Originally Posted by AshleeBelle
While I can see your point that it is harder to judge the circumstances if you weren't there, I think it is incorrect that people that weren't there aren't allowed to voice an opinion on the compensation. By that argument we should never allow jury trials to determine fair compensation in civil law suits because "they weren't there". I don't think you will find very many people that agree with that notion.
As to your second comment, are you kidding??? People spend millions of dollars for the thrill of being "heaved around" everyday, through the use of thrill rides, parasailing, sky diving, water skying, snow skiing, white water rafting, and endless other varieties of activities. In fact many of these activities require you to sign a waiver acknowledging the inherent risk involved, that states you hold the operator not liable if you are injured or killed. The waivers are even required on fairly mundane flat water canoe trips in most cases, because God forbid somebody roll the canoe, not have their life vest (in defiance of local ordinances almost everywhere) and end up drowning.
No, I'm not kidding - but you are certainly. When one does all those things you have listed they know what the risks and perils are and they accept that going in. What you are trying to do is compare apples and oranges. When you are on a cruise you DO NOT expect to be heaved around your cabin and "bed surf" as it was put by someone else. To even think you can compare the two is ridiculous.
As for my original remarks about not being there and therefore not having a right to say what is fair is quite proper. Again - apples to oranges. If you are in court you hear both sides, in this case it's just based on postings, guesses and maybes.
I have a distinct impression you must be either a lawyer or an employee of the cruiseline. Either way - you're reasoning is absolutely faulty. You weren't there and neither was I. Therefore neither of us has any right to decision what was and wasn't fair.