Or put it this way, there are times when a customer gets better food because people like Steve act like a prick.

I see no evidence of this. Every one of these cases seems to have been a very good restaurant (read his pre-schmuck comments praising Sona to the heights) mysteriously rendered incompetent for a night by Plotnicki's arrival and unique method and manner of inspiring the kitchen to discover new capacities for confusion and customer dissatisfaction.

How that helps me, I'll never know.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:So by your definition, all requests can be reasonably performed, therefore any request that isn't fulfilled means that a restaurant shouldn't exist.

You just conflated two of my points to make a non-point. What I said was that the types of requests we are discussing, should not throw a restaurant off of their game. And to add to that point, if they do for some reason, the chef, or someone else of importance, should appear at your table and apologize for not being able to do it while offering a rational explanation. I then added a metaphor to the example, that they should "open a car wash." I wasn't being literal. But I do think that restaurants who refuse these types of requests for no apparant reason should be severely criticized to the point where it costs them business.

How else are consumers able to change stupid policies unless they complain about them publicly?

Actually, that's not at all what you said above. You said if "any type of special request" throws them off -- which I suspect is closer to your actual belief on the subject, as it precludes the possibility that you could be making an unreasonable request.

If any request unfulfilled means the restaurant is operating so poorly that -- even metaphorically -- they should close up shop, then that means your request can't possibly be unreasonable. It sets up a logical device in which you, Steve Plotnicki, could not possibly be mistaken in your assessment of how difficult it is to fulfill your request. Which I think about sums it up.

Mike G wrote:

Or put it this way, there are times when a customer gets better food because people like Steve act like a prick.

I see no evidence of this. Every one of these cases seems to have been a very good restaurant (read his pre-schmuck comments praising Sona to the heights) mysteriously rendered incompetent for a night by Plotnicki's arrival and unique method and manner of inspiring the kitchen to discover new capacities for confusion and customer dissatisfaction.

How that helps me, I'll never know.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Is there a story I'm missing that makes the chili oil analogy applicable? Did someone act like a prick to make the chili oil available at LTH? Based on my experience, one is more likely to get what one wants from a restaurant by being extra nice and expressing extra interest, not by acting self-important and making prickish demands.

Mike G wrote:

Or put it this way, there are times when a customer gets better food because people like Steve act like a prick.

I see no evidence of this. Every one of these cases seems to have been a very good restaurant (read his pre-schmuck comments praising Sona to the heights) mysteriously rendered incompetent for a night by Plotnicki's arrival and unique method and manner of inspiring the kitchen to discover new capacities for confusion and customer dissatisfaction.

But it can't possibly be because of Steve's standards and methods, Mike. They can't possibly be unreasonable or wrong. Obviously you and I have it all backwards with all of these terrible restaurant experiences we aren't having.

I said it above, and I think it bears repeating, Steve. When you're the one who seems to be having a rough go of it, do you stop to consider that maybe the problem is you?

Mike G wrote:
How that helps me, I'll never know.

Here is how it helps. When I was at Al Forno and they refused to replate my steak so it wouldn't be so wet, they had an entire song and dance about how this was their signature dish and they were under strict rules from the chefs (who weren;t there) not to ever, ever, ever change that dish. When I heard thair explanation, I told them to let me taste the dish. I was hoping it would be okay, but to be honest, it was disgusting (I understand I am being subjective when I say that.) So I told our server to take it away and to bring me the menu so I could order something else, and I ordered a pork chop. About ten minutes went by and the manager appeared at our table. I asked him if he had heard what had happened and he said yes, and he asked me why I just didn't ask them to replate the steak on a dry plate. I told him that indeed I did ask for it, but I was refused. He then told me to wait, disappeared back to the kitchen, and returned a few minutes later to tell me that is what they were going to do.

