Sharing drink package

[BOLTFISH]

[quote name='spookwife']umm they are comparable in many locations.. and a $3 beer? yeah the crap tap stuff that is used for all the happy hour dollar specials. no thank you. I may drink fewer of the $8 ones, but they are better, and more satisfying than the cheap stuff.[/QUOTE]

The new prices are not comparable... Take a good look at the new price list that has been circulating around the board. $10 for a foo foo drink and 7-8 for a Coors/bud. I get better prices pool side in Vegas.

The bottom line is this. 41 bucks for the lowest level alcohol drink package each day (just went up $6 each day in the past month or so) or 8 bucks a beer... Both are very bad options. $24 for three beers (not including gratuity)... That isn't happening in many places that are keeping their doors open unless they have the cult type following. In the end, the mark up is outrageous when at home anyone one of us can buy 2 twelve packs for the price of 3 beers on the cruise. At what point is the mark up too much is the real question. RC is pushing to find that out as we speak based on the comments on this site.

The bonus we have at ports is that if we don't like the price point, there is another bar/restaurant to choose. A ship out to sea's only competition is a customer that is fed up. Edited March 16, 2015 by BOLTFISH

[angelofsin]

wow!! is all i can say about the high and mighty people who think they are the authority on such things as stealing. a corporation can raise its prices 40% for a product whose cost basis has not increased and not call that stealing from the american consumer. however if a person shares a couple of drinks off of a drink package then they are morally bankrupt?? I am sure if Royal wanted to catch everyone who shared a package they very well could. there are cameras everywhere except bathrooms and staterooms. personally, i believe they expect some sharing thus the pricing but when a person is excessive that is when they generally revoke the priviledges of the package.

the funny thing about people who come on here talking about how people who share their packages are stealing from them because of the higher price they have to pay for their own stuff going forward are hilarious. Businesses have most of people in this country hoodwinked by a long shot. you got airlines who started charging baggage fees due to the high price of oil but they never reconsidered those bag fees once oil prices began to moderate.

In short business are looking for ways to raise prices on the backs of customers every day with or without cause. when the cost of an underlying product goes up, companies pass on the expense to the customers instead of finding a more efficient way to run their operation. Yet when a corporation does find an efficiency in their operations thus reducing their cost they don't pass on the savings to consumers unless a competitor comes in and forces their hand.

Especially on something as cheap as liquor (especially considering the cost basis of the cruise line due to its purchasing power) a person would almost have to drink close to 30 drinks a day before they even begin to make the cruise line unprofitable with these drink packages. Personally i buy the package because I rather not have to worry about how much I have consumed at the end of the cruise. if they raise the price on the package to the point where I no longer see the value in it I won't purchase it. however, I am not going to question a person's moral code over what they choose to do with something they have purchase. I am one to think that if humans followed every law, or prevaling sentiment ever passed along in this world there wouldn't be any progress.

[crisndeefromde]

[quote name='BOLTFISH']The new prices are not comparable... Take a good look at the new price list that has been circulating around the board. $10 for a foo foo drink and 7-8 for a Coors/bud. I get better prices pool side in Vegas.

The bottom line is this. 41 bucks for the lowest level alcohol drink package each day (just went up $6 each day in the past month or so) or 8 bucks a beer... Both are very bad options. $24 for three beers (not including gratuity)... That isn't happening in many places that are keeping their doors open unless they have the cult type following. In the end, the mark up is outrageous when at home anyone one of us can buy 2 twelve packs for the price of 3 beers on the cruise. At what point is the mark up too much is the real question. RC is pushing to find that out as we speak based on the comments on this site.

The bonus we have at ports is that if we don't like the price point, there is another bar/restaurant to choose. A ship out to sea's only competition is a customer that is fed up.[/QUOTE]

The foo foo drinks are 12 plus gratuity.....14.16 and my husband said i better darn sight love my pina colada..this was on feb 15 cruise on adventure as the week before it was 8 something...same bar....guys said new prices loaded into the computers. So i will drink on land if I drink or enjoy my wine I bring on board. Sorry RCCL I am not paying those prices to make up for your drink packages you sell.

