Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Putting pudding farmers out of business

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 6:04:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Hello rgrn.

After a week of philosophing about writing a nethack bot in #nethack and
after zapzero patched netcat to do some nethack work I finally sat on my
lazy ass and scribbled together a perl script that interacts with
netcat, parses its input and puts something out again.
To be more precise, it's parsing for some nethack input and then gives
nethack output.

Or, to be even more precise, it does the job of pudding farming for you.
It even feeds itself when hungry. It sacrifices pudding corpses and
prays to your god. It removes scrolls of scare monster from the altar.
It stops on critical encounters, like petrification, becoming weak or dying.

Still, there are things it does not yet do. It doesn't clean up the
altar, for example. That means that you still have to wade through more
than 1000 (i.w.: one thousand) pages of stuff after twelve hours. Not to
mention more than 4000 (i.w.: four thousand) hitpoints and a naked AC of
-128.


So, if you now feel that I did something Bad (and that's Bad with a
capital B) then you are invited to deface FarmBots Wiki, call me nasty
names and ignore me.

If you think that this is a nice toy or even want to extend it to more
useful purpose you can download FarmBot, give feedback, even get write
access to the subversion repository FarmBot lives in and send me
screenshots of your botted Pudding Farm.


All this and more at:
http://scavenger.homeip.net/farmbot/

Wearing a ring of flame resistance,
Benjamin
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 6:04:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

It's appaling.

Very impressive though. Congrats. :-)
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 6:04:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

Benjamin Schieder wrote:

> http://scavenger.homeip.net/farmbot/

I haven't even gone to look yet, but that is simply
awesome.

You'd need a truck to carry all the blessed +9 elven
daggers you could acquire pudding farming that way.

You must be at least 1% of the way to a full
NetHack-o-matic, something widely considered
impossible even in concept, and if you can figure
out a near-guarantee of pudding farming, probably by
a "wipe out the Mines Town priest" strategy, that
good a set of stats _should_ suffice to carry the
PC, juggernaut style, through the rest of the
dungeon pretty mechanically, with no real strategy,
just "charge straight ahead" and a few tactics for
the special cases like Medusa and monsters who
teleport to the up-stairs.

I wouldn't use your toy myself, in my own games, I'm
one of the weirdos that find patience games _fun_,
but I might watch it just for amusement for a while,
and I will surely read your code, my rusty Perl
skills could use the reading exercise.

Well done!

[And if Damerell and the rest of the killjoys
have their way with forcing the game into their
Procrustean "play my way or don't play" bed's
confines, your name will go down beside
eis-Brian in the NetHack annals of "those who
proved their point by irrefutable example".]

Now to wait 'til the next release, and see whether
the DevTeam find the game being beatable by a 'bot
with a strategy most humans can't or won't employ,
sufficient reason to remove a fun feature to abuse
for the few, the proud, the Patience Gamers.

xanthian, in awe.

I suspect your 'bot would need source changes in
NetHack, feeding ASCII mode out the side, to play in
tiles mode, right? For me, it would be more fun to
watch that way.

[Maybe you should open a NetHack-o-matic source
page on your wiki, and see what the "programming
strictly for the glory of it" community can do
given your start? Probably, a 'bot could be
broken down into less than a hundred situational
problems to solve (he says naively), and each
given to a separate coder or team of coders, if
someone were willing to mastermind the high
level analysis part of the effort.]
Related resources
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 6:04:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

Benjamin Schieder wrote:

> And a proper state machine in the code, somthing
> that is still lacking in the FarmBot.

Perhaps not. The game, tickled, provides almost all
the state you need, in response.

>> I wouldn't use your toy myself, in my own games,
>> I'm one of the weirdos that find patience games
>> _fun_, but I might watch it just for amusement
>> for a while, and I will surely read your code, my
>> rusty Perl skills could use the reading exercise.

> I had a farm going myself on a local game once and
> found the game pretty easy past that point. Having
> never ascended before I decided to escape that
> character in celestial disgrace.

I tend to get bored, and either YASD, or set the
game aside, once my character gets fairly buff. As a
result, playing since the game was first released,
I've never ascended, and most likely won't. It's the
early buffing up part I seem to enjoy, rarely going
more than 10 or 11 levels down before the thrill
goes away and I find ways to need to start a new PC.

>> [And if Damerell and the rest of the killjoys
>> have their way with forcing the game into
>> their Procrustean "play my way or don't play"
>> bed's confines, your name will go down beside
>> eis-Brian in the NetHack annals of "those who
>> proved their point by irrefutable example".]

