Cruise Critic Censorship

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:25:52 -0400, Chrissy Cruiser wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:20:53 -0400, Tom K wrote:

"John Sisker" wrote in message
m...

Chrissy,

While you are one of the few who truly understands what's really going on
here, snip

If that doesn't say it all... John Sisker and Chrissy... trolls walking hand
in hand...

LOL.

Off topic post there, Tommie.

Speaking of trolling....

Are you posting from work? Second time I asked.

Considering your 58, and not independently wealthy or retired, does you
employer know you post from work, during work hours? Does he pay you for
that?

Was Usenet trolling ad cheating your employer part of the curricula for
your engineering degree?

Just askin'
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:38:24 -0400, Tom K wrote:

"-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

Who cares about a bunch of old hens on a moderated forum, you have to
expect crap and/or moderated advice regardless.

Which RTC TAs were RCs and did not disclose that fact?
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

NWLB wrote:
I just want to say that I feel much better now that people are using
my initials in the correct order!

Guilty as charged, I think? My apologies.


And a point to clarify and build on what is noted in several posts:
I'm not what I or others call a regular here. I've long read it, and
with my particular focus on my own websites, don't make an
attempt to be a "regular" here or anyplace.

This behavior you've observed of "Newbies" or "Outsiders" being
automatically judged negatively (and/or shouted down) is happening
simply because they're not part of the 'insider' clique.

If this sounds vaguely familar, it is straight from the playgrounds of
Elementary School: its the social dynamic of immature children.


My comments on this topic speak about the entire online community,
ranging... [...] ... I would even go further to say that
some who aren't and won't ever be among these RC's were as
bad and worse than anything. People were dressing-up old cruise
reviews, going way over the top with the superlatives.

In generalized terms, it is often downright amazing to see how many
hoops alledgedly mature adults will jump through as soon as they
believe that there's a carrot, regardless of how minor it really is.

Sometimes the carrot is merely social -- back to that Elementary
School playground and the clique of the "popular kids" -- and
sometimes it can be something else (financial). Not everyone is
equally motivated by the same things, so some people care more about
them than others.


I don't recall anybody among the RTC crowd being among the
posts I would single out as bad examples. This forum, by its nature,
tends to be the rebel among the others. It can be a rough crowd
here, but in that, it does tend to be fair.

Understood. Unfortunately, some of the (ahem) 'vigorousness' of the
defenses gives the impression that some are at least *acting*
guilty.


Personally I can't link you to any specific examples. And I have not
spent a massive amount of time going back to read-up on the Cruise
Critic posts. I would considering doing so a waste. What I know is
what I recall reading on the commercial sites two years ago. In the
online chats I'm having with people who read this group, and the
others, the tendency of people to continue over-the-top posts
continues.

A simple recognition of broader patterns; understood.

And since no one would go to jail over this, finding who is "more" or
"less" guilty isn't really at all productive, particularly if the goal
is merely to identify the underlying factors influencing the broader
pattern.


What I know is
what I recall reading on the commercial sites two years ago. In the
online chats I'm having with people who read this group, and the
others, the tendency of people to continue over-the-top posts
continues. Most don't have anything to do with any free cruise RCI
provided, but the jealous types and other unhappy campers know there
is another round of Royal Champion events coming, and they feel the
people who were on the cruises are either being paid, or having future
perks dangled in return for something. No such agreement exists, but
then that is getting back to the debate.

One of the other broader issues here is that an over-the-top review
doesn't provide value-added from the perspective of a reader seeking
reasonable objectivity and independence, particularly when the reason
for the hyperbola isn't immediately clear.

It is a different question on if some affliations are "good for
business" - - both in the short term and long term - - for an entity
such as CC to affiliate with a particular cruise brand: the dilemma
is if they've just narrowed their market to just that brand, and if
this conflicts with how they present themselves (eg, if as a source of
impartial and unbaised consumers for all brands when this is simply no
longer true). As such, the broader potential is for this to be a net
disservice to the selective reader (eg Google searcher) who shouldn't
be expected to need to be aware of every single underlying
dynamic...particularly just for a single post that was found & read
via Google.


Curiously, I'm reading over HH's comments, and maybe I missed
something, but I don't see name calling or attacks, nor do I get why
the attacks on HH are underway.

There's some very simple underlying motives as to why I'm being
"picked on":

Part of it is the aforementioned Elementary School 'clique': I'm one
of the unpopular kids...and it ****es them off even more that I don't
even try to ask to join their clique.

Another part of it is that I believe that some of the RTC'ers have
done business with some of the travel agents on this group ... while I
have *zero* financial ties.

Consider a hypothetical TA who may have financially benefitted (via
commissions) who chooses to step in to defend his customer(s). They
might get points for kissing up, which might bring them future
business from a previous client. Simultaneously, they might believe
that such an attack is "safe" for them to do, because they has never
received any business (eg, financial gain) from the so-called
troublemaker.

