Sharing drink package

[Pesseh0729]

[quote name='BamaGuy44']I'm not insulting your intelligence, just your logic. The buffet example is fine because you certainly can't presume everyone in the restaurant paid for a buffet as there are often other choices available. But whatever, I'll drop it since you can nitpick any example if you want to ignore it. But getting a drink for someone is like what we would do in a regular bar? How does that work exactly where you get someone else a drink but you don't pay for it? Maybe I'm going to the wrong bars. "Equivalency argument" indeed.

Anyway your argument seems to be that even though you sign an agreement spelling out the terms of the package, you're free to decide what "fair use" is for the package like it's in some kind of legal gray area. Quite a stretch to try and twist fair use to apply to physical items you purchase and consume, as opposed to intellectual property and copyrights, where it actually applies. The mental gymnastics you're doing to rationalize this are amusing though.[/QUOTE]


Lol @ mental gymnastics! [emoji108][emoji108]

[Cru1s1ng2009]

This used to be a beautiful country full to the brim with honorable and righteous men. You MEN making this argument for stealing are no longer real men. It is disgusting.

Would you say these things about stealing (no other word for it) in front of your mom? Grandma? How about your grandfather who's pride got in the way of taking handouts from the government during the depression and came home from a long days work to have meat for dinner only on Sundays?

You are disgusting takers and that is the way it is in America now. There are givers. These people work hard, are charitable, and don't put their hand out for free stuff. Then there are the takers. And there are many kind of takers. Ones that don't work that we pay for, ones that do work but do anything they can to get something for free. The few examples of these are tax cheaters, people who don't work hard so their other co-workers/team mates pick up the slack, and people who use stupid a$$ excuses for justifying getting stuff for free. Just like this.

YOU ARE NOT MEN. you are TAKERS. Be proud!!!

Also, if you cant afford it, why cruise? Or if you cant afford it why not get a part time job? Or stay in an inside cabin so you can afford 2 packages. One for you and one for the poor woman who married you.

I cant believe there are 3 pages full of justifications of being a cheapskate. I bet your happy wallowing in the privacy of who you are on the internet.

[orville99]

[quote name='Pesseh0729']Lol @ mental gymnastics! [emoji108][emoji108][/QUOTE]

The problem with mental gymnastics is if you don't warm up properly, you'll sprain your brain - and this thread is full of posts from people in desperate need of a head splint:rolleyes: Edited March 16, 2015 by orville99

[Cru1s1ng2009]

[quote name='orville99']The problem with mental gymnastics is if you don't warm up properly, you'll sprain your brain - and this thread is full of posts from people in desperate need of a head splint:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

crap, I think an entire head brace strapped on a back board is needed at this point.

[Trainman-2]

Sharing a drink package because it is overpriced is sort of like sharing a Driver's License because it costs too much!

It would be interesting to see a COP's reaction if one person was stopped for speeding and presented another person's license.

[B][COLOR="Navy"]You are either honest or you are not! There is no middle ground![/COLOR][/B]

[angelofsin]