> --verbose, please?

In the 2003 /dev/null tournment Brian, a member of
the eis(eit?) team, cornered Pestilence in Astral
with no room left for any other monster to move, and
with a keyboard macro pasted once per kill, ran up
the score until he rolled the 2^31 score counter
negative, then deliberately let himself be killed by
a newt. It was a triumph in proving that NetHack
high scores are meaningless as a measure of player
skill, there is no limit to how high you can take
your score beyond how many points the score counter
can hold, even for a character who doesn't ascend.

As a result, in the 2004 /dev/null tournament, robin
and cohorts, taking that lesson to heart, put in
_lots_ of other prizes than strictly
high-score-based ones. Brian had proved his point in
a way no one could deny.

Setting up a 'bot that can pudding farm until the
player character is ridiculously buff makes a very
similar point: any feature in the game that _can be_
abused without imposing an irreversable state change
(killing the Mines Town priest to get your donation
back is an abuse, but one with a state change,
preventing you doing the same thing over and over),
can be abused essentially without end, distorting
the game to some ridiculous extreme, as in the stats
you cited.

Like your 'bot, Brian's keyboard "pasted macro"
automated his chosen abuse sufficiently to make it
possible, without it his hands would probably have
fallen off at the wrists.

So the problem the DevTeam must face is whether it
is responsible for removing fun abuses that are only
problems if an automated cheat is used in a place
where comparing _player_ skills, not _'bot_ skills,
is supposed to be happening, like tournaments or
shared NetHack servers.

I don't envy them the problem, but there were lots
of players like me who loved the earlier available
abuses but saw them removed in the past, so they
have precedent on their side if they chose removal.

The problem would be that removing the ability to
abuse pudding farming will take out a lot of the
fun that adding puddings to the game was originally
supposed to provide.

[Similarly, "credit cloning" is the unintended
consequence of an earlier fix for a player with
teleportitus being yanked from the shop with
some unpaid item, shoplifting unintentionally,
by letting him/her drop money before picking up
any item, from which credit the shopkeeper would
then deduct the items price rather than declare
Kop/shopkeeper war on the vanished PC, and
letting the PC later go back and pick up the
remaining PC-owned cash from within the pile on
the shop floor. Taking out the unintended
ability to credit clone by abusing the same
allowed behaviors would need either another
rendition of the prior fix to be invented as
well, or a _very_ careful repair to the current
one. Alternately, though, the DevTeam could just
decide that credit cloning is just as legitimate
a form of shoplifting as any other, and poses
less risk of death to the shopkeepers.]

You end up with a fix driven by the mantra "first,
do no harm", turning software maintenance into a
subskill of the Healer's trade, not necessarily a
bad thing, from my "almost 44 years as a programmer"
perspective.

HTH

xanthian.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 7:11:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

begin quoting Benjamin Schieder <blindcoder@scavenger.homeip.net>:
>To be more precise, it's parsing for some nethack input and then gives
>nethack output.
>Or, to be even more precise, it does the job of pudding farming for you.
>So, if you now feel that I did something Bad (and that's Bad with a
>capital B)

I think you did something Good, with a capital G. Maybe now it'll get
fixed.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Thursday, February.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:24:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

begin quoting Vintermann <scallassig@mailexpire.com>:
>It's appaling.

What is? Spare us these Google contextless followups!
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Thursday, February.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 8:28:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

Benjamin Schieder wrote:

> Guess I've started something that I didn't really
> intend to :( 

Not to worry, even the most avid pudding farmer will
tell you the habit is hard on the furniture.

You need not feel upset for pointing out something
that was already well known, in a way to make the
point much more firmly: pudding farming uses game
features in a way not originally intended.

But then, finding those chances is half the fun of
NetHack, isn't it? As in your PuddingFarming page,
if the possibility in there, some of us, or someone
else somewhere in the NetHack player community, will
find a use for it.

The smart ones don't brag when they find such a
loophole, though, they just use those nitch
mechanisms to win tournaments very, very quietly.

Smart ones like, say, Marvin picking up and dropping
an item in a shop several times to see both prices
and confirm which ambiguous case it is, bypassing
the confusion intent of the sometimes 1/3rd price
boost in contravention to its software design goal.

That's just another tool, like pudding farming, that
has as its foremost requierment the patience to use
it. So, your next 'bot upgrade could be a module to
make it also a dual price ID bot! <grin> Of course,
now #start would have to take a "do-what?" parameter.

