Six Flags over Texas Former Employee Forum  


Go Back   Six Flags over Texas Former Employee Forum > Departments > Ride Operations

Ride Operations Ride Operations discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 7th, 2006, 09:33 PM
Greg Pogue Greg Pogue is offline
Gold Tag
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JStroop
When I was still at the park, I believe that the building that used to house the SSM was used for some storage. I know that what used to be the ice house in park is used for Light Bulb storage... it was called the Bulb Shack. I know the SSM was in that same area, but I don't know if the building had been torn down and replaced with a regular storage shed...
The SSM was not 'in' a building, but, rather, was a sort of metal box on hydraulic stilts. The structure in front of the ride was just a facade to conceal the exterior of the ride. There was a little shack behind the ride that housed the computers and was where we rewound the films. You got up to the projection room by climbing up one of those moveable metal stairways like the ones they use at an airport so you can board a plane while it is sitting on the tarmac. Of course we never had to move it away from the back door of the ride when I worked there because the d*mn thing didn't even move any more.

I wonder why they didn't just close the ride down when it became inoperable. I was embarassed to work there, because guests would shake their heads as they left, wondering why they hadn't just spent the time eating a pink thing or cruising around to another, operating, ride. It seem the best way to 'train' potential foremen would have been to have them work alongside experienced foremen at larger rides. I am starting to wonder if some of the 'training' rides like SSM and Roto Disco (I was foreman of both) were just a sort of 'sidetrack' in the Rides 'career' path that really went nowhere. Not that I mind. I never saw SFOT as a good way to make a living at any level in their heirarchy.

Of course there were even worse places to get sent. A good friend of mine was foreman at Front Gate and allegedly 'failed' his polygraph test one year. He was banished to Casa Magnetica. Sheesh! I was a black tag that year and had the same problem--'failed' a polygraph. I was 'promoted' to being an assistant foreman at Tower. For a whole fall I opened an closed elevator doors, and told guests to move to the back of the elevator. The monotony of that was broken by the excitement of puttering around the queue line sweeping up cigarette butts, putting the yellow plastic chain across the railroad tracks when the train went by to keep some idiot guest from getting his leg cut off by a speeding locomotive.

In case anyone really cares, it's got to be said here that I never even gave a moment's thought to doing anything dishonest at SFOT. I now know a little about polygraphs and their reliability and validity. They rank up there with phrenology, divining, and tarot cards. NEVER, ever, ever agree to take a polygraph test to 'prove' your innocence about anything, ever.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old April 8th, 2006, 08:04 PM
Alan Cochrum's Avatar
Alan Cochrum Alan Cochrum is offline
Platinum Tag !
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 675
Talking Adventures in dating MGR/SSM red tags

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfotadmin
HA! I dated her first...in 77.
That would explain that frazzled (or would that be "traumatized"?) expression that you referenced ...
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old May 4th, 2007, 07:43 AM
Melita Melita is offline
Black Tag
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidPhoto87
Check out the employee doorway to the right in this picture from 1988 (I took this picture with my back to Looney Tunes Land). Just inside and to the right was where Sensational Sense Machine was located. I guess this doorway was the guest entrance to the ride when it was operational?
I don't remember the door in that photo being there at all in 84-86. IIRC there was a set of opposite dividers (wall coming halfway across from the left, and then another behind it coming halfway across from the right, you walked around them to get in and then there was another set of them to go through a bit further in) that led to the back area where Security, the original Gifts CC, and the Canteen were. I walked through there daily for a couple of years (got robbed there once too, someone followed me in, bumped me, grabbed my till bag and ran with it), and unless I'm misremembering those dividers were right next to David Photo without any set of doors also being there. Seems like the guest entrance to SSM was a bit further down into Modern than the photo booth, but I could be wrong about that.

I have good memories of working for Rusty when he was a Gifts sup. I was quite intimidated by him my first year as a black-tag, but when I started the next season as a red-tag he didn't seem quite so frightening anymore.

Ugh, polygraphs. I will say that the examiner that SF was using the years I worked in CC was pretty good. I was terrified the first time I had to take one, and he did a good job of both reading it and explaining to me how it worked. When he was reading mine, he chuckled and asked me if I had a lot of mechanical problems with my car. I was amazed and told him that yes, I had, and how did he know that? He told me that I'd reacted to one of the control questions (do you drive a [make/model] car, and of course he could verify that I had in fact driven that car to his office), and that the polygraph just picked up that the question about the car caused me some distress.

