I'm all for law and order and following the rules. I personally wouldn't do it because I'd rather not have to deal with the hassle if it doesn't work.

But, when corporate America has built a reputation for occassionally playing fast and loose with the rules, what do they expect the outcome to be?

Think about it for a second as it relates to Anheuser-Busch. They paid the family of Roger Maris a significant amount of money, perhaps as much as $50mm, for defamation as it related to their essentially illegally taking back his distributorship.

What about the beer industries complicity in under-age drinking? You think they don't know where all those cases sold at liquor stores near college campuses wind up?

Again, not advocating the OP breaking the rules. But, let's not be so hard on them when the company in question has it's own checkered past.

All the argument is moot because you cannot use the passes. They will stop you and you will have to go and buy new ones so avoid the hassle and buy the tickets. End of story!

Aloha!

i think that everyone is taking this just a little too seriously....it's just a few tickets to Sea World, I don't think it's that big of deal...lets not start arguments, lets just give our opinions in a friendly way :)

Layla %%-

Huh? We are giving our opinions is a "friendly" way -- but they may not be the answer the poster was seeking. Yet, since the OP put quotes around the word "borrowing", I suppose she already knew what response she would get. You seem to be the one arguing, aucho. Most posters here seem to agree that it is dishonest to try to use the tickets. Teaching children to be dishonest may not be a "big deal" to you, but why indicate that anyone who thinks it is a big deal is "starting an argument? If you would agree with that fact, there wouldn't be any argument at all, would there?

I'm always amazed at statements like "it's just a few tickets. . ." yea, a couple of hundred dollars worth isn't a big deal is it? It's only stealing if it's what -- over a thousand?

OP is asking for permission to commit fraud. And to have the children commit fraud also.

"But I'm worried we'll get to the gate and they won't accept them for some reason" For some reason? Fraud is the reason they won't accept them. That's the legal term for it.

a year ago my friend bought tickets for Universal Studios, and gave us the tickets for the second day. We had no problem using them, even though the tickets stated that ID was required. You should try, and have a back up plan, like coupons or something.

"it's just a few tickets to Sea World, I don't think it's that big of deal...lets not start arguments, lets just give our opinions in a friendly way"

People seem to be condoning fraud, which ultimately hurts all consumers. And we all live with the consequences of kids who don't understand consequences and think it's fine to cheat.

I remember the first time we didn't qualify for the childrens discount somewhere. Tickets for children 6 and under were heavily discounted, and our seven year old was very tiny...smaller than her 5 year old sister.

I was just joking and said somethingg like " do you think anyone in the world would guess that DD is over six?" She immediately said said, "but I AM seven mommy, so that would be cheating."

Kids know what is right and wrong, and kids follow your lead. Do you really want your kids to think you are a cheater?

Count me in the camp which feels that cheating is cheating, no matter what benefit gained or dollar amount involved.

Quite a simple answer to this issue, really: If enough people feel it's OK to "borrow" 2-for-the-price-of-1 tickets and it gets too expensive for the parks to police the admittance, then the parks will just eliminate them all together. Everyone pays full price everyday. Who loses then?

A few bad apples...

good point, exiledprincess, but I don't think that people who feel it is totally justified to stand in front of their children and use illegal tickets are the type of people to be worried about hurting others in the future.

You are right, NeoPatrick...

It's sad when I think of all the niceties we've lost over the years, just because of this attitude of others.

Gee that may be why our country is in the shape it's in today.

My parents (as well as most of my friends' parents) taught me to be honest, to respect other people and their property, and to pay my own way.

Let's be honest

To do this is DISHONEST!! Bad example in front of children.

I still think that the second day tickets should be usable by someone else. Lets suppose that I have a website and sell small trinkets. Knowing that I have a great markup on them, I offer you a second one for a nominal price if you buy one, sort of like a buy one, get a second one half off. You order 2 since it's a great deal but I only ship one because I have a disclaimer on my site that says that the second one will only be sent if the order goes out on Tuesday and this is Friday, and that there will be no refunds.

You'd scream fraud! And rightly so, but this is what Seaworld and the others are doing, collecting money without having to deliver the "goods" just because they have a disclaimer. I'd like to hear from someone knowledgeable in contract law about the legality of their disclaimer.

I know that I can organize a sporting event and make every participant sign a waiver of responsibility so they can't sue me if they get hurt, but that waiver does not absolve me of the responsibility and I may still be sued if there is an injury. Does that same thing happen with a ticket like this?

I'm sorry but your example is nuts.

Sea World does deliver the goods. They are open every day, including Christmas and Thanksgiving. If the customer, who has freely chosen to buy a 2-days-for-the-price-of-one, non-transferable, non-refundable ticket decides not to use it on the second day, the party who is hurt is actually Sea World, not the purchaser. Sea World would be losing concession sales for the second day. Despite that, Sea World makes this offer to its customers (not to its customers BFF or cousin or whoever) and does not require the customer to actually use the second day.

