PDA

View Full Version : Bad Form In Naming Restaurant?

LolaBaby
09-02-2002, 03:39 PM
I asked a few questions in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133578&perpage=20&pagenumber=1) but no one bothered to clear up my ignorance (probably because it was a slight hijack)...so hopefully I can get an answer here. :D

There was a complaint about a certain restaurant's service, and it wasn't named. Out of curiosity, I asked who it was, but first asked if it was in bad form for the poster to name said restaurant.

Miller replied, saying it was very bad form.

My question is "why?"

I read bad reviews of restaurants in the newspaper all the time.

:confused:
Duck Duck Goose
09-02-2002, 03:48 PM
Right, but the restaurant is usually in the same town as the newspaper. This MB is, literally, world-wide--why tell people all over the world that Chez Chat sucks? It's bad enough for M. Le Chat to know that his hometown newspaper's restaurant critic thinks his business sucks (so he's like, "Well, that's one..."), but how would he feel about having "Chez Chat sucks" broadcast on the Web, from Seattle to Sydney?
happyheathen
09-02-2002, 04:29 PM
less interesting/usefull trivia has been posted here :)
LolaBaby
09-02-2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Right, but the restaurant is usually in the same town as the newspaper. This MB is, literally, world-wide--why tell people all over the world that Chez Chat sucks? It's bad enough for M. Le Chat to know that his hometown newspaper's restaurant critic thinks his business sucks (so he's like, "Well, that's one..."), but how would he feel about having "Chez Chat sucks" broadcast on the Web, from Seattle to Sydney?

Erm. More incentive to provide better service?

Great (or fancy) restaurants are known worldwide (or at least nationwide). Why not the opposite?

Why would it be bad form for PosterX to just name them?
Ringo
09-02-2002, 04:45 PM
I've seen many a restaurant named in Pit rants about ghastly experiences.
Acsenray
09-02-2002, 07:13 PM
There's nothing wrong or rude or immoral with naming restaurants when critiquing them. That's what the capitalist system is all about.
Acsenray
09-02-2002, 07:19 PM
There's nothing wrong or rude or immoral with naming restaurants when critiquing them. That's what the capitalist system is all about.
japatlgt
09-02-2002, 08:06 PM
Its only "bad form" if your in the restaurant business.
lissener
09-02-2002, 08:38 PM
Yeah, but, from the Chicago Reader's perspective:

What if an unscrupuloys Doper (no, really, they exist) posted a rant, named names, and it turned out they made it all up, or exaggerated (no, really), or named the wrong restaurant? Would the Chicago Reader by liable for libel? (Say THAT six times real fast. Not that it's a tongue twister; just sounds silly.)

By making it OK to name names, the Chicago Reader would be, it seems to me, putting their liability in the hands of a bunch of Dopers.
Road Rash
09-02-2002, 11:27 PM
The last time I read the thread, the OP had written to the management of the restaraunt. The problem was with a waitress. The real culprit of the attack was the waitress at this place. As Ringo pointed out. Many restaraunts have been implicated before. These have been typically national chains, as opposed to some local "mom and pop" establishment.

The OP, I concluded, was awaiting an answer from management. If Mgmt. is smart, they will royally kiss her ass with a free meal.
LolaBaby
09-03-2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by lissener
Yeah, but, from the Chicago Reader's perspective:

What if an unscrupuloys Doper (no, really, they exist) posted a rant, named names, and it turned out they made it all up, or exaggerated (no, really), or named the wrong restaurant? Would the Chicago Reader by liable for libel? (Say THAT six times real fast. Not that it's a tongue twister; just sounds silly.)

By making it OK to name names, the Chicago Reader would be, it seems to me, putting their liability in the hands of a bunch of Dopers.

I totally see that point, so is it an unwritten "law"?
David Simmons
09-03-2002, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by lissener
Yeah, but, from the Chicago Reader's perspective:

What if an unscrupuloys Doper (no, really, they exist) posted a rant, named names, and it turned out they made it all up, or exaggerated (no, really), or named the wrong restaurant? Would the Chicago Reader by liable for libel? (Say THAT six times real fast. Not that it's a tongue twister; just sounds silly.)

By making it OK to name names, the Chicago Reader would be, it seems to me, putting their liability in the hands of a bunch of Dopers.

Right it might cause a lot of trouble even though such a lawsuit would not be merited if the post merely expressed an opinion. Opinions are protected speech.

However, if you made a factual claim, such as, "I ate at XXX restaurant and the food was so tainted that it sent me to the hospital" you had better be able to prove it.

In any case, if I owned the site I'd be awfully careful about such posts.