LetsGetWet!

I didn't say morals be damned. Nothing like that at all.

 

I know that I carry myself with integrity and I act honestly. I can't control what other people do, and I certainly don't believe I'm any Saint to preach down to others who step over moral and ethical boundaries. Since I must accept that I can't make those choices for them, or impose moral decisions on them, I focus my disdain on the things that end up costing me more money while I am acting honestly.

 

Integrity and honesty has always served me well in life. But I am always cautious of someone else acting like a schmuck and it dipping into my wallet. I hope that clear it up. I refer back on my original statement.

Was away all day yesterday, just catching up. Thanks for the clarification, I was really surprised at what I thought you were saying.

I only look at things from the perspective of this: Is what the other person doing ultimately costing ME more money. I don't really consider the moralistic side of things because it is not as important to me as the money. :cool:

Wow... We're going to have to go back to disagreeing on this one. That's quite an indictment of yourself. "It's all about the money, morals be damned!" Really?

I am clearly in the minority but I think AngelofSin is the smartest guy in here by leaps and bounds.

If you want to argue that someone who hasn't a clue what "fair use" is, and refuses to acknowledge great analogies because they clash with their narrative is "the smartest guy in here" hey, go for it! :rolleyes:

As for the concept that you can judge the true spirit of the rule by how it is enforced, I think it's completely valid. Just look at the no shorts in the dining room rule. It's clearly not seriously enforced so how seriously should it be taken?

I will admit you do have a point there. Some who have been loudly condemning the dishonesty & total lack of integrity of anyone who would share a drink package are also ones continually encouraging others to flaunt the dress code and wear shorts if they want to, because the rule is only spottily enforced so just ignore it.

 

As you point out, both are published RCI rules - so if flaunting one is dishonest & completely lacking in integrity, than so is flaunting the other.

[quote name='angelofsin']lets first say it this way.. I am no lawyer.. i don't need to justify anything.. if you disagree with me fine.. no sweat off my back brother. again the buffet example just doesn't cut mustard with me.. i don't know too many buffets that have some people going al a carte and others on the buffet.. maybe they are but i haven't seen them. so i will not entertain the same example again.. waste of time.[/QUOTE]
It's a good thing you've set the record straight on not being a lawyer, because as others have already pointed out, your tortured attempts to apply "fair use" are ridiculous and laughable. The legal concept of "fair use" has absolutely NO applicability to this.

On the other hand, the buffet analogy that you don't want to acknowledge is a perfect analogy. Two people walking into a buffet restaurant, with one purchasing the buffet & the other purchasing nothing - but planning to eat off plates the other person brings back to the table from their buffet purchase; is EXACTLY the same as two people boarding a ship, with one purchasing the drink package & the other purchasing nothing - but planning to drink drinks the other person brings back from their package purchase.

Let me google that for you. Select images and you'll find several different maps available - some from competing sites that I can't post the links for here!

Obviously a very subjective question, and reading through the answers so far the answers are as varied as I guessed they'd be. Personally, I agree with the ones who suggest Freedom and save the $1000 for excursions/activities.

 

We actually prefer Freedom class to Oasis class - the megaships are just TOO mega for us - floating amusement parks with much less connection to the sea. Very limited port selection, and to us ports are significant. But again, that's just one opinion!

I have posted this before, but here it is again:

 

Look at the Cruise Critic reviews in the review section.

 

Look at the date of the cruise.

 

1. Discount any review before February 2015. Why? Because I said so. ;)

 

2. Discount ANY review that gave a 1 or 2 to the entertainment. They are mean nasty people who wouldn't know a good cruise if it bit them on the butt.

 

:D

Sorry, but CC does their own compilations and lists totals for the ship as a whole, as well as dining, entertainment and other categories. I'm not about to do my own individual compilation of every individual review. On the other hand, if YOU want to spend the time, go right ahead! ;)

 

And again - as for those "mean nasty people" you complain about, its safe to assume that they're here reviewing ALL ships, not just Quantum, so no, I'm not inclined to discount those or any other reviews, when I look at how badly Quantum scores in comparison to every other RCI ship.

 

I tend to discount most any individual review or at least try to adjust it for what I know/observe from other posts from that member. But I believe that compilations of all reviews across the board are quite relevant and useful.

Change however is never easy, and for most people not welcome. Quantum offered big changes, which meant I would expect more negative reviews. And the negative reviews came in bundles.

 

I wonder how the reviews stacked up when Oasis debuted or when 'for fee specialty restaurants' started....negative reviews were a part of those. DH and I were talking last night, about how we rarely go to a specialty restaurant on a ship usually. The exception is to Izumi, for Japanese food that we can't get in the MDR. We won't pay for something we can get in the MDR -- that is us.

Surprisingly, Quantum didn't rate quite low just for dining, but in a number of categories.

 

And, although I wasn't here when Oasis debuted, a number of other veteran CC'ers have stated that reviews were very favorable, a huge contrast with Quantum's debut.

If prices are comparable, then it comes down to more ports vs more days.

