[Dylan16807]

If it's accidentally becoming a strawman, it's only by virtue of trying to tie it back to the original post. People didn't realize your goalposts were a mile away from those goalposts.

If you're given a single serving without asking, then you have almost no resemblance to the people being criticized here.

Your earlier post said you "wouldn't feel even slightly guilty" about wasting food in a way that implied you would act similarly to the people being criticized here, taking a whole bunch of pieces. If you do that, you should feel guilty. If you weren't trying to imply a similarity, you communicated your point badly.

[_jcyi]

All I suggested was that they were very quick to demand that people be forcibly ejected based on insufficient information.

I'd rather see the restaurant try to solve a problem than arbitrarily punish people, especially when "people" might include myself under the wrong circumstances. But I guess no one likes to hear nuance.

[Dylan16807]

> But I guess no one likes to hear nuance.

If you were trying to suggest nuance, you didn't do a great job of it.

"in that situation I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty about it" is jumping to the opposite extreme.

> All I suggested

You definitely suggested more than that.

[_jcyi]

You definitely suggested more than that.

Then you're reading something I didn't say.

If you do that, you should feel guilty.

Guilty of what? It's a business, not a charity. If that's where I happen to be stuck having dinner, and if they're unwilling to accommodate my preferences even at additional cost, I'm not going to go hungry or cheat on my diet purely out of politeness.

They can either solve the problem and increase their revenue, or accept that they've created an edge case situation where some food will be wasted. Punishing their customers would accomplish nothing except loss of business and negative Yelp reviews.

[Dylan16807]

> I'm not going to go hungry or cheat on my diet purely out of politeness.

It's not politeness.

If we distill "all you can eat" down to the basics, you take a small amount, you eat it, only then do you get more.

It's generally fine to reorder those actions, such as by getting more food upfront, but the outcome needs to be the same as the basic version. That's the business deal being made. If you make a deal with the intent to break it, you should feel guilty, outside of exceptional circumstances.

If they're not willing to serve something acceptable to you, that's bad of them, but it doesn't mean you get to break the rules. Even if you "had" to be there for some external reason.

Also ejecting someone, or cutting off their supply, is probably nicer than charging them for eight pounds of extra food.

And again, this only applies to all you can eat situations. Not other restaurants, not plane meals.

[_jcyi]

I've never agreed to that specific deal at any ACYE place. If that's what they want to do, and they're clear about it up front, that's fine. If they're willing to charge a premium for waste, that's less ideal than a broader menu which avoids the waste, but at least it's an option.

What they shouldn't do is arbitrarily add new terms to the deal after the fact. Customers should be allowed to make an informed decision. If I know that they'll kick me out for eating, I can decide whether to leave or stick around and eat later. If they just kick me out without warning in the middle of my meeting/event/whatever, no one is happy and they look like assholes.

In practice, these are questions I would ask before paying and sitting down, but that shouldn't be expected. The business should either state its terms up front, or provide an early warning when they notice the behavior and offer a full or partial refund. Waiting until someone has eight pounds of rice piled up and then suddenly kicking them out is a ridiculous escalation, and they'd only lose more money when the customer rightfully disputed the charge.

All of this isn't to say that the guys in the story weren't necessarily in the wrong. What I am saying is that we simply don't know. Demanding they be kicked out is making an awful lot of assumptions. We have no idea why they were there or what their interactions with the staff may have been. As other comments have pointed out, there's a good chance that they were in fact charged for the leftovers.

[michaelmrose]

Every economic situation with edge cases struggles to deal with malicious abuse of terms. For instance buying power tools to do a job using them hard for weeks then returning them in a non-saleable condition. Buying a tv for the Superbowl. Food waste all you can eat.

The commonality is willingness to flagrantly violate social norms, entitlement, and lack of empathy.

What I've learned from such situations is that subtlety is wasted and tolerating misbehavior leads to encouraging more from that party and others. Conversely there is near zero cost or even a benefit to be had from squelching it. Such customers are on average worth less than nothing. They will consume half your support trying to screw you and all of your profit if you let them.

Saying no is even surprisingly trouble free when you have been consistent and only becomes a struggle when you have a policy of sometimes given in.

The hardest behaviors to extinguish are those which sometimes pay off. See arcades, lottery, and slot machines.

The worst polict to adopt is forcing front line employees to be the enforcers while managers make exceptions. This leads to the strategy of constant escalation.

The best counter is you can speak to a manager but he'll give you the same answer then do it when need be.