2 hours ago, themagician said:

The river is classified as general priority vegetation. To my understanding, that means that it can’t be removed and must be sustained, but through council applications, some works can occur providing they don’t have major impact on the area.

 

Half of the Gold Coast has been built on Priority Vegetation.   If you want to modify the river you would have to get an approval from the QLD Government, so anything you find on the GCCC websites will not help you.

The cost involved to get the QLD Government to approve any major modifications to the river would make any project for DW unviable.

So DW saying they can’t change the river is more to do with DW and not to do with what they could possibly do.

3 hours ago, themagician said:

There might be something within the councils website, but Slick worked at the park and got insight into a lot of information like this 

EDIT

I couldn’t help myself and I did some research through the councils website 

The river is classified as general priority vegetation. To my understanding, that means that it can’t be removed and must be sustained, but through council applications, some works can occur providing they don’t have major impact on the area.

Because the Ferris wheel didn’t necessarily take away any land from the river, but rather sits over it, that’s why it was approved. 

Thank you. 

I don’t care if Slick worked for the park or not, the words “I know, trust me” without providing evidence are a little pompous/ wankerish in my books, so thank you for providing the evidence to show it is protected. So when/ if Dreamworld becomes a housing estate/ shopping centre, it will become the memorial river..

10 minutes ago, TimmyG said:

Thank you. 

I don’t care if Slick worked for the park or not, the words “I know, trust me” without providing evidence are a little pompous/ wankerish in my books, so thank you for providing the evidence to show it is protected. So when/ if Dreamworld becomes a housing estate/ shopping centre, it will become the memorial river..

Then someone who hasn't been around long and no one knows from a bar of soap says "i know, trust me" it comes off wankerish.

When a community leader on these forums like @Slick says it, it is because it means "i know, trust me".

Sorry@Brad2912 but being a community leader doesn’t give someone creditability on every subject.  If I want to know how to improve my media production skills, I go to Slick.  If I wanted to get a development approval, Slick would be the last person I would ask for advice.  (@Slickthis is not an attack on you👍).

Slick Is also not the person, I would ask to look at the mole on my back.

long term members and community leaders that say 'i know, trust me' still comes off wankerish - especially newer members who don't know how everyone is placed... its just other long term members who know the provenance of the source gives it some authority.

This isn't directed at @Slick specifically - he merely provided an answer to a question rather than made unprompted assertions, and Magician also explained his backstory.

 

 

1 hour ago, TimmyG said:

Thank you. 

I don’t care if Slick worked for the park or not, the words “I know, trust me” without providing evidence are a little pompous/ wankerish in my books, so thank you for providing the evidence to show it is protected. So when/ if Dreamworld becomes a housing estate/ shopping centre, it will become the memorial river..

Transparency kills careers in this industry. I know this all too well - when I was made redundant, I had shared my experience privately with a small group of mates. One of those mates (one that I had known for 15+ years, had photographed his and his family’s weddings) decided to dob my private conversation into my former employer in order to curry favour for their own fan site.

I wasn’t proud of what I said while I was hurting (who is?) but I felt the integrity move was the right move and owned what I said immediately. Meanwhile, this friend continued for months to gaslight me and other folks in the community, going as far as to create fake accounts/emails and even blaming his own fan page admins, tearing a group of mates apart in the process. That mate has still yet to own his impact. What a top bloke right?
 

TLDR; I don’t have a relationship with my former employer anymore, purely because a friend capitalised on my heartbreak on a dream job ending prematurely. That’s why I say “trust me” and why I just don’t care anymore if you (or anyone) thinks it’s wankerish. 

1 hour ago, Slick said:

Transparency kills careers in this industry. I know this all too well - when I was made redundant, I had shared my experience privately with a small group of mates. One of those mates (one that I had known for 15+ years, had photographed his and his family’s weddings) decided to dob my private conversation into my former employer in order to curry favour for their own fan site.

I wasn’t proud of what I said while I was hurting (who is?) but I felt the integrity move was the right move and owned what I said immediately. Meanwhile, this friend continued for months to gaslight me and other folks in the community, going as far as to create fake accounts/emails and even blaming his own fan page admins, tearing a group of mates apart in the process. That mate has still yet to own his impact. What a top bloke right?
 

TLDR; I don’t have a relationship with my former employer anymore, purely because a friend capitalised on my heartbreak on a dream job ending prematurely. That’s why I say “trust me” and why I just don’t care anymore if you (or anyone) thinks it’s wankerish. 

You certainly have a lot of history with the park. Regardless I would prefer to see evidence about things like this rather than “hey trust me”, it provides a better discussion no?

Hence why I went and did the research to back up his comment because I knew what he was saying was true.

Just now, themagician said:

Hence why I went and did the research to back up his comment because I knew what he was saying was true.

The place you went to do your research is the wrong place.