Now there are two things about this story that I found interesting. The argument going on in the kitchen was about the chefs wanting to break down their stations because it was late. And if they had to cook my entree from scratch, they would have to work later than they expected to. So when I ordered the pork chop, the kitchen complained to the manager. His solution was to allow them to break the rule. Not to make me happy, but to make THEM happy. I think that is an abominable way for a restaurant to act and trreat people and they should be called out on it. But getting back to Mike G's question, after I was finished I asked our server how long he worked their and he told me 7 years. He went on to tell me that in all of his years there, he never once saw them serve the dish without the sauce. " So now, because I stuck to my guns about it, it won't be so unsusual for them to do serve the steak without the sauce. . And if you want it that way Mike, now you know you can insist on it. That's how it helps you.

Dmnkly wrote:

Mike G wrote:

Or put it this way, there are times when a customer gets better food because people like Steve act like a prick.

I see no evidence of this. Every one of these cases seems to have been a very good restaurant (read his pre-schmuck comments praising Sona to the heights) mysteriously rendered incompetent for a night by Plotnicki's arrival and unique method and manner of inspiring the kitchen to discover new capacities for confusion and customer dissatisfaction.

But it can't possibly be because of Steve's standards and methods, Mike. They can't possibly be unreasonable or wrong. Obviously you and I have it all backwards with all of these terrible restaurant experiences we aren't having.

I said it above, and I think it bears repeating, Steve. When you're the one who seems to be having a rough go of it, do you stop to consider that maybe the problem is you?

If he accepted this premise, he'd have nothing to agitate about and we'd all have nothing left to do but eat blue cheese hamburgers with corn soup...

Vital Information wrote:Or put it this way, there are times when a customer gets better food because people like Steve act like a prick.

And there are also times when an otherwise wonderful meal is ruined because the staff is so busy placating the blowhard prick at the next table that service suffers. Just read my recent post about Cuistot in Palm Springs.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:So now, because I stuck to my guns about it, it won't be so unsusual for them to do it. And if you want it that way Mike, now you know you can insist on it. That's how it helps you.

So because of you, I can get a dry steak at a place that doesn't want to make it instead of simply getting it at any number of other places that are thrilled to?

Thank god you're on the case, Steve. While you're at it, can you insist on getting some pierogi at the Mexican place down the street from my house? It's a five minute drive to the nearest Polish place.

Dmnkly wrote:

Mike G wrote:

Or put it this way, there are times when a customer gets better food because people like Steve act like a prick.

I see no evidence of this. Every one of these cases seems to have been a very good restaurant (read his pre-schmuck comments praising Sona to the heights) mysteriously rendered incompetent for a night by Plotnicki's arrival and unique method and manner of inspiring the kitchen to discover new capacities for confusion and customer dissatisfaction.

But it can't possibly be because of Steve's standards and methods, Mike. They can't possibly be unreasonable or wrong. Obviously you and I have it all backwards with all of these terrible restaurant experiences we aren't having.

I said it above, and I think it bears repeating, Steve. When you're the one who seems to be having a rough go of it, do you stop to consider that maybe the problem is you?

This makes little sense to me. On a whole Steve is happy with his dining experiences and happy with his methods. He obviously feels it works for the most part.

We keep on acting like only Steve gets rough treatment because he has the temerity to ask for things or email his intentions or worse spend wildly, and we all get the best treatment because we are good and pure. That's just absurd.

I also think we are conflating how we act/ask with how we re-tell it afterwards. The pages and pages of this board are littered with complaints about not getting the experience desired. And on top of that, go to most of those threads, and there will be people chiming in telling the person with the poor experience how they did not deal with it in the best way possible at the time.

Oh come on Mike don't be ridiculous. Anyone acting in a way that expands the number of choices that consumers have at restaurants should be commended for their efforts. On the other hand, those who criticize the people who are interested in expanding choices are acting in a way that is not in a consumer's best interest.

Nonsense. I will take the restaurant with one good choice over the one with a 16-page laminated menu of glop any day, and usually do.

