Disney has decided not to follow that policy and to have the entire menu available for DDP customers. Every time I posted something like Disney could compromise and have a few "signature menu items" (lobster) that would have an upcharge posters said it wouldn't be fair to treat DDP customers as second class customers.
I don't see this as treating DDP customers as second class. I feel having totally separate menus for DDP and non-DDP customers is treating them as second class. Several restaurants exclude one or two menu items -- like dessert samplers, entrees for two, or the sushi at Puck's is considered an entree instead of an appetizer. Rather than excluding the costlier items from the plan entirely, I agree that a moderate upcharge would be appropriate. For example, say the maximum value of an entree on the DDP would be $30. As a DDP customer, I could get any entree on the menu that is $30 or less; if I wanted a steak that was priced say, $35, then I could use the plan for the value up to $30 and pay the $5 difference. Disney would just have to be
crystal clear in the plan brochure and on the menus, and there shouldn't be any confusion or argument: any entree $30 or less, any appetizer $12 or less, any beverage $3 or less -- for more expensive items, the guest would be responsible for the difference. Those are just random dollar amounts of course, for the sake of example. But it would allow Disney some measure of cost control -- and if the tax and gratuity was included on the capped value of those items, but the customer was responsible for tax and gratuity on their own portion that exceeded the amount included on the plan, it might stop overzealous cast members from pushing the most expensive menu items, unwanted desserts and questionable "extras" to pad their tips -- another plus for the Disney bean-counters.
To stay on topic for this thread, it sounds like CJ's still offers the add-a-tail, just doesn't list it on the menu, and anyone can pay $12 (or whatever the current price is) OOP for it. It would be so simple to just add it to the appetizer menu, though, and allow it as an appetizer on the DDP.
A couple of posters didn't even think it was fair that one guest couldn't get an entree that was listed on the menu, and priced, as being for two. One poster complained when one restaurant wouldn't give her a free drink for her under 2 year old child.
It is greedy and rather silly to think that one person should be able to get an entree, appetizer, or dessert that is portioned and priced for two for their single TS credit. However, it is not unreasonable to ask if the item can be portioned and priced for one (in a made to order dessert, for example), or if two people on the plan could
both use their credits and order one item for two. The restaurant could certainly refuse, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask.
A child under 2 who is eating off of their parent's plate (a very generous policy for buffets) should not get a free drink. If you walked into a McDonald's and shared your French fries and chicken nuggets with your toddler, you would not be given a free beverage for the child, you would be expected to pay for it OOP. If the server/restaurant offers it, then that's very nice, but it shouldn't be expected.
but at the end of this post:
Not to say that there haven't been plenty of blatant abuses of the dining plan -- banking kids' TS credits to use for adult TS meals, or using kids' CS credits to purchase adult CS meals come to mind. Rather than remove the item entirely from the menu, I wonder why they didn't exclude it from the dining plan (which wouldn't be that big of a deal, lots of restaurants have one or two items that aren't included) and allow people to order it OOP. Or list it as an appetizer, and allow it to be ordered as an appetizer course on the DDP (the cost is not that out of line with many appetizers). 
