A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Cruises
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cruise Critic Censorship



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old March 13th, 2009, 04:22 AM posted to rec.travel.cruises
Tom K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,578
Default Cruise Critic Censorship


"-hh" wrote in message
...

Okay Ms. Diana Ball: You've unequivocally asserted that absolutely
***EVERY*** RTC'er disclosed, fully and satisfactorily, and 100% prior
to the event. I look forward to you providing proof of that claim.

And FWIW, even if you are successful in proving that, since I was only
speaking in generalities, all you would have proven is that another
poster lied, and that I erroneously believed him.

*That* is why I stand 100% behind what I have said.


Huh?

You ask her to prove it, and then say if she proves it you were only
speaking in generalities? And that another poster lied, and you believed
him?

To quote the distinguished Judge Chamberlain Haller from My Cousin Vinnie...
"Are you on drugs?"

--Tom


  #62  
Old March 13th, 2009, 04:34 AM posted to rec.travel.cruises
D Ball[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 518
Default Cruise Critic Censorship

On Mar 12, 8:58*pm, -hh wrote:
D Ball wrote:

hh, you have crossed the line by resorting to ad hominem attack and
calling me a criminal...


Since I identified no individual whatsoever, pray tell how can this
be?

Just as frightening is the intensity with which you continue this
harangue--it's truly disproportionate to reality.


You've been "harangued" by a mere 4 posts discussing some generalities
of ethics, when you yourself have made twice as many posts in this
thread?

Gosh, it seems that you're afraid of ethical behavior for some reason.

You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your charges that
any RTC "Royal Champion" has compromised any standard,


Are you claiming that absolutely *every* RTC did properly disclose?

Murphy's Law suggests otherwise. *More to the point, another poster
did made a statement to the effect that *someone* did fail to properly
disclose.

Personally, I don't frankly care who this might have been, since I was
merely talking in generalities of ethics.

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.


And I stand behind what I've written, 100%.





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.


See: *you already know the answer for why it is it not 'tit for tat':
the presumption is that a critical peer review is more independent in
its objectivity than 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.


Unfortunately, we weren't discussing marketing, but ethics.

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.


Then your beef is not with me, but the individual who claimed
otherwise.

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


Okay Ms. Diana Ball: *You've unequivocally asserted that absolutely
***EVERY*** RTC'er disclosed, fully and satisfactorily, and 100% prior
to the event. *I look forward to you providing proof of that claim.

And FWIW, even if you are successful in proving that, since I was only
speaking in generalities, all you would have proven is that another
poster lied, and that I erroneously believed him.

*That* is why I stand 100% behind what I have said.

I hope that you can now do the same, by standing 100% behind what you
have said too.

FWIW, because I've encountered instances like this before, I'm
obligated to require a deadline for you to provide your proof, so that
you can't ignore it forever: *you have until 0000 ZULU, 31 March 2009,
and please, no whining about any of this being unfair: *no one forced
you to make the claims that you did.

-hh- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



hh, Unlike cowards and trolls, all of the RTC "Royal Champions" post
using their real name and put their personal character on the line
each and every time they post. We are real people, and you can't
blithely accuse real people of crime, unethical behavior, being "ass-
kissers," etc., without consequence.

You will get your due. Unbridled arrogance and refusal to take
responsibility for your own actions have been the fall of many a man.

Diana
  #63  
Old March 13th, 2009, 10:38 AM posted to rec.travel.cruises
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Cruise Critic Censorship

On Mar 12, 11:05*pm, D Ball wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:57*pm, -hh wrote:

"George Leppla" wrote:


You made the accusations, please cite examples and specifics.


NWBL made those statements, so go take it up with him.


-hh


No, hh, you made the accusations, and I repeat verbatim the quote
George took from your post:

"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."

So substantiate your charges or withdraw them.


Substantiation:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/
c96ebae19f1e842b?hl=en

"To be fair, people did get burned, and it was because of lax
standards
by some people posting "reviews," or being less than clear as to why
they were advocating a given company. Or at least disclosing their
status, as to provide context to their statements."

So upon what basis do I have to believe that NWLB is a liar, and
you're telling the truth?


