Royal Champions

[Alexis]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I assume you only speak for yourself, not for the 50 to 75 people. Right?

 

Second of all, you clearly have your participation in your signature. At least two people claiming that they are RCs in this thread don't. I think some people are more upset with those who aren't disclosing in any way and with the fact that CC participating in this and didn't require disclosure.

 

Please don't take ANY of this personally. I don't think people mean this personally at all. I certainly do not.

 

My question is simple... Is it more valorous for people to simply disclose and let others draw their personal conclusions based on that disclosure without putting any weight to it, whatsoever? It certainly would end this merry-go-round of a subject. If all were to publicly disclose, the witch would be dead and Dorthy could just go back to Kansas.

 

I always speak just for myself. That is my opinion and I am entitled to that on here. ;)

If I use we or us, it is because we are a group of RC's that are being questioned on their morals.

[Ephraim]

I always speak just for myself. That is my opinion and I am entitled to that on here. ;)

 

If I use we or us, it is because we are a group of RC's that are being questioned on their morals.

 

While I think some are questioning the RCs in totality, I think others are questioning more RCL, CC's participation in this program and those who have not publicly disclosed.

 

As I have said before, I commend those who have disclosed, but that also appears to be those who are standing at the forefront at the moment when they are those who are the LEAST in question.

[cruisinMike]

.............Second of all, you clearly have your participation in your signature. At least two people claiming that they are RCs in this thread don't. I think some people are more upset with those who aren't disclosing in any way and with the fact that CC participating in this and didn't require disclosure..............

 

Honestly, I'm not the slightest bit worried whether someone has something in their signature or not. If I know up front a site such as CC is good to go with allowing cruise companies to use posters here in their viral marketing efforts, at least I am then aware and can use my own judgement on what to believe.

 

My personal opinion, it's not about an individual disclosure, it's about the site's disclosure.

[Alexis]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I assume you only speak for yourself, not for the 50 to 75 people. Right?

 

Second of all, you clearly have your participation in your signature. At least two people claiming that they are RCs in this thread don't. I think some people are more upset with those who aren't disclosing in any way and with the fact that CC participating in this and didn't require disclosure.

 

Please don't take ANY of this personally. I don't think people mean this personally at all. I certainly do not.

 

My question is simple... Is it more valorous for people to simply disclose and let others draw their personal conclusions based on that disclosure without putting any weight to it, whatsoever? It certainly would end this merry-go-round of a subject. If all were to publicly disclose, the witch would be dead and Dorthy could just go back to Kansas.

 

There are RC's who have taken the RC out of their signatures because of all the hateful and hurtful things being said about them.

I will not do that, but I can't blame them for doing it. ;)

To be told by fellow CC's who have known many of us for years, that "every post of ours will be taken with a grain of salt", is far from nice.

And, some people do not include their signatures at all when they post anyway.

Some people get mad that it slows their computers and yell at us. :D

[glgolfer]

I never said it was your place. I believe I said I was amazed not one RC had. The folks have been quite vocal on most everything else, whether it was really relevant or not. I stand by what I said, I, as an individual, was amazed not one RC (at least as I can recall) has taken, or said they took the RC marketing manager to task for those ridiculous remarks.

 

I would be, sure as heck, very clear with any individual that I wasn't their sheep and to state such a ridiculous comment that could be misconstrued in the way it has, would cause them more grief then it would be causing me.

 

Only you need to assess why you take it so personal and individually.

 

i think if you check, i've tried to be polite to everyone on both sides of this issue. if i have slipped up, i apologize.

 

now, try this. i don't give a fig (i was going to use a term that consisted of 2 words starting with r and a, but decided not too).

 

i don't care what a "marketing" person says about me. i don't care what anybody on here calls me; a shill; a cheerleader; a dupe or anything derogatory. i've explained what we thought many different ways.

i have no use for the "blogger" who wrote the original article. the person who was quoted seems to believe what they were told. that information came from one of two sources, either external or internal. either way, show me the metrics that show the program was a success whereever they came from. i find it hard to believe so many folks actually believe that. it smacks of cya about a program that they paid somebody else to run that failed or that they tried with the same result.

i worked for the government and heard more than one story like that.

