Agent999

Except that their status acknowledgment is achieved by the presentation of the tag, not by its wear. The status comes from the cruise line, not from the other guests. Read this thread - a number of "knowledgeable cruisers" aren't even aware of the how or why of these name tags, so how could they possibly grant any sort of "acknowledgement". OTOH, the crew is very aware of what they are and what they mean. The way you try to dismiss this reminds me of the fox announcing that the grapes he couldn't reach were soured.

Sure, but only when they are off-duty, not while they are working. You can take the position that some guests aren't bright enough to know the difference, but I think it is pretty easy to tell a working employee from one who is off duty. Unless you are looking specifically for the Cruise Director, perhaps not bothering people who are not dressed as crew might be a good practice.

Should also point out that while NCL does allow their Cruise Directors to wear "civilian clothes", other members of the crew are typically wearing some sort of uniform. Guests who have been given a name tag will NOT be wearing a uniform, and unless someone thinks the guest is actually the Cruise Director (which the name tag will clarify that they are not), there should be no confusion over who is a guest and who is an employee.

Actually, they do. Ambassadors existed long before the Latitudes level of the same name. Not identical. These name tags had the guest's name, then Norwegian Ambassador, then the name of the ship on which it was awarded. Crew name tags have their name, job title, and home country. One of the reasons that the tags were discontinued was because guests wearing them were seen by Cruise Karens as another place to complain, when they were simply fellow guests who wanted to enjoy their vacation in peace.

Exactly. And had they skipped the pier due to the potential high wind weather reports, this incident would not have happened.

Yes. They are rare, but they are out there. NCL gives name tags resembling. crew name tags to select VIP guests as a way to acknowledge their loyalty. These people are considered to be "brand ambassadors". A close look at the name tag will show the difference between this tag and one actually given to a crew member who is working.

Congrats on your prize: Board scold of the day.

"no one can understand them" really speaks to the shortsightedness of the folks on the Princess boards, no? If a person has difficulty understanding someone from another country, perhaps they should consider that the person from the other country may have an equally difficult time understanding them.

It is, I have to say, interesting the way that you simply dismiss everyone by trying to frame yourself as the some sort of sole authority because you were on a ship with a noisy cabin. Its interesting how you simply assume that nobody but you has "experience with this problem". I'm not saying that ships aren't or can't be noisy. I'm not saying that the problem doesn't exist, nor am I trying to minimize the problem. Can't state it any clearer than that. With that said, if you try to frame my position as anything else, then it is clearly just you trying to be argumentative. OTOH, what I am saying AS MY OPINION (something else I've pointed out multiple times), is that I'm not 100% convinced of the existence of some sort of noisy cabin list/database. Nothing more, nothing less. This is my belief. Not sure why you take it so personally and why you simply can't let someone have a belief that might not be the same as your own. Its almost like you're somehow vested in changing my mind, and you haven't yet figured out that you are not going to be able to do so.

Unfortunately, the use of bold fonts does nothing to make it true, or convincing. Why wouldn't you be able to get a number? In one breath, you argue that "everybody" acknowledges the list, and in another you insist they they all are going to "pretend the problem doesn't exist". If they thought that was in their best interest, then surely everyone wouldn't acknowledge the existence of a list. Again...just my opinion, but I'd bet you were played.

This is, of course, just one person's OPINION, but "we've entered the information onto our list/database" comes across as more of a "something you tell an upset person to placate them" than a "our IT department actually created a 'noisy cabin database' for us to use" kinda thing. I wouldn't be comfortable laying odds as to whether such a list/database actually does exist. IF...and I do mean IF...such a thing actually existed, I'd love to have someone call NCL and simply ask "Can you tell me how many cabins are currently on the noisy cabin list for the Prima?". I'd wager that such a phone call would NOT result in a number as the answer.

Perhaps the issue is more with your expectations than the pricing. That said, I'm sure that NCL is in control of the pricing. I don't know why you think there is no control in place.

That has been the case for a while now...this isn't "new news". Given that you have ownership in the company, I'm surprised that you don't know this information.

That is your answer. The warehouse store made the booking, and also issued the credit. THEY should have made clear to you any restrictions on the use of the credit. Let them sort it out.

I think your confusion might arise from a poor framing of the issue. Look at the statement above. If this were true, then flying without a deviation would put you in country 2 days AFTER your sailing date, which, of course, makes no sense.

