[Sca-cooks] feast serving

[Mark.S Harris]

Kael said:
> > > Personally, I dislike this "every table must provide a server"
> > > bit. I think it is better for the hosting group to provide the
> > > servers. It is perhaps selfish, but I enjoy having the opportunity
> > > to talk with my tablemates during feast. When one of them, and
> > > sometimes as much as half the table, keep getting up to serve
> > > the food this is disruptive.
>
> I have the opposite view on this. I usually find that having one server per
> table works best, has the least disruption and has the least logistical
> problems.
>
> If a kitchen can set up a staging area for the servers to pick up the food,
> then the servers are usually only away from the table for a minute or so.

How do they know when to come back to get the next course? What if
each course is actually composed of half-a-dozen (or more) dishes
that come out at seperate times?

> On the other hand, since most feasts generally will not be able to find one
> server per table. I've seen longer disruptions by servers coming up to
> tables and repeatedly asking if we received a particular dish.

If the servers are assigned to the same tables for each course this
shouldn't happen, whether they have one table or three, unless they are
rather forgetful or disorganised.

You mean that most feasts can't find one server per table as volunteers
and the only way it works is to be able to draft folks who then feel
compelled to take on the job of server?

> And I find
> the flip side to be more annoying to be the table that has to wait five
> minutes or so for the servers to find that your table didn't get something.

Waiting five minutes doesn't seem that bad. I think that is usually lost
in the usual commotion. I think a bigger problem is when something
doesn't appear at all. And you don't know about it until you talk to
folks later. This is another reason I like published menus. And my
preferance on menus, is that if the name of the dish is in a foreign
language or unusual words, that there be a description. This helps avoid
the problem of "Which dish is this? I think this is pork as in dish
A on the menu, but the sauce seems more like the sauce (I think it is
a sauce) named with dish C".

> This method also has the added benefit of not having to worry about feeding
> the servers before or after the feast, deciding if they need to pay or not,
> or spending upwards of 15 minutes organizing and training servers so that
> the problems mentioned about are kept to a minimum.

Why would you need to train general volunteer servers but not ones that
come from a specific table? Either way, I think 15 minutes is well spent
in this and could easily accept more, especially for volunteers from
the general pool of workers rather than those drafted from the
individual
tables.

> As a feaster, I don't think i have ever seen anyone at a table that really
> minded it.   usually its people "fighting" over who would go up to get the
> next course.

Then perhaps your area or the ones I've been to simply differ. I
remember
the Event Steward for the EK 12th Night (Puck) having to make at least
two seperate appeals for servers during the feast.

If you have folks "fighting" over who should go up and get the next
course, then it would seem that you would have plenty of dedicated
servers available without conscripting folks. Or do you actually
mean fighting to have someone ELSE go up and get the next course?
Oooh. I can think of some interesting tournament possiblities using
this...

Stefan li Rous