LTHForum.com

Just saw this from Adriana Diaz,Trending Now:

"A new D.C. eatery called Rogue 24 bans cell phones and cameras. The restaurant, which serves a 24-course dinner for $175 per person, actually makes patrons sign a 2-page contract ensuring they won't pull out their cellphones while on the premises of the multi-course meal eatery. "All guests should be able to enjoy the experiences that surround them at Rogue24 free of distraction," says the contract. The document also stipulates that if a reservation is canceled within 72-hours of the dinner, would-be customers must cough up 50 percent of the would-be meal. And don't even think of canceling after 3 p.m. on the same day of the reservation, because you'd have to pay 100 percent of the the dinner cost. Some high-end eateries in New York also ban customer photography, but Rogue 24 is the first to make patrons enter into a contractual agreement about it. Some social media savvy diners aren't happy about it. One person on Twitter called Rogue 24, "The last restaurant in Washington at which I'd want to eat." But the restaurant may be second-guessing its house rules. They asked customers whether the cell phone and social media ban is too strict on Facebook (of all places)."

I would sure miss everyone's photos.

DC bureaucrats might be used to lengthy written agreements for day-to-day activities, but that's a lot of chutzpah. A simple "please refrain from cellphone usage in the dining room" sign should be all that $175-a-dinner patrons should be asked to respect.

Geez, this is such an over-reaction. It isn't a two page "contract". Most of it simply asks about dining preferences, contact information, and explains the cancelation policy. Nothing unusual here, even though it would be really fun to make fun of a restaurant that actually sued people whose phones rang!

You can read the whole thing right here:
http://dc.eater.com/archives/2011/08/15 ... gue-24.php

May I humbly suggest that people actually read this before making snap judgments? Or does that defeat the purpose of an internet discussion board?

The bit about cell phones is literally one line that says the same thing Spineynorman99 just said.

What if your baby decides to come to the world a week earlier?? I guess you still need to pay 100% of what the meal would have been. I am cool with paying 100$ for not showing up but 50-100% of the meal is excessive.
Taking pictures of food, even though I used to find it incredibly annoying, is a really good way to remember what you ate and compare experiences. I dont see how, if flash is not used, that is more distracting than a stupid conversation in the next table...

_________________
pictorial reviews | event recaps | twitter

They encourage you to arrive 15 minutes early to have a drink? MONSTERS!

_________________
-Josh

I've started blogging about the Stuff I Eat

Then either you chide yourself for making a reservation so close to the due date or you transfer the reservation to someone else.

Certainly no worse than Next's policy.

And personally, I wish every restaurant would ban the use of cell phones. As for photos, sure I like to see what people have eaten, but I'm more interested in reading what people have to say about their meals . . . not a big deal in my book.

Totally get the 100% cancellation fee in that kind of place. Realistically, it's like a "if you find a better deal we'll give you 110% if we can't beat it" situation. Nobody's going to just pay and leave the seats empty, they'll find someone to take the reservation.

I know a lot of people that are willing to make last minute dinner plan changes and spend $500+ on their meal instead!

_________________
pictorial reviews | event recaps | twitter