That does go to show how and why they can be so unreliable - all it takes is for the question to bring to mind something that does or has upset you (even if it's for a completely different reason than the focus of the actual question, like me with the car), or for the questioner to either change a word in the question (this happened during another one I took, again fortunately not on a critical question), or just to adopt an accusatory tone in asking it. A lot of those things can cause people to 'fail' the question even if they're telling the truth. Conversely, people with little conscience can pass one with flying colors while lying through their teeth the whole time, because the questions don't cause them any mental or emotional distress.
__________________
Gifts 84-85 (map carts, Kritters & Mercado), Cash Control 85-86 (3rd shift & Games CC), Security 86 (Lost Parents)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old May 4th, 2007, 09:37 AM
sfotadmin's Avatar
sfotadmin sfotadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melita
Ugh, polygraphs....

That does go to show how and why they can be so unreliable - all it takes is for the question to bring to mind something that does or has upset you ...
I once took one for Best Products over off Division and failed because the operator told me that if I got too much change back from a purchase, I was stealing. I said...even if I went to the movies and didn't discover the money til I got home and his response was yes. Of course I failed that one. The next time I took one, the guy asked up front if I'd ever failed one before and why. He laughed and said...no that's not stealing that's lucky. So, needless to say that one I passed. Yes. they are crap and make you feel like a criminal no matter what. Always refuse to take one. You're more important than that.
__________________
-Alan Reynolds - SFOT.NET site admin (Food Service 76, Ride Operations 77-79)

-Get your nostalgic Six Flags Fix here at SFOT.NET

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old May 7th, 2007, 07:03 PM
JStroop JStroop is offline
General Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hurst, TX, but every day I pretend it's somewhere in Colorado or British Columbia.
Posts: 2,312
Default

The problem with polygraphs is that they're frequently administered by frustrated or wanna be cops. They should be conducted in a completely impartial, non-accusatory manner with no inflections or subjectivity on the part of the administrator.
__________________
Jeremy Stroop: Rides 88-96, Shows Fright Fests 89,90,91, Safety 97,99. Security 97-98. Hurst, TX
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old May 21st, 2007, 01:36 PM
Greg Pogue Greg Pogue is offline
Gold Tag
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 292
Default Poly-crap tests

Quote:
Originally Posted by JStroop
The problem with polygraphs is that they're frequently administered by frustrated or wanna be cops. They should be conducted in a completely impartial, non-accusatory manner with no inflections or subjectivity on the part of the administrator.

There are actually several problems that probably cannot ever be solved ethically:

First is the problem of validity. How does one verify whether the test is sensitive OR specific for lying? Specifically, you have to know whether the test detects lying about critical subjects, such as criminal behavior. It wouldn't do to just get test subjects to deliberately lie about something with no emotional valance, i.e. "What is today's date?" The only way to do this would be to recruit a group of test subjects who were confirmed to have engaged in a certain behavior, such as theft. So the 'experimental' subjects would, for example, have been caught on video stealing, but were unaware that they had been caught before they took the polygraph. This group would have to be compared to a 'control' group of subjects who were confirmed NOT to have engaged in theft. The examiners would need to be 'blinded' as to who was in the experimental group and who was in the control group, and the tests would have to be administered to all, under identical conditions, with the same questions asked the same way. Then, you would have to show that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in regards to their physiologic responses to the critical questions.

This leads to the second problem, which is reliability. You would have to show that different examiners reliably identified the deceptive responses.

The third problem, related to reliability, is the problem of 'false positives' and 'false negatives'. Let's say that one percent of the time, a truthful response is mistaken for a lie. This creates the following ethical problem--Should a person be denied a job or lose a job for 'failing' a polygraph test if there is even a one percent chance that he was telling the truth? Fine and good if it is just a cashier's job at Six Flags. Another matter if one is a degreed professional applying for a prestigious job at the bank...The converse is 'false negatives'--deceptive responses that are mistaken for truthful ones. So you could end up hiring a sociopathic liar for a job that could have gone to some schmuck who just gets anxious about being asked if he ever appropriated any towels from the Hilton for his personal use...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old May 21st, 2007, 07:07 PM
Jason Garrett's Avatar
Jason Garrett Jason Garrett is offline
Platinum Tag !
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 557
Default

An old boss on mine had a friend who was a delivery driver for Pepsi. This driver stole $1700 he collected from accounts. He claimed somebody entered his truck and removed it from under the seat. He also passed Pepsi's polygraph.