The other thing I'd throw in is that depending on time of year, it might be warmer on a southern Caribbean route, and that's a plus for us.

Put it this way... There are some who hire a private transportation somewhere hoping for a Rolls Royce and when the Bentley shows up, says to him/herself "you know, not exactly what I was hoping for, but its still top quality". There are others who hope for the Rolls, get the Bentley, and it absolutely ruins their trip to the point where they can't find happiness anywhere else.

 

The second kind of person tends to be the one most vocal on Cruise Critic.

Excellent analogy. I agree 100%

Again, that "second kind of person" on CC can be expected to be reviewing all the different RCI ships. So you can't use that as sound reasoning given that Quantum reviews on CC are dramatically lower than every other ship in the entire RCI fleet.

Everything new has kinks to work out....you can take the word of others, or go and enjoy something yourself. No matter what ship, or age of ship -- you will find good and bad reviews -- and all of them are very subjective (even the good ones).

 

Remember only a small percentage of people participate on CC, and negative voices ring louder than happy ones (not just in this, but overall in society).

I'll disagree a little with this. Sure, only a small percentage of people participate on CC, but I imagine that percentage is pretty representative of the whole.

 

Yes, negative voices ring louder than happy ones.

 

BUT, there's one factor that I think can't be discounted. Reviews for Quantum here are WAY lower than any other RCI ship - by 20-40 percentage points, last time I looked. Sorry, but that's significant - because all the reviews here are from the SAME "small percentage of cruisers" and would have the SAME "louder negative voices." Look at reviews across the board for all the different RCI ships - Quantum sticks out like a sore thumb.

Rum and Coke

Vodka and 7

Whiskey and Coke

Gin and Tonic

Etc....

These are usually called Highballs

 

Drinks that have more then 2 ingredients (mixes or liquor) are usually called cocktails.

Merriam Webster says:

 

 

 

noun cock·tail \ˈkäk-ˌtāl\

 

Definition of COCKTAIL

 

1 a : an iced drink of wine or distilled liquor mixed with flavoring ingredients

Well thanks for clarifying your definition of a cocktail. It's a little easier to believe now that you make that distinction.

I'm with Big G. Alcohol and a mixer is a cocktail.

I'm with you - and Merriam Webster agrees with us too. :cool:

many men just wear dress pants, shirt and tie or khakis and polo shirts, some even nice jeans and a nice shirt.

Perhaps not a suit, but at least a sports coat...Yeah there will be folks in there without them, but you said he doesnt want to look out of place. There has always been a sign posted outside the MDR stating gentlemen should wear jackets......folks just stare at those that do not....they do not stare at those that do. I have never been on a cruise that had as many without as there were with...not even close. Perhaps I just havnt been on enough cruises to get a good idea.

I think maybe you are just saying what you want to see because you don't want the suit to become a dying thing (which it is) and so try to convince people that most wear them. There are many men in the dining room without a suit or jacket on, it is by no means uncommon.

Pot, meet kettle...

 

That's EXACTLY what you're doing, trying to convince people that most don't wear jackets, when that isn't anywhere near the truth. MOST will at least have jackets on for formal night.

The idea that dress has any effect whatsoever on class or status is asinine and antiquated. Take your personal world view out of it, and tell me, in reality, what does a piece of cloth tied around your neck have to do with anything? Some day, this attitude will be looked on in the same way as judging people based on race or sexual orientation.

Wow... What's truly "asinine" here (to use your description) is any attempt to compare dress with the unalterable attributes of race and sexual orientation that each individual is born with. :rolleyes:

This can go as long as that smoking thread did until it was removed! the two most controversial subjects in consecutive weeks! You gotta love CC! :cool:

It certainly is a controversial subject, but in this particular thread I haven't seen any inflammatory or attacking posts that would be cause for thread removal, have you? Seems its been quite civil.

I vote they keep the fancy drinks. They could always invent their own drinks using some of the same types ingrediants. Coming up with a new name for the Ginger Mojito could be difficult though.

Agreed - they could really continue serving very similar drinks. They'd have to change the names of some of the drinks, but I don't think there's anyway to stop an establishment from calling a drink a "Ginger Mojito" if its a mojito with ginger added! I'm seriously doubting "Ginger Mojito" is able to be trademarked! :)

Lounge police :eek:

 

Actually a few years ago a passenger stopped my then 20 something son to ask him if he belonged in the CL. He did, but how in the world does a passenger think they can question other patrons. My son wanted to ask the man if HE BELONGED THERE, but his manners would not let him.

 

Enjoy your apparent youthful look.

 

 

M

Appreciate your son's manners, but in this particular case, I think he'd have been more than justified in doing just that - and asking for ID! :)

I really wish I was able to be on that Couples Cruise on Indy! :D

Next one is this coming November, one after that is April '16! C'mon! :)

I think we are both pragmatic and realistic about this, just different opinions on what we are comfortable with or find acceptable. I mean, I certainly wouldn't say you were wrong.