Vital Information wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:But it can't possibly be because of Steve's standards and methods, Mike. They can't possibly be unreasonable or wrong. Obviously you and I have it all backwards with all of these terrible restaurant experiences we aren't having.

I said it above, and I think it bears repeating, Steve. When you're the one who seems to be having a rough go of it, do you stop to consider that maybe the problem is you?

This makes little sense to me. On a whole Steve is happy with his dining experiences and happy with his methods. He obviously feels it works for the most part.

We keep on acting like only Steve gets rough treatment because he has the temerity to ask for things or email his intentions or worse spend wildly, and we all get the best treatment because we are good and pure. That's just absurd.

Actually, I believe I stated the opposite a ways upthread when I said that I could get all kinds of special treatment if I were willing to cry and whine and complain more, but that I wasn't willing to be that kind of person. Though I accept this "degraded experience", I'm happier for it. That I avoid the kind of snafus of which Steve speaks is a happy bonus.

The point I'm trying to make is that Steve seems completely unwilling to accept the possibility that he shares some responsibility in these disastrous outings that ruin birthdays. Despite the fact that he received pushback and insisted anyway, the request could not possibly have been a pain for the restaurant to fulfill. Obviously, they simply were trying to spite him.

Steve's request couldn't have possibly been in any way difficult or unreasonable to fulfill. Rather, the chef is a schmuck.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Oh come on Mike don't be ridiculous. Anyone acting in a way that expands the number of choices that consumers have at restaurants should be commended for their efforts. On the other hand, those who criticize the people who are interested in expanding choices are acting in a way that is not in a consumer's best interest.

This isn't so. I have not, in any way, criticized your interest in expanding your choices. I've criticized your methods for doing so, I've criticized your expectations in exercising them, and I've criticized your inability to acknowledge the possibility that they may sometimes earn you degraded service through no one's fault but your own. But not that you'd like to have more options. I may question the wisdom of that strategy on a practical level, but not the desire.

Heck, I'd love to have a restaurant on my block that does flawless dishes from 37 different ethnic cuisines. You think I'm going to sit here and say, no, no, that would make my dining experience far too enjoyable... better not let that happen? Who wouldn't want that? But that doesn't mean it's a reasonable expectation, or that any method that achieves it is right, even if it would be in my best interests.

If refusing to be a pain in the ass to get the best possible experience means I'm anti-consumer, then so be it. I'm anti-consumer.

At the risk of becoming involved in this now-endless thread, it seems that part of the issue involves the conception of the restaurant: are restaurants part of the service industry or small manufacturing organizations. The answer, of course, is that restaurants are both - and this is the heart of the problem. If restaurants are service establishments (which Steve emphasizes), they should do all that they reasonably can to make their customers happy, and customers should expect this to be the case. On the other hand, to the extent that restaurants routinely produce a set of products (dishes), it is unreasonable for customers to ask them to change their products. Given the number of other producers, customers can simply not return and patronize other manufacturers.

This debate seems to founder over the degree to which we choose to embrace one model or the other.

Dmnkly wrote:.

Steve's request couldn't have possibly been in any way difficult or unreasonable to fulfill. Rather, the chef is a schmuck.

Correct. There is no reason that a chef is forced to or feel compelled to put pork belly in a dish when someone asks him not to. What if I asked him not to because I keep kosher at home? So the person making the request couldn't possibly be causing the chef's behavior as there is simply no causal-connection between the request and the lack of compliance. In fact in every example I gave, the restaurant acted that way way before I ever stepped foot into the restaurant. The only thing I brought to the situation was I refused to be treated poorly, which is the way they typically treat their customers.

On the other hand, to the extent that restaurants routinely produce a set of products (dishes), it is unreasonable for customers to ask them to change their products.

This is true in the instance of asking Grant Achutz to serve you bacon from a frying pan, rather than in the artistic manner that he presents the ingredient in. This concept does not apply to asking them to leave off the blue cheese on a hamburger in a gastropub for a medical condition, or to asking them to replate an already presented steak on a dry plate in an Italian restaurant. Those aren't examples of artistry.