[quote name='papaflamingo']Reading all these posts I found so many I'd like to quote. Your's is most recent so I'll quote it.
You must be a lawyer. Only a lawyer would go into such ridiculous detail and effort to justify his decision to disobey a rule of the cruise line or "law." Let's just call it a "law" as it can result in discipline. In fact let's just call it a "law" because it is shoplifting, plain and simple. Just like, as pointed out, if you go into a restaurant serving a breakfast buffet or order off the menu option, and you order the buffet, and your wife orders a bowl of oatmeal. So suddenly she says "those eggs and bacon look good." You then say "hey I paid for them, I can do what I want. Here, let me get you a plate." Shoplifting plain and simple.
So, now to your statement. You're "not the type to pass my drink to a child." So you say. But how about the 16 year old. After all, he's not a "real" child. So, hey, why not. Oh it's against the law? Well they don't really mean that, they just "look the other way." So it's ok. Right?
"I tend to go with the spirit of the agreement in this case based on how I have seen the package enforced." So you watch the bartenders and waiters for...what... a couple of days? Then YOU determine the "spirit" of the rule? ***??? It seems to me that the "spirit" of this particular rule is specifically "no sharing" PERIOD! Otherwise, Royal Caribbean wouldn't put that particular passage into the package rules. Now, you may not think it's enforced, and likely it's easy to get away with. But that doesn't relieve you from the fact that you are knowingly stealing from the cruise line. Justify it as you may.
Here is a great true story. A friend of my son had a relative that worked at a major retail store. He went Christmas Shopping there and his relative gave him a "discount." A very GOOD discount. Now, my son's friend paid for the items, but he paid less than 50% of their cost. His relative told him it was a "family discount" and winked. Heck, he wasn't actually "stealing" was he? Because after all, he paid a store employee, didn't he. Yeah.... sweet deal. Unfortunately his parent weren't home, so he called my wife and I to come bail him out of jail. Yup...arrested for shoplifting. Got probation and did community service.
So, justify it all you like. Look for the loophole that allows you to tell yourself your not "really" stealing. But we are all adults and we all know that if you buy a drink package and give away drinks to others you are stealing from the cruise line. Get caught, don't get caught. Get punished, don't get punished. But it's still stealing. Don't justify by "too high drink prices", "spirit or intent","gee I bought the drink I can do what I want." The only one who buys that junk are others that are justifying their own stealing. Just "man up." Simply tell us that you don't give a darn about what the law or rule says, ethics, morals, or anything else. You are going to violate it because that's what you intend to do. And the heck with the consequences. Be a man... MAN UP![/QUOTE]

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.

again.. i am not the type to past my drink to a child so again i will not bother to give this example any credence. sorry to tell you but rules are always up for interpretation, that my friend is reality. Now could i have on interpretation of the rules and Royal has another? absolutely. and since I am a passenger on their vessel their interpretation would supersede my own. I say the spirit of the agreement or law (let me not get started on laws and how many get repealed, and reworked.. and you know when that happens when people begin to rail against the law) because Royal in general is not going to revoke a drink package for giving someone a drink off a package.. now if you are taking a strict reading and interpretation of the rules then i will agree it is stealing.. However, to date, at least in my experience Royal caribbean has not taken such a stance so in application I may be closer to the reality of the situation and not this boards' sense of normative ethics. think what you will of me, my agreement is with Royal Caribbean and how they choose enforce their rules.

Okay let us address this shopping store example.. because as much as you may like to link the two these things couldn't be further apart at least in terms of application. when you say your son's friend paid less than cost (here i am meaning less than the companies cost), no employee even with the greatest of discounts pays less than cost (now if you are talking about retail cost i still don't know too many retailers who give their employees more than 50% off of retail price).. now in regards to the drink package the cost of the package has been covered (probably a hundred times over given the cost basis of the cruise line) the second it has been paid for. Now if I was out on the ship selling the use of my drink package to other passengers making a side profit, I would consider that an egregious and unfair use (or in the case of this board; morally reprehensible). and in the case of your son's friend he was obtaining something that wasn't already paid for. Now if your son's friend had bought the items off of said employee after he(the employee) paid for them with his employee discount, and thus splitting the difference between retail and the employees cost (both getting as small benefit for the deal) then your son's friend has no problem sense the retailer as already been compensated for the drink. which i think is a little bit closer to what some folks are doing with their drink package (presuming they are not trying to execute a outright two for one situation).

i think that adequately addresses the retail situation lets get to this last point. some rules are strictly enforced others are enforced in a way that prevents excessive abuse. all the recent evidence suggests that this package rule as enforced by Royal Caribbean is not a strict enforcement as they seem to understand a person will get a drink for a another person every now and again. when a person with a package gets out of line Royal will deal with it buy charging the room for another package or revoking package rights. now if you don't want to accept that reality or choose to interpret it as stealing or shirking the system you are free to do so, as it is your constitutional and god given right. however, it is not your right, nor the right of anyone of this board to sit here and try to condemn someone. but america is supposedly a free country so do what you will.

