Cruise Critic in the news

[dkjretired]

I believe a company has every right to deny service to anyone they want. I also believe any customer has the right to relate facts and even interject opinion as long as clearly stated.

 

My concerns are these:

 

1) Alleged pressure by company to modify a post. It could have been for a good reason in that the information/issue was incorrect or resolved. We do not know.

 

2) Alleged that the customer has a pattern of looking for issues/problems and then presses company for discounts. We do not know. This one bothers me more for some reason if true.

 

I have been on cruises with problems and I have never had a cruise ruined. I hope I never have, but can see where a cruise could be ruined. I have written letters and depending on the reason for the letter, I have gotten some consideration. I will say also that I have written positive letters for outstanding service/product also.

 

Thank you shipshape, I am shocked that no one is concerned here about possible censorship by employees of RCI. I actually agree with their ban of these people but their attempts at Censorship as alledged by two different people is abhorent.

[Goldryder]

When I read the article I had this mental picture of this lady running around the ship with a notebook looking for problems.

 

I am more concerned here with the alledged attempt to have the reviews removed. I realize one of those people who said that was Mrs. Moran however the other was one of the hosts from another board who doesn't have an ax to grind.

 

I came across a female on Olsen's Braemar last year who did have a note book and she noted things that she didn't like about the ship. The subject of conversation at evening meal was what ever the problem was she had discovered that day...dust bunnies under the bed was a favourite...

 

Some people need to get a life.

 

If you spend all your time looking for faults and problems, all the wonderful things in life will glide slowly by and you'll miss everything that's great in the world.

[FinelyCruising]

Thank you shipshape, I am shocked that no one is concerned here about possible censorship by employees of RCI. I actually agree with their ban of these people but their attempts at Censorship as alledged by two different people is abhorent.

 

You would actually have to believe that was true for it to be censorship. So if the cruise line asked this poster to retract a post, I don't think that is called censorship.

[dkjretired]

You would actually have to believe that was true for it to be censorship. So if the cruise line asked this poster to retract a post, I don't think that is called censorship.

 

It involved two people being asked, Moran and the host of another board. If it was only Moran, I would consider the source but the other source I am not disregarding. He even has an e-mail to back it up. It also involved removing not just a post but an entire review. It's all in the article and what was suggested was definitely censorship.

[uktog]

I wonder if the problem also arose because the poster refused to modify the post. So for example if the cruiseline said remove the level of compensation we gave and this was refused. Having been refused they moved on to the removal approach. Sounds as if we got some entrenched positions and there is probably more we have not yet been told

Personally I do not need to know how much compensation someone got but it is useful to see what issues people had and whether they were "recognised" or not whilst on board.

I am also happy to apply my own scale to complaints verging from the trivial/absurd to the serious. Then I contextualise the info I have read in the post having met all ranges of "complainer" on board.

Personally if we have had an issue on board (and we have had one or two but nothing show stopping) we have raised it with the appropriate managers and have had satisfaction. We have never had compensation nor have we sought it. For me acceptance of the situation and correction of the issue is all I want.

I read about people claiming to have had bottles of wine, future discounts, meals with officers etc but that does not really inform me on anything

A

[FinelyCruising]

It involved two people being asked, Moran and the host of another board. If it was only Moran, I would consider the source but the other source I am not disregarding. He even has an e-mail to back it up. It also involved removing not just a post but an entire review. It's all in the article and what was suggested was definitely censorship.

 

I think it would be censorship if Cruise Critic had been asked by the cruise line to remove it and had removed it. As I understand the article Moran was asked to pull it back by the cruise line.

[FinelyCruising]

I wonder if the problem also arose because the poster refused to modify the post. So for example if the cruiseline said remove the level of compensation we gave and this was refused. Having been refused they moved on to the removal approach. Sounds as if we got some entrenched positions and there is probably more we have not yet been told

A

 

I suspect the cruiseline will be more careful about 'settlements' and will require confidentiality.

