Before winning the suite, though, the OP was put up in an ocean-view cabin though they had paid for an inside cabin. Frankly I don't see how further compensation is expected.

Being on a cruise is supposed to be a luxury experience where you have no worries. That's how they're marketed. The failure here is that the OP's cabin was not useable and that should have been known at check in - the cabin attendant seemed to know this well before OP got there.

Regarding this needing to wait to see who shows up, it's a bit fishy. Cruises are not like airline flights, where they frequently oversell by a few seats. There isn't another 3000 passenger cruise ship leaving for cozumel in 4 hours to bump tohe oversells to. So, with 2 empty suites to give away as bingo prizes, plus at least one empty oceanview room on sailway day, good hotel management would have reassigned the OP to one of those rooms at check in rather than having OP roam the ship, find the unacceptable cabin, wait in another line at the pursers desk, etc.

Perhaps they bump premier guests to nicer rooms on sail day, maybe its first come first served amongst the elite, so maybe they were processing those movements before knowing exactly which mid range rooms were going to be empty. But they should have known OPs room was not useable, and told OP that at check in. A pass to a lounge, a free drink, and the eventual useable cabin would have prevented this thread from ever being started.

Your belief that "Being on a cruise is supposed to be a luxury experience where you have no worries" shows a lack of realism irrespective of what you claim the brochures promise.

1. There needs to be a reality check. Sensible people have realistic expectations. Not all cruises are the same. The main differences include the staff / passenger ratio. Unexpected things go wrong. Even on a 6 star line things go wrong and you have to be patient. To say "that should have been known at check in " and use that to justify mounting a campaign demostrates a lack of balance.

2. Asking him / her to wait was not fishy. They upgraded him. They possibly wanted to see what the best available was going to be. There are "no shows" even on cruises. This strategy worked because they were upgraded from inside to sea view. To trivialise this shows a lack of reality and appreciation and balance.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? A Lack of reality and balance? I didnt mount any campaign, I've just stated that sending a customer to a room you know is full of water is a bad idea.

Yes I do ... and no you didn't.

You believed the OP's account (it was he/she mounting the campaign) without question and without considering there might have been another version. You then added another set of presumptions including dark motives for the delay in dealing with the issue. "It sounds fishy" is what you said. Why does it "sound fishy". Perhaps you should ask yourself whether your words to me .... "Do you have any idea what you are talking about? " - are more appropriate to your own presumptions. Were you there?

You are now also claiming that you know that the people at the desk purposefully sent to OP to the room knowing full well it was out of service ... "I've just stated that sending a customer to a room you know is full of water is a bad idea " or are you prepared to accept they didn't know and you don't know.

You assumptions are quite rediculous.

Not all are to me. The assumption that the cruise line should've known of the condition of the room and not sent the guest to it is IMHO quite reasonable.

If it is a reasonable assumption, then there must be something on this thread that you have seen that explains that the problem hadn't only just occured. Otherwise the presumption is totally unjustified the reasonable assumption was that the problem simply hadn't yet been reported to the desk either because it had just occured or that the people who discovered it were dealing with what was a serious issue. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, decent people always give the benefit of the doubt.

What is rather tiresome is the presumption that service staff are always incompetent and dishonest and that they can be attacked at whim when they are not around to defend themselves. It is also tiresome that at the heart of these issues is always the compo demand. In the end we all pay.

This behaviour says much about the people that indulge themselves in such behaviour than in those they ignorently criticise.

There is something on this thread that explains it, though once again I believe you haven't fully read OP's words which are here for all to see:

To me and others that indicated that the cabin hadn't suddenly become unihabitable but was in that state before the OP embarked so it's entirely reasonable to expect the cruise line should've know of the issues and avoided assigning that specific cabin to the OP.

Well I 'm just thick.

Where does anything you have said indicate it just hadn't happened? You have stated it as fact that it hadn't and I am too dumb to see where you got the fact from.

OP spoke to a cabin steward who knew of the cabin problems and indicated they'd told supervisors yet it was still assigned at embarkation. It's reasonable to assume the cabin wouldn't have become so uninhabitable in only a few minutes unless it was a massive water leak from above which surely would've drawn the interest of superiors and ship's officers.

The insistence on villainizing the OP is unfortunate as while I didn't agree with them seeking more compensation beyond what was given and said as much upthread I have tried given them the benefit of the doubt that the version of events was more or less accurate though it's become obvious you feel otherwise.

All of the holier than though, none of the spellchecker.
This thread is getting a bit pointless, no?

I think many of us feel that it's not that the compensation was inappropriate -- it was fine. What was inappropriate was how the compensation was given. It should have been smoother, and had it been smoother, there would have been a post about how well RCCL handled irregular ops instead of this "tiresome" thread. The OP should have been warned earlier, a plan should have been in place. As soon as that leak happened, whenever it happened, the line had to know this was coming.

We've done the first bit to death so no more from me.

With respect to your second point .... where is anyone giving any benenfit of the doubt to the line? And to give the opposing view - a thread of this type changes completely (IMHO) when a complainer names the product.

If it had been a genuine request for impartial advice then it could have been accomplished by heading the thread "Flood issue .... should I seek compensation". In my view naming the line changes the tenor of the thread and introduces a dimension to it that changes the intention from advice seeking to what feels and seems like coercion and almost blackmail.

If that is all you can say then yes I agree. ("Thou" not "though" ........)

indeed