[angelofsin]

[quote name='BamaGuy44']I'm not insulting your intelligence, just your logic. The buffet example is fine because you certainly can't presume everyone in the restaurant paid for a buffet as there are often other choices available. But whatever, I'll drop it since you can nitpick any example if you want to ignore it. But getting a drink for someone is like what we would do in a regular bar? How does that work exactly where you get someone else a drink but you don't pay for it? Maybe I'm going to the wrong bars. "Equivalency argument" indeed.

Anyway your argument seems to be that even though you sign an agreement spelling out the terms of the package, you're free to decide what "fair use" is for the package like it's in some kind of legal gray area. Quite a stretch to try and twist fair use to apply to physical items you purchase and consume, as opposed to intellectual property and copyrights, where it actually applies. The mental gymnastics you're doing to rationalize this are amusing though.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure where you are getting the idea of a free drink from... If i am not mistaken the package has been paid for thus by extension the drink has been paid for.. if I am sitting at a bar and i have some shots lined up, or better still i have purchased a bottle at some discounted price and decided to share with a person I am conversing with, the bottle has been paid for thus what I do with it is of no one's concern (unless we are going to stretch this example and you have me plying a minor with alcohol).

I sign an agreement.. again, the only entity who can disagree with my interpretation of "fair use" is Royal.. and at some point they may vehemently disagree with the points I have posted here.. However, the facts on the ground as of right now is that this is a rule that has not been strictly enforced. Thus I would posit that royal seems accept the notion of "fair use" and that drinking is typically a thing done socially and choose to enforce the rule when people get out of line or misuse the package. Royal caribbean has camera's in every public area on the ship except the restrooms, and they probably even have the ability to track how many drinks are purchased on a card on any given day of a cruise. given they have all this information the cruise line could easily enforce this rule as strictly or as loosely as they deem appropriate. and right now they go after people who are excessive and leave those who are light to moderate offenders alone, for what reasons you are free to speculate.

If the law hasn't caught up with me yet.. don't worry case law will be established soon enough. but I am sure "fair use" can also be applied to extent to which something that is considered unlimited can be used.. this isn't actually mental gymnastics at all.. just a real simple common sense interpretation of the facts on the ground (meaning how the rules are being enforced and applied).

people on this board are making the mistake in thinking I am trying to justify my actions.. I merely have an opinion, and the facility to defend it. nothing more, nothing less. Edited March 17, 2015 by angelofsin

[mr walker]

[quote name='Trainman-2']Sharing a drink package because it is overpriced is sort of like sharing a Driver's License because it costs too much![B][COLOR=Navy][/COLOR][/B][/quote]

No that would be fine if the non-licensed driver only drove short distances or infrequently as that could then be defined as 'fair use' or 'in the spirit of the law' by the bush lawyer posting on this thread ;) :)

And I do like the towels example :)

[phoenix1181]

[COLOR="Black"]angelofsin, I have to ask............. You've used the phrase "interpretation of fair use" several times but that's your interpretation. Royal's terms & conditions are very clear. [/COLOR][B]TERMS AND CONDITIONS: *Prices subject to change without notice. Packages include server gratuities, cannot be shared, are not transferable. [/B][COLOR="Black"] What make you believe you have the right to interpret that statement to mean something different?

You also have mentioned their enforcement or lack thereof several times. So let's be realistic. Short of assigning an employee to watch each person who has purchased a package, it's impossible for them to be aware of sharing until the abuse becomes obvious. Isn't that where/when personal integrity comes into play? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.......... [/COLOR]

[LetsGetWet!]

[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.

[Pesseh0729]

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.

 

 

Lol [emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]makes perfect sense to me!

[BamaGuy44]

 

people on this board are making the mistake in thinking I am trying to justify my actions.. I merely have an opinion, and the facility to defend it. nothing more, nothing less.

