4 ms·
As far as a restaurant is concerned, why would they really care? It might annoy customers, but as long as the tables are still filling up, I feel the restaurant
by mp3jeep01 17y ago
As far as a restaurant is concerned, why would they really care? It might annoy customers, but as long as the tables are still filling up, I feel the restaurant is more than happy, because they're still making the best of their available resources (tables and wait-staff).
It's a valid point how the artificial constraints are the envelope and the time, because the way she listed the rules was, clock starts when you open the envelope - it's almost a a ploy, or a method of trying to distract someone.
Imagine, if you were handed an envelope and were told "there's money inside there", wouldn't you immediately start to wonder "how much?" and you would immediately want to open it. She restricted this thought by applying a 2 hour time constraint, from the time you open the envelope, which almost forced the students to think twice about jumping to the money. Instead, all the groups achieved something without ever really having to open the envelope. I think it was interesting, and a job well done.
- mariorz 17y ago>As far as a restaurant is concerned, why would they really care? It might annoy customers, but as long as the tables are still filling up, I feel the restaurant is more than happy, because they're still making the best of their available resources (tables and wait-staff). It's scalping. It raises the cost of a dinner in the restaurant without additional gains for them. Obviously restaurants would not go this.
- eru 17y agoThe situation is more complicated. It raises the monetary costs of dinner for people, who want to pay to avoid waiting. For the normal-waiting patrons the strategy feels like increased congestion. (And they bear the costs.) Why do restaurants have queues anyway? Why don't they just raise their prizes until supply meets demand? There's more than one scholarly article about this question.
- antonovka 17y agoAs far as a restaurant is concerned, why would they really care? It might annoy customers, but as long as the tables are still filling up, I feel the restaurant is more than happy, because they're still making the best of their available resources (tables and wait-staff). You answered your own question -- to the customer, it's annoying. ... and to the restaurant owner, it discourages walk-in traffic. It's immoral in that it's dishonest (We have a word for reserving space at the restaurant by claiming to be a party of two, but not being one -- it's called lying). If you wanted to do this in the moral clear, you need to speak to the restaurant owner first, and see if they'll pre-allocate you tables.
- mp3jeep01 17y agoI never said whether it was moral or not, which it definitely isn't...I was just referring to the students response to the task at hand, which I still believe for what they were assigned was a job well done.
- forensic 17y agoWhy not take ALL the reservations, and then force EVERY customer that wants to eat there to buy them from you? Because you're fucking up the social contract that restaurants have with their customers.
- randallsquared 17y agoI do feel that it was sketchy to ignore the rules the way these teams did. However, the restaurants do not have a contract with their customers. If they want to have a contract with their customers, they can, but calling their expectations of what customers will do a "contract" dilutes the term.
- gottlieb 17y agoActually, 'Social Contract' is a term on its own, that is many things to many people, but in general, it is the idea that societies have unspoken rules in order to maintain order. I do not think he is diluting the term, as it (or at least the concept) has been around for quite some time.