SeaShark

What an interesting take. Could we not say the exact same things about what happens when people are happy and content? Is there not a tendency on these boards to dismiss them as "cheerleaders" whose opinions aren't valid? Are they not simply called "cheerleaders" as a way to dismiss their opinions as somehow invalid simply because they aren't joining the mob in bashing? Are these folks not simply expressing their opinions based on their personal experiences? Should we not stop pretending as if there is an imaginary community of NCL lovers who only post to express positive opinions? Is there any doubt, even for a second, that the positive opinions expressed aren't legitimate?

I think you are correct...any tipped crew member would agree. However, the poster you originally replied to wasn't talking about tipped crew members, they were referring to bribed crew members. If there were any, and I mean any, truth to the fact that providing payment "before" ensure better performance, then employers far and wide would pay their employees in advance as a means to get them to perform better at their jobs. But if that is what you believe in, then you obviously have no basis for comparison since you never tip afterwards, no? You can't say the service is better with it, unless you experience the same service from the same people without it, and your beliefs prevent you from the latter. Of course, there is also no evidence that the crew doesn't recognize it as a bribe and that they don't consider the implication that they have to be bribed to be demeaning either.

I think you should read that again. The poster you responded to said that bribery was demeaning, not tipping. No crew member would consider a tip received for a job well done to be demeaning. However, the implication that a person has to be bribed in advance to get them to provide good service certainly IS demeaning. If a person doesn't want to tip, they wouldn't need to justify it. NCL plainly states: "Unlike most other ships in the cruise industry, there is no required or recommended tipping on our ships for service that is generally rendered to all Guests." No reqired or recommended tipping...if that is their position, no justification is needed.

Isn't that always where the past is? If it was beside us, it would be the present, and if it was ahead of us, it would be the future, no?

How are the places to stay and things to do related to the Norwegian Joy? Would the recommendations be the same if I was sailing on a different NCL ship? Would the recommendations be the same if I was sailing on a different cruise line? Why exactly is this a topic for this specific forum? Is there something relevant in the topic or is CC just being used to promote a personal web blog?

Quite honestly, the Jade, at 965 feet in length and 15 decks high, is going to stand out far more than the terminal designator on the building. Once you arrive at the port, it should be fairly obvious where the ship will be leaving from.

Any NCL Dailies from any cruise on any ship will give them "an idea of what to expect". NCL does not simply reuse the same daily schedule over and over on an itinerary, so a set from Cruise A won't tell you what will happen on Cruise B...NCL likes to change them up to ensure the crew remains interested and engaged.

Yes. It says "Owner of the 100 shares will receive the onboard credit", however you have to remember that "the onboard credit" that you will receive is a "per stateroom" credit and NOT a "per shareholder" credit. The owner of the shares receives the OBC in that it is assigned to the stateroom. Simple.

You are aware that the first part of your first sentence contradicts the last part, right? It is a stateroom benefit, not a shareholder benefit. Once a person accepts that, then the alleged "problem" goes away. The both shareholders statement doesn't matter as only one shareholder in the cabin can submit the paperwork. If two or more occupants of the cabin are shareholders, there is still only one benefit awareded, and again, it it awarded to the cabin (via guest 1 and guest 2) not to the named shareholder. (for example, if there are three people in a cabin, and the third guest on the reservation is the only shareholder, then guest 1 gets $50, guest 2 gets $50, and the shareholder guest 3 gets nothing). We can all have our "opinions", but what we are talking about here are the facts of the benefit, what it is and how it is awarded. As noted eariler in the thread, this is only an issue when the occupants of the cabin insist on having separate oboard accounts. It is a self generated issue.

Your guess is as good as mine. My original comment was (properly) directed to the OP and for some reason this person decided to stick their nose into it with no clue as to what was being said. For some unknown reason, they can't/won't accept the idea that a stockholder "is" the company.

No, the comment I made stated that a stockholder was an owner, and as such, a stockholder shouldn't talk about the company as "them", but should talk about it as "us". Repeating again...if you are an owner in the company, you are "they".