[phoenix1181]

[quote name='angelofsin']wow!! is all i can say about the high and mighty people who think they are the authority on such things as stealing. a corporation can raise its prices 40% for a product whose cost basis has not increased and not call that stealing from the american consumer. however if a person shares a couple of drinks off of a drink package then they are morally bankrupt?? I am sure if Royal wanted to catch everyone who shared a package they very well could. there are cameras everywhere except bathrooms and staterooms. personally, i believe they expect some sharing thus the pricing but when a person is excessive that is when they generally revoke the priviledges of the package.

the funny thing about people who come on here talking about how people who share their packages are stealing from them because of the higher price they have to pay for their own stuff going forward are hilarious. Businesses have most of people in this country hoodwinked by a long shot. you got airlines who started charging baggage fees due to the high price of oil but they never reconsidered those bag fees once oil prices began to moderate.

In short business are looking for ways to raise prices on the backs of customers every day with or without cause. when the cost of an underlying product goes up, companies pass on the expense to the customers instead of finding a more efficient way to run their operation. Yet when a corporation does find an efficiency in their operations thus reducing their cost they don't pass on the savings to consumers unless a competitor comes in and forces their hand.

Especially on something as cheap as liquor (especially considering the cost basis of the cruise line due to its purchasing power) a person would almost have to drink close to 30 drinks a day before they even begin to make the cruise line unprofitable with these drink packages. Personally i buy the package because I rather not have to worry about how much I have consumed at the end of the cruise. if they raise the price on the package to the point where I no longer see the value in it I won't purchase it. however, I am not going to question a person's moral code over what they choose to do with something they have purchase. I am one to think that if humans followed every law, or prevaling sentiment ever passed along in this world there wouldn't be any progress.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Black"]I get it now................ If you think a company is making too much money and their mark-up is too high, it's okay to take (a/k/a steal) something you haven't paid for. It's nice to know you're not questioning anyone's moral code since you don't appear to have one of your own!
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[PennStateFan123]

[quote name='phoenix1181'][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Black"]I get it now................ If you think a company is making too much money and their mark-up is too high, it's okay to take (a/k/a steal) something you haven't paid for. It's nice to know you're not questioning anyone's moral code since you don't appear to have one of your own!

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]


Yeah, I went to Bloomingdales and thought that their markup was way too high on Ferragamo ties, and since I decide what companies are allowed to make, I switched the price tag (I have my own price tag gun like Kramer did in the Indian store), and picked up a $200 tie for six fifty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[angelofsin]

[quote name='phoenix1181'][SIZE=3][COLOR=black]I get it now................ If you think a company is making too much money and their mark-up is too high, it's okay to take (a/k/a steal) something you haven't paid for. It's nice to know you're not questioning anyone's moral code since you don't appear to have one of your own![/COLOR][/SIZE]
[/quote]


this is humourous to me so i will continue.. last i checked i paid for my drink package.. and as far as i can read the packages are said to be unlimited. and if one wants to be technical, once i take possession of a drink it is technically mine to do as I will with said drink, whether I choose to poor it in a toilet, leave it there, or share it with someone. now if RCI thinks I have abused the privilege of my purchase that is something I will have to take up with them. but as for you, your opinion or those on this board couldn't mean less to me.

[Bert64]

[quote name='angelofsin']wow!! is all i can say about the high and mighty people who think they are the authority on such things as stealing. a corporation can raise its prices 40% for a product whose cost basis has not increased and not call that stealing from the american consumer. [B][U]however if a person shares a couple of drinks off of a drink package then they are morally bankrupt??[/U][/B] I am sure if Royal wanted to catch everyone who shared a package they very well could. there are cameras everywhere except bathrooms and staterooms. personally, i believe they expect some sharing thus the pricing but when a person is excessive that is when they generally revoke the priviledges of the package.

the funny thing about people who come on here talking about how people who share their packages are stealing from them because of the higher price they have to pay for their own stuff going forward are hilarious. Businesses have most of people in this country hoodwinked by a long shot. you got airlines who started charging baggage fees due to the high price of oil but they never reconsidered those bag fees once oil prices began to moderate.

In short business are looking for ways to raise prices on the backs of customers every day with or without cause. when the cost of an underlying product goes up, companies pass on the expense to the customers instead of finding a more efficient way to run their operation. Yet when a corporation does find an efficiency in their operations thus reducing their cost they don't pass on the savings to consumers unless a competitor comes in and forces their hand.