 

I too agree there are pieces to the puzzle missing, but the end result is what it is, and I think its a good step to stopping all this bragging.

[dkjretired]

I think it would be censorship if Cruise Critic had been asked by the cruise line to remove it and had removed it. As I understand the article Moran was asked to pull it back by the cruise line.

 

Further in the article the moderator of another board stated he received an email from personnel at Royal Caribbean asking that the review, not post, be removed because they corrected the problem. He refused but it was an attempt at censorship of two people. I don't really care about Moran, I believe it is wrong for Royal Caribbean to attempt to have reviews that are bad removed by asking the web site to remove them.

[Moeve]

THAT is the point that got my attention!! I took the trouble of reading the review and ok so she was taking a closer look as certain things BUT I didn't think some of her complaints were not valid or deemed her as a complainer. There are people out there who simply are more 100% than others.

 

One other thing have US Lawmakers not issued a "guidancelist" for what is approriate as compensation fortravel "failures"? Germany has a pretty nifft little list called the Frankfurt Liste which acts as a guidance for both parties. Good thing keeps lots of smaller complaints out of the courts.

 

Another thing that caught my attention was the carpet - why in the world if it still smelled did the housekeeper not speak to the deck dept and have then exchange the carpet - that is why they keep such stocks onboard. Over and above that evry child knows that no matter how much you clean acarpet one will never get everything out of the fibers - just thinking about that curls my toes....

[bububr]

valid issues......

 

Issues like having the hot tubs closed after babies with diapers did their business in them.

 

Or the company not following or enforcing the policy it impliments....like the dress codes.

 

Although I have complained about service issues when they were truly, truly unnacceptable and not up to the level of service I have had on previous cruises.

 

Great, I'll be the next one banned from sailing....

 

Dave:eek:

[Cruising Carol]

Saw a thread on HAL board about this. A person posted a link to her review. It was a sewage smell in the bathroom that she was complaining about. Otherwise she had a wonderful time on the cruise but was unhappy she did not get notification of 20% off a future cruise until the last night of this cruise.

[usha]

valid issues......

 

Issues like having the hot tubs closed after babies with diapers did their business in them.

 

Or the company not following or enforcing the policy it impliments....like the dress codes.

 

Although I have complained about service issues when they were truly, truly unnacceptable and not up to the level of service I have had on previous cruises.

 

Great, I'll be the next one banned from sailing....

 

Dave:eek:

I really doubt that, Dave!

There's a whole lotta difference between your valid complaint to Celebrity and that other person's litany of real and/or imagined scenarios.:rolleyes:

[chessbriar]

With this passengers info being out there, do you thing NCL will keep a close eye on them?

[micmacmissy]

I am shocked that no one is concerned here about possible censorship by employees of RCI. I actually agree with their ban of these people but their attempts at Censorship as alledged by two different people is abhorent.

 

You're not alone...I also found it abhorrent. Just because the problem was compensated doesn't mean it won't affect other travelers. I want to hear the good and bad...which is why I go to the CC website. It's "critic" for a reason, no?

 

So if the cruise line asked this poster to retract a post, I don't think that is called censorship.

 

Ummm...that's exactly what it is!

 

Further in the article the moderator of another board stated he received an email from personnel at Royal Caribbean asking that the review, not post, be removed because they corrected the problem. He refused but it was an attempt at censorship of two people. I don't really care about Moran, I believe it is wrong for Royal Caribbean to attempt to have reviews that are bad removed by asking the web site to remove them.

 

I agree with you. They have no right to remove anything. Someone on another board suggested it be removed because it was "slander" against Royal Caribbean. I hardly think so.

[micmacmissy]

With this passengers info being out there, do you thing NCL will keep a close eye on them?

 

Oh, absolutely. I am sure they're on top of it.

 

And I have to think that if they had stuff to complain about on Celebrity and RCI, they'll find plenty to complain about on NCL!

[Sky Sweet]

Without knowing all the details pertaining to this issue, my gut feeling is that there are two reasons why they were banned from future Royal Caribbean, Azamara, and Celebrity Cruises.

