It has come to my attention that one of the BeefStakes competitors may have access to private logs of the other competitor.
The competitor in question refused to confirm or deny if they had gained access to the other competitor’s logs, so I must assume that the competitor has discovered an exploit.
Since one competitor knows that the other competitor is keeping a private log and the other competitor has all but admitted to figuring out that the other has a private log, it is time the the whole charade is dropped.
When first approached about the idea of a private beef consumption log. I gave my approval, but quickly concluded that a private log would unbalance the competition, so in the spirit of fairplay, I informed the other competitor about the presense of the secret log.
I assume the competitors will have a lot to say about this.
Posted by guy at September 31, 2004 10:31 AMIn the spirit of fairplay?! The spirit of fairplay would, in my opinion, be to allow the originator of a good and legal idea to take advantage of it. The spirit of fairplay does not prescribe taking someone's own stragtegy, in this case secrecy, away from him and then gifting it to his opponent. The spirit of fairplay should reward me for innovation, not punish me for it.
If you felt that secret logging was unfair, you should have simply told me to stop. That would have settled it. But to simply give my secret weapon to my opponent while simultaneously taking it away from me, simply because my weapon was a powerful one, is just plain wrong. He wrote the rules in which I found a loophole. It should be up to him to discover and exploit his own mistakes. As my opponent, he does not deserve my help.
If anyone else in whom I had confided my "secret" had told Eric, I would have felt betrayed. But the Judge himself? How baised is that? I am profoundly disappointed in you, Max. I had thought better of you. And it saddens me.
A fair Judge should be impartial and dispassionate. He should not take such pity on the loser of the race he judges that he skews the game in the loser's favor. He should allow the winnner to win and the loser to lose, fairly, so long as they both equally obey the rules.
In my opinion, Max, you have compromised not only your Judgeship, but the entire competition. I wanted you for Judge because I thought you would be wise and moral. This action of yours was neither. I trusted you and you turned my faith in you against me.
How could you?
And now, as I said, I feel the competition has, far from being enhanced, suffered a mortal blow. Because fairness has not been preserved.
For shame.
Posted by: guy at September 12, 2004 07:09 AMGuy,
I would respectfully suggest that you re-read your Official Rules. They contain not a small amount of guidance with respect to the issues you so screechingly raise.
Specifically, Rule 12 provides, in relevant part, that "The rules may also be amended by [the] Judge acting solely, at his discretion. There can be no appeal to any decisions or amendments made by the Judge." And yet, despite the clarity of this edict, you have so flagrantly violated the 12th Commandment of BeefStakes by DARING to question our Noble Judge: "In the spirit of fairplay?! The spirit of fairplay would, in my opinion, be to allow the originator of a good and legal idea to take advantage of it. The spirit of fairplay does not prescribe taking someone's own stragtegy [sic], in this case secrecy, away from him and then gifting it to his opponent. The spirit of fairplay should reward me for innovation, not punish me for it." Ahem. Your brazen plea is clearly an appeal of his decision, which is FORBIDDEN (i.e. "there can be no appeal to any decisions or amendments made by the Judge."). What do you have to say for yourself? Shame. It's up to Max to decide what to do with you for this outrageous abuse. If I were him, I wouldn't go lightly. An example is necessary.
I would also point out Judgment Requirement 1 which states, in relevant part: "On the basis of the rules above, the Judge shall, at his discretion, decide upon a winner." What, pray tell, do you think this means? THAT HE GETS TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, I would argue. Including, I might add, invalidating meat weights if he so chooses. In declaring him the Judge, we vested in him the discretion to follow his own logic. Who are we to question this logic? Who are we to even surmise this logic? That's why we picked him, because he's the man for the job. Shit, if I were a hundred lbs ahead at the end and Max decided I didn't deserve the win, I would accept his decision. It's, after all, "at his discretion."
Your pitiful croaking about "mortal blows" and "compromised Judgeships" is almost too much to bear. You had every right, prior to appointing him Judge, to suggest the candidacy of someone else, anyone else, hell, even your own son, as Judge. But no, you chose Max, based on our mutual appreciation of and respect for his decades of demonstrated wisdom. And now, after what you perceive is a miscarriage of justice, you're ready to revoke his Gavel? Puhleease. This smacks of a schoolyard tantrum. Kindly make your way to the little boy's room. In your excitement, you may have pooped your pants.
Posted by: Eric at September 14, 2004 04:33 AM