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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
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 |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
"-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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
"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 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
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 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
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 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |