September 08, 2004
UNMASKED
The Jig is Up. The Proverbial Beans have been Spilt. And now that it's all out in the open, my opponent has the temerity to wonder if I'm mad.
Let me think about that. Hmmmm.
Mad? I’m not mad. I’m flippin’ FURIOUS! That’s right, More Pissed than a bug in a urinal!
Not to mention bleedin’ HURT! Indeed, More Stung than a bobcat in a sackful of bees!
But not about Guy’s Secret Log. Hell no, I’ve known about that since March. At which point I started my own. Fair and square. And, throughout the months that followed, I kept track of the crosses and double-crosses that seemed to occur almost daily in the heat of battle. Hence:
(Excerpts from) The Secret Log
March 10
On March 10, 2004, two and a half months into Beefstakes 2004, I received a call from Max. He had just spoken with my opponent. In his usual vein of deceit, my hand-wringing foe has apparently made the decision to employ an entirely new tactic in his fight against me. It seems he wishes to keep a “Secret Log”, separate from the official BeefStakes site, and maintain an ongoing record of entries in this “Secret Log”, thus filling me with the false hope that I am catching up and eventually surpassing him. Max, in his wisdom, has apprised me of this intention, as it is clear I am currently well behind my opponent.
This is too good an opportunity to pass up. Max may, of course, reveal to my opponent that I am doing the same as he, which would nullify my advantage. I can only hope that he doesn’t. But in any case, I shall immediately implement my counter-measure. The following log will be posted publicly only at the end of the contest, or at such time as Max demands a full and accurate accounting from both participants. Up to that point, my shadow log will remain a secret.
I can only hope that I am able to see Guy’s face when I finally reveal this information. The moment will be almost certainly as delicious as the beef I have been consuming double-time.
March 11
Amusingly, my opponent’s official March 10 entry read as follows: “My official log now reads 17887g. So nice not to have to do my own math.” I see. He has already begun to publish nuanced half-truths. By noting his “official” total weight, he is not altogether lying; after all, it is indeed his official weight. Nonetheless, the published statement is not an accurate reflection of his total consumption, as he has withheld unofficial information in his befouled, tattered cloak of deception. We’ll see what comes out in the wash.
June 9. 2004
Guy emailed today expressing doubts about my veracity in logging meat weight:
“I'm writing to express dismay at your tactics. you expect me to believe that in nearly two weeks you've consumed little more than 4 kilos or so? please. seems to me that you're holding back, not only in your stagnant blog, but in your log data as well. either that or you're doomed to utter defeat. But the truth is I think you're lying.”
My response:
“Huh? I've been logging in a steady stream of beef. Seems like at least 12 oz per day on average. Sure, there are some days when it's tough to get to a beef source (due to my hectic schedule), but on some days, like yesterday for example, I consumed a gargantuan amount. Lying? Puhleeese.”
Although this response is certainly misleading, it’s technically not a lie. I am, after all, “logging in a steady stream of beef”; I’m simply logging part of it in secret. And how about the retort “Lying? Puhleeese.” This isn’t an outright denial, but a refusal to dignify his statement with a more direct response.
I am quite amused that Guy has accused me of lying while not admitting his own deceitful secret log. His gamesmanship is truly inspiring. I only hope that I can out-game him in the end.
June 14
I called Guy tonight to welcome him to the States, after his long sojourn abroad. Almost immediately he accused me of under-reporting my weight. “In all the time I was in Fiji you only logged 4 kilos?”
My response: “I have logged in every ounce of meat I have eaten this year.” This is a truthful statement, as I have indeed logged in every ounce (some of it just happens to be on a separate, secret log).
There you have it. How could I be mad at Guy for keeping secrets, when I’ve done the same myself, throughout the duration of his subterfuge?
Guy's Lead
Well then, am I mad that he’s ahead? Does this alarm me? Not particularly. I’ve been behind the entire contest, and I knew it every step of the way. You see, Max told me so. Repeatedly. He’s reminded me for the past 5 and a half months that Guy is ahead, Guy is ahead, Guy is ahead. Even when my official log surpassed my opponent’s, I knew in my heart that it was merely an illusion. Do I feel guilty about this knowledge? Not in the least. Max has similarly provided Guy with information at my expense. We’re even in this regard. No hard feelings.
The Breach
Why then, could I possibly harbor any anger or resentment toward my opponent?
Indeed, why? Why indeed?
Because of Max’s shocking revelation yesterday:
It has come to my attention that one of the BeefStakes competitors [Guy] may have access to private logs of the other competitor.
The competitor in question [Guy] refused to confirm or deny if they had gained access to the other competitor’s logs, so I must assume that the competitor [Guy] has discovered an exploit.
Excuse me? Illegal Access? To MY PRIVATE LOG? How could this be?
Oh yes. Now I remember. Guy had so sweetly suggested to our Judge, in order to enhance the visual quality of the website, that he be given Administrator-Level (Shell) Access to the site. Thus all of the pretty pictures and logos and such. However, little did our well-meaning Judge realize but Guy had a second, more devious, hidden purpose for requesting shell access. HE WANTED ACCESS TO MY PRIVATE INFORMATION! Subterfuge of the worst order, this is, as it was obtained directly from the Judge without his knowledge, for nefarious purposes.
Lest Guy cry "foul", let's consider, for a moment, that my opponent hadn't slithered past the barrier by virtue of Max's golden key, but through a hole in the floor. If indeed my opponent had forcibly entered my private space through a series of complex hacking maneuvers, would this have been any less deceitful?
Not one bit.
The whole concept of a secret log, we were individually told by our Judge, was to keep our secret material a secret. Or, more accurately, "Private". Could Max, in developing this privacy architecture on the website, have possibly meant something else by the term "private"? Like "public", or "available to Guy", or perhaps "If you can steal it, it's yours"? Just to be on the safe side, and to avoid the inevitable silly sophistry of a counter-argument that my opponent will no doubt spew forth when he reads this entry, I consulted my Websters. Under the term "private", I didn't see a single reference to any of these alternative definitions.
Thus, Guy's facilitated espionage or outright hacking not only fills me with rage and shock, but also represents a far worse crime: He violated the sacred trust of our Contest by hoodwinking the Judge himself.
This is bad stuff. Bad, bad, bad. If you listen hard enough, you might even hear the angels crying.
The Question
After the horror of this most outrageous abuse, I am spent and panting. What awaits me in my dreams when I sleep tonight? Will my opponent somehow seek to worm his way in there too? Is there any space left in this world that I can call my own? Where I can seek refuge from his assaults? I am starting to have serious doubts.
But in times of darkness, we must feel we can place some modicum of trust in those who govern us.
And so, I hereby throw myself on the mercy of the court.
I ask our Judge a most serious question: Can this injustice against the very FOUNDATIONS of BeefStakes be allowed to stand?
So many of your slanders to right, where to begin?
OK most importantly: back in February, you inadvertently discovered my blog, a blog which I never meant you to see at so early a stage in the game. When I questioned your correctness in doing so, you essentially told me many times over: if you didn't want it to be read on the internet, you should not have put it on the internet. The damage being done, I had to go with that.
But I must now say out loud and in full: I did NOT use shell access on Max's machine to gain access to your precious logs. Not only would I not do so, I could not if I wanted to. I just don't know how. Any information I gathered was through intelligence sources which are still very sensitive, and which I will not reveal, but to which I can promise you that you, my opponent, have equal access. I haven't done anything you can't do.
I would also like to say that the accusations made against me, namely that I have somehow found a way to see what I wasn't meant to see (which, by the way, is what you did back in February), have not been proven in any measure by any party.
But you also raise another very troubling point in your very illuminating entry. Max, our noble judge, has, it turns out, been anything but the epitome of impartiality which he is meant to represent. He has played deception upon deception, acting, far from a mere spectator and regulator and uninterested arbiter, acting, I say, very actively to thwart and bend personal strategies on our parts for his own fetishistic amusement.
And you, Eric, wish me penalized? I have broken no rule -- and you wrote the rules! No, I think it is our noble Judge who is at the root of this trouble, for while he informed you of my secret weapon, he left it to me to discover yours on my own. The fact that I was able to do so in no way mitigates the unfairness with which I was treated, in not being informed, as were you, of my opponent's plans.
And so where are we now? Well. I'm ahead. And I intend to stay there. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat some meat and try, along with the savory flesh, to choke down some of the rage which you have inspired in me with your calumious ramblings.
(by the way I'm glad you still have that mirror-collage of you. it suits you).
Posted by: guy at September 8, 2004 08:54 PM