Honestly, I don’t believe its fair to say “all you can eat” unless its true. Otherwise, you should put some type of detailed limit.

But attempts must have been made and probably continue.

  • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would be more honest though. If I’m taking it slow eating then I’m taking it slow goddammit.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this is targeting folks who finish eating a meal and then never leave the restaurant. So a more technical truth would be all you can eat within the reasonable definition of how long one meal lasts.

      • Ghoti_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Me and 5 other fatties in middle school (like almost 20 years ago) got kicked out of a CiCi’s pizza for eating too much food in like 30 minutes.

        We were like the first people who ate so much that they started losing money lmao

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, that would definitely be against the idea. The whole reasoning behind a concept of all.you can eat is that on average, you make money, but on occasion, you’ll lose money. It’s like the casino. They don’t make money off every single person, as some they’ll lose money, but on average, they make more than they lose per person.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I honestly would be ok with someone limiting that. You’re taking up table space along with not really following the concept I gave. I don’t think anyone thinks a meal reasonably last hours. Two hours would likely be my limit to be honest if I magically inherited an all you can eat buffet restaurant. You’d be representing a very small portion of the target audience and would be a outsized loss on the model. Maybe I could be convinced a little longer, but at a certain point, you’re not only representing a loss in margins, but a loss in being able to serve other people. Like, I get the idea that someone wants to “take advantage” but it’s not really helping the cause to keep restaurants like this in business. Exploiting everything you can is just not a mindset I can get behind unless it’s against a big corporation doing the same to their employees and contractors. Which is usually not the case behind all you can eats. Some are franchises which are debatable, but most are single owned restaurants.

          • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The concept was all you can eat. You’re gambling that I eat little enough to make big bucks on it. It’s a shit system if there’s no possibility for me of winning.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That was not the concept in my comment at all. That just simply ignores the basic tenet as a whole.

              Edit: you can still win by just simply eating a lot, but exploiting it by staying for multiple meals is what I consider too far hence my whole comment.