Especially on something as cheap as liquor (especially considering the cost basis of the cruise line due to its purchasing power) a person would almost have to drink close to 30 drinks a day before they even begin to make the cruise line unprofitable with these drink packages. Personally i buy the package because I rather not have to worry about how much I have consumed at the end of the cruise. if they raise the price on the package to the point where I no longer see the value in it I won't purchase it. however, I am not going to question a person's moral code over what they choose to do with something they have purchase. I am one to think that if humans followed every law, or prevaling sentiment ever passed along in this world there wouldn't be any progress.[/QUOTE]

I had assumed that some of the responses regarding sharing were being sarcastic and purposefully over-the-top dramatic. I didn't realize that the sentiment here that sharing a drink or two with someone was this serious.

I'd akin it to going a few miles over the speed limit. Are you morally bankrupt if you're going 60 in a 55? After all, you're breaking a LAW. On the other hand, I think we agree going 80 in a 55 is absurd. That's why the police pull over the blatant violations, and let the little ones go.

Someone giving a drink or two from their package is going a few over the speed limit. Keep it under control and don't flaunt it, and they're going to let it slide. And I'm not going to call someone morally bankrupt or lacking ethics or any other names for doing so. Buying 1 package and 2 people exclusively using it is not even remotely close to the same thing, and these are the people who will get caught and punished.

[ksuds]

[quote name='angelofsin']wow!! is all i can say about the high and mighty people who think they are the authority on such things as stealing. a corporation can raise its prices 40% for a product whose cost basis has not increased and not call that stealing from the american consumer. however if a person shares a couple of drinks off of a drink package then they are morally bankrupt?? I am sure if Royal wanted to catch everyone who shared a package they very well could. there are cameras everywhere except bathrooms and staterooms. personally, i believe they expect some sharing thus the pricing but when a person is excessive that is when they generally revoke the priviledges of the package.


quote]


The cruise lines all have a set of "rules" that we as passengers have to adhere to. By the OP putting it out there in a public forum and saying that they intend to basically steal drinks for others by only purchasing one drink package is a problem.

If this was a land based location. Is it OK for someone to go to a buffet of sorts, and bring in a friend and tell the waitress only you are eating, then proceed to feed your friend from your plate? In your mind, once it's in your hands, you can do whatever you want with it.

Wrong is wrong.

[grandgeezer]

The idea of a corporation stealing from the public for overcharging, unless it is for something essential, is totally uncalled for. The real crime is the people that will grossly overpay, and continue to overpay, but still use the product and service. I will go without rather than going against my belief of paying a fair price, that includes the drinks. Corporations can ask any price they want, it's up to the consumer to decide when that price is too much, and walk away.

[PennStateFan123]

[quote name='angelofsin']this is humourous to me so i will continue.. last i checked i paid for my drink package.. and as far as i can read the packages are said to be unlimited. and if one wants to be technical, once i take possession of a drink it is technically mine to do as I will with said drink, whether I choose to poor it in a toilet, leave it there, or share it with someone. now if RCI thinks I have abused the privilege of my purchase that is something I will have to take up with them. but as for you, your opinion or those on this board couldn't mean less to me.[/QUOTE]


Ummm apparently you can't read very well because it clearly states "packages can not be shared" and it doesn't say "unlimited", but hey, rules? We don't need no stinking rules!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BekkaW]

[quote name='angelofsin']this is humourous to me so i will continue.. last i checked i paid for my drink package.. and as far as i can read the packages are said to be unlimited. and if one wants to be technical, once i take possession of a drink it is technically mine to do as I will with said drink, whether I choose to poor it in a toilet, leave it there, or share it with someone[/QUOTE]


No it's not technically yours to do with as you will. There are a range of delimiting factors. For example, you cannot buy a drink and give it to child. You entered into an agreement that the drink package is for one person only, so you cannot take one of those drinks and share it.

If you're not comfortable with that you shouldn't enter into the agreement.

[angelofsin]

[quote name='Bert64']I had assumed that some of the responses regarding sharing were being sarcastic and purposefully over-the-top dramatic. I didn't realize that the sentiment here that sharing a drink or two with someone was this serious.