 

Since this couple requested monetary compensation for problems on five out of six cruises, RCI probably assumed they will continue this pattern on any cruise they take in the future.

 

 

The other is to send the message that Royal Caribbean will be fair if a serious problem occurs but will not tolerate passengers who continuously try to use every situation that is less than perfect as a scheme to make money.

 

Of course this is just my humble opinion, and I might be wrong.

[FinelyCruising]

You're not alone...I also found it abhorrent. Just because the problem was compensated doesn't mean it won't affect other travelers. I want to hear the good and bad...which is why I go to the CC website. It's "critic" for a reason, no?

 

 

 

Ummm...that's exactly what it is!

 

 

 

I agree with you. They have no right to remove anything. Someone on another board suggested it be removed because it was "slander" against Royal Caribbean. I hardly think so.

 

Censorship as I understand it is related to being in a position to control a writers content by editing content and/or arbitrarily removing it without the writers consent, and ultimately that is not what occured.

 

I am not sure if what was written was slanderous since it might have been based on some level of truth ableit manipulated and unfavorable. However if the Moran's had signed off on or were asked and/or agreed to keep the discussions private as part of the finalizing of compensation, that did not occur.

 

I think the whole detail is a non-issue, the real stroy is that the cruise line is starting to get smart and is declining to accept passengers known to create havoc, bilk, and otherwise demonstrate ill will.:)

[YOW]

My take is that:

 

1. There are people who have a good time and don't complain
   
2. There are people who have a good time, but when pushed past their threshold will complain when warranted, mainly so that others are spared the same issues
   
3. There are negative people who are passive-aggressive, complaining in general but not to the source where problems could be fixed
   
4. There are people who complain both to others around them, and to the source -- and then take their business elsewhere
   
5. And then there are people who complain chiefly for purposes of getting compensation
   

A service business loves #1, appreciates #2, tolerates #3, and either addresses #4 or sees it take care of itself. As far as #5, this is not always easy to spot -- but when we do, it's time to cut the customer loose and wish them well in their future endeavours.

[excitedofharpenden]

My take is that:

1. There are people who have a good time and don't complain
   
2. There are people who have a good time, but when pushed past their threshold will complain when warranted, mainly so that others are spared the same issues
   
3. There are negative people who are passive-aggressive, complaining in general but not to the source where problems could be fixed
   
4. There are people who complain both to others around them, and to the source -- and then take their business elsewhere
   
5. And then there are people who complain chiefly for purposes of getting compensation

A service business loves #1, appreciates #2, tolerates #3, and either addresses #4 or sees it take care of itself. As far as #5, this is not always easy to spot -- but when we do, it's time to cut the customer loose and wish them well in their future endeavours.

YOW, perfectly put and I think #5 is the correct answer. I'd embellish it a bit in this case and add "at any cost, with the purpose of making one feel like something has been achieved".

 

RCI did good, but were slow on the uptake IMHO. I think they gave the Morans a fair chance, but were then left with no choice. Now it's plastered over the news with the names of RCI executives and Cruise Critic. Given the circumstances I feel that is totally unnecessary, but all part of the plan. I think that plan has backfired.

 

Phil

[hylasgirl]

I would really love to know the rest of the story here because...

 

**I don't understand why anyone on this board would be irritated with someone getting a 20% discount on their next cruise for the problems they encountered. And I certainly think, if not know for certain, that if any one of us here had a plumbing problem like the one that was cited, we would be complaining at the top of our lungs and I know I would DEFINITELY want more than a 20% discount on the next cruise... HECK, I would want my money back in a big big way if I had sewage all over my stateroom... Am I wrong here? Like I said, would be interesting to really know the whole story, because as the article sits now... I can't imagine keeping someone in a room with that unsanitary thing going on... and I hope I don't get banned, but 20% just wouldn't make it right with me.

 

And like one poster said... it is a little scary that the censorship is all over a board that is designed for reviews... the good the bad and the ugly...

