i.e. standing on it), and I would agree that knowingly violating that policy would be a "dick move."

I'm pretty sure Pointbuzz has a policy about name calling and flaming people, so wouldn't calling someone a douche in this thread make that person themselves a douche, and therefore, be a dick move in and of itself?

I'm not calling names, I'm just curious if the argument goes both ways, or just when it's convenient for the name caller?

So Mean Streak is being re-done? Wow.....

DA20Pilot said:

...CP has no jurisdiction to say what someone can or cannot do on public property adjacent to theirs, such as the public airspace above their private property....

Yeah, again, we get it. Your argument hinges entirely on the fact that no laws were violated. And I agree that no laws were violated.

I'll just repeat what I said before. If your argument to do something someone explicitly asked you not to do is "but it ain't illegal! go ahead and call the cops/FAA/etc!, I dare ya'," that speaks volumes toward your character.

This is the first time I have ever unsubscribed from a thread in this forum. Anyone else?

If your argument to do something someone explicitly asked you not to do is "but it ain't illegal! go ahead and call the cops/FAA/etc!, I dare ya'," that speaks volumes toward your character.

Your argument seems to be that if someone asks me not to do something that I have a legal right to do, that I must have bad character if I do it in spite being asked not to.

By that logic, does it "speak volumes about" Cedar Point's "character" if they tore down the speed slides, filled in the jacuzzi at the swim up bar, and chopped down the trees along the beach despite the fact that I asked them not to?

CrankItUp said:

This is the first time I have ever unsubscribed from a thread in this forum. Anyone else?

We have people literally fighting over AIR. FU#$&%! AIR!

He's that guy...

No, not over air. Over whether someone should be vilified for doing something that they have every right to do.

^It honestly doesn't matter. In all reality Zoug is right. Most of the "badasses" on here talk lots of crap but show up waddling around events literally covered in food and would duck and hide if someone casually mentioned the word "boo" behind them.

Speaking of people's rights, the park has the legal right to refuse admission to anyone they want to, without giving a reason.

So if they find out who flies drones over their property, they could without hesitation or discussion, refuse admission to that person.

Just some food for thought for the YouTube piloteers.

And I'd agree with the prior post that the CP drone policy is there to protect them from lawsuits, not so much to stop something they have little control over.

^Good luck enforcing that rule.