There's also room in module-want-it land for a
wand-IDing-zap 'bot, a "find the hidden door on this
level" 'bot, and my biggest module-want-it, an
"untrap chest 8 times unless warned of a trap or a
monster arrives" 'bot, to save me the obnoxious 5
keystrokes per try and frequent "where did _that_
come from" YASDs it takes to be "sufficiently sure"
a chest isn't trapped while not getting killed in
the process. Of course, I'd be almost as happy if ^A
were upgraded to capture a whole #untrap sequence
with smart baleout if the unexpected trap is found,
or if #untrap worked more like "ns", and just kept
trying every possible trap site from the PC's
location for "n" tries, or until something
interesting were found or interrupted, rather than
the current too-effortful dialogue.

xanthian, panicked with the fast upcoming huge
lifestyle change back to homelessness and into
cross-country bikeabout mode, now less than a week
away.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 10:00:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

> I haven't even gone to look yet, but that is simply
> awesome.
Thanks :-)

> You must be at least 1% of the way to a full
> NetHack-o-matic, something widely considered
> impossible even in concept, and if you can figure
I don't think it's impossible. But it would include a hell of a lot work
to be done. And a proper state machine in the code, somthing that is
still lacking in the FarmBot.

> I wouldn't use your toy myself, in my own games, I'm
> one of the weirdos that find patience games _fun_,
> but I might watch it just for amusement for a while,
> and I will surely read your code, my rusty Perl
> skills could use the reading exercise.
I had a farm going myself on a local game once and found the game pretty
easy past that point. Having never ascended before I decided to escape
that character in celestial disgrace.

> [And if Damerell and the rest of the killjoys
> have their way with forcing the game into their
> Procrustean "play my way or don't play" bed's
> confines, your name will go down beside
> eis-Brian in the NetHack annals of "those who
> proved their point by irrefutable example".]
--verbose, please?

> I suspect your 'bot would need source changes in
> NetHack, feeding ASCII mode out the side, to play in
> tiles mode, right? For me, it would be more fun to
> watch that way.
No. All it needs is a way to communicate with nethack. In my case I use
dgamelaunch style game servers like nethack.alt.org.

> [Maybe you should open a NetHack-o-matic source
> page on your wiki, and see what the "programming
> strictly for the glory of it" community can do
> given your start? Probably, a 'bot could be
> broken down into less than a hundred situational
> problems to solve (he says naively), and each
> given to a separate coder or team of coders, if
> someone were willing to mastermind the high
> level analysis part of the effort.]

Anyone asking will get write access to the repository. I would be happy
if people would take that bit of 4-day-hacked-together perl code and
make something _really_ useful out of it :-)


Greetings,
Benjamin
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:31:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

> Perhaps not. The game, tickled, provides almost all
> the state you need, in response.
Yes, but the program would need to make decisions based upon whether the
PC is hungry, low on HP, petrificating and so on. Right now the FarmBot
has the following states: praying, saccing, eating, killing,
getthe?oSMthatkeepspuddingsfromcoming. Or something alike :-)

> [ on overflowing the score counter ]
Ah yes. I just couldn't do something with the name Brian.

> [ on credit cloning ]
There's a "fix" for this floating around. Basically, the shk would take
the money into its inventory and give it back to you by #chat'ing.
But I got your point that something will get removed if over-abused.

Guess I've started something that I didn't really intend to :( 


Greetings,
blindy
February 18, 2005 4:38:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <1108690092.114143.229020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com> wrote:

>You need not feel upset for pointing out something
>that was already well known, in a way to make the
>point much more firmly: pudding farming uses game
>features in a way not originally intended.

So does surviving the planes :-)

This game was intended to be impossible to win, it seems.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 5:21:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> begin quoting Benjamin Schieder <blindcoder@scavenger.homeip.net>:
>>Or, to be even more precise, it does the job of pudding farming for you.
>>So, if you now feel that I did something Bad (and that's Bad with a
>>capital B)
>
> I think you did something Good, with a capital G. Maybe now it'll get
> fixed.

Fixed? Why?

Remove pudding farming, and you'll just get characters with =oSD
and the Eye, casting create monster. (How do you think extinctionists
do it?)

Its nethack. You can basically live forever. You can get -127 AC.
You can get 10,000 hps. Or 10,000 mp. You can be rich beyond your
wildest dreams. Have 10 /oDeath with the PYEC. Have scary pets.
Do insane damage. Destroy the riders.