 

i'll keep on posting what i want, when i want within the bounds of what ever cruise board i'm posting on. i'm done here. i ask any and all that have called me names up to and including a liar to monitor my posts. i promise i won't change my screen name. i also say to you i won't change the way i post for you or anyone else. if rci or any other line deserves praise, they'll get it. same with criticism.

 

have fun boys and girls. enough said.

[Ephraim]

Okay, might I suggest that CC do a poll and ask how many people think that members of a group like the Royal Champions or actually working for the cruise company directly or indirectly, tour operators or even hotel/b&B owners should disclose the relationship under penalty of banishment from the website in any case where their contributions to CC might have any conflict of interest. In this way, the requirement is clear, the punishment is clear and the intent is, as well.

 

Now, if this were to happen, do I have to put my B&B ownership in my signature or only when I answer a question about Montreal. Because in my signature it might be considered advertising. Or do I just put something like B&B owner in Montreal?

[cruisinMike]

............i don't care what a "marketing" person says about me. i don't care what anybody on here calls me; a shill; a cheerleader; a dupe or anything derogatory. i've explained what we thought many different ways.

i have no use for the "blogger" who wrote the original article. the person who was quoted seems to believe what they were told. that information came from one of two sources, either external or internal. either way, show me the metrics that show the program was a success whereever they came from. i find it hard to believe so many folks actually believe that. it smacks of cya about a program that they paid somebody else to run that failed or that they tried with the same result....

 

First off, so everyone knows, for space sake only partially quoting you. I fully understand what you are saying. Again though, there are many here on these threads that take great exception to their fellow CCers and what they have said or believe including yourself in your statement above. Why oh why is it so easy to argue, denounce, or otherwise dismiss comments of fellow posters and let the one attributed to RCI which was the cause of this in the first place, be dismissed so easily.

 

If I were to have any doubt about the veracity of individuals here, it would only be on this point. You can argue until you're blue in the face with a fellow CCer, but don't care what a "marketing" person says about you. And it was from this comment that generated the original thread and problem. I don't get it.

[Alexis]

i think if you check, i've tried to be polite to everyone on both sides of this issue. if i have slipped up, i apologize.

 

now, try this. i don't give a fig (i was going to use a term that consisted of 2 words starting with r and a, but decided not too).

 

i don't care what a "marketing" person says about me. i don't care what anybody on here calls me; a shill; a cheerleader; a dupe or anything derogatory. i've explained what we thought many different ways.

i have no use for the "blogger" who wrote the original article. the person who was quoted seems to believe what they were told. that information came from one of two sources, either external or internal. either way, show me the metrics that show the program was a success whereever they came from. i find it hard to believe so many folks actually believe that. it smacks of cya about a program that they paid somebody else to run that failed or that they tried with the same result.

i worked for the government and heard more than one story like that.

 

i'll keep on posting what i want, when i want within the bounds of what ever cruise board i'm posting on. i'm done here. i ask any and all that have called me names up to and including a liar to monitor my posts. i promise i won't change my screen name. i also say to you i won't change the way i post for you or anyone else. if rci or any other line deserves praise, they'll get it. same with criticism.

 

have fun boys and girls. enough said.

 

I quit too! :D

It's late and I am too tired for this.

[Ephraim]

There are RC's who have taken the RC out of their signatures because of all the hateful and hurtful things being said about them.

I will not do that, but I can't blame them for doing it. ;)

To be told by fellow CC's who have known many of us for years, that "every post of ours will be taken with a grain of salt", is far from nice.

And, some people do not include their signatures at all when they post.

Some people get mad that it slows their computers and yell at us. :D

 

I can respect that, being a temporary measure until CC comes out with a solution that is amenable to most. (Obviously there is no way to satisfy all.)

 

Hey, to find out that several CC members (two of which are RCs) have been posting things about me on another board and one who called me a "...HUGE PITA on the board" doesn't make me feel great either. You just have to let people think what they may (and maybe feel sorry for them because they have nothing better to do than to gossip). Some people on CC like me and some don't. Some respect me and others despise me because I'm openly Gay others because I'm opinionated. (I'm also Canadian, Quebecois, Jewish, English speaking, Intelligent, Political, well educated and well travelled, but they don't seem to hate me as much for that). I can't please everyone. And neither can you. You can't do anything about how people feel. Just be the best YOU that you can be and forget the rest of it. I'm trying to. I've met some fantastic people on CC and I've met a few that I can easily do without. I'm sure the same is true for many people.