So? I hold no power or influence in our government, but that doesn't negate the fact that I'm a citizen.

When the two friends book the cabin, there is only one invoice created for the cruise. They don't each get an invoice for half of the money due. It is up to the fwo friends to work it out between themselves. Same can apply for the onboard expense account. Once account can be made and the two friends can work together to each pay their fair share. It is only an issue when the two friends can't/won't work together and insist on separate accounts. While interesting, your scenario is flawed in that each occupant is entitled to a $50 OBC as the benefit goes to the cabin, not to the shareholder. Since it isn't a shareholder benefit, it doesn't all "belong" to the shareholder unless the shareholder travels as a solo paying full fare.

I'm well aware of your intent. My intent was to point out the fallacy of a company owner compaining about the company in which they hold ownership as being something they are not a part of...IOW, when you own the stock, you are "they". Not to mention how foolish it is when you complain about something that was properly done.

It is if it is addressed in a shareholder proposal (a formal recommendation, request, or requirement for the board of directors to take action on a specific issue). Proposals are usually presented at the annual shareholder meeting.

Then don't ask, but you are still an owner of the company (whether you vote or not) and thus you are "they". Don't like it? Bring it up at the next stockholder meeting. But, IMHO, you can't complain about the benefit when it is clearly a "per stateroom" and not a "per shareholer" benefit. Perhaps you could or should have checked into that before you purchased shares of the company. I'd think you'd want to know exactly what it is that you're buying. Funny thing is that if both you and your friend owned the stock, the benefit would still be the same...you wouldn't both get it. Also funny is that if you owned 50 shares and your friend owned 50 shares, you wouldn't be able to combine them to get the benefit.

One interesting thing that I've learned from Cruise Critic is just how often Haven guests seem to cruise with non-Haven guests.

The benefit is a "per stateroom" benefit, not a "per shareholder" benefit. This is plainly spelled out in the offer details. As for why "they" do it that way, I'd normally suggest asking "them" why, but when you are a stockholder you are "they".

Very true. It is surprising that people seem to think that NCL would make a specialty restaurant complimentary while keeping the menu the same. I would fully expect to see a "new" menu to roll out with this change.

Actually, the booking party DOES pay the cost either way as the meal price (and the prices for other Free at Sea benefits) are built into the cruise fare that everyone pays. Opting out will save the gratuity, but the base cost built into the fare will still have to be paid.

I just think of the Cruise Critic members who would have gone to the Meet & Greet and received the contact information for all of the senior hotel officers onboard. Then, if a problem like this occured, one could simply call the specific officer directly. Using this readily available resource really can help when faced with the bureaucracy and red-tape of life.

But YOU specifically mention "platinum"...which is a level. You did NOT mention anything about points. Lets just leave the goal posts where they are. People making levels due to double and triple points, IMHO, just tend to lessen that achievement, which again contradicts the idea that platinum is "elite". And sorry, but I'm totally unaware of anything NCL is doing that "positions" platinum as "elite". Which would be nothing but a pointless distraction. Your comment was specifically about latitude levels...NOT casino status. Yes, I was aware that you mentioned your casino status, but my comment was in response to your lattitude level observation which is separate from the casino. I'm not minimizin any status, I just don't agree with the idea that a mid-level status qualifies as "elite". But I suppose you'll find a twist that somehow makes sapphire (a third-level status) "elite" as well. The problem with this, of course, is that if you think platinum/sapphire are "elite", then you have nothing left to use to categorize diamond or ambassador.

I'm not saying anything...the screen grab is from Virgin and it directly conflicts with post #43. One says "$10 daily specialty coffee credit" and the other says "does NOT include $10 per day in specialty coffee".

Of the seven latitude levels, Platinum is right in the middle...three levels above and three levels below. If latitude levels were grades, Platinum would be a "C"...right in the middle...average. JMHO, but Ambassador "yes", Diamond "maybe", but I don't think NCL would consider a mid-level latitude level to be "elite".

Then somebody should tell Virgin so they stop misleading people.