[iheartbda]

I would really love to know the rest of the story here because...

 

**I don't understand why anyone on this board would be irritated with someone getting a 20% discount on their next cruise for the problems they encountered. And I certainly think, if not know for certain, that if any one of us here had a plumbing problem like the one that was cited, we would be complaining at the top of our lungs and I know I would DEFINITELY want more than a 20% discount on the next cruise... HECK, I would want my money back in a big big way if I had sewage all over my stateroom... Am I wrong here? Like I said, would be interesting to really know the whole story, because as the article sits now... I can't imagine keeping someone in a room with that unsanitary thing going on... and I hope I don't get banned, but 20% just wouldn't make it right with me.

 

And like one poster said... it is a little scary that the censorship is all over a board that is designed for reviews... the good the bad and the ugly...

 

If you do a little reading on the RCCL board you'll find a totally different story. In a review of the cruise, the person said there was a sewer smell which then turned into sewage all over the cabin in the article. There is a long history to the whole story which will be cleared up over there if you're willing to do a lot of reading.

[bububr]

I agree with you also.

 

However I'd like to hear the whole story.

 

I find it very odd that RCL would banish a paying customer over a review alone. However I also wonder how a public company could banish someone unless they were a nuisance or a possible future problem based on their past.

 

While I have been on many cruises, I try to write a fair review and send a letter, good or bad. However I don't demand any kind of compensation, just state the facts in a 'nice' way. I have recieved some sort of compensation for problems I have had maybe three or four times.

 

I think you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

 

I have personally seen irrate passengers having temper tantrums, screaming and berating crew members.

 

I have to think there is a lot more going on with this story than is being told.

 

IMHO

 

Dave:eek:

[bububr]

We had our toilet overflow on our January crew due to people flushing things down the system that they shouldn't. Its not really the lines fault, its the fault of some of the demographics that X is now attracting.

 

Our room was stinky for a day or so and the hallway outside our room was completely soaked. We had to use the public restrooms until ours was fixed. However we didn't think that was as bad as he hot tubs being closed down because someone put a baby with diapers in them and they had to be cleaned and sanitized.

 

We simply made the right people aware of the situations and we were taken care of. No yelling, screaming, tantrums.

 

As I said we don't really know what has happened with this last incidence, or the previous ones.

 

However I think that if RCL truly did ban them because of posting, then I think a lawsuit should follow.

 

Dave:eek:

[excitedofharpenden]

 

I find it very odd that RCL would banish a paying customer over a review alone. However I also wonder how a public company could banish someone unless they were a nuisance or a possible future problem based on their past.

 

 

I have to think there is a lot more going on with this story than is being told.

 

Hi Dave. You are correct on both counts, but unfortunately the community guidelines for Cruise Critic don't allow for a detailed resume of what has gone on in Mrs Moran's cruising history with RCI. That is not to say that the information isn't known by people here. Past posts both here and elsewhere have volunteered the information quite freely, but some of that information on CC has been lost with the intervention of the hosts.

 

One does have to ask the question as to why RCI did what they did and the only answer that I can give is it was pretty serious to warrant such a decision and was not based in isolation upon an unfavourable review on Cruise Critic.

 

Yes, there is a lot more going on with this story, but this board is not going to be the place to discover the full details. I am just sad to see that Cruise Critic has been involved in the news story. Laura has already made it clear that RCI did not ask CC to remove the review. This request was made between RCI and Mrs Moran and she chose not to do it and she has now requested the "story" be published of a cruise taken eight months ago.

 

In closing, I'll go back to my iceberg comment and be thankful that RCI made the decision they did.

 

Phil

[iheartbda]

Dave

No, they were not banned because of posting, it was due to a long list of complaints and RCCL decided enough was enough with comps, etc. Like I said, it's interesting reading on the other board as the couple was "well-known".

 

BTW, I'm not what some refer to as an RCCL cheerleader.;) Celebrity is our favorite 6 times line but no longer has the itinerary we want so we now go on whichever one does.:)