[jaxon41]

Actually this isn't hard to figure out. I don't think the marketing manager had bragged yet about influencing the influencers publicly.

 

I found this in that thread -- "I was told that is how I was chosen too. From the Marketing Department"

 

Now, that isn't how they were chosen, but that is what they were told. I posted before that I agreed with another who said, the RC's are the only innocents in this. There are just too many of them who have said -- they really didn't know what was expected, how they were chosen, etc., only that they were very honored, felt very special, to be chosen.

 

My personality is such, that I would be hurt if I was accused of not honestly representing my cruise experiences when I was innocent of another's nefarious intent expressly stated by them of trying to manipulate me, lying to me, and ultimately making a mockery of me by publically pretty much stating that it was working. Whoever posted that analogy about the one neighbor declaring another, his best friend, whilst holding him up to ridicule to the other neighbors in order to get his lawn mowed, nailed it, imo. I would be hurt by those who did not see that I was an innocent, but I would rip the eyeballs out (so to speak) of the one who used me for their own ends. But hey, that's just me.

 

I went back and reread Potter's article -- one can infer that she was contacted before the summer of 2008, which was when she asked RCCL for comment, and they didn't (wouldn't) comment. In the end, it didn't matter, because a post on this very board referencing the Insight blog and Hannock's words, blew it wide open.

 

Potter then talks about her article about Moran in May of 2008, and actually compared nasty emails she had recieved with nasty posts on her blog site from two self identified RC's, matching ip addresses. If I were RCCL, I sure as heck would want to know who those people were -- maybe give them an additonal reward for going above and beyond the call of duty :) sorry just couldn't resist it.

[cruisinMike]

I can respect that, being a temporary measure until CC comes out with a solution that is amenable to most. (Obviously there is no way to satisfy all.)

 

.........Some people on CC like me and some don't. Some respect me and others despise me because I'm openly Gay others because I'm opinionated. (I'm also Canadian, Quebecois, Jewish, English speaking, Intelligent, Political, well educated and well travelled, but they don't seem to hate me as much for that).................

 

 

I didn't know you were English speaking......... :D

[Ephraim]

I didn't know you were English speaking......... :D

 

Yup. I also speak two other languages and muddle through on at least three more, if I have to. My husband of 19 years is French speaking with English being his second language... so he sometimes makes slight mistakes when writing on CC.

[cruisinMike]

Yup. I also speak two other languages and muddle through on at least three more, if I have to. My husband of 19 years is French speaking with English being his second language... so he sometimes makes slight mistakes when writing on CC.

 

Way off topic everyone.

 

My dad was from Alymer. I still try to visit the old family once in a while.

 

Oh I forgot to add that my DW has accused me of butchering the english language as if it was my second language. Can't argue with that.

[Coralc]

While I think some are questioning the RCs in totality, I think others are questioning more RCL, CC's participation in this program and those who have not publicly disclosed.

 

As I have said before, I commend those who have disclosed, but that also appears to be those who are standing at the forefront at the moment when they are those who are the LEAST in question.

 

You do realize that many Cruise Critic members have SIGNATURES & IMAGES TURNED OFF? Because I don't care a whit about all of the flashing, moving sparkly crud, the countdown clocks,, who loves Henry? Who hates the Oasis? Who is a member of what group? How many cruises they have? And that Diamond plus HTML image code that extends all across the screen and off both sides infuriates me to no end.

 

People participate in Cruise Critic because they love cruising. It's a message board. I don't really care who's who. I get to have my say....as much as anyone else. And I can help or share my opinions as anyone else can.

[rubrrick]

It's sad that from here on out...........on CC.........that there will be some members that I will never trust again. They have lied........and spewed forth such venom.........that I will never trust anything that they post in the future to have any value.

 

And they can say the same about me. I am a Royal Champion!

 

I pity those of you that have attacked us.........and you think that you have every right.

