That's just as arbitrary (and even worse, inconsistent). Consider the following: xxxxxxxxxo 0123456789 Where 'x' represents a person who has been served,

That's just as arbitrary (and even worse, inconsistent). Consider the following: xxxxxxxxxo 0123456789 Where 'x' represents a person who has been served, and 'o' represents someone who hasn't. Your rule suggests the person at position 8 can't start eating but the person at position 7 can, correct? I suppose the theory is that the person at position 8 shouldn't start eating out of deference to the person at position 9, but in that case the person at 8 effectively doesn't have food (they have it but can't eat, which is equivalent to not having food). So, if 8 should defer because of 9, shouldn't 7 defer because of 8?