> would result in unpalatable food a high percentage of time
That's the point. Do you understand what 'roulette' means in this context? When you play roulette you more often than not lose all your money and have nothing to show for it. Like an inedible pizza.
If you made it so you always got something nice to eat... it wouldn't be roulette, would it?
You understand the difference between something that's not very nice and something which someone cannot possibly eat at all, right? As a vegetarian, I can imagine some pretty gross combinations of pizza that I still can eat, but I'm at a massive disadvantage if I get something I cannot eat at all.
Coming to terms with missing out is part of abstinence. If you're going to entitle yourself to the accommodation of others every step of the way, then maybe you aren't cut out for it.
I don’t see this as a restriction so much as a category. Having an option to exclude foods based on allergies and other similar reasons keeps the original idea. I’m assuming, of course, the original idea was to entertain and maybe find new, interesting taste combinations.
Ahem, surely you don't honestly believe your request will be fulfilled with just "one checkbox, just one". It's not the matter of adding
<input type="checkbox" id="justonecheckbox" value="vegetarian">
to the front-end...
Go visit a restaurant in Germany. They have all kind of numbers after their ingredients which show exactly which dishes contain which allergens, as well as showing which options follow popular diets (vegetarianism being the most common one, but also gluten-free, vegan, and multiple others). Why can an online website not do this when a German restaurant with a physical card is able to do this? Its not much work. You just add some more tables in a database with yes/no on certain allergens, ingredients, or dietary propositions. No rocket science, not a whole lot of work. And IIRC San Francisco is quite open minded to alternative diets.
Realistically, not honoring this request would just make those with allergies not participate. That’s a loss of revenue. If OP doesn’t want it, fine, but opportunities are being missed.
Your definition of success is just an excuse for bad software, with the reasoning being "cause RL roulette works like this as well". Reminds me of car analogies.
What you desire is a very basic, boring version of roulette which you can easily make with a few lines of Python code.
random.randrange(0, 4) # number of toppings
random.randrange(1, 100) # this in a loop iterating with result of previous amount, and this from a database where each number representing a topping.
Its much more fun to do some advanced stuff with randomisation such as adding weights, blacklists, whitelists, edible combinations, etc. When you get edible results based on randomisation is when I call it a success.
Second, you're excluding a significant amount of people [1] by not catering to vegetarians. Regardless of your dietary preference this is not done in 2017.
My link proves that vegetarianism is a significant group which you can cater to. The system I proposed does not force you to be bound by my artificial social constructs (with which you assume I am a vegetarian which you are wrong about, btw). The system I proposed takes into account the option of vegetarianism, and allows a vegetarian to also partake in the overall system without damaging your fun in any way except the mention of a diet you apparently do not agree with.
At the very least, a bunch of disclaimers that the outcome might not be according to certain diets (ie. "the random outcome is unlikely to be kosher, halal, vegetarian, etc").
Vegetarians may not eat meat products anymore. They have a severe, painful reaction to eating meat. You’re essentially revisiting a decision made in the distant past. You might as well be asking people to change who they married.
And you're essentially shaming people who do try to change who they're married to. It is difficult enough to be divorced with parents and relatives chiming in with "I told you so" and "how could you not see..."
In a question about national ID I said I don't have to be open-minded and consider every single proposal. The community here was loud and clear: me not wanting to consider an alternative solution is a bad™ thing. Well, I say a vegetarian wanting to never see a menu with meat on it (which is what this essentially is) is similarly l closed minded.
I mean if you're allergic to something, I think you have a right to ask "does this food contain x? I am allergic to x" but everyone else can shove it with their special diet.
The whole idea of potentially unpleasant or not consumable (due to allergies) output is a problem for me. The waste in time, work and resources to output something that has a high likelihood to be discarded (pizza is perishable) isn't something that should be encouraged. Especially when there are steps the service provider could take with minimal effort to avoid that outcome.
Typically with roulette there is a substantial upside to winning as well (large payout at casino for example). What is great thing you get by winning pizza roulette? A pizza that you could simply have ordered at no risk?
If anything this has a severely negative downside for dominos/the pizza vendor with “business as usual” as an upside. Doesn’t seem like something they’d like.