 

And yet..........there is only one.........that has been converted to believing us..............that we were chosen........not by anything that we have done.......but by an outside source........to be RC's.

 

If those of you that hate us.....could have shot us.........I think that you would have! That's pretty sad.:mad:

 

I, for one.........will continue with my life of cruising......and enjoying those friends that I have made, both on the ships and here at Cruise Critic.

 

No one needs to read what I write about cabins, dinners, conditions of the ships, and more especially.......when I have a beef with how something has been handled with RCCL.

 

I won't write how many cruiser have been sc###ed out of money for the botched job at Iguassu Falls. You won't find that one.......because it went directly to corporate.........with a demand that all be given a greater refund than they were given.

 

I want to thank some of the people that have tirelessly......have given of their time.........and some are RC's and some are not.

 

The first that comes to mind.......that is not an RC..........is JC. He sure needs to be one.....but there are others..........glgolfer, Alexis, PH8, Elizanessie, aqhacruiser, and the list is much longer..........and my appreciation to all that have tried to tell it like it is...........even tho some may not listen.

 

You all can continue to duke it out. It is non consequential to me......and I'm going to keep posting as I see fit............and you all can read or not read.............or just put me on ignore!

 

Nations have fired shots over less than what has gone on here!

 

Pax vobiscum!

 

Rick

[hazence]

First off, so everyone knows, for space sake only partially quoting you. I fully understand what you are saying. Again though, there are many here on these threads that take great exception to their fellow CCers and what they have said or believe including yourself in your statement above. Why oh why is it so easy to argue, denounce, or otherwise dismiss comments of fellow posters and let the one attributed to RCI which was the cause of this in the first place, be dismissed so easily.

 

If I were to have any doubt anything about the veracity of individuals here, it would only be on this point. You can argue until you're blue in the face with a fellow CCer, but don't care what a "marketing" person says about you. And it was from this comment that generated the original thread and problem. I don't get it.

 

I think it's that "subtle influence" at work.

 

I really just thought I'd voice an opinion when I first posted but this has become fascinating in the dynamics at work here. RCCL must have been "misquoted";RCCL told you all this immediately; some disgruntled someone told the media; "why should I" comment on RCCL...??? ANYTHING BUT the orginal comments from RCCL!

 

Questioniong posters are ....jealous;they are too new; they are The-Banned-Returned"; they are plants from other cruiselines; they are undercover media; they are "attacking"; they are "little fish" and (what was it?) "shark attack survivors."...and they have been "hateful and mean" BUT nothing directed AT those questioning RCCL is anything more than richly deserved. Two standards one supposes.

 

But the comment from the Marketing executive was made at a conference...to her peers...and parts are in quotes. Yet, few want to address IT or RCCL's comments, motives, and stategy.

 

The responses are subtly influencing ME to think many DO believe their posts are monitored here. And that the "gift" of a special title and status is very meaningful.

 

The RCCL marketing execitive had it nailed. This thread should be Exhibit One at the next conference.

[Alexis]

It's sad that from here on out...........on CC.........that there will be some members that I will never trust again. They have lied........and spewed forth such venom.........that I will never trust anything that they post in the future to have any value.

 

And they can say the same about me. I am a Royal Champion!

 

I pity those of you that have attacked us.........and you think that you have every right.

 

And yet..........there is only one.........that has been converted to believing us..............that we were chosen........not by anything that we have done.......but by an outside source........to be RC's.

 

If those of you that hate us.....could have shot us.........I think that you would have! That's pretty sad.:mad:

 

I, for one.........will continue with my life of cruising......and enjoying that friends that I have made, both on the ships and here at Cruise Critic.

 

No one needs to read what I write about cabins, dinners, conditions of the ships, and more especially.......when I have a beef with how something has been handled with RCCL.

 

I won't write how many cruiser have been sc###ed out of money for the botched job at Iguassu Falls. You won't find that one.......because it went directly to corporate.........with a demand that all be given a greater refund than they were given.

 

I want to thank some of the people that have tirelessly......have given of their time.........and some or RC's and some are not.

