"stealing " with the beverage package

[cruisestitch]

Oh yeah, and then be sure to order up a bunch of empty shot glasses with each drink you get on your package so you can share those sips with everyone around you in clean glasses, at least!

[matt0148]

THANK YOU....I have been amazed while reading this thread at all the different ways people think it's "OK" to abuse the basic principle of the package. The package is per person...period. Anything else is theft whether petty or not, it's still theft....astounding how so many people can justify breaking the rules, whether just "a little bit" or "a lot"...how is that so hard to understand. If you can't afford to buy your drinks the legitimate way then don't drink. And PLEASE don't tell me I'm on my soapbox...right is right and wrong is wrong....try to justify it all you want it's still wrong. Geez.............

 

So if I get a drink, then I go to my wife..."Wow, this is a tasty drink - you have to take a sip and try this!!", I am stealing?

 

I would hate to live in such a black and white world.

 

No disagreement, however, that getting full drinks for others is wrong. I think we need to exercise a little common sense before we go labelling people as thieves.

[CptSticky]

The moral decisions here are giving me a headache. I'll just wait for Michael's to open everynight and drink for free like always :D

[sasset]

I assume it's a given that you'll also be smoking in non-smoking areas and will suspend handwashing for the duration of your cruise in an effort to infect all passengers and crew with noro-virus. LOL!

 

Of course...somethings go without saying. Actually, I'm not going to do all of those things, just some of them... but I do feel much better about bringing my iron.

[thebutlerdidit]

So if I get a drink, then I go to my wife..."Wow, this is a tasty drink - you have to take a sip and try this!!", I am stealing?

 

Only if you paid for the drink with your drink package.

[yogimax]

The moral decisions here are giving me a headache. I'll just wait for Michael's to open everynight and drink for free like always :D

 

That works for me!

[jg51]

I just read this whole thread "from scratch" (80+ posts), and I was pleased to see that the vast majority of contributors agree with OP ("CLEMM") and me -- that sharing a package, in direct violation of the written terms of the contract, is theft and can never be justified.

 

I congratulate all of the honest people here who so logically and convincingly stood up for what is ethical behavior. I especially loved reading the posts that devastatingly refuted the flimsy, "house-of-cards," (sometimes moral-relativist) argumentation of those who spoke out in favor of cheating.

 

I found these words of "Gracie115" to be terribly interesting:

"I have been amazed while reading this thread at all the different ways people think it's 'OK' to abuse the basic principle of the package."

 

I found the above words so interesting that they moved me to get into something that no one else has mentioned -- and here it is ...

 

WHY was Gracie115 "amazed" at what she read? I think she was amazed because she, like so many of us, grew up in a world in which it was almost IMPOSSIBLE to find any adult (not in jail) who would argue in favor of stealing drinks.

 

When I was a boy of 9, in 1960, everybody in every school -- including public schools -- learned that stealing was a crime, was always bad, and could never be justified. As "Jobeth66" put it (and many others also stated, but in other language), "Stealing is stealing, and I was raised to believe it is wrong regardless of the circumstances surrounding it."

 

So what in the world has gone wrong, causing "Gracie115" to have to be "amazed." How could it be that there are several CrCr members trying to justify criminal behavior?

 

The answer is that the words of these several members are a symptom of one of the ways in which society/civilization has been breaking down, in the direction of barbarism, over the last half-century. I'm sure that there are entire books that could be read about this, so I'm not going to go into detail. I'd just invite all my fellow pro-CLEMM members out there to think about HOW the few pro-theft people here got their thinking out of kilter on this. Maybe if I mention a few reasons that occur to me, they will serve as catalysts for your own analysis:

 

--- Prior to 1965, it was impossible to go to a movie (or watch a TV drama) in which the "bad guy" came out on top. Now such movies and shows are all over the place. Kids learn that crime is not necessarily bad. Maybe it's only bad if you get caught? Or maybe it's only bad if you steal from a poor person, but not if you steal from a rich corporation?

