Cruise Critic Censorship

On Mar 11, 12:26*pm, NomenNeisco wrote:

Look in the mirror.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Nice try, but:
"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a
political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and
assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer." -from your first link.

The point I made, which you obviously missed, is that I don't pretend
to have no association. I've been as up-front as many wish others
would be.

I know it must really stoke your ego to fire shells at people, as a
means to broadcast some flawed point to the rest of the world. But
here I am. Others are as well. You could ask something, maybe learn
something. You could engage in discussion about the topic, but so far
you are not. So I am left figuring you must be here to call names,
spit venom.

What is ironic, is that you cite Wikipedia, a fine resource to be
sure, truly a marvel. Yet, it is also something that absolutely must
be taken with a grain of salt as well. Had you, checked the
discussion page of the astroturfing page you cite, my point is
illustrated again. You are using that to tell me I'm a shill, or
astroturfer, which is what somebody being told to "look in the mirror"
will assume, when the same page has a history of being "astroturfed"
to suite the people using it.

So do you have any constructive point to make, question that you are
burning to ask?

On Mar 11, 12:26*pm, NomenNeisco wrote:

Look in the mirror.


Also, while I'm at it, how is it your profile says: This account has
been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use.

And why does bring up so many fascinating google
results?

Just curious, I mean, I know you'd fully disclose anything we might
need to know to be objective here. Not meaning to sound snide, I know
folks put phantom address' in to dodge spam bots, or to avoid people
knowing who they are.

Just curious.....

"NWLB" wrote in message
...

Also, while I'm at it, how is it your profile says: This account has
been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use.

And why does bring up so many fascinating google
results?

Just curious, I mean, I know you'd fully disclose anything we might
need to know to be objective here. Not meaning to sound snide, I know
folks put phantom address' in to dodge spam bots, or to avoid people
knowing who they are.

Just curious.....




You're reply to a troll (probably Chrissy)...

--Tom

"George Leppla" wrote:
"-hh" wrote:
Warren wrote:

What's to disclose?

The slippery slope of a real-or-perceived potential conflict of
interest.

[...snip...]

Nah... it is simpler than that.

The problem is that someone always thinks that someone else is getting
something they're not. *"His piece of the pie is bigger than mine!"

Such petty jealousies are always going to exist...but let's also
recognize they invariably rear their ugly head when the "pie piece"
wasn't openly revealed upfront. As such, it comes back to that
question of adequate disclosure that's the rubbing point.


Note that the largest criticism comes from someone posting anonymously.
What do you want to bet that while he/she is bitching about the program
here, they are posting favorably about Royal Caribbean on every forum on the
internet... hoping to get noticed so their piece of the pie is a little
larger next time.

Jealousy, plain and simple.

Understandable that there will always be a few that will prostitute
themselves for the most minor of personal gains. But again, ass-
kissers aren't anything new either, and mostly represent another
sideline distraction. Often, they're not very good at it and their
self-serving motives are quite transparent.

The broader issue is ...as NWBL has mentioned ... that some
individuals who had an affiluation unfortunately ended up
misrepresenting a product due to their lapse of judgement in failing
to adequately disclose.

Of course, if it can be shown that this failure to disclose wasn't
accidental, then we have a clear case of a shill who was purposefully
being misrepresentative.

The broad generalized issue is that a poster's reputation and
credibility resides in their reliability, and a conflict of interest
(COI) has the potential to compromise this. The process of disclosure
is an attempt to minimize ... through openness ... the potential
impact of a statement that may potentially "less reliable" (eg,
biased) because of said COI situation.

Business affiliations are a very common COI situation, which depending
on the sitaution at hand, may ethically require actions from as simple
as disclosure all the way up to full recusal.

In meta-discussion terms, for a poster to provide open disclosure of
potential sources of bias (...not limited to just business
affiliations...) in their words, this provides their post with a
higher degree of value-added for the reader to judge its merits
upon.