Boy, do I NOT get than analogy. Not sending both trinkets that were paid for? Huh? Sea World DID deliver the goods. The people who bought the two day tickets have them in their possession and they can use them any time.

I suppose if you went to a restaurant that said after you eat your slab of ribs you can have a second slab for free, that they should bring both slabs and let two people share them for the price of one slab?

Of for that matter I suppose if someone bought two tickets each for two days, you think they should be allowed to send two people through the gate and then hand the tickets back to two friends to come through right after them? The four tickets were sold to four people -- and were never intended to cover eight people!!!

I don't understand that analogy either and I don't think that Seaworld is being at all dishonest with their policy. Plenty of amusement parks and attractions have multi-day and season passes and they are non-transferable. The amusement parks give discounts to people who want to come multiple times.

This thread and the justifications tossed around to cheat and steal and set a dishonest example to children is plain frightening.


Tell me supporters of "borrowing" tickets. If you borrow a cotton candy and your little rugrat eats only half, are you "entitled" to a %50 refund?

The poor OP was asking an innocent question, as they were suspicious of the cousins offer from the getgo.

Unbelievably distorted logic rm_mn. Collecting money without delivering the goods? Sea World is there for the buyer any day they want to go!! It is the BUYER who chose not to use the 2nd day. Sea World isn't denying that buyer entrance!

Don't you see that Sea World's revenue would be cut drastically, nearly in half, if every person who went bought multi-day passes, used one day then gave them to their friends <u>who had planned on going anyway</u> to use the other day? It's not like a multi-day pass is double the cost of a 1 day, so Sea World would be out nothing. The multi-day pass costs $4 more, $48 rather than $44/pp! What is so difficult about this concept that you can't grasp that Sea World is in the right, and the cheats are NOT, that what they are doing is no different than stealing?? And you question the legality of their saying you can't transfer the tickets and you can't get a refund if you don't use the 2nd day? OMG On <u>what</u> basis??

I respect all opinions on this site however I find it hard to believe that many (maybe not all) of the ppl who are claiming they would never do such a thing would actually spend 200$ of their own money when faced with the opportunity to save it....the OP is just trying to save some money to do other things on their vacay by using the tickets that their cousin paid for.

As a child of honest parents, who I've never witnessed cheat or steal, this is still my opinion, my parents always set a good example for me and I don't think that a child seeing their parents use their cousin's tickets only to be told that they must purchase their own tickets because the tickets are not transferrable is setting such a horrible example.

Layla %%-

Opportunity to save it vs. opportunity to steal it....

That is the $200 question.

I can honestly say I would never do this and have never done it.

I know what non-transferable means.

What GoT said.

This thread is very sad. Of course I would not do this. But that even a few people would and think it is OK is just plain scary.

What GoT said again . . . . . .

janis, even more frightening than those who would do it themselves, are those who chastize anyone who suggests that those who oppose it are making a big deal out of nothing.

aucho, I don't agree with you on the setting a bad example part--I think the parents would be--but I do agree with this:
&quot;I respect all opinions on this site however I find it hard to believe that many (maybe not all) of the ppl who are claiming they would never do such a thing would actually spend 200$ of their own money when faced with the opportunity to save it&quot;
The Internet is rife with righteousness, b/c it's easy to talk the talk.

Put me in the camp of those who would not choose to &quot;save&quot; the $200 by using the borrowed tickets. If I didn't want to spend the money to buy admission, then I wouldn't go. Now don't get me wrong - I am a frugal person and like to make my dollars go as far as I can - but I draw the line at breaking rules such as using non-transferable tickets. This is an ethical issue for me, and regardless of what anybody else does, I will not work the system like that to save some money.

I will comb the internet looking for discount coupons, use our AAA discount, travel in the off-season, use Priceline for hotels, have picnics rather than restaurant meals, camp rather than stay in lodges when in national parks, and use a variety of other money-saving methods. But I wont break the rules to save a buck.

It's all about integrity. Some people have it and some people don't.

I would like to think that I have it - especially for a measley $200.

NewbE - You're totally correct, it is much easier to talk the talk online....

NeoPatrick - I don't want anyone to think that I am chastizing them...that's not how I wanted it to come across.

I just don't see the big issue in giving it a shot...and I respect the fact that many of you do see an issue with it, we are all entitled to our opinion...

All i was trying to say was that I don't think it's such a horrible thing to do, and I don't think the OP would be setting a horrible example to their children by trying it.

Sorry if anyone got offended....not my intentions at all.

Layla %%-

It seems like there's a debate like this one about every few months or so, and the most entertaining parts are the bizarre analogies -- the &quot;cotton candy&quot; one is a total mystery, for example.

For me, the question is this: A business makes a rule (not a law) about the purchase of its services or products. The rule is designed to enhance revenue, not out of safety concerns, etc. Is it unethical to refuse to follow the rule?