GAF wrote:At the risk of becoming involved in this now-endless thread, it seems that part of the issue involves the conception of the restaurant: are restaurants part of the service industry or small manufacturing organizations. The answer, of course, is that restaurants are both - and this is the heart of the problem. If restaurants are service establishments (which Steve emphasizes), they should do all that they reasonably can to make their customers happy, and customers should expect this to be the case. On the other hand, to the extent that restaurants routinely produce a set of products (dishes), it is unreasonable for customers to ask them to change their products. Given the number of other producers, customers can simply not return and patronize other manufacturers.

This debate seems to founder over the degree to which we choose to embrace one model or the other.

Well said, Gary.

Can someone say something new and outrageous please? This has lost its entertainment value.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:.

Steve's request couldn't have possibly been in any way difficult or unreasonable to fulfill. Rather, the chef is a schmuck.

Correct. There is no reason that a chef is forced to or feel compelled to put pork belly in a dish when someone asks him not to. What if I asked him not to because I keep kosher at home? So the person making the request couldn't possibly be causing the chef's behavior as there is simply no causal-connection between the request and the lack of compliance. In fact in every example I gave, the restaurant acted that way way before I ever stepped foot into the restaurant. The only thing I brought to the situation was I refused to be treated poorly, which is the way they typically treat their customers.

And it's impossible that this was simply a mistake or another miscommunication, brought on by the fact the the entire dinner had become a complicated clusterf**k at that point?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

On the other hand, to the extent that restaurants routinely produce a set of products (dishes), it is unreasonable for customers to ask them to change their products.

This is true in the instance of asking Grant Achutz to serve you bacon from a frying pan, rather than in the artistic manner that he presents the ingredient in. This concept does not apply to asking them to leave off the blue cheese on a hamburger in a gastropub for a medical condition, or to asking them to replate an already presented steak on a dry plate. Those examples aren't art.

Is this fact or opinion, Steve?

sorry Dom, that's not gonna cut it.

Fact. Hamburgers and steaks aren't art. The closest you can get to a hamburger being art is the DB Burger as it is a composed dish. Toppings on a hamburger just don't rise to the level of being an actual culinary composition.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Fact. Hamburgers and steaks aren't art. The closest you can get to a hamburger being art is the DB Burger as it is a composed dish. Toppings on a hamburger just don't rise to the level of being an actual culinary composition.

Soooo... a restaurant should be willing to make any change to a dish that isn't art, and a customer shouldn't request a change to a dish that is art, and you're the arbiter of what, factually speaking, is and isn't art.

That's a position I can't argue with and I won't try.

Is that what you were looking for, Kenny?

Dmnkly wrote:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Fact. Hamburgers and steaks aren't art. The closest you can get to a hamburger being art is the DB Burger as it is a composed dish. Toppings on a hamburger just don't rise to the level of being an actual culinary composition.

Is that what you were looking for, Kenny?

No, that's really boring.

I like to write about myself on the internet; it is the essence of my white virility. My peers are impressed with my bellicose vigor. I have many women and a pantry-full of bellota. Fear my cat-like typing. Your views, they are quaint and charming, and have little relevance to me, but I will indulge them. This is the way of things.

Santander wrote:I like to write about myself on the internet; it is the essence of my white virility. My peers are impressed with my bellicose vigor. I have many women and a pantry-full of bellota. Fear my cat-like typing. Your views, they are quaint and charming, and have little relevance to me, but I will indulge them. This is the way of things.

Thank you, Matt. Much better! Dom, Mike, Steve, et al... please follow this lead.

Dmnkly wrote:Soooo... a restaurant should be willing to make any change to a dish that isn't art, and a customer shouldn't request a change to a dish that is art, and you're the arbiter of what, factually speaking, is and isn't art.

That's a position I can't argue with and I won't try.

