NO change in dress code

[JPH814]

Why would we not "take it literally"? Do you think they are joking?

 

The way I read it, it sounds like HAL is trying not to be punitive. I believe they are saying "we really want men to be wearing Jackets and ties, but we are not going to make a big thing about it as long as you are at least wearing a decent pair of pants and a decent shirt."

 

In polite society, there is usually some nuance. Most intelligent people understand it. Like when the sign says "we thank you for not smoking" does not literally say "smoking is not allowed" . You know what is meant. But I guess some will say "I can smoke here, I just won't be thanked for not smoking".

[SurferJoe57]

I think that's it, they're trying to not be punitive....and not have to turn men away. Thinking of 'nice' restaurants that will, on occasion, pull a blue blazer and necktie out of a closet and hand it to such gentlemen so they CAN come into the establishment...of course, those cats always look like they've borrowed their father's jacket..

 

We know HAL is trying to broaden it's appeal...sadly, this trend, if left unchecked, Carnival, HAL, Princess, Cunard and possibly Costa will be indistinguishable from each other in 10 years...that's too bad. I like the different lines all in different ways for different reasons.

[Khaos WolfKat]

The cruiseline sets the baseline, but anyone who meets the baseline isn't being appropriate? What a laugh:rolleyes:

The cruise line also clearly states what is appropriate. Simply meeting the minimum, or, "baseline" does not meet the stated standard for "appropriate. So, yes, anyone who meets the baseline, but not what has been stated as appropriate isn't being appropriate.

 

It's not a difficult concept, really.

 

The way I read it, it sounds like HAL is trying not to be punitive. I believe they are saying "we really want men to be wearing Jackets and ties, but we are not going to make a big thing about it as long as you are at least wearing a decent pair of pants and a decent shirt."

 

In polite society, there is usually some nuance. Most intelligent people understand it. Like when the sign says "we thank you for not smoking" does not literally say "smoking is not allowed" . You know what is meant. But I guess some will say "I can smoke here, I just won't be thanked for not smoking".

That's it, exactly, Joe. People can argue all they like about how X isn't specifically required, and they are correct, but ignoring what they have been informed is the appropriate, preferred, or requested attire, behaviour, limits, etc shows such people to be rude and selfish.

 

A tie and lightweight jacket takes up hardly any space or weight in luggage and can be had at a second hand shop for $5-$10 or less for both. Even if you can't find a jacket in the correct size (which I do understand), you can ALWAYS find a bazillion ties, so there is no good excuse for not wearing at least a tie for formal/gala nights.

[RuthC]

In polite society, there is usually some nuance.

I love that you introduced the word "nuance" to the discussion. It's perfect under these circumstances.

Too many people approach social discourse with the precision of a scientist or mathematician, when the approach should be more that of a dancer. It's subtle.

[Lizzie68]

Why would we not "take it literally"? Do you think they are joking?

 

Apparently there are some who will never be satisfied with HAL's policy and wording of same, and demand that their own standards be instituted. They simply cannot leave it to other adults to dress appropriately and they just keep on saying the same thing over and over seemingly in an effort to drown out any other opinion.

 

The way I see it, nothing has changed. Those of us who like to dress for dinner, whether "gala" or not, will continue to do so. The minority who likes to buck the trend (or appropriateness) will also continue to do so.

[DWhit]

...sadly, this trend, if left unchecked, Carnival, HAL, Princess, Cunard and possibly Costa will be indistinguishable from each other in 10 years...that's too bad. I like the different lines all in different ways for different reasons.

I agree with your sentiment, but I would not include Cunard in the list. On our trip with them, there was compliance with the requested dress with virtually no exception.

[LMaxwell]

The cruise line also clearly states what is appropriate. Simply meeting the minimum, or, "baseline" does not meet the stated standard for "appropriate. So, yes, anyone who meets the baseline, but not what has been stated as appropriate isn't being appropriate.

 

It's not a difficult concept, really.

 

 

I have no trouble understanding the policy, the wording, or the intent. It clearly states what is the baseline standard. You are still free to choose what you want. HAL is providing more options and clearer definitions of those options. The cruiseline certainly isn't directing people to dress inappropriately. If that's the standard the cruiseline states, it is appropriate.

 

You are still free to dress more formally if you so desire.

 

But I must ask you; by your own definition of appropriateness, since HAL states jacket and tie; is someone in a tuxedo with tails and top hat more or less appropriate than the man in tan slacks, sport coat, and neck tie? It would seem absurd to conclude they were equal at any rate.

[LMaxwell]

The way I see it, nothing has changed. Those of us who like to dress for dinner, whether "gala" or not, will continue to do so.

 

Good, you should. No one is asking you to change from your preference.

 

The minority who likes to buck the trend (or appropriateness) will also continue to do so.

 

I don't believe it is all that small of a minority, and I don't believe it is bucking the trend or appropriateness. That said, I won't ask you to compromise your style of dress. You should not ask me to compromise mine while I am meeting HAL's guidelines. If you don't like HAL's new guidelines I suggest you correspond to them informing them of your thoughts.

[Khaos WolfKat]

I have no trouble understanding the policy, the wording, or the intent. It clearly states what is the baseline standard. You are still free to choose what you want. HAL is providing more options and clearer definitions of those options. The cruiseline certainly isn't directing people to dress inappropriately. If that's the standard the cruiseline states, it is appropriate.