-hh

  #64  
Old March 13th, 2009, 10:43 AM posted to rec.travel.cruises
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Cruise Critic Censorship

"Tom K" wrote:
"-hh" wrote in message

Okay Ms. Diana Ball: *You've unequivocally asserted that absolutely
***EVERY*** RTC'er disclosed, fully and satisfactorily, and 100% prior
to the event. *I look forward to you providing proof of that claim.


And FWIW, even if you are successful in proving that, since I was only
speaking in generalities, all you would have proven is that another
poster lied, and that I erroneously believed him.


*That* is why I stand 100% behind what I have said.


Huh?

You ask her to prove it, and then say if she proves it you were only
speaking in generalities?


She specifically accused me of calling her out, when I did no such
thing. Please go back and re-read what I've said and look to see
where I ever mentioned her by name.

*And that another poster lied, and you believed him?


Incorrect: its obvious that **someone** is wrong, but it hasn't been
clearly determined who.

Based on the situation and what has been said, its my opinion that
Diana will have a significantly harder time proving she's right and
NWLB wrong, because of the nature of the statements made:

To show "one person out of many" is invariably a lot easier to prove
than "absolutely none out of many".


-hh
  #65  
Old March 13th, 2009, 11:01 AM posted to rec.travel.cruises
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Cruise Critic Censorship

D Ball wrote:

hh, Unlike cowards and trolls, all of the RTC "Royal Champions" post
using their real name and put their personal character on the line
each and every time they post.


Claiming that I'm anonymous is factually wrong (hint: try "WHOIS")


We are real people, and you can't blithely accuse real people of crime,
unethical behavior, being "ass-kissers," etc., without consequence.

You will get your due. Unbridled arrogance and refusal to take
responsibility for your own actions have been the fall of many a man.


If you are so offended, then I suggest that you put your money where
your mouth is and go talk to your lawyer about your legal options.

In the meantime, I do note that instead of you providing any
substantiation for your claim, you've instead decided to use your time
to attack the request to substantiate...a refusal to take
responsibility for your own actions. Thus, *your* own choice of
actions impacts *your* credibility.


-hh
  #66  
Old March 13th, 2009, 01:38 PM posted to rec.travel.cruises
Tom K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,578
Default Cruise Critic Censorship


"-hh" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 11:05 pm, D Ball wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:57 pm, -hh wrote:

"George Leppla" wrote:


You made the accusations, please cite examples and specifics.


NWBL made those statements, so go take it up with him.


-hh


No, hh, you made the accusations, and I repeat verbatim the quote
George took from your post:

"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."

So substantiate your charges or withdraw them.


Substantiation:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/
c96ebae19f1e842b?hl=en

"To be fair, people did get burned, and it was because of lax
standards
by some people posting "reviews," or being less than clear as to why
they were advocating a given company. Or at least disclosing their
status, as to provide context to their statements."

So upon what basis do I have to believe that NWLB is a liar, and
you're telling the truth?



NWLB is a relative newbie here, and rarely posts anything other than trying
to direct people to his website. He's not by any means an RTC long time
regular. The 7 of us who went on Liberty, who were long time RTC members,
had a public discussion and Google would have all our names. I even have a
picture of all of us taken on board. I never met NWLB, he wasn't part of
our group, and he's not an RTC regular. I don't count him.

--Tom


  #67  
Old March 13th, 2009, 01:39 PM posted to rec.travel.cruises
Kurt Ullman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,653
Default Cruise Critic Censorship

In article
,
D Ball wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:57*pm, -hh wrote:
"George Leppla" wrote:

You made the accusations, please cite examples and specifics.


NWBL made those statements, so go take it up with him.

-hh


No, hh, you made the accusations, and I repeat verbatim the quote
George took from your post:

"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."

So substantiate your charges or withdraw them.