I often wondered if he made himself believe the lie he told Pepsi which in turn becomes truth on a polygraph.
__________________
96-99 Rides, Park Services and a short unsuccessful stint in plumbing.

Currently Independent Contractor with Schneider National Inc.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old May 21st, 2007, 09:42 PM
JStroop JStroop is offline
General Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hurst, TX, but every day I pretend it's somewhere in Colorado or British Columbia.
Posts: 2,312
Default

We use polygraphs for our employment screening, but it's not ever something that will out and out disqualify someone - we realize that each applicant is different, each machine is different, and each polygraph administrator is different. We just use it as one of several factors in deciding who our most qualified applicants are.

A lot of it lies in the hands of the polygrapher, and it's SO subjective... it's completely open to interpretation. And if the polygrapher is a frustrated cop, who gets off on intimidating people, the subjects of the test are going to be a little on edge to begin with (moreso than the typical anxiety of having to take the test.)

I just think it's not an accurate way to do things. But it's the most accurate way to do what needs to be done. Unfortunately.
__________________
Jeremy Stroop: Rides 88-96, Shows Fright Fests 89,90,91, Safety 97,99. Security 97-98. Hurst, TX
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old May 22nd, 2007, 09:08 AM
Greg Pogue Greg Pogue is offline
Gold Tag
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 292
Default The most accurate way to do what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JStroop
We use polygraphs for our employment screening, but it's not ever something that will out and out disqualify someone - we realize that each applicant is different, each machine is different, and each polygraph administrator is different. We just use it as one of several factors in deciding who our most qualified applicants are...

I just think it's not an accurate way to do things. But it's the most accurate way to do what needs to be done. Unfortunately.
I don't mean to be argumentative here. Well, actually I do. Don't get me wrong--I'm all about law and order and all that stuff. But I just can't accept the idea that something so unreliable should be even utilized in pre-employment screening, for two reasons. First, the example above that a good sociopath who is used to lying will pass with flying colors. Second, and even more important, good persons can 'fail' a polygraph test because they are anxious about minor, insignificant transgressions, or just anxious about even the suggestion that they might be lying about something.

Your comments worry me because, If I recall, you are in law enforcement. This means that there is the possibility that slippery snakes who present well get through and that good people could be passed over, if a polygraph is even part of a pre-employment screening process. Yeah, yeah, I know they say its just 'one part of the big picture' but they said that about SAT scores and getting into universities, blah, blah, blah.

It's interesting that your federal government prohibits the use of polygraph tests to qualify (or disqualify) applicants for jobs, in most situations. Said government, of course, does not have to abide by its own laws. Perhaps this is why so many criminals associated with recent presidential administrations have been able to get security clearance (ahem!).

A more promising technology that I discovered from my scholarly research (watching the Discovery Channel) is the use of electrophysiologic (EEG) data from the brain. To lie, you have to utilize specific brain structures in specific ways. So, it follows that one could develop software that could analyze EEG recordings from subjects and differentiate 'honest' responses from deceptive ones. Again, such a test would have to be validated by good research, like I indicated before. And, from what I know (and I do know a thing or two about how yur brain works) I predict there would still be a lot of 'false positives' and/or 'false negatives' associated with such a test.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old May 22nd, 2007, 09:41 AM
sfotadmin's Avatar
sfotadmin sfotadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,342
Default

All I know is that I passed one and failed one and it ENTIRELY was dependent on the morals of the inividual conducting the test and not me. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive. Anyway, I knew of others that passed with flying colors because they felt justified or had zero remorse about any infraction that they might have been questioned on.

Anyway, I know I will never take one again and I'll make sure my kids never take one. I also will not take a pee test every again. Incredible that I was hiring in to IBM as a high level programmer and had to run down to a crummy part of town to pee in a cup while under supervision. I should have told them to forget it right then and there. I'm sure the big-time IBM execs never did this.

I think we all should vow to vanquish these venal and virulent verification van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
__________________
-Alan Reynolds - SFOT.NET site admin (Food Service 76, Ride Operations 77-79)

-Get your nostalgic Six Flags Fix here at SFOT.NET

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Search the SFOT Site with Google...


Loading


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SFOT.NET and the associated content on these pages are not affiliated or otherwise associated as an entity with Six Flags over Texas, inc. Images and content are used with permission or original content of SFOT.net.