-hh

"NWLB" wrote in message
...
On Mar 11, 12:26 pm, NomenNeisco wrote:

Look in the mirror.


Also, while I'm at it, how is it your profile says: This account has
been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use.

And why does bring up so many fascinating google
results?

From the FWIW department, Borked Pseudonym, Nomen Nescio and the
addresses they are associate with are actually posters who
mail through anonymous remailers such as Mixmaster or Cypherpunk. These
remailers take your post, strip the header, add a generic header, send it to
another anonymous remailer who strips the header, adds another generic
header... and down the line. For all intents and purposes, it is next to
impossible to trace these posts.

That's why when you do a trace on the name or email address, you will find
literally thousands and thousands of posts... all coming from thousands of
people using anonymous remailers. For a quick overview, look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer

Another FWIW - In my opinion, anonymous posts like these are little more
than cyber-graffiti. I never did understand why people are afraid to sign
their posts... unless they are ashamed or embarrassed about something.
There is defiantly a lack of social skills involved.


--
George Leppla http://www.CruiseMaster.com

Cruise Specials Weblog http://cruisemaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/

May 10, 2009 ALASKA http://www.cruisemaster.com/moagc4.htm
January 10, 2009 Southern Caribbean
http://www.cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm
October 16, 2010 OASIS http://www.motherofallgroupcruises.com

Will not write a good review about NCL,we had a $200.00 p.p credit to
use on our next cruise because of problems we had on the majesty,but i
hope they do not hold their breath waiting for us to use it,I shredded
it. surfer e2468





cruise lover(~~~~~)






..

On Mar 11, 7:19*am, -hh wrote:

The slippery slope of a real-or-perceived potential conflict of
interest.

Oh good grief. You're taking this all way too seriously.

Warren wrote:
-hh wrote:

The slippery slope of a real-or-perceived potential conflict
of interest.

Oh good grief. You're taking this all way too seriously.

So if I pay you $5,000 to say nice things about me, you're willing to
do it?


-hh


--
At a dinner party one night, an inebriated Churchill asked an
attractive woman whether she would sleep with him for a million
pounds.

“Maybe,” the woman said coyly.
“Would you sleep with me for one pound?” Churchill then asked.
“Of course not, what kind of woman do you think I am?” the woman
responded indignantly.
“Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are,” said
Churchill, “now we’re just negotiating the price.”
— Winston Churchill (apocryphally)

"-hh" wrote in message
...
Warren wrote:

So if I pay you $5,000 to say nice things about me, you're willing to
do it?

-hh



Key points you're missing..... they didn't ASK me to say nice things. Never
did. There were no stipulations.

And a free 1 day cruise is worth maybe $149 per person. Not $5000. And
since it was a pre-inaugural on a ship that came out early, it didn't cost
them anything except the free booze and free food. It's not like we
replaced a paying customer's place. The ship came out early and they filled
up some spare time, and got to do a shake down with us on board? So maybe
it actually cost them $20 per person. At their cost, not what they charge
(like in a can of beer costs them 30 cents, even though they charge $6).
And I bought 2 T-shirts, so they probably broke even with regard to my
expenses on board.

Actually years ago we were given an upgrade at the pier from a balcony cabin
to a large suite on one particular ship. That was probably worth $1000 per
person. So am I to assume that since I was given a free upgrade that I'm
compelled to say nice things? Of course not.

But cruise lines do things like free upgrades all the time. How is that any
different?

Were both nice gestures? Absolutely. But neither came with any strings.

--Tom

On Mar 12, 6:26*am, -hh wrote:
Warren wrote:
-hh wrote:

The slippery slope of a real-or-perceived potential conflict
of interest.

Oh good grief. You're taking this all way too seriously.

So if I pay you $5,000 to say nice things about me, you're willing to
do it?

-hh

--
At a dinner party one night, an inebriated Churchill asked an
attractive woman whether she would sleep with him for a million
pounds.