What we have here (overall) is the same discussion I had in
Journalism ethics 101 back when they actually still tried to teach
journalistic ethics.
I think what the original Upset Posters were concerned about was the
fact that some posters got something of interest that others did not
from RCI. The UPs think that those posters should disclose this much
like a journalist should disclose getting free tickets from a sports
team or a politician should disclose getting a free golf junket from a
lobbyist.
Personally, with one or two possible exceptions, I think this is
bunk. There is no ethical or other requirement for disclosure of these
kinds of things unless one is holding themselves out as some kind of
source of information. So, for most of us, I don't see a problem. For
those who run websites claiming to offer unbiased information on
cruising, then there is a duty to at least acknowledge that they have
participated so that the user can decide for themselves if this taints
the website's credibility.
  #68  
Old March 13th, 2009, 01:40 PM posted to rec.travel.cruises
George Leppla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,219
Default Cruise Critic Censorship


"-hh" wrote in message
...
"George Leppla" wrote:

You made the accusations, please cite examples and specifics.


NWBL made those statements, so go take it up with him.



No, I quoted you. You made statements and I asked for specific examples
which you can't supply, other than a lame "somebody else said that blah blah
blah...."

Let me guess... you didn't get invited either. Poor baby. Somebody got
something that you didn't. I suggest that you never go on any Royal
Caribbean ship ever again! That will show them!


--
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




  #69  
Old March 13th, 2009, 01:46 PM posted to rec.travel.cruises
Tom K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,578
Default Cruise Critic Censorship


"-hh" wrote in message
...
"Tom K" wrote:
"-hh" wrote in message

Okay Ms. Diana Ball: You've unequivocally asserted that absolutely
***EVERY*** RTC'er disclosed, fully and satisfactorily, and 100% prior
to the event. I look forward to you providing proof of that claim.


And FWIW, even if you are successful in proving that, since I was only
speaking in generalities, all you would have proven is that another
poster lied, and that I erroneously believed him.


*That* is why I stand 100% behind what I have said.


Huh?

You ask her to prove it, and then say if she proves it you were only
speaking in generalities?


She specifically accused me of calling her out, when I did no such
thing. Please go back and re-read what I've said and look to see
where I ever mentioned her by name.

And that another poster lied, and you believed him?


Incorrect: its obvious that **someone** is wrong, but it hasn't been
clearly determined who.

Based on the situation and what has been said, its my opinion that
Diana will have a significantly harder time proving she's right and
NWLB wrong, because of the nature of the statements made:

To show "one person out of many" is invariably a lot easier to prove
than "absolutely none out of many".


-hh


As I said in another post, 7 of us went, not counting NWLB who's not an RTC
regular. We had a public discussion here. Other than the TA's and trolls
who post here, there really aren't that many people around here anymore.
Maybe another 10-20 long time regulars, a few dozen infrequent or newbie
posters. Even some of the 7 who went have kind of faded away. RTC doesn't
have imaginary thousands who post here. We know who posts here regularly
and we know who went. I have a photo of who went.

--Tom


  #70  
Old March 13th, 2009, 02:25 PM posted to rec.travel.cruises
sheree[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Cruise Critic Censorship


-hh

As I said in another post, 7 of us went, not counting NWLB who's not an RTC
regular. *We had a public discussion here. *Other than the TA's and trolls
who post here, there really aren't that many people around here anymore.
Maybe another 10-20 long time regulars, a few dozen infrequent or newbie
posters. *Even some of the 7 who went have kind of faded away. *RTC doesn't
have imaginary thousands who post here. *We know who posts here regularly
and we know who went. *I have a photo of who went.

--Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


When we were all first invited we really had no idea why or how. But
we went, had a great time and discussed it here and on CC when we got
back. Then some of us went to the Oasis reveal in NYC and again
discussed it when we got back. That's probably what they are looking
for, regular folk who cruise and aren't afraid to discuss it. Using
their real names!!!!
Unfortunately I don't get to cruise as much as a I used to due to
school and sports scheduling but am just as enthusiastic about it as
ever. Right now I have to live vicarously thru the rtcer's

Sheree
 




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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruise Critic logging in problem Tony Cruises 4 September 6th, 2007 02:47 AM
Caribbean Princess review on Cruise Critic Paul Hoffman Cruises 26 June 16th, 2006 04:15 PM
Caribbean Princess review on Cruise Critic Surfer E2468 Cruises 0 June 15th, 2006 09:29 PM
Cruise Critic Reviews Everyboysmomma Cruises 12 April 18th, 2006 12:31 AM
Cruise Critic down again... Rex Cruises 9 March 26th, 2006 03:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.