I really don't know. It's not the same thing as hopping the fence to get in without paying (which would be against the law anyway).

With kids, it's hard to cover every situation. If you say to them that they must slavishly follow every rule, is that the right thing to do? I just used to say to mine: If it feels wrong, it probably is.

[Begin Flame:]

If the ticket says nontransferrable, then, fine, it is part of the contract. It would be dishonest to try to sneak in if you are not the original user.

But the ever increasing use of nontransferrable tickets (including airline tickets) brings a host of social evils that I would like to protest, if I could figure out how. Here are just three obnoxious outcomes of the SeaWorld fingerprinting/id policy.

1. Loss of privacy. Your name, credit card information, name of your kids (!) and when you enter and exit the park are now logged in the SeaWorld database. Probably, this information is associated with photos taken of when you enter. You should not be required to give that information up just to enjoy a day at SeaWorld. It should not be common practice to expect you to do so -- this is just not a good way to run a society. It leads to 2 and 3:

2. Increased threat of identity theft (or worse). How secure is SeaWorld's database? Park employees and outsiders can associate your name with your credit card number, and with your kids names, and they know when you are not at home/in your hotel.

3. Extreme profiling/marketing. The more data they gather about who enters the park and what they do, the more they can target their advertising: suppose the SeaWorld tickets are offered to your cousin for $100 and to you for $300, and the offer is not transferrable. (It happens increasingly often these days.) We should not encourage this type of profiling.

4. When people get used to loss of privacy, it spreads from corporate practice (SeaWorld) to civil practice
(ID required in parks and on streetcorners). I read that some of the towns on the Jersey Shore expect to implement a ``smart'' beach tag, which will log your credit card information, kid's ids, and other useful info, so you don't have to bring cash to the beach with you -- it will of course log when you enter and exit the beach. ( If that happens, I'll not return to my favorite beach town. )

What should we tell our children about the dangers of passively agreeing to be monitored at all stages of life? Sadly, my private boycott of SeaWorld and Disney World seems not to be working.

[End of Flame]
Thank you for listening. I feel better now.

&quot;What should we tell our children about the dangers of passively agreeing to be monitored at all stages of life? Sadly, my private boycott of SeaWorld and Disney World seems not to be working.&quot;

I say tell them. One my most vivid memories as a kid was being excited to go to some show like Ice Capades or something and my father refusing because it would require crossing a union picket line. It was a great lesson from my father that I never forgot.

&lt;&quot;&quot;It's not the same thing as hopping the fence to get in without paying (which would be against the law &quot;&quot;&gt;

Actually, yes you would be breaking the law. If you entered the park without paying or by means that they don't recognize as valid, you are tresspassing.

I know this because people try and play my golf courses all the time by sneaking on and we have them arrested and prosecute for tresspassing.

One of the huge things is if they get hurt or injured, our insurance will not cover us.

&quot;With kids, it's hard to cover every situation. If you say to them that they must slavishly follow every rule, is that the right thing to do? I just used to say to mine: If it feels wrong, it probably is.&quot;

But if parents are consistently encouraging breaking rules, why would a child ever develop a sense of anything feeling wrong? Isn't that part of today's problem -- many children not seeing anything wrong with many of their actions?

GoTravel, same thing for hotel pools in the town where I work - people who are not guests of the hotel are caught trespassing frequently.

capxxx, I enjoyed reading your very interesting spin on this topic. Thought provoking and disturbing.

I have three small sons (8,5 and 3) and am currently going through a divorce and money is tight. There is no shame in letting your kids know that things cost a lot of money... we're leaving next week for San Diego and the kids chose between SeaWorld and Legoland. No big deal.

Wouldn't consider it. Don't do it.

Why don't you just sell the 2nd day voucher to an avid &quot;ticket collector&quot; on ebay - you'll probably get a few bucks which can then be used to sub your day out with your conscience clear (ish)

Hi moneygirl. Hope you have a great time in San Diego. Let me know if you want to have a little GTG although I am sure you will be very busy.

Neo: I don't claim to know what &quot;today's problem&quot; is with children. I do know that parents are called upon to make literally thousands of decisions, most of which are open to criticism.

My point was that &quot;always follow the rules&quot; sounds like safe advice but often isn't.

I posted this question awhile ago, but figured I'd do a follow-up in case others were in the same situation and doing a search. We did go ahead and take the &quot;borrowed&quot; tickets and figured we'd give it a shot, and if they didn't work, oh well. All of the tickets but 1 did not have names printed on them (I'm not sure why...). The tickets without names printed on them worked just fine, even with the &quot;fingerprint scanning&quot; (which was just odd in my opinion, but whatever.) The ticket that had my uncle's name printed on it did not work. They asked for ID and obviously my brothers name did not match, so he just went back to the ticket booth and we all pitched for 1 ticket.

So I guess, its worth a try, but be prepared to pay the full price anyway.