Agreed - there's no right or wrong, its just differing opinions, to which we're both entitled.

 

But again, my main argument to you is - I think your quest of talking to RCI to talk them into officially allowing shorts in the MDR will ultimately not achieve the result you would prefer - rather, it will end up with plenty of males around you at dinner in outfits resembling your #2 above, which we both seem to agree is entirely inappropriate.

OK, how about if I wear a jacket (suit or sports) but no tie? Personally, wearing a jacket bother me a lot less that wearing a noose around my neck.

My preference is that you would wear both a tie and a jacket. However, my preference doesn't really hold a lot of weight! I believe if you look at the suggested dress, that you'll be just fine in a sport jacket and nice dress shirt without tie.

That's the system Royal Caribbean developed. It's a not a system any guest chose or imposed on them.

 

This has gone terribly off topic. I started a running list a number of posts back as to what ships DO allow and which ships DON'T allow. RCI policy is inconsistent, thus giving the discretion to the concierges. Therefore it would be useful to know which ships do allow and which ships don't allow. Any other grievances about what is allowed or not allowed should be directed to RCI C&A. I can't change the rules of the program. I can only abide by the rules and maximize the benefits available to me (and my family). Knowing what those rules are on a ship by ship (case by case) basis is useful information.

Except of course, that since the rules are arbitrarily implemented on a ship by ship basis, they're also subject to arbitrary change on a week by week basis, or as staff changes. Thus, although I admire your attempt to build this list, its ultimately rather useless in terms of booking cruises weeks or months in advance based on whether one wishes kids to be allowed or excluded.

That's an RCI staffing issue. Staff need to be empowered to uphold whatever the requirements are. If they are going to lay down like doormats, well, what can they expect?

Agreed, but the fact that so many here are telling everyone to wear shorts to dinner now because the "no shorts" won't be enforced, proves the point that we already KNOW that they lay down like doormats, and I can't imagine why anyone would expect that to change.

 

That's the main reason I hope we won't see shorts officially allowed, because whatever is officially listed, the reality will always be that less than that will be allowed in the door...

Man, Im actually on the same side of this argument with you for once! :eek:

 

I agree with you 100% and as the OP explained will be how I dress for formal nights on my upcoming cruise. Im still fairly new to cruising but Im over the tux thing already. The thing is, SOME people here are not even happy with that and will call us a "wal mart employee" for wearing a tie with no jacket :o You cant win around here with some :) I am glad to see you taking the position you just did on this though.

I enjoy wearing a tux, but I'd never expect everyone else to. And although I wish everyone would wear a jacket on formal nights, I'm not in the habit of tilting at windmills. ;) I do wish we could keep the line drawn in the sand at no shirts, tee shirts or ball caps - as it officially is now. But I fear even that line will eventually disappear, and the reality we'll find ourselves with is too many showing up for dinner in LMaxwell's #2 outfit above. :( I hate to see the dining environment aboard ship lower itself to the lowest common denominator of Golden Corral, but I fear that's the future...

I don't think this

 

 

is the same thing as this

 

 

I wouldn't go to dinner in the bottom outfit. I go to dinner in the top outfit very, very often. Not sure about the climate in Dallas, but here in Palm Beach nice shorts and polo passes muster in probably 99% of restaurants.

We agree, those two outfits are entirely different. But you're missing my point. If RCI officially allows outfit #1 for dinner, there's a contingent who will immediately start showing up in outfit #2, and RCI staff will do absolutely nothing to stop it.

 

Dallas certainly gets hot in the summer months. I'm not positive about percentages - and it may be that close to 99% won't stop you at the door for shorts/polo, but there are a number of the nicer restaurants where you'll look horribly out of place if they do allow you in.

Resurrecting this older thread (not TOO old) because I love a great debate and that's what I see here.

 

We are sailing on Indy next month and live in New Jersey. The cruise sails out of Ft Lauderdale so we are flying in the night before. The issue with me is we get charged for bags on the airlines so the more you bring the more it costs. My wife is already bringing a garment bag plus we have a large bag each and carry ons. To me it is just a pain to also bring a suit in a garment bag. If I was driving to the port maybe that would be different because I would drop the luggage and garment bags with the porter then park but that's not the case.

 

I am also of the belief that it's my vacation so why should I be forced to dress in a suit for dinner? I am of the belief that I will be of a clean and neat appearance. Slacks, button down, tie, and shoes. So I'm missing the jacket...so what? It's not like I am smoking on my balcony and you have your door open. :) (Notice the attempt to start another debate???)

 

Anyway, enjoy your vacations or planning everyone!

I come down firmly on the side of dressing up on formal night with respect to this topic. But having said that, on today's RCI, if you show up in your stated "slacks, button down, tie and shoes" no one is going to turn you away from the MDR for dinner on any night of the cruise. Personally, I appreciate the effort you're making to be, as you say, "clean and neat appearance." You're not flaunting the dress code at all, unlike those who say its just fine to show up in shorts and tee shirt, and will definitely be doing so.