I'd akin it to going a few miles over the speed limit. Are you morally bankrupt if you're going 60 in a 55? After all, you're breaking a LAW. On the other hand, I think we agree going 80 in a 55 is absurd. That's why the police pull over the blatant violations, and let the little ones go.

Someone giving a drink or two from their package is going a few over the speed limit. Keep it under control and don't flaunt it, and they're going to let it slide. And I'm not going to call someone morally bankrupt or lacking ethics or any other names for doing so. Buying 1 package and 2 people exclusively using it is not even remotely close to the same thing, and these are the people who will get caught and punished.[/quote]


i would have thought some of them were being a little sarcastic too but they were giving people who moderately shared their packages too much flack for it be sarcasm in my view. I tend to agree with you in so far that a couple of drinks is no big deal but if a person gets excessive royal will catch said person and have to pay said consequences.

[BamaGuy44]

[quote name='angelofsin']this is humourous to me so i will continue.. last i checked i paid for my drink package.. and as far as i can read the packages are said to be unlimited. and if one wants to be technical, once i take possession of a drink it is technically mine to do as I will with said drink, whether I choose to poor it in a toilet, leave it there, or share it with someone. now if RCI thinks I have abused the privilege of my purchase that is something I will have to take up with them. but as for you, your opinion or those on this board couldn't mean less to me.[/QUOTE]

Wow Evel Kneivel wouldn't be able to jump the gaps in this logic. If I pay for a buffet lunch in a restaurant, I take possession of the food to do with as I like, so I can just take enough to feed another person and that's perfectly ok in your mind?

And yes if you share your drink package RCI most definitely thinks you have abused the privelege since it's against their policy, as does anyone with an ounce of common sense.

[angelofsin]

[quote name='BekkaW']No it's not technically yours to do with as you will. There are a range of delimiting factors. For example, you cannot buy a drink and give it to child. You entered into an agreement that the drink package is for one person only, so you cannot take one of those drinks and share it.

If you're not comfortable with that you shouldn't enter into the agreement.[/quote]


well lets eliminate the first point because I am not the type to pass my drink to a child.

now the contention of this argument is the agreement. while the agreement states one cannot share their drink package one can argue the standard of strict interpretation or the intent and spirit of the agreement. I tend to go with the spirit of the agreement in this case based on how I have seen the package enforced. In my view I believe Royal Caribbean legislates based on what I would call "fair use" doctrine of the package by one person. however, with the strict language it allows them the flexibility to be as strict or leniant as they so choose. thus when you have one person getting every person they know a drink then that would probably be considered unfair use and as many people on this board have been witness to royal cracking down hard on what they consider unfair use of the package. But when people share a drink or two Royal generally looks the other way. at least that has been my experience.. again I could be wrong on all of this.

[Desertbelle]

Maybe Royal Caribbean is trying to limit out of control drinking on their ships. No doubt excessive drinking leads to a variety of problems both bodily (fights, people falling down, etc.) and structurally (drunks puking on carpets, breaking and destroying chairs, etc.) I imagine patrolling drunks onboard a ship is an expensive and potentially dangerous endeavor. We have seen our share of outrageous drunks hell bent on fighting and destroying things on a ship.

Perhaps they have come to the conclusion that if you want to drink until you fall down and hurt yourself or someone else or something else, they are going to make you pay dearly for it.

I know we are pretty self regulating when drinking on a ship, even at the old prices. Plus, the older we get the less fun being stupid drunk has become.:D

[PennStateFan123]

[quote name='angelofsin']well lets eliminate the first point because I am not the type to pass my drink to a child.

now the contention of this argument is the agreement. while the agreement states one cannot share their drink package one can argue the standard of strict interpretation or the intent and spirit of the agreement. I tend to go with the spirit of the agreement in this case based on how I have seen the package enforced. In my view I believe Royal Caribbean legislates based on what I would call "fair use" doctrine of the package by one person. however, with the strict language it allows them the flexibility to be as strict or leniant as they so choose. thus when you have one person getting every person they know a drink then that would probably be considered unfair use and as many people on this board have been witness to royal cracking down hard on what they consider unfair use of the package. But when people share a drink or two Royal generally looks the other way. at least that has been my experience.. again I could be wrong on all of this.[/QUOTE]


Wow, all royal has to do is let people read this post and they'll surely sell a bunch more booze....people will run to drink whatever they can[emoji378]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[angelofsin]

[quote name='BamaGuy44']Wow Evel Kneivel wouldn't be able to jump the gaps in this logic. If I pay for a buffet lunch in a restaurant, I take possession of the food to do with as I like, so I can just take enough to feed another person and that's perfectly ok in your mind?