 

I quite disagree. They are very clearly differentiating between "appropriate", and "minimum acceptable". Just because you can get away with something does not make it appropriate.

Let me try an analogy... Nothing in the rules prohibits me from repeatedly, odoriferously, and loudly burping and farting throughout dinner in the MDR, or any other restaurant, for that matter. That means that, technically, it is permitted. Would you say that makes it appropriate public dining behaviour?

Would you want to eat somewhere that only just met the minimum health and safety standards?

Work somewhere that met the absolute minimum OSHA (or equivalent outside the USA) requirements?

Send your children to a school that met only the minimum Board of Education standards?

 

Are any of those places "appropriate" as an establishment/workplace/school, in your opinion?

 

But I must ask you; by your own definition of appropriateness, since HAL states jacket and tie; is someone in a tuxedo with tails and top hat more or less appropriate than the man in tan slacks, sport coat, and neck tie? It would seem absurd to conclude they were equal at any rate.

 

According to HAL's stated guidelines, for gala nights:

Jacket and tie are appropriate for gentlemen, while ladies wear a cocktail dress or gown

 

That means that, as absurd as it may seem to you, both are equally appropriate. The reason for this is that they both fall well into what has been specifically described as appropriate.

The fellow in the coat and tails is certainly making more of an effort, and it shows, but the other fellow has also ensured that he is not just squeaking by, but appropriate, which is... well... appropriate.

 

Minimum, to which you are referring as baseline, ≠ appropriate. Ever. Not for dress codes, behaviour standards, work ethic, GPA, parenting, cleanliness, etc. If you routinely perform at the minimum in a workplace or academic environment, you won't last long.

Many years ago, the minimum hemline for girls' dresses/skirts was a big deal. It was commonly - and rightly - said that if you needed to measure, it was too high.

I could make thousands more comparisons, but, hopefully, you get the gist.

 

Yes, anyone can absolutely get away with barely scraping by any sort of standards, but just because you can does not mean you should.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Khaos WolfKat

[colbe]

Personally, I'll be going with "formal" (actually semi-formal - I decided not to pack my crinolines and corsets) on the Gala/Formal/Whatever they are calling it by my sail date nights, and smart casual to fancy, almost semi-formal on the other nights in the MDR, and I'll enjoy the dressing up as part of the adventure!

 

Khaos WolfKat, you do realise that we expect to see photos when you get back from your cruise! Have fun.

Edited August 13, 2015 by colbe

[Khaos WolfKat]

I love that you introduced the word "nuance" to the discussion. It's perfect under these circumstances.

Too many people approach social discourse with the precision of a scientist or mathematician, when the approach should be more that of a dancer. It's subtle.

 

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool system and convention bucking, nonconforming hair splitter, barracks lawyer, loophole exploiter, and technicality milker, and even I can understand and follow such concepts!

 

Honestly though, I tend to believe that most are understanding just fine, and just choose to disregard anything that might be a bit inconvenient to them.

The "norm" has become demanding that everything should be all inclusive and tolerant of just about anything, rather than the idea that if you don't like the standards, find someplace else. And just to be clear, I do NOT refer to actual discrimination, based on things that are not a matter of simple choice. Attire and comportment (except in cases of certain disabilities) are choices. For that matter, so are body modifications, hairstyles, and the like.

Thus, in my case, for example, if an establishment prohibits visible tattoos or piercings, so long as it is not gender dependent (ie: allowing earrings for women, but not men, which is discrimination), then I choose to go somewhere else, or, if the reasons for attending are compelling enough, wear a long sleeved and high necked shirt and long pants, and remove or cover my otherwise visible piercings; NOT insist that the place has some obligation to accommodate my personal preferences. Yes, I grumble about such things, but I do not flout others' preferences in their own space. It's really not that difficult!

Apparently there are some who will never be satisfied with HAL's policy and wording of same, and demand that their own standards be instituted. They simply cannot leave it to other adults to dress appropriately and they just keep on saying the same thing over and over seemingly in an effort to drown out any other opinion.

 

The way I see it, nothing has changed. Those of us who like to dress for dinner, whether "gala" or not, will continue to do so. The minority who likes to buck the trend (or appropriateness) will also continue to do so.

 

The problem is that it seems may adults can't be trusted to dress (or behave) appropriately without imposing sanctions. It's really too bad, but it is what it is.

 

Now, am I, personally, going to be put out by others' attire, regardless of its level of appropriateness or even whether it is allowed?

No.

I don't really mind what others wear, and will enjoy my meals and whatnot just fine whether people are dressed to the nines or nude as the day they were born (as long as they put a towel or something on the seat and keep dangly bits away from the buffet in case of the latter - for health and sanitary reasons).

 

What I cannot abide, however, is this pervasive sense of misplaced entitlement - the idea that rules, whether actual policy or rules of social etiquette/politeness, do not apply to one if one does not like them.

 

I was brought up to believe that when visiting private property of any sort, the right thing to do is conform to the property owners' preferences, and, if those preferences are not amenable, to graciously abstain from visiting. Anything else should be unthinkable.

 

Apparently, that means I am behind the times. If that is so, then I will embrace it, and request that those more hip than I kindly get off my lawn!