 

--- At some point since 1960, it became "politically incorrect" (maybe even allegedly illegal) for public school teachers to teach students anything about standard secular "values" (e.g., honesty, crime, virtue/vice, and the like) that might be misinterpreted as having to do with religion. So, some of what everyone learned in school before 1970 (helpful, society-strengthening ethics) has now gone unmentioned in schools for three or four decades. To fill the void, kids have been inventing their own "values" (including the kind of illogical positions that the pro-theft folks have espoused on this thread).

 

I'll stop there and let your own fertile imaginations take over. I'm sure that you'll think of some other ways in which those folks have been ill-served (poorly raised/trained) by society in the last fifty years, resulting in their fuzzy-at-best, pro-criminal-at-worst thinking.

 

One of the saddest things that we've all witnessed, on this thread, is how our pro-theft friends [maybe because of repressed guilt?] have tried desperately to shut us up, by unjustly labeling us as "holier-than-thou," by wrongly telling us that certain actions of others are "none of our business," etc.. But, if we keep speaking kindly, logically, and persuasively to them (and maybe even praying for them), we will have done our duty, and some (all?) of them will eventually come around. The "light bulbs" will turn on in their heads.

 

Have a great weekend.

[CathyCruises]

So, say you're sitting at the bar and someone with a package orders a drink, then turns away for a moment. The bartender puts the drink on the bar, and you grab it and walk away.

 

The person who ordered it turns back around & their drink is gone. They get another one.

 

Did you steal it?

 

I mean, the person who ordered the drink paid for the package, so the replacement drink didn't cost THEM anything, right? So therefore, your walking away with their drink isn't really theft.

 

That's what you're saying. I am willing to bet that you would be appalled if someone did that. Most of us would.

 

They say that 'character' is how you behave when no one is watching you.

[Denny01]

Oh yes, lets go back to the good ole day's of the '60's where we all were taught such high values and there was no crime or people cheating on drink packages and all was so fine....Yup, back in the good ole 60's when most of our schools that taught such great values were segregated...oops.

 

But we still had such high values in the 60's.....but hold on, weren't the 60's a bit famous for the Drug Culture, A messy little war (said by one of the Vets of that wonderful little experience), Free Love, The Weathermen, assinations of various political and social figures, riots and so on. Yup, lets get back to the 60's where all those high values were taught.....

 

Boy has this thread gone bonkers....I think I go have a drink before I start remembering all the great times back in the 60's. I wish my wife had a drink package so I could get a free drink using her card! Just kidding....

 

Denny

[Crazy Cruzer]

The moral decisions here are giving me a headache. I'll just wait for Michael's to open everynight and drink for free like always :D

I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately we're not quite Elite so I was hoping you'd do me a big favor and help us sneak in. OK?:rolleyes:

[The_Big_M]

I found the above words so interesting that they moved me to get into something that no one else has mentioned -- and here it is ...

 

WHY was Gracie115 "amazed" at what she read? I think she was amazed because she, like so many of us, grew up in a world in which it was almost IMPOSSIBLE to find any adult (not in jail) who would argue in favor of stealing drinks.

 

Or maybe they just didn't have such unlimited, charged-for packages back then. Did nobody share? We've now heard some claim that any sharing at all is not permitted, if the item was purchased under a package.

 

I really find it hard to believe that nobody would have shared anything back then, if they had such packages...

 

The problem here is that some are trying to draw an absolute line, when grey areas exist as elsewhere in life.

 

From the profit perspective (which is the angle many have taken) the line would prefer that a person bought one package and shared 4 soft drinks a day, then that one person bought one package and consumed solely 20 soft drinks a day. Of course, putting a limit defeats the purpose of calling it unlimited, and also trying to put a limit of 'reasonable' use will be overtaken by some trying to take advantage of it. Thus, pragmatically, the current arrangement is the best marketing solution that can be achieved.

[Waterlily777]

Or maybe they just didn't have such unlimited, charged-for packages back then. Did nobody share? We've now heard some claim that any sharing at all is not permitted, if the item was purchased under a package.