And yes if you share your drink package RCI most definitely thinks you have abused the privelege since it's against their policy, as does anyone with an ounce of common sense.[/quote]

I think it is a bad example considering everyone in the restaurant already has presumably paid for the buffet. and just because a logic applies in one place does not mean it equally applies to another. I did not make a universal argument, I made that case specifically to alcohol package and royal caribbean.

however, since you have made it a point to move the goal post i will play along because obviously you seek to insult my intelligence. now this all depends on what you considered an equivalency argument.. I for one cannot agree that a drink is equivalent to a plate of food. but your argument is playing with my use of possession so lets go there. If I am allowed to walk out of the buffet with my leftovers (which would never happen) and I get outside and I see a homeless person and out of the charity of my heart I give it to them.. will i consider it stealing? not a chance. now if I went into a buffet and walked out with twenty pounds of food and gave it all away then i would consider that stealing as it doesn't comply with fair use.. getting someone a drink every now and again is something we would do in a regular bar, and is something I would consider fair use. Now if you are funding every drink through of theirs on one drink package that would not comply with fair use. now obviously royal has the right to disagree with my view point. however, it is my experience that royal tends to not mind when a person who purchased a package shares a drink or two but have been known to take action when the sharing gets excessive. Edited March 16, 2015 by angelofsin

[link99]

[quote name='angelofsin']this is humourous to me so i will continue.. last i checked i paid for my drink package.. and as far as i can read the packages are said to be unlimited. and if one wants to be technical, once i take possession of a drink it is technically mine to do as I will with said drink, whether I choose to poor it in a toilet, leave it there, or share it with someone. now if RCI thinks I have abused the privilege of my purchase that is something I will have to take up with them. but as for you, your opinion or those on this board couldn't mean less to me.[/QUOTE]

You took the Words right out of my Mouth Bravo Sir.

[PennStateFan123]

[quote name='angelofsin']I think it is a bad example considering everyone in the restaurant already has presumably paid for the buffet. and just because a logic applies in one place does not mean it equally applies to another. I did not make a universal argument, I made that case specifically to alcohol package and royal caribbean.



however, since you have made it a point to move the goal post i will play along because obviously you seek to insult my intelligence. now this all depends on what you considered an equivalency argument.. I for one cannot agree that a drink is equivalent to a plate of food. but your argument is playing with my use of possession so lets go there. If I am allowed to walk out of the buffet with my leftovers (which would never happen) and I get outside and I see a homeless person and out of the charity of my heart I give it to them.. will i consider it stealing? not a chance. now if I went into a buffet and walked out with twenty pounds of food and gave it all away then i would consider that stealing as it doesn't comply with fair use.. getting someone a drink every now and again is something we would do in a regular bar, and is something I would consider fair use. Now if you are funding every drink through of theirs on one drink package that would not comply with fair use. now obviously royal has the right to disagree with my view point. however, it is my experience that royal tends to not mind when a person who purchased a package shares a drink or two but have been known to take action when the sharing gets excessive.[/QUOTE]


Justify much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[papaflamingo]

[quote name='angelofsin']well lets eliminate the first point because I am not the type to pass my drink to a child.

now the contention of this argument is the agreement. while the agreement states one cannot share their drink package one can argue the standard of strict interpretation or the intent and spirit of the agreement. I tend to go with the spirit of the agreement in this case based on how I have seen the package enforced. In my view I believe Royal Caribbean legislates based on what I would call "fair use" doctrine of the package by one person. however, with the strict language it allows them the flexibility to be as strict or leniant as they so choose. thus when you have one person getting every person they know a drink then that would probably be considered unfair use and as many people on this board have been witness to royal cracking down hard on what they consider unfair use of the package. But when people share a drink or two Royal generally looks the other way. at least that has been my experience.. again I could be wrong on all of this.[/QUOTE]

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!