Finally, some readers know that "Big Ship" cruising isn't my thing,
but rather than simply accepting this as a difference in personal
preferences, they choose to interpret this as a criticism of their
preferences.

I can try to disprove their belief that I'm always looking for excuses
to be critical of them and to generally stir up trouble, but self-
selecting "Confirmation Bias" makes this quite difficult.

For example, its probably beneficial to RTC to be aware that small
ship cruise line 'Cruise West' is looking to add a new itineary to go
to Cocos Island, off of Panama. However, since small ship cruises are
something that is not really of interest to proverbially 99% of RTC,
or they'll ignore this "scoop" until one of the RTC travel agents
announce it. For me, the news came trough on a piece of hardcopy
correspondence I received last week. For any interested, just ask me
to take the time to scan a copy of it...upon which I'll decide if you
deserve to be in my 'clique' or not :-)


What would be constructive might be to discuss in what ways and at
what times somebody ought to note they have been on a Royal Champion
trip. Does it have to be only for cruises offered as part of that
program, or do all cruises after that have to be denoted as being
discussed by a person who has been invited to be an RC?

Such a discussion would have been productive, particularly if
generalized beyond just the instance of RC's. Unfortunately,
contemporary values of society have degraded down to a highly selfish
"I got mine", and they don't necessarily realize that this issue has
the potential to adversely affect nearly all trip reports, which
undermines the value of the entire resource.


-hh

"-hh" wrote

Understood. Unfortunately, some of the (ahem) 'vigorousness' of the
defenses gives the impression that some are at least *acting*
guilty.

So if you say nothing and don't post that you are a RC member, you are
hiding something and if you post a defense, you are acting guilty.

That pretty much sums it up.

FWIW... if I were a RC member, I'd tell anyone who questioned my ethics or
the validity of my posts to go jump in a lake. But then, I am a travel
agent and there are people who think that whatever I write is suspect. I am
either "biting the hand that feeds me" or "being a shill for the cruise
line". I must be doing something right because I've been accused of both.


--
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

Good morning, -hh,

A weekend has come and gone, and you're still at it, now rationalizing
that you were called on your nasty attack because you're not part of a
"clique," because you don't use an RTC travel agent and/or because you
sail small ships (which more than 1% of us have done). Nuts!

It is curious you take the opportunity to offer a cruise article to
folks...depending, of course, on whether you'll let the requester be a
part of your clique. I made a similar offer recently about an
Antarctica cruise report, and you emailed me, and I sent you the
article. So I guess we are a clique...and I've just received a good
lesson on how you treat folks in your clique.

-hh, you've been around RTC for a number of years--maybe longer than I
have--and know I don't tend to get hot and bothered about things
around here, but I do get riled up on the rare occasion the behavior
gets mean and personal. And there's no way getting around it: It's
just plain mean to label real people--folks you "know" from being here
over the years--prostitutes, ass-kissers, posters with ulterior
motives who misrepesent the facts and all of the rest of the nasty
things you popped up out of the blue to say (why did you think that
was a good thing to do??!), with no proof to back you up. (This whole
bit about defenders needing to disprove accusations is as goofy as
your behavior is mean, especially considering you make references to
the law, and the law puts the burden of proof on the person making the
claim).

You really shouldn't have brought up elementary school behavior
because it naturally brings Robert Fulghum's kindergarten list to
mind.

Come on, -hh, don't you think "play fair" and "say you're sorry when
you hurt somebody" are good places to start? And then let's talk about
that Cruise West itinerary including Cocos Island--it sounds
interesting.

Diana

"George Leppla" wrote:
"-hh" wrote

Understood. Unfortunately, some of the (ahem) 'vigorousness'
of the defenses gives the impression that some are at least
*acting* guilty.

So if you say nothing and don't post that you are a RC member, you
are hiding something and if you post a defense, you are acting guilty.

No, because one can disagree without also acting guilty.

FWIW... if I were a RC member, I'd tell anyone who questioned my ethics or
the validity of my posts to go jump in a lake. But then, I am a travel agent ...

....and I appreciate that disclosure reminder. Seriously.

... and there are people who think that whatever I write is suspect.
I am either "biting the hand that feeds me" or "being a shill for the
cruise line". I must be doing something right because I've been
accused of both.

Congratulations. It can be a hard line to try to walk.

The basic reason underlying this reaction is because you have
disclosed that you are a TA, and this reminds readers that there
undoubtedly are areas in which you have interests, for which there
will invariably also be conflicts.

This disclosure gives the reader the additional burden of knowing that
they have to examine these potential interests and/or conflicts for
potential contribution..elements that are figuratively "behind"
whatever you're saying...or not saying.