Funny thing is that nobody posting before you ever said "you should have taken the insurance". In fact, nobody posting before you even asked "did you take the insurance". It is not rude to question how others choose to respond? Why doesn't your post solely address the OP's question without the introductory scolding from the self-appointed board Karen? Does it make you feel better about yourself when you scold others?

Yes...you can pick any other itinerary that you wish. You could also cancel completely. YOUR CHOICE. Is there something that you think prevents you from doing so? Radical and egregious. Wow, such dramatic language. It does make me curious though, how many ports can they change before it becomes "radical and egregious"? One? Two? Three? Four? Help me to understand the difference between a normal change and "radical and egregious". Yes, of course it is, however, once you recognize that fact you can't flail about on Cruise Critic like a victim in search of compensation.

But why? I ask because it literally makes no difference. It is like trying to debate whether it should be 3+1=4 or 1+3=4. In the end, it does not matter one iota. For example... You have $500 of purchases to your onboard account. You buy CNs receiving $1,000 in CNs and $500 in OBC for a $500 charge. You will pay $1,000 to your onboard account ($500 purchases + $500 CNs) and use the $500 OBC to pay the rest of the CN cost of $1,000 OR You pay $1,000 to your onboard account for the CN cost, and then use the $500 in OBC to pay for your purchases. Either way, you pay them $1,000 and you go home with your CNs and your purchases.

For $1,000 in certificates you paid $500 out of pocket + $500 in OBC. If you really think you didn't get OBC, then what paid the difference in the certificate charge and the value of the certificates?

I said it was strange to have a post complaining about too much communication shortly after another thread complained about poor communication. It wasn't directed at you or your post specifically. In fact, I didn't even quote or reference your post. Never said your post was strange, never said you were making it up. There you go again arguing things that were never said. I'm the type? Seriously? Are you down to personal attacks now? Sheesh. I could just as easily say that YOU are putting my post down because YOU feel it wasn't warranted. Why it is OK for you to do this, but not for me?

So sorry that this has happened to all of you. It is, however, strange to have this complaint given the number of people who were here just last weekend beating up NCL for "poor communication". Perhaps when people take personal responsibility and don't use "I never got an email" as an excuse things like this can stop. Until then, why not just set an inbox rule to auto-delete any emails with "Norwegian Cruise Line Pre-Boarding Safety Video" in the subject line? Gotta be a better solution than to hope that a post here will make them stop.

One idea is to actually not try again until "later" as opposed to "right away". That aside, given your proud display of: New slogan under Del Rio: NiCkeLed and Dimed- FeeStyle cruising I'm confused as to why it is you'd want to give them those nickels and dimes in the first place?

Why? This isn't about you and alleged noise. It was stated that there aren't enough seats. I just simply asked how many seats would be "enough". Give me a number. Simple question. Yet you avoid answering it as though you'd rather be evasive and argue instead of providing some understanding and definition to "enough". You can tell me how may words you've spewed, but not how many seats are needed? Nobody said it was your job (there you go again creating words to argue against), but if you're fair and impartial, don't say what is wrong when you can't say what is right.

You know better, but you play games here. Nobody said "I think poor customer service is fantastic", yet you claim they did simply so you can argue against it. When you have to put words in someone else's mouth to make your point, you've already lost the argument. But you conveniently forget that NCL did "do something". The picked up on the error, they corrected the error, they undid any incorrect financial transactions, the placed the customer in the room the customer booked, and they apologized in writing all within a 5 hour window where the customer didn't even know about the error until everything was fixed. This is textbook "customer service", yet you claim it to be "bad". What is so "bad" about it? "does damage to the customer" . . . great choice of words. This is yet another thing that is tossed out there without substance. What damage was done here that NCL has a legal obligation to fix? The already fixed everything and apologized. "Got my hopes up" doesn't rise to the level of "damage". The customer here is out absolutely nothing. Someone make a mistake and it was fixed and apologized for...there is NO damage here. The customer has done more damage on this forum by wasting everyone's time, then what was done by the third party...who, as it has been pointed out, really owes NCL an apology for THEIR error.

Context please. How many seats would it need to have (please provide a number) for it to be viable? What area or areas on the ship would you be willing to get rid of for this expansion? What percentage of the passengers on a ship should be able to have a seat at the same time in order to make a dining venue viable? I've seen a number of dining venues on NCL ships with far fewer seats that are perfectly viable. This is just the limited seating fallacy part two.