 

I really find it hard to believe that nobody would have shared anything back then, if they had such packages...

 

The problem here is that some are trying to draw an absolute line, when grey areas exist as elsewhere in life.

 

From the profit perspective (which is the angle many have taken) (A) the line would prefer that a person bought one package and shared 4 soft drinks a day, then that (B) one person bought one package and consumed solely 20 soft drinks a day. Of course, putting a limit defeats the purpose of calling it unlimited, and also trying to put a limit of 'reasonable' use will be overtaken by some trying to take advantage of it. Thus, pragmatically, the current arrangement is the best marketing solution that can be achieved.

 

 

I am amazed at all the different ways that people can rationalize theft. And now this one...because Alternative A is less costly to the business than Alternative B?

• Alternative A is theft. The contract explicitly specifies that you are not allowed to share.
  
• Alternative B falls within the guidelines of the contract. Not theft.
  

And please, lets not sink into silliness. No one cares if someone without a package takes a tasting "sip" from a drink purchased fairly under the terms of a drink package. But the person without a package that drinks half of the drink of the person with a drinks package, several times a day, and for days on end, is sharing, and that is explicitly proscribed. That is NOT a grey area.

 

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

[sasset]

OK, my last post in this insanity...I know, I will probably regret that I said that...probably refret that I posted at all.

 

I graduated High School in 1967. I take exception to JG's rant "kids have been inventing their own "values". Many older than me invent their own values based on the fact that they feel entitled due to their longevity.

 

DennyO hits some good points on both sides. The 60's was when cultures seriously clashed. Many still clung to their pre 1964 Civil Rights ideas (James Earl Ray)...I remember alot of MLK jokes...and many of the younger went off the deep end in the other direction...Weathermen, etc. Take a look at 1950's television. Other than Amos and Andy ever see anything other than a WASP? Remember the scare that the Vatican was taking over via that Catholic candidate John Kennedy?

 

I have seen some behavior that has made me embarassed to be an American by many older than me, remember I graduated in 1967, and by many younger than me. I find the phrase "Politically Incorrect" to be a justification ,for those objecting, to cling to their desire to maintain their antiquated prejudices. There is correct and there is incorrect. When somebody starts off with, 'I know I'm being politically incorrect' then they are simply being incorrect. Just like, 'With all due respect' you know you are about to be disrespected.

 

I could go on and on (and often do), but my soap box is due back at the soap box rental store.

 

Bottom line: If you want to break the rules, be brave, just do it...don't try to get validation with a bunch of lame 'what if' situations.

 

See you all in a week or so. I suspect I may get suspended...just like High School.

[IslandThyme]

Thank you Waterlily777 and jg51 for elevating the tone of this tragico-hilarious discussion to the meta value level.

 

I'm 100% on the "stealing is stealing and let's don't do it side" but I have no flippin idea what this could have to do with the dress code, analogously dragged into the discussion a couple of times. Perhaps it's here that we separate the moralists (self included) from the regimentarians.

[julia]

Thank you Waterlily777 and jg51 for elevating the tone of this tragico-hilarious discussion to the meta value level.

 

I'm 100% on the "stealing is stealing and let's don't do it side" but I have no flippin idea what this could have to do with the dress code, analogously dragged into the discussion a couple of times. Perhaps it's here that we separate the moralists (self included) from the regimentarians.

 

 

BRILLIANT and more BRILLIANT! Thank you!

 

This thread is BEYOND comprehension.... seriously. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[paulandfran]

It doesn't matter how you justify it, it is wrong to get someone a drink on your package.

 

I don't think you can compare taking a sip, to taking a drink

 

What about two sips? Or three? Where do you draw the line? While some may say one sip is ok, someone else might think one drink is ok. And for those who think even a single sip is equally wrong, is there any law that you break? For example do you ever speed in your car? And if so is that ok? And is breaking a speeding law the same as murder? If stealing is stealing whether one sip or 10 drinks a day then breaking a law is breaking a law, no difference. Right?