Well who would argue that a hamburger is art in the context of cuisine? It might be delicious and there might be an artistic aspect to the way it is presented, but it is not a composed dish which is the key element in what differentiates cuisine from merely bring food.

Once again, dining should be about consumers having the maximum number of choices. As you go up the food chain from simple cuisine to higher cuisine, agreed, you have to take it on a case by case basis. But having said that, a simple request, like put the sauce on the side or don't make my meal too spicy, should be, and can be, easily honored by all restaurants.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Soooo... a restaurant should be willing to make any change to a dish that isn't art, and a customer shouldn't request a change to a dish that is art, and you're the arbiter of what, factually speaking, is and isn't art.

That's a position I can't argue with and I won't try.

Well who would argue that a hamburger is art in the context of cuisine? It might be delicious and there might be an artistic aspect to the way it is presented, but it is not a composed dish which is the key element in what differentiates cuisine from merely bring food.

Once again, dining should be about consumers having the meximum number of choise. As you go up the food chain from simple cuisine to higher cuisine, agreed, you have to take it on a case by case basis. But having said that, a simple request, like put the sauce on the side or don't make my meal too spicy, should be, and can be, easily honored by all restaurants.

So what happens when a restaurant thinks their signature dish is art and you don't?

(Here, I'll help... the one who's being unreasonable is a matter of... ?)

Dmnkly wrote:So what happens when a restaurant thinks their signature dish is art and you don't?

It's their job to make me happy and doing so in no way diminshes their art. If they refuse, they are putting their own percieved best interests ahead of the consumer's. That's the point I have been trying to make under the din of this thread.

Not only do I object to that treatment, complying with my request doesn't detract from their art in any way. The story about Al Forno changing their rule because the kitchen was unhappy they had to work late proves this point. Their rule, like most rules, was totally arbitrary, and they broke it when it became convenient for them to do so.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:But having said that, a simple request, like put the sauce on the side or don't make my meal too spicy, should be, and can be, easily honored by all restaurants.

And yet it is not so, thank God.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:This is true in the instance of asking Grant Achutz to serve you bacon from a frying pan, rather than in the artistic manner that he presents the ingredient in. This concept does not apply to asking them to leave off the blue cheese on a hamburger in a gastropub for a medical condition, or to asking them to replate an already presented steak on a dry plate. Those examples aren't art.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:It's their job to make me happy and doing so in no way diminshes their art. If they refuse, they are putting their own percieved best interests ahead of the consumer's. That's the point I have been trying to make under the din of this thread.

Not only do I object to that treatment, complying with my request doesn't detract from their art in any way. The story about Al Forno changing their rule because the kitchen was unhappy they had to work late proves this point. Their rule, like most rules, was totally arbitrary, and they broke it when it became convenient for them to do so.

So it's unreasonable for them to refuse your request, since you don't think it's art, but it's simultaneously unreasonable for you to make the request, since they think it is?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:So what happens when a restaurant thinks their signature dish is art and you don't?

It's their job to make me happy and doing so in no way diminshes their art. If they refuse, they are putting their own percieved best interests ahead of the consumer's. That's the point I have been trying to make under the din of this thread.

Not only do I object to that treatment, complying with my request doesn't detract from their art in any way. The story about Al Forno changing their rule because the kitchen was unhappy they had to work late proves this point. Their rule, like most rules, was totally arbitrary, and they broke it when it became convenient for them to do so.

Yah, but you don't make that point at all. Nor is your point logical, nor is it even logically argued.

You don't get an ask/demand relationship with a restaurant, and certainly not at the high-end of restaurants. You get to request whatever you want, but like in any business the proprietor/manager/chef/whatever can refuse. Doing so doesn't make them a bad proprietor/manager/chef/whatever, it makes them the person who is running their own business. Just because you can make a business case for doing something doesn't mean you should do it. I can make plenty of business cases for Alinea creating a kids menu- and I can guarantee I can make them in a way that would be profitable. It doesn't mean they should do it.