 

The first that comes to mind.......that is not an RC..........is JC. He sure needs to be one.....but there are others..........glgolfer, Alexis, PH8, Elizanessie, aqhacruiser, and the list is much longer..........and my appreciation to all that have tried to tell it like it is...........even tho some may not listen.

 

You all can continue to duke it out. It is non consequential to me......and I'm going to keep posting as I see fit............and you all can read or not read.............or just put me on ignore!

 

Nations have fired shots over less than what has gone on here!

 

Pax vobiscum! And with you also!

 

Rick

 

I was shutting down and saw your name.

Many thanks for a super message/post that only you could write.

I could not agree with you more. ;)

I too will also continue to cruise, continue to post, and continue to keep

my presence on these boards.

Anyone who does not want to read me has that choice.

Special Thanks to jc. ;)

[glgolfer]

First off, so everyone knows, for space sake only partially quoting you. I fully understand what you are saying. Again though, there are many here on these threads that take great exception to their fellow CCers and what they have said or believe including yourself in your statement above. Why oh why is it so easy to argue, denounce, or otherwise dismiss comments of fellow posters and let the one attributed to RCI which was the cause of this in the first place, be dismissed so easily.

 

If I were to have any doubt about the veracity of individuals here, it would only be on this point. You can argue until you're blue in the face with a fellow CCer, but don't care what a "marketing" person says about you. And it was from this comment that generated the original thread and problem. I don't get it.

 

well dam, i have to respond to this. you quoted the right part of my post, but i feel you didn't truly understand it. i'm not attacking you or saying you can't understand, but let's look at it together.

 

the person who was quoted seems to believe what they were told.

that's obvious or they wouldn't have said it unless they were lying.

that information came from one of two sources, either external or internal. either way, show me the metrics that show the program was a success whereever they came from.

i want to see the proof the program worked. otherwise i have difficulty believing it did. not that i don't believe it, i just want to see proof.more than one company has been given or given out interesting information. see enron and others. not saying that's the case here, at all.

 

i find it hard to believe so many folks actually believe that. it smacks of cya about a program that they paid somebody else to run that failed or that they tried with the same result.

pure speculation on my part. just something to think about. in my eyes and the eyes of many other RCs the program failed in it's intended purpose. what we say about what was said is a waste of time. what i have felt is if they truly thought they could manipulate us they were mistaken. to say they even tried is demeaning to us and to claim success without proof is something i don't even want to comment on as i would probably get banned from here for at least a while.

i started posting here to learn. now i post to help others learn about cruising. RCI has changed radically over the years and i don't agree with many of those changes. if a newcomer asks a question, i answer it.

because of some of the royal champions knowledge, everyone on our roll call going to brazil had their visa. some 70 or so people were not allowed to board the ship on 4 january because they didn't.

i blame both rci and the passenger for that. rci had turned a group away in 2008 for the same reason. why didn't they tell every ta and every pax that they needed one as soon as they received the deposit?

 

i worked for the government and heard more than one story like that.

 

this is very true.

[hazence]

"And they can say the same about me. I am a Royal Champion!"

 

I am happy for you.

 

"I pity those of you that have attacked us.........and you think that you have every right."

 

I hope you also pity all those who have attacked the rest of us. I would hope that this marketing strategy has not divided this Board into little exclusive enclaves that feel only for their own. I pity everyone who was attacked, including myself...the small fish...shark attack rtemant or whatever that dramatic quote was...

 

"And yet..........there is only one.........that has been converted to believing us..............that we were chosen........not by anything that we have done.......but by an outside source........to be RC's."

 

Yes, you were "chosen"...the whys and wherefores are what we are supposedly discussing. But yes, "chosen" ...we all agree.

 

"If those of you that hate us.....could have shot us.........I think that you would have! That's pretty sad.:mad:"

 

No, that's uber-dramatic. Believe me, I neither hate you nor want to shoot you ...or anyone else.

 

I...am...discussing...a...marketing strategy...as...described...by...a..RCCL...marketing...executive...at...a...PUBLIC...conference.

[rubrrick]

I was shutting down and saw your name.

Many thanks for a super message/post that only you could write.

I could not agree with you more. ;)

I too will also continue to cruise, continue to post, and continue to keep

my presence on these boards.

Anyone who does not want to read me has that choice.