 

You're half right. You have an opinion. The facility to defend it? Well everyone is free to make that judgement on their own. :rolleyes:

[grandgeezer]

angelofsin, I have to ask............. You've used the phrase "interpretation of fair use" several times but that's your interpretation. Royal's terms & conditions are very clear. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: *Prices subject to change without notice. Packages include server gratuities, cannot be shared, are not transferable. What make you believe you have the right to interpret that statement to mean something different?

 

You also have mentioned their enforcement or lack thereof several times. So let's be realistic. Short of assigning an employee to watch each person who has purchased a package, it's impossible for them to be aware of sharing until the abuse becomes obvious. Isn't that where/when personal integrity comes into play? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should..........

 

It doesn't get any clearer than this. I'm waiting to hear the justification for "stealing drinks" are now. And you wonder why prices are going up? There is no way of knowing how many people are doing this, but based on the number of cruisers getting the free drink packages, I would think RCL is losing a lot of money.

[jlinn]

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

 

I suspect that the level of personal offense many posters have taken with an unknown person possibly "stealing" a couple of drinks is directly tied to their beliefs in an imaginary god with his own magic rulebook that "we should all follow."

 

I will not be sharing drinks, it's easier to just buy the second package. BUT, if someone else wants to skirt the system and gets away with it, go right ahead. I don't care at all.

 

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?

[2PinaColadas]

Then you're as bad as she is!!

 

Quick to pass judgement, aren't you. It was sodas, not alcohol or specialty drinks-- just a few carbonated beverages and they spent over $1000 on drink packages. I don't think that makes her (or me) a "bad" person. Sorry we can not all be the perfectly moral person you are.

 

Amazing how saintly everyone becomes when finding fault in others.

[splash_in_the_water]

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

 

 

I agree. Very well spoken, with clear concise writing. When people like him come along and many don't know how to react except with a few short snappy "Well good for you, but........" style posts (often myself included lol)

 

This is after all a place for discussion. As he said, he's just stating his opinion and backing it up. It seems even when we're talking about an issue where people state their opinions many still have a "we don't want your opinion and your reasons for having it". Well, at least we know where he stands. There's a lot to be said for that. Most people just sit down and don't say anything these days- it's easier to be compliant and not stir the pot...

[sexylegend8]

YES THIS:

 

"yeah, but many college kids do many stupid things. Don't justify your actions based on their behaviors.

 

Remember, sometimes as adults we should remember just because we can, doesn't mean we should."

AND THIS:

"Dear Link99 I will be paying even higher prices in the future because you feel you have a right to STEAL. Take your freeloading and......."

 

YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH for both those posts!

 

Gee has anyone noticed that the price of beef is WAAAAAAAAY UP? I hate that. My grocery store can take their beef....... Perhaps I should throw some steaks under my jacket as I stroll thru the check out. I mean drinks? Beef? Now how can I get me some gasoline that I DIDN'T PAY FOR? :rolleyes:

 

LOL! Well if you want to you can come and get my back number plate - as some randam person stole my front one! Most likely so they could do a drive by and steal said petrol!

BTW - thanks for the laugh!

[sweetpea143]

It's wrong, wrong, wrong to try to share. But, I have heard from some friends which have been on recent RCL Spring Break cruises, that they will never buy the drink package again from RCL because they were ignored by the staff the entire cruise and watched the staff serve drinks first to the non-package holders because they already had the package holders' money, but not the non-package holders. A horrible experience and perception to take away from an RCL cruise by a frequent RCL cruiser.

[phoenix1181]

Quick to pass judgement, aren't you. It was sodas, not alcohol or specialty drinks-- just a few carbonated beverages and they spent over $1000 on drink packages. I don't think that makes her (or me) a "bad" person. Sorry we can not all be the perfectly moral person you are.

 

Amazing how saintly everyone becomes when finding fault in others.

 

I'm far from saintly but I am honest & trustworthy. In other words, I don't take what I haven't paid for & I don't share a drink package that the company I purchased it from says is NOT to be shared!

 

It really doesn't matter that is was "just a few carbonated beverages" or how much she paid for the drink packages. Sharing the package is not what was agreed to when it was purchased & yes, it does make her (or you) a "bad" person.