“Maybe,” the woman said coyly.
“Would you sleep with me for one pound?” Churchill then asked.
“Of course not, what kind of woman do you think I am?” the woman
responded indignantly.
“Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are,” said
Churchill, “now we’re just negotiating the price.”
* * * * * — Winston Churchill (apocryphally)

hh, you have crossed the line by resorting to ad hominem attack and
calling me a criminal (because you know by my practice of posting my
real name and residence, something you don't do, that I don't live in
a place where prostitution is legal).

Just as frightening is the intensity with which you continue this
harangue--it's truly disproportionate to reality. You don't have a
shred of evidence to back up your charges that any RTC "Royal
Champion" has compromised any standard, much less one you, hh, would
mandate--yet like a dog with a bone, you just can't let go, instead
ratcheting up the level of vehemence with each post accusing
identiable fellow men and women in the RTC community of despicable and
even criminal behavior.

Current communications models are based on digital messages that reach
global populations in seconds and then hang around indefinitely in
cyberspace for all to access in the future. So just as your behavior
is now memorialized for all to see and judge, businesses understand
that "word of mouth" marketing programs must adapt to take full
advantage of state of the art "word of mouth" communications models,
whether text messaging, YouTube videos, viral emails, online
discussion communities or the like.

Word of mouth marketing has been around forever. I'm confident you
have offered and followed the advice, "Look beyond advertising. Seek
personal references before you [buy, hire or act]." You have certainly
offered your advice and opinions about cruises and a multitude of
other consumer products via Usenet, and I assume you did so to be
helpful and provide your fellow man with the postive and negative
views of an experienced consumer, which is the concept at the heart of
word of mouth marketing. In fact, as the educated consumer you like to
portray, I'm sure you have done one or more of the following: used
tendered coupons, sought and taken advantage of discounts, eaten the
free cereal and tried the free shampoo delivered with your Sunday
newspaper, asked for and received price concessions in connection with
the purchase of goods and services, accepted a free appetizer or
dessert, inquired about the possibility of cruise cabin upgrade, asked
for an airline ticket or cruise fare reduction to reflect price drops
since purchase, accepted a 2-for-1 offer, accepted an accessory or
upgrade "thrown in the deal" or received an invitation by Big Hotel
Chain to spend two nights as their guest at Brand New Property.

I just got one of those from Hyatt. So if I go, and I post my review
to TripAdvisor saying, "I went on a free preview weekend, and here's
the good, bad and ugly about this Hyatt," how is that any different
than me talking with my husband, neighbor or work colleague about the
free box of cereal that came with the paper and saying, "Hey, did you
try the free box of Kashi? I thought it was pretty good. I liked the
flavor. I like the nutritional composition. The texture wasn't to my
liking, though."

What's different is, by reviewing the Hyatt weekend on TripAdvisor, my
online word of mouth about that property has the potential to reach
thousands vs. the tiny number of people who may hear my take on the
cereal. Smart move on Hyatt's part.

What's not different about the Hyatt deal, the cereal box or the RCI
cruise is, the free offers are just that--offers. They don't come with
Terms & Conditions, quid pro quos or strings, direct or implied.

Why is there no tit for tat? Because word of mouth marketing is
premised on the candid review of the experienced user--we're all more
influenced by critical peer review than we are by paid advertising.

And really, if you don't believe that is the theory behind it, don't
take my word for it, go look it up in any Marketing 101 textbook.

So, here we are, back to square one:

1. RCI's savvy marketing strategists say, why invent our own online
communities (ala Obama), let's tap into online communities of cruisers
that already exist, identify people who actively participate in those
communities and say to them, we'd love to show you our new product,
come take a look.

2. It's undisputed that's all RCI said...no strings attached.

3. It's also undisputed--actually, I should say, a proven fact by
archived posts--that every RTCer invited to the Liberty preview fully
disclosed that fact in their posts about that event. Ditto in the buzz
about the invitation-only reveal in Manhattan.

In sum, hh, nothing you have ranted about applies to the Royal
Champion program within the RTC social network.

You are now faced with a choice. I trust you will figure it out and do
the right thing.

Diana