New Carnival "Rowdy Behavior Policy" apparently a joke

[Beave8920]

1 hour ago, oyme said:

I never said OP shouldn't share their observation but there's a lot of opinions OP and I do not share, clearly. As I said, I wouldn't have stayed to see how it ended, and I think that's the point of my comment. I am being accused of belittling OP,

oyme.....first of all, as the OP, I'm in no way offended by your comments!  But let me clarify a couple of things for you.  As I'm sure you can appreciate, this event exploded in a matter of seconds and lasted less than a minute.  I was not in harms way, but there were people who were.  While I wasn't a spectator, I did spectate.  It's not like I grabbed a beer and bellied up to the front to watch. I didn't take video or cheer on the idiots.  I observed from where I was seated in the event that something bad happened and could be a witness to the event.  I'm a big boy and could handle myself if necessary, but more importantly in the event that others may have needed assistance.  Why should I give up my ground?  That's not who I am.  The young guys at the table, while obviously provoked, were not justified in beating this guy up.

 

But the purpose of my post was to point out Carnival's new policy is apparently not being fully implemented.  Not who was right or wrong, or whether my actions were appropriate.  But I'm with you in that I find it a bit disturbing how people can come on this forum and belittle your comments and/or observations having not been there!

[rodndonna]

37 minutes ago, mz-s said:

 

Pretty much do, if people fight in the casino and don't get fined or booted off the ship then what else would invoke it? The casino is the most important space on a cruise ship.

 

This wasn't just a typical fight.

 

This was a drunk obnoxiuos passenger harassing other passengers to the point where a Carnival Casino employee  called in Security to have him dealt with (this implies he was identified by Carnival as an instigator and a threat to other passengers). For whatever reason (others for Security to deal with elsewhere), Security never came to deal with the problem passenger. I won't pretend to imagine I know how I would behave after being harassed for 10 minutes and then called  racial slurs (I am not a visible minority).

 

I don't think they were not equal parties in this altercation, from what I understand of the original post (and it would seem that was Carnivals opinion)

[jam19872016]

I see a number of references to a "grey area". Yet then these same people argue a black and white right/wrong scenario among the involved parties. You perpetuate an idea that because someone is obviously wrong, the other party is justified in their response.

 

I think all parties are wrong including carnival. Security failed to respond in a timely manner and depending on how this guy ended up intoxicated, why was he served to the point of causing this much trouble.

 

Then again, carnivals updated beverage policy encourages smuggling so perhaps he was not overserved.

 

Even if you don't agree they were wrong to commit assault therefore the policy was not unenforced, they failed to have an acceptable response to the initial rowdy behavior. Let's not forget that. Either way, their actions do not reflect the policy.

 

BTW, if he had been attempting to forcibly remove chips from the dealer's area (steal) you can bet security would have had a swifter response. 

 

 

[simplelife]

On 11/26/2022 at 8:25 PM, oyme said:

I would say if you see something like that, get the heck out of the area. Only continue being a witness if you have literally no other choice because an exit is blocked or something. OP didn't state anywhere that the exit was blocked and that they were stuck there. I just have noticed a lot of people like to be witnesses when stuff is going down. So whose fault is that if they end up hurt? Unless they were truly blocked from leaving.

My many years as a teacher taught me that the large majority of fights end when you get rid of the audience.

[icft]

1 hour ago, jam19872016 said:

I see a number of references to a "grey area". Yet then these same people argue a black and white right/wrong scenario among the involved parties. You perpetuate an idea that because someone is obviously wrong, the other party is justified in their response.

 

I think all parties are wrong including carnival. Security failed to respond in a timely manner and depending on how this guy ended up intoxicated, why was he served to the point of causing this much trouble.

 

Then again, carnivals updated beverage policy encourages smuggling so perhaps he was not overserved.

 

Even if you don't agree they were wrong to commit assault therefore the policy was not unenforced, they failed to have an acceptable response to the initial rowdy behavior. Let's not forget that. Either way, their actions do not reflect the policy.

 

BTW, if he had been attempting to forcibly remove chips from the dealer's area (steal) you can bet security would have had a swifter response. 

 

 

I can't speak for others, but to me there are two different issues.

 

The first issue is who did wrong? I agree with you that everybody did wrong including the four guys and Carnival.

 

The second issue is what can be done about it? This is where I think the "grey" comes in. Carnival has a duty of care. Put another way, they can by contract require you to refrain from harassing or assaulting others but the other side of that contract is that they take reasonable measures to protect you from harassment or assault by others. Carnival appears to have failed on its end (security way too slow to respond, and nothing says only security can respond) so they may feel they are open to quite possibly successful litigation against them if they fine or detain the four guys. But if they were really, really serious about stamping out violence they would go ahead and lock-up, fine, and ban and take any legal loss as part of the cost of business. If they wanted do something but were only serious when there was no cost to them they would not lock-up or fine but would ban from future cruises based on their violent behavior. So "grey."

 

But to me that is not the biggest concern. The biggest concern is the possibility that Carnival's policy is that only security can confront misbehaving passengers and the possibility security works the same way as most police forces in that they only care after something violent happens. Where were the casino managers yelling "get out of here, we have called security?"

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by icft

[sparks1093]

On 11/26/2022 at 6:15 PM, Beave8920 said:

 

 

So I guess the "No Tolerance" policy is a little more tolerant than advertised.  A shame really, because this was a clear cut case of aggravated assault.  If Security would have been there in the first place, this would have never happened.

Carnival has the right to interpret their policies as they see fit and while they are being chastised for not taking action the fact is they did- they did an investigation and took action. It's not the action that many would support, but based on the facts they gathered they made a decision. 

 

How about this situation- you are sitting there, minding your own business and someone comes up and out of the blue starts punching you. You defend yourself and fight back. Under a strict reading of Carnival's policy you would also be subject to the same penalty as the aggressor. Would anyone perceive that as fair? 

 

While the drunk wasn't the one that threw the first punch he did provoke the other four, while being drunk on top of it all. I personally don't have an issue with Carnival's handling of the situation- they did investigate and acted based on what their investigation discovered. 

[ColeThornton]

10 hours ago, CILCIANRQTS said:

Which is amazing, since he died April 15, 1865.

 

LOL..I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that.  🙂

[sparks1093]

3 minutes ago, ColeThornton said:

 

LOL..I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that.  🙂

Kind of the point behind the whole meme. 😉