[phoenix1181]

[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]

[size="3"][color="black"]Yes!![/color][/size]

[Pesseh0729]

[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]


Excellent excellent post! I agree and on the website it clearly states no sharing

[gerif]

[quote name='angelofsin']I think it is a bad example considering everyone in the restaurant already has presumably paid for the buffet. and just because a logic applies in one place does not mean it equally applies to another. I did not make a universal argument, I made that case specifically to alcohol package and royal caribbean.

however, since you have made it a point to move the goal post i will play along because obviously you seek to insult my intelligence. now this all depends on what you considered an equivalency argument.. I for one cannot agree that a drink is equivalent to a plate of food. but your argument is playing with my use of possession so lets go there. If I am allowed to walk out of the buffet with my leftovers (which would never happen) and I get outside and I see a homeless person and out of the charity of my heart I give it to them.. will i consider it stealing? not a chance. now if I went into a buffet and walked out with twenty pounds of food and gave it all away then i would consider that stealing as it doesn't comply with fair use.. getting someone a drink every now and again is something we would do in a regular bar, and is something I would consider fair use. Now if you are funding every drink through of theirs on one drink package that would not comply with fair use. now obviously royal has the right to disagree with my view point. however, it is my experience that royal tends to not mind when a person who purchased a package shares a drink or two but have been known to take action when the sharing gets excessive.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if you practice law, but I can tell you that you need a LOT more practice! Using your scenario - oh, wait, that wouldn't work at all since you are NOT permitted to take leftovers from a buffet. You can leave a plateful at your table and they will throw it out, but they will not permit you to take it with you. If you did toss a few sandwiches into your wife's purse, then that, sir, would be STEALING. IF, OTOH, you paid for a chicken dinner (not all you can eat, just a specified amount) and could not or chose to not finish it, then you would be perfectly within your rights to wrap it up and give it to whomever you chose. Get it now?

Maybe, just maybe, the cruiseline actually expects its passengers to be HONEST and abide by the contract they enter into when they purchase a drink package that is clearly (right there in black and white) intended to be used by just ONE person, not a spouse, friend, child, just one person. Can they catch everyone? Not likely, but hopefully they will keep trying. What do you think is a part of the reason for higher prices now?

[njm5378]

Our integrity is who we are when no one is looking. It amazes and saddens me the length that some will go through to justify theft. My opinion is that if you cannot afford a few drinks you probably do not have the disposable income that makes a cruise a responsible financial choice. I have been wrong before though. Most all inclusive food and beverage packages are based on individual consumption. Some businesses actually are smart enough to put it in the fine print. With that, any sharing, intentional disposal(pouring down the drain as some have suggested), or other distribution beyond individual consumption would violate the policy. It is not sold as a do what you want product.

It is a crime, however you justify it. Here is one instance.
[url]http://www.popsugar.com/food/Man-Arrested-Sharing-His-Buffet-Plate-2445234[/url]

Remember that if they put four towels in your room and there is only two of you, take the others home. After all you paid for them. (that was a joke for those that may need the clarification)

[BamaGuy44]

[quote name='angelofsin']I think it is a bad example considering everyone in the restaurant already has presumably paid for the buffet. and just because a logic applies in one place does not mean it equally applies to another. I did not make a universal argument, I made that case specifically to alcohol package and royal caribbean.

however, since you have made it a point to move the goal post i will play along because obviously you seek to insult my intelligence. now this all depends on what you considered an equivalency argument.. I for one cannot agree that a drink is equivalent to a plate of food. but your argument is playing with my use of possession so lets go there. If I am allowed to walk out of the buffet with my leftovers (which would never happen) and I get outside and I see a homeless person and out of the charity of my heart I give it to them.. will i consider it stealing? not a chance. now if I went into a buffet and walked out with twenty pounds of food and gave it all away then i would consider that stealing as it doesn't comply with fair use.. getting someone a drink every now and again is something we would do in a regular bar, and is something I would consider fair use. Now if you are funding every drink through of theirs on one drink package that would not comply with fair use. now obviously royal has the right to disagree with my view point. however, it is my experience that royal tends to not mind when a person who purchased a package shares a drink or two but have been known to take action when the sharing gets excessive.[/QUOTE]

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. Edited March 16, 2015 by BamaGuy44