24 minutes ago, TimmyG said:

You certainly have a lot of history with the park. Regardless I would prefer to see evidence about things like this rather than “hey trust me”, it provides a better discussion no?

You’re missing the point.

There are things that folks who work in or near the industry can elaborate on, and some things they can’t speak to, let alone wink/nod/smile about. It’s a secretive industry in Australia due in part because it’s so small, which in turn makes it very cutthroat, and then in turn causes the aforementioned mates dobbing in other mates just to get ahead. 

Fact is though, you only have to look at any of the dozens of forum threads covering ride construction over the last decade to know that Parkz (and to a lesser extent, OurWorlds) have an understanding (and in turn have earned great respect) on how to thread that needle so that relationships and careers are respected above all else.

As a result, most folks that have been here for a hot minute know to trust community leaders, and if we’re not being transparent there’s usually a good reason why.  It’s not to feel superior or because we have a god complex, we’re simply protecting sources or ourselves. 🍻

Edited September 3, 20215 yr by Slick

13 minutes ago, TimmyG said:

Regardless I would prefer to see evidence about things like this rather than “hey trust me”, it provides a better discussion no?

That's the best possible outcome. For sure. But it isn't always possible. In some cases, members are employees or are otherwise bound by employment or contractual obligation and can do more than hint, joke, or sneakily reveal. They can't always flat out offer sources of info just to satisfy your curiosity. As mentioned above - a brand new member with no track record isn't likely to be taken seriously until they've proven reliability. Longer term members are more reliable and can be taken on faith. But that doesn't always work either now... does it @themagician?  lol.

Put simply though - nobody owes you evidence, even if you would 'prefer' it. Feel free to call bullshit if you feel better about it - just know that if you call bullshit on someone with a reputation for being reasonably on point - you're going to look foolish.

And you can always check someone's reputation (and this isn't infallible) by hovering over their avatar.

I can see the problems in both aspects. @Slick has outlined well why some things can't be divulged, but I've noticed that some people (not mentioning names) do like to dangle the carrot over others heads because it's a simple way to climb the ranks within enclosed, niche communities like this.

However I don't think @TimmyG is necessarily in the wrong for asking for a follow up because it can cause a discussion to falter until it divulges into the community shaking the magic 8-ball to try and get the information they want.

22 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Longer term members are more reliable and can be taken on faith. But that doesn't always work either now... does it @themagician?  lol.

Very true. But I’ve learnt to not always trust what people tell you and to look into that information first, rather than taking it as fact and sharing with everyone. 

Asking a follow up is fine. Saying someone is a wanker for not automatically revealing why they know a particular thing seems quite rude.

5 minutes ago, joz said:

Asking a follow up is fine. Saying someone is a wanker for not automatically revealing why they know a particular thing seems quite rude.

I didn’t call him a wanker, I said the response was wankerish/ pompous. 

25 minutes ago, themagician said:

Very true. But I’ve learnt to not always trust what people tell you and to look into that information first, rather than taking it as fact and sharing with everyone. 

Don't worry, that tower will be there eventually 

29 minutes ago, TimmyG said:

I didn’t call him a wanker, I said the response was wankerish/ pompous. 

If you’re gaslighting someone online about the semantics of name-calling, I’d dare say you’re not on the right side of the discussion. I think we’ll move this chunk into chit-chat later. 🍻

38 minutes ago, TimmyG said:

I didn’t call him a wanker, I said the response was wankerish/ pompous. 

Yeah wow.

 

51 minutes ago, Dom said:

I can see the problems in both aspects. @Slick has outlined well why some things can't be divulged, but I've noticed that some people (not mentioning names) do like to dangle the carrot over

It’s a half dangle.  No matter what anybody says to contradict him, he will say “your wrong and I’m right” He has no expertise regarding the matter and is only taking the word of another person within DW.

It's impossible to have a discussion with Slick about it because you don’t know what his argument is.

 

5 minutes ago, New display name said:

It’s a half dangle.  No matter what anybody says to contradict him, he will say “your wrong and I’m right” He has no expertise regarding the matter and is only taking the word of another person within DW.

It's impossible to have a discussion with Slick about it because you don’t know what his argument is.

 

Huh?

7 minutes ago, Slick said:

Huh?

Your source is wrong?

11 minutes ago, New display name said:

Your source is wrong?

Okay then. Don’t believe me, it’s all good. 😂🤷🏼‍♂️

7 minutes ago, Slick said:

Okay then. Don’t believe me, it’s all good. 😂🤷🏼‍♂️

It has never crossed my mind that "you" make things up.  🙂

 

 

1 hour ago, Slick said:

Okay then. Don’t believe me, it’s all good. 😂🤷🏼‍♂️

Well to be fair, that's a bit pompous lol 

 Sage words for wisdom for those who get upset over other people’s opinions.