 

My point is, I doubt anyone here is 100% pure 100% of the time. And there are degrees of stealing with some much worse than others. So rather than riding around on a moral high horse trying to convince everyone else that your view is the right one, realize there's black and there's white and a lot of gray in the middle. And each person here thinks they're right.

 

I don't necessarily condone sharing a drink plan but I do agree a little bit of extra cost is built in, knowing that some will and I'm not that worried about it either way. My opinion is a sip or two here or there is no big deal but I respect that some of you may disagree.

 

I'm pregnant so I can't drink even a sip right now though. :D

[Moeve]

To those who think =X= is stupid and won't notice if you are not playing by the book - here is a little notice for you...... The reason they are having their bar staff swipe those cards is to see what the REAL numbers are and those of us who play by the rules will average a certain amount of drinks through out the cruise and those sharing will end up with a much higher average. Now if the dishonest amoung you are in a sufficient number then I bet it won't take long for =X= to decide a number of things:- 1) is to up the price dramatically or 2)only allow you to book a package if everyone in the cabin also purchases one (yes other lines have already started doing this because the original packages were being abused) or 3) stop the packages altogether. aka =X= is not stupid and we will all end up paying the price for those who think they can beat the sytem.

[Mr. Luckytoo]

So many responses and so varied in those responses as well!

 

Most posters have stated their opinions and been adament about their positions. Other posters, myself included, have posted 'humerous' thoughts in an attempt to lighten this subject up.

 

Overall I'm pleased to see a civilized discussion and no personal attacks, something that occurs too often.

 

As for myself I come down on the side of theft is theft so...

 

One concern I DO have about this or any other drink plan is this: will purchasing a drink plan encourage more drinking, ie., I'm going to get my money's worth mentality?

 

Second thought related to this topic and probably better suited for a seperate thread with poll:

 

If you were cruising with someone who had an unlimited drink package and saw that person getting drinks for people without a drink plan what should/would you do? Report that individual, ignore the situation, talk to the person....

[tteettimes]

why not?--- I'm Mr Nice Guy----just met some fine new people on the ship and I want to buy them a drink----------hey Bartender another round on me :)

what's wrong with that? I'm paying for it--------I do it all the time at home at the club :D:D----makes everybody happy :D

[Waterlily777]

What about two sips? Or three? Where do you draw the line? While some may say one sip is ok, someone else might think one drink is ok. And for those who think even a single sip is equally wrong, is there any law that you break? For example do you ever speed in your car? And if so is that ok? And is breaking a speeding law the same as murder? If stealing is stealing whether one sip or 10 drinks a day then breaking a law is breaking a law, no difference. Right?

 

My point is, I doubt anyone here is 100% pure 100% of the time. And there are degrees of stealing with some much worse than others. So rather than riding around on a moral high horse trying to convince everyone else that your view is the right one, realize there's black and there's white and a lot of gray in the middle. And each person here thinks they're right.

 

I don't necessarily condone sharing a drink plan but I do agree a little bit of extra cost is built in, knowing that some will and I'm not that worried about it either way. My opinion is a sip or two here or there is no big deal but I respect that some of you may disagree.

 

I'm pregnant so I can't drink even a sip right now though. :D

 

In common law, they often have been able to handle the problems of the "grey area" by using the test of the "reasonable person".

 

So if that standard were to be applied to the subject at hand, I think the reasonable person could differentiate the difference between a "tasting sip" and the situation where a person who hadn't bought a drinks package was consuming a substantial portion (a quarter, a third, a half) of a drink, on a repetitive basis, that was obtained through another person's drink package.

 

For people who disparage these discussions...the solution is simple. Don't continue to read the threads, and certainly, don't post on them. Some people just like the thrust and parry of a theoretical discussion. Others do not. No harm, no foul.