Special Thanks to jc. ;)

 

 

Thanks Pat..........and to you as well!

 

Rick

[cruisinMike]

well dam, i have to respond to this. you quoted the right part of my post, but i feel you didn't truly understand it. i'm not attacking you or saying you can't understand, but let's look at it together.

 

the person who was quoted seems to believe what they were told.

that's obvious or they wouldn't have said it unless they were lying.

that information came from one of two sources, either external or internal. either way, show me the metrics that show the program was a success whereever they came from.

i want to see the proof the program worked. otherwise i have difficulty believing it did. not that i don't believe it, i just want to see proof.more than one company has been given or given out interesting information. see enron and others. not saying that's the case here, at all.

 

i find it hard to believe so many folks actually believe that. it smacks of cya about a program that they paid somebody else to run that failed or that they tried with the same result.

pure speculation on my part. just something to think about. in my eyes and the eyes of many other RCs the program failed in it's intended purpose. what we say about what was said is a waste of time. what i have felt is if they truly thought they could manipulate us they were mistaken. to say they even tried is demeaning to us and to claim success without proof is something i don't even want to comment on as i would probably get banned from here for at least a while.

i started posting here to learn. now i post to help others learn about cruising. RCI has changed radically over the years and i don't agree with many of those changes. if a newcomer asks a question, i answer it.

because of some of the royal champions knowledge, everyone on our roll call going to brazil had their visa. some 70 or so people were not allowed to board the ship on 4 january because they didn't.

i blame both rci and the passenger for that. rci had turned a group away in 2008 for the same reason. why didn't they tell every ta and every pax that they needed one as soon as they received the deposit?

 

i worked for the government and heard more than one story like that.

 

this is very true.

 

 

Nope, I understood you the first time. The part I quoted was the part I wanted to respond to.

[Rancher Dave]

It's sad that from here on out...........on CC.........that there will be some members that I will never trust again. They have lied........and spewed forth such venom.........that I will never trust anything that they post in the future to have any value.

 

Nations have fired shots over less than what has gone on here!

 

Pax vobiscum!

 

Rick

 

 

Well, before the internet this would have called for a civil war. Now we just fight it out in words. At least nobody ends up dead from all this, had this been a shooting war, we'd be less several people.

[rubrrick]

Well, before the internet this would have called for a civil war. Now we just fight it out in words. At least nobody ends up dead from all this, had this been a shooting war, we'd be less several people.

 

At least the North made peace with the South! Thanks Dave.....for a little levity!!:D:D

 

Rick

[critterchick]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I assume you only speak for yourself, not for the 50 to 75 people. Right?

 

Second of all, you clearly have your participation in your signature. At least two people claiming that they are RCs in this thread don't. I think some people are more upset with those who aren't disclosing in any way and with the fact that CC participating in this and didn't require disclosure.

 

Please don't take ANY of this personally. I don't think people mean this personally at all. I certainly do not.

 

My question is simple... Is it more valorous for people to simply disclose and let others draw their personal conclusions based on that disclosure without putting any weight to it, whatsoever? It certainly would end this merry-go-round of a subject. If all were to publicly disclose, the witch would be dead and Dorthy could just go back to Kansas.

 

I am one who does not put "Royal Champion" in my signature. Honestly I've always thought it was a silly thing to brag about. I don't know why that's important to you. If you read my posts I don't see how you would conclude that I'm a duped, manipulated shill, whether or not that's in my signature.

 

I much prefer to list my numerous cruises on RCI. Not to make anybody jealous (much), but to establish that I just might have a clue what I'm talking about. And it's as good a place as any to keep track of them.

 

There are RC's who have taken the RC out of their signatures because of all the hateful and hurtful things being said about them.

I will not do that, but I can't blame them for doing it. ;)

To be told by fellow CC's who have known many of us for years, that "every post of ours will be taken with a grain of salt", is far from nice.

And, some people do not include their signatures at all when they post anyway.

Some people get mad that it slows their computers and yell at us. :D

 

I've never had it in mine. Never saw the point. Still don't.

[Schplinky]

Well, before the internet this would have called for a civil war.

 

Oh Dave,

 

True, it's been anything but civil. :o