What some might not realize is that your "TA Disclosure" is actually a
value-added service to the reader, because it more overtly reminds
them of this dimension as a factor for them to also potentially
consider within context.

What makes this complexity worse is that the significance of said
conflicts will vary, but they vary not only for how they may affect
you personally (in what you say), but also in terms of the *perceived*
significance of them as viewed by others (how they read what you
say)...and Murphy's Law says that these two will never match.

The broader challenge is that the decision for when to disclose / not
to disclose can never be done perfectly correct: it will always be
either too often, or not enough.

No matter what 'when to disclose' threshhold we choose, there's going
to be 3 subgroup reactions: those that said that we should have
disclosed sooner (we were 'hiding something'), those that thought we
did fine, and those that thought that we made a mistake (an
'unnecessary disclosure')

The damned-either-way portion here is that even if one is proactive in
disclosing, the more proactive one chooses to be to eliminate
criticism for 'hiding something', the larger the subgroup becomes that
you made a mistake in disclosing when you really didn't need to.
However, when we add in the additional dimension of the reprocussions,
what we generally find is that the downside of not disclosing
('hiding') is generally worse than the downside of the nuisance of an
unnecessary disclosure.

As such, "Best Practices" generally recommends being more proactive in
making disclosure, to then leave it to the reader to determine what
degree of conflict of interest, if any, may be present. This is why
the guidance often says (my emphasis: "real **or perceived**
conflicts of interests..."

Getting all the way back to the RC's, the broad-brush topic is the
degree to which a conflict *might* exist - - - and this includes
those who are "wannabee" recipients - - - and the degree to which this
is disclosed for consideration for the broader general public while
seeking out a source of customer reviews that are nominally expected
to be reasonably objective and impartial.


-hh

D Ball wrote:

A weekend has come and gone, and you're still at it ...

Because I was away from home all weekend, volunteering to help run an
event. My apologies for not telling you every detail of my life.
But if it would make you feel better, I've just finished having a
package of 'Famous Amos' cookies.

It is curious you take the opportunity to offer a cruise article to
folks...depending, of course, on whether you'll let the requester be a
part of your clique.

Its an offer open to anyone, even including those that I may happen to
be having a disagreement with. Giving back is part of the culture of
USENET.

Its inevitable for there to be disagreements, becuase we're all
different and thus have different perspectives on issues.
Furthermore, I know that the topic of disclosure and so forth isn't a
simple one with only one "correct" answer, which is why I said
'slippery slope' and other allusions...disagreements are to be
expected for this topic.


FWIW, I don't think very highly of cliques, and certainly don't want
to be a member of any, let alone the ringleader of one. As it says
on Wiki:

"Members of a clique will try to exclude others from the group and are
often seen as bullies. This is because they tend to outnumber people
when arguing."


I made a similar offer recently about an Antarctica cruise
report, and you emailed me, and I sent you the article.

And that article was appreciated.


-hh, you've been around RTC for a number of years--maybe longer than I
have--and know I don't tend to get hot and bothered about things
around here but I do get riled up on the rare occasion the behavior
gets mean and personal.

And my suggestion is that you've overreacted.

NWLB has already clearified that he didn't believe any RTC'er as
"guilty".

I've already clarified that my interest is in examining the general
topic of disclosure appropriateness. My basic motivation for this is
that I'm finding it distressing as to how easily people in society
seem to be willing to "sell out" for the most trivial of things.

And for sake of clarifiation - the above is a generalized comment
about contemporary society, not specifically directed at anyone in RTC
or CC. Just go read the Madolph headlines, etc.



And there's no way getting around it: It's
just plain mean to label real people--folks you "know" from being here
over the years--prostitutes, ass-kissers, posters with ulterior
motives who misrepesent the facts and all of the rest of the nasty
things you popped up out of the blue to say (why did you think that
was a good thing to do??!), with no proof to back you up.

The famous Churchill joke was merely a dig at Warren for his being
insensitive (or unawares as) to how different people (or
organizations) can have different expectations standards.

And I'm sure that all of us can look around us every day and find at
least a few examples of "self-serving" individuals. The entire world
is shades of gray.


You really shouldn't have brought up elementary school behavior
because it naturally brings Robert Fulghum's kindergarten list to
mind.

Come on, -hh, don't you think "play fair" and "say you're sorry when
you hurt somebody" are good places to start?

My comments were precisely because of "Play Fair", but it was not from
the aspect of a 'me too' desire to become an RC member: it was on the
general theme of being Fair to the readers, who may not be aware of
the life story history of every poster to clearly know of potential
biases influencing a simple 'trip report', etc.

The bottom line for me is ... as I've said .. I don't really care
about the "who", because I wasn't looking close, but instead was
looking far, for the bigger picture.