[phoenix1181]

I agree. Very well spoken, with clear concise writing. When people like him come along and many don't know how to react except with a few short snappy "Well good for you, but........" style posts (often myself included lol)

 

This is after all a place for discussion. As he said, he's just stating his opinion and backing it up. It seems even when we're talking about an issue where people state their opinions many still have a "we don't want your opinion and your reasons for having it". Well, at least we know where he stands. There's a lot to be said for that. Most people just sit down and don't say anything these days- it's easier to be compliant and not stir the pot...

 

You've got me thinking. Obviously my problem is that my definition of an opinion is different. To me, an opinion is you enjoying a movie that I didn't or perhaps us having different political affiliations because we think differently. It's definitely not [mis]interpreting an agreement I made with the cruise line to abide by their policies when I purchase a drink package because I think they charge too much.

Edited March 17, 2015 by phoenix1181

[LetsGetWet!]

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.

Edited March 17, 2015 by LetsGetWet!

[TonyBuzz]

We did a B2B on Nav last year. DW cannot drink alcohol but loves her diet soda. I'm a beer drinker and bought the package on day three each week after the wine was gone. DW noticed that the cup for soda was identical on both packages. She asked why we couldn't use the cups from week one or my cup from week two for her sodas. I explained that it was against the rules and purchased the soda package for her. It was budgeted and I prefer to play by the rules.

 

We are so glad that we do not have to purchase two alcohol packages when only one drinks so really see that as a positive. Hope that rule doesn't change back. Soon to be diamond and that may change our opinion of the packages.

 

Your mileage may vary.

[Cru1s1ng2009]

This used to be a beautiful country full to the brim with honorable and righteous men. You MEN making this argument for stealing are no longer real men. It is disgusting.

 

Would you say these things about stealing (no other word for it) in front of your mom? Grandma? How about your grandfather who's pride got in the way of taking handouts from the government during the depression and came home from a long days work to have meat for dinner only on Sundays?

 

You are disgusting takers and that is the way it is in America now. There are givers. These people work hard, are charitable, and don't put their hand out for free stuff. Then there are the takers. And there are many kind of takers. Ones that don't work that we pay for, ones that do work but do anything they can to get something for free. The few examples of these are tax cheaters, people who don't work hard so their other co-workers/team mates pick up the slack, and people who use stupid a$$ excuses for justifying getting stuff for free. Just like this.

 

YOU ARE NOT MEN. you are TAKERS. Be proud!!!

 

Also, if you cant afford it, why cruise? Or if you cant afford it why not get a part time job? Or stay in an inside cabin so you can afford 2 packages. One for you and one for the poor woman who married you.

 

I cant believe there are 3 pages full of justifications of being a cheapskate. I bet your happy wallowing in the privacy of who you are on the internet.

 

bumping my own post cuz I can.:D

[Cru1s1ng2009]

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

 

I suspect that the level of personal offense many posters have taken with an unknown person possibly "stealing" a couple of drinks is directly tied to their beliefs in an imaginary god with his own magic rulebook that "we should all follow."

 

I will not be sharing drinks, it's easier to just buy the second package. BUT, if someone else wants to skirt the system and gets away with it, go right ahead. I don't care at all.

 

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?

 

If it is a couple of drinks then pay for them. Your on a cruise so you can afford a couple of drinks.

 

Stealing costs US money. Any company is going to make a profit. the profit goes down, the price goes up. And those higher prices are for both godless and God fearing.

[LMaxwell]

bumping my own post cuz I can.:D

 

Actually you aren't supposed to bump posts, but since you feel so strongly; the cruise lines evade paying US taxes, yet have the benefit of US services (Coast Guard, police escorts) that the taxpayers pick up the tab for every time, never the cruise line. Furthermore, cruise lines, such as RCI, have ceased to be flagged in Oslo and instead are flagged in the Bahamas so that they can pay workers less and make them work longer hours with less benefits.

 

None of this makes it right for someone to steal drinks, alcoholic or not, but come on, let's look at who really is getting the free ride here...