If we knew the actual park, would the answer be obvious?
Like if you said it were Cedar Point, we’d all groan and say, “Now that all makes sense.”
See, it’s tough to yes-or-no this one. That’s not me doing a bit; I genuinely don’t want to say “yes,” only to have you later pop back in to tell me that, uh, no, it wasn’t obvious to you.
I’d rather settle for “I figure it’d make this easier” — but, at need, I’ll reluctantly go all the way past “yeah, probably” to a full-on “yes.”
Well I have to just say this to get it out of the way. You weren’t talking to a ‘adult themed’ performer in anyway…?
You’ve asked a couple of times if you should give a hint either by providing a name or more information of the venue…no one has yet responded.
So let me be the first to say…Yes. How about a hint?
No.
Well, ‘venue’ was going to be ‘an amusement park,’ which someone figured out. But as for providing a name? I’d given “Jamie” as an example, and, well, that’s what it was — and I don’t believe that’s a reference to a famous character or a movie star, and I don’t think it’s a play on words like “Candy” would be, or whatever.
Maybe this has been answered.
Were the people there as employees or as actors? In other words, were they workers first and then as part of their employment at the park added the acting bit.
FTR: I only call thread foul when it is an objective question and a followup answer or the puzzle directly contradicts the first answer like
Was there alcohol involved? No.
(Later) OK I think we got close enough to the answer. Everyone was drinking vodka shots …
Was there something other than the name itself that caused you to believe they were acting?
Was there something other than the name itself that caused you to believe they were using a pseudonym?
Was all of this based on (an) experience(s) you had? In other words, had it been someone else they probably would not have reached the same conclusion as you.
I honestly don’t know. If I had to, I’d guess they were there as employees, and as part of their employment the park added the acting bit.
Yes.
No.
Was it a name of a famous character in a setting where people might be referencing that specific character? Like someone operating a ride at Disney World who says their name is Ariel or someone at that Harry Potter theme park who introduces themselves as Ginny?
I think the answer is “no” — but, again, the name was “Jamie,” so you can presumably judge for yourself if that fits a theme-park fandom I’m not aware of.
Does the answer have anything to do with the possibility that Jamie could be either a male or a female name?
Yes.
Earlier you said transgenderism was not involved so was it androgynism?
Was there a Jamie (female) and Jamie (male) both running the ride?
Well, yeah; as far as I could tell, she happened to be a female of the non-transgender type — and if I’d been introduced to her in another context, or if she’d been giving instructions at another ride at the park, I’d have accepted the name without question.
I may be misunderstanding the question, but: as it happens, there was nothing androgynous about her.
There was a male employee, but he didn’t claim to be named Jamie.
were they involved with something or wearing something that “Jamie” made it useful to both sexes? As in, "Today, Jim is wearing the ‘Jamie’ outfit, and yesterday Susan was wearing the same ‘Jamie’ outfit?
Note, I’m not only asking about outfit, but was there something with the job that allowed either sex assume the role of Jamie without question?
Did we already ask if the other employees also had sex ambiguous names like “Pat” and “Terry”, and “Joe”
Yes.
I don’t think that’s been asked; but, yes, both of them were said to have names like that.
Is this amusement park in the U.S.?
Is it a nationally know amusement park, or is it a more local thing?
Yes to both.
was there a more or less permanent sign or notification to “go talk to Jamie” for some information or perhaps seating or the like?
If the sign or notification was ‘permanent’ the role filled by Jamie could be filled by anyone, any shift, any day without having to alter the note.
“Your concierge for this ride is Jamie” then Jamie (for that day) interacts with you.
Is the park a single center or is it a chain, like Disney, or Six Flags?
Yep, that’s pretty much it; that they had two such named employees strengthened my conclusion — but I reached that conclusion as soon as one was sporting a name that got referenced by the permanent notification.
Of course, I never actually saw any other employees there get referred to as Jamie or whatever — and, like I said from the start, it’s technically possible that either of them actually happened to be so named.
But, ironically, being referred to by those names was the evidence that those weren’t their names. If they’d merely identified themselves as such, and referred to each other as such, I’d probably have accepted it with an unthinking shrug — but extra corroboration ruined the whole effect.
Yay Sigene.