[dkjretired]

why not?--- I'm Mr Nice Guy----just met some fine new people on the ship and I want to buy them a drink----------hey Bartender another round on me :)

what's wrong with that? I'm paying for it--------I do it all the time at home at the club :D:D----makes everybody happy :D

 

They won't let you do it, only one drink at a time...

[The_Big_M]

I am amazed at all the different ways that people can rationalize theft. And now this one...because Alternative A is less costly to the business than Alternative B?

• Alternative A is theft. The contract explicitly specifies that you are not allowed to share.
  
• Alternative B falls within the guidelines of the contract. Not theft.
  

And please, lets not sink into silliness. No one cares if someone without a package takes a tasting "sip" from a drink purchased fairly under the terms of a drink package.

 

 

Who's rationalising theft?

 

I'm amazed at the tortuous ways people will twist arguments to try to make something absolute, to suit their perspective. The excerpt of my post that you quoted expanded the economic merits which some had been commenting on, not the legal aspect.

 

Conversely, your comment actually did take it into the silliness you refer to by implying I was defending theft, while ignoring the earlier statements by others promulgated on your side of the fence that a sip is theft and hence not permissible.

 

I found the claim that a sip was theft farcical and responded. Apparently you agreed with that view, yet decided to try to create a straw man for whatever reason.

[woodofpine]

Teen DD just returned from Sydney (down from Brisbane) last weekend and just LOVED it - depsite marginal weather (I understand its improved)...

 

CAN'T THIS ALL BE EXPLAINED BY 'HERITAGE'?

 

You OZ come from the land of 'convicts' right? Whereas, us pre-emptive striking Yanks come from Puritan stock... Salem... Cotton Mather, etc.

 

Is this ALL starting to make sense now?

 

And since we're discussing Anglican heritage - convict - didn't our forefathers in the 'Old Country' hang kids for stealing bread as recently as 1800 or so?? (Ah... the good ole days)So what's the appropriate sanction here (and is that why they retain that 'little' yardarm up by the funnel)? And how did 'puritans' turn into such spendthrift tippers? (Jeez - now I do need a drink...)

 

Theft is theft...

(Make mine a double! I'm buying convict. You - 'on the rocks' or kneat?):D;):D

[Jerry and Shelly]

This is now ridiculous. If you can afford a cruise, and you want to drink a lot, then buy the package for both of you. If one drinks a lot and the other doesn't, then buy one package and PAY as you go for the other's drinks. End of discussion.

[PartyAllDaTyme]

In common law, they often have been able to handle the problems of the "grey area" by using the test of the "reasonable person".

 

So if that standard were to be applied to the subject at hand, I think the reasonable person could differentiate the difference between a "tasting sip" and the situation where a person who hadn't bought a drinks package was consuming a substantial portion (a quarter, a third, a half) of a drink, on a repetitive basis, that was obtained through another person's drink package.

 

Best answer I've seen so far. Allow me to put it another way.

 

The best definition I've ever heard for what constitutes "cheating" (as in cheating on one's spouse or significant other) is, "If the other person discovered what you were doing, would you be in trouble?" If you think Celebrity would have a problem with someone esle taking a sip or two of your drink, and I don't believe they would, you're okay. If you're concerned about what might happen if they found out, you're not.

 

Apply a little common sense. If in doubt, ask! Be honest! "I have the drinks package, my wife doesn't, but I was wondering if it would be all right to order one of these drinks for her so she can try it." If the answer is, "Sorry, sir, but you're welcome to purchase one separately for her and put it on your Seapass card," or "Well, since you're being honest and it's only one drink, we can bend the rules for you this time," you have your answer.

 

Personally, I would not consider asking them to bend the rules for me, but if I were the Celebrity staff in charge of the bars, I'd instruct the bartenders to be a bit liberal for the sake of fostering good customer relations. There have to be some restrictions, and I would allow a one-time-only exception. But I would also instruct them if they detect or suspect someone of abusing the terms of the package to politely remind the pax that the package is intended only for their use.

 

Has anyone ever been reprimanded or charged extra for cheating on the drinks package? If so, how was it handled?