[Batsu]

I like how it looks on the outside as an experiment, but it obviously can't be sustained without rules -- surely they won't let someone come in, take everything for a penny, and leave?

It has the stench of a publicity stunt, but it seems well intentioned nevertheless.

[Gormo]

Do you think prescriptive rules are necessary, or is it better to handle these kind of situations on a case-by-case basis?

Most social systems seem to be based on a maximin decision rule, and try to minimize the impact of imagined worst-case contingencies (there was an interesting thread on HN last week discussing this) - but perhaps we would realize our objectives more effectively and minimize the entropy that accumulates by too often adding new rules if we instead optimized the system to the general case, and dealt with outliers (as catastrophic contingencies necessarily are) specifically and individually.

[pak]

I was about to cite the second law of thermodynamics. I don't think people are on the whole bad to each other, but the ones that are can ruin it for everybody too easily in the absence of rules. Your example is perfect.

[po]

I know a lot of people when I was in high school or college who would have had no qualms about eating there every single day for free regardless of any social stigma. I can't imagine that there wouldn't be some resentment by the employees or other customers that someone is taking the most and never giving back.

[curio]

that reminds me of the girl who takes advantage of the zappos free returns policy and gets 5 new pairs of shoes every singles week only to mail them back a few days later. but zappos doesn't cut here off -- she is important evidence that they are serious about their policy & for zappos there are enough honest people out there to more than make up for her.