And when I threw my hands open to illustrate this broad
generalization, to jump in front of one those sweepeing hands so that
you can then claim that you were hit and now must be apologized to is
hardly fair at all.


And then let's talk about that Cruise West itinerary including
Cocos Island--it sounds interesting.

Sure.

It was essentially a one-liner statement in the current snail mail Q-
News newsletter which we received in the last week or so.

I'll grab the hardcopy & get it scanned in, then post it a new thread.

Unfortunately, it really didn't say much, other than it was apparently
associated with their Panama - Costa Rica region ... this suggests
that its not the Cocos (Keeling) thats Northwest of Australia, but
with the Spirit of Oceanus almost passing through that area on its
western Pacific season reposition (Alaksa - Tahiti via Japan, Vietnam,
Fiji), who knows?

This was the first time that I've noticed anyone offering a trip to
the Cocos other than the Aggressor Fleet or the Undersea Hunter boats,
which are all scuba liveaboards. As such, it appears fairly unique
and thus its IMO newsworthy enough to mention.

I did check their website last week & again today ... nothing
relevant.


FWIW, their Antartica cruise info can be found he
http://www.cruisewest.com/antarctica

Unfortunately, with its price starting at $13.9K+air for a 19 day
itineary, it appears to have a bit of a premium on its price tag
versus some of the other operators, so despite liking CW, I'm
nevertheless considering other operators.


-hh

IS RCCL Manipulating CruiseCritic.com (owned by Trip Advisor)?

http://www.jaunted.com/story/2009/3/...al+Infectio n

No surprise he Royal Caribbean Cruise Line has a viral infection. For once, however, it's not the Norovirus but that new-fangled byproduct of Web 2.0, the viral marketing infiltration. According to Consumerist, a group of fifty "Royal Champions" was outed by their own creator, the Customer Insight Group, as being a successful project whereby frequent positive cruise commenting on sites such as CruiseCritic was rewarded with free cruises and other perks.
So what's the big deal? Well, it seems that the "Royal Champions" weren't always up front about their status as compensated reviewers, effectively misleading readers of CruiseCritic forums with their positive comments. Add to this the fact that CruiseCritic admins assisted Royal Caribbean in choosing the fifty, with one of the stipulations being quantity of posts, "with many having over 10,000 message board posts on various Royal Caribbean topics." From here, the hole just gets deeper.
Now that many RC fans feel slighted at not having made the ranks and most everyone else is disgusted at the covert trade of cruising for happy juicing, the trustworthiness of such forums is under fire.
Due to CruiseCritic's ownership by TripAdvisor, which is in turn under the Expedia blanket of travel sites, a viral marketing stunt gone awry could possibly continue to negatively ripple. Does news like this affect your ability to trust good reviews on travel sites, or do you already consider yourself an excellent shill-spotter enough to weed out the solicited from the unsolicited? While this whole ordeal is mired in serious muckety-muck, let's hope it serves as a lesson for future viral marketers and as an argument for transparency.

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:21:06 -0500, George Leppla wrote:

"-hh" wrote

Understood. Unfortunately, some of the (ahem) 'vigorousness' of the
defenses gives the impression that some are at least *acting*
guilty.

So if you say nothing and don't post that you are a RC member, you are
hiding something and if you post a defense, you are acting guilty.

That pretty much sums it up.

FWIW... if I were a RC member, I'd tell anyone who questioned my ethics or
the validity of my posts to go jump in a lake. But then, I am a travel
agent and there are people who think that whatever I write is suspect. I am
either "biting the hand that feeds me" or "being a shill for the cruise
line". I must be doing something right because I've been accused of both.

What makes you think it's any great trick to be both?
--
Think first! Before you book a cruise from a two bit lying sleazeball
who uses Usenet as free SPAMADVERTISING ground and for purposeful
attempts at personal character assassination. Are you next? Think twice
before booking with Ray Goldenberg. http://tr.im/hlJv

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:28:10 -0700 (PDT), D Ball wrote:

I don't tend to get hot and bothered about things
around here, but I do get riled up on the rare occasion the behavior
gets mean and personal. And there's no way getting around it: It's
just plain mean to label real people--folks you "know" from being here
over the years--prostitutes,

Does Becca pay for her room with Leppla? Prove it.

ass-kissers,

Anyone who sucks up to Ray Goldenberg, the SPAMADVETISER

posters with ulterior
motives

RAY GOLDENBERG

who misrepesent the facts

You, personally, accused Sisker of this.

and all of the rest of the nasty
things you popped up out of the blue to say (why did you think that
was a good thing to do??!), with no proof to back you up.

Shot they **** out of that statement.
--
Think first! Before you book a cruise from a two bit lying sleazeball
who uses Usenet as free SPAMADVERTISING ground and for purposeful
attempts at personal character assassination. Are you next? Think twice
before booking with Ray Goldenberg. http://tr.im/hlJv