Pudding farming is pudding farming. Some people like it enough to
do it. Other players do not.

If you consider it to be Something Bad, then there are a lot of Bad
Things in nethack.

--
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead. -- RFC 1925
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 6:35:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

Jakob Creutzig wrote:

> [Yes, in that case you could, with clever usage of
> conflict, also produce limitless puddings, but
> that would be a painful business requiring quite
> some skill, so I wouldn't have too much problems
> with that.]

But in fact, isn't that exactly the situation now?

The mechanism for pudding farming is well known, but
technically very fussy to do well; some players will
go to incedible amounts of pre-preparations to
ensure a very precise, repeatable, almost ritual
pudding farming experience, with boulders here,
Elbereths there, pits somewhere else, scare monster
scrolls still another place; others will go totally
unstructured, just take a stand in a Temple and
whack puddings 'til their arms are ready to fall
off, dealing with exception situations on a case by
case basis.

And still others would hold their breath 'til they
died rather than endure something so completely
mindless; in fact, that seems to be the vast
majority. For most players, pudding farming even
once is one time too many.

For others, though, no matter how _close_ to
impossible you make it, if it is still possible,
they'll probably be doing it each and every game
they don't YASD first.

That, it seems to me, is purely a difference in
human personalities, and it just irritates me to
hell that those whose personalities reject pudding
farming as "fun for them", insist on rejecting it
as "fun for me" too, despite my contrary evaluation
of the merit of the practice. I like it, I like it
a lot, yet it is never, ever going to be the
mechanism of an ascension for me, because I'm nearly
stone cold guaranteed, me being me, never to ascend
at all, nor is it going to bump anyone off my
private score table but me, if I run up some huge
score with it before the inevitable YASD.

So who, exactly, takes harm from me pudding farming,
and the game being left alone to leave that possible
for me and those few others willing to do it?

> risk free

I probably failed to mention that in my last pudding
farming expedition, I had two peaceful demons to
avoid at every step as well, since my orcish
wizards, sooner or later, _always_ forgetfully
sacrifice an orc or more usually a goblin to Anhur.
And, having made that mistake, make it again, and
agian, and again. Luckily after a while that mostly
yields foocubi.

Having Juiblex and Yeehengu as your constant
audience lends pudding farming a whole new aspect of
terror, when every step can be your last. That's not
"risk free", nor is any pudding farming, since
arriving monsters can easily find you just one
ritual boring repetitive swat at a pudding too
distracted to save your own life.

IMO

xanthian.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 6:50:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

This is Kent Paul Dolan for forever:
> Benjamin Schieder wrote:
>
> > http://scavenger.homeip.net/farmbot/
>
> I haven't even gone to look yet, but that is simply
> awesome.
>
> You'd need a truck to carry all the blessed +9 elven
> daggers you could acquire pudding farming that way.
>
> You must be at least 1% of the way to a full
> NetHack-o-matic, something widely considered
> impossible even in concept, and if you can figure
> out a near-guarantee of pudding farming, probably by
> a "wipe out the Mines Town priest" strategy, that
> good a set of stats _should_ suffice to carry the
> PC, juggernaut style, through the rest of the
> dungeon pretty mechanically, with no real strategy,
> just "charge straight ahead" and a few tactics for
> the special cases like Medusa and monsters who
> teleport to the up-stairs.

A "NetHack-o-matic" would be interesting, but the logic would be too
complicated to be "human-readable" :p 

[]s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil - 29.55° S
/ 51.11° W / GMT-2h / 15m .

"People told me I can't dress like a fairy.
I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!"
-- Amy Lee

(My e-mail address isn't read. Please reply to the group!)
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 7:08:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> Surely, unless pudding farming isn't changed, everyone
> can 'win' almost any trophy in coming tournaments using
> the script, making those void.

I don't know about that. A farmbot removes the patience aspect from the
game, but Conduct Ascensions (IMHO, the major prizes in the tournament)
aren't necessarily about patience. And Fastest Ascension is one of the
hardest 'conducts' since mere patience won't help you at all.

Sam
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:25:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> Jakob Creutzig wrote:
>
> > [Yes, in that case you could, with clever usage of
> > conflict, also produce limitless puddings, but
> > that would be a painful business requiring quite
> > some skill, so I wouldn't have too much problems
> > with that.]
>
> And still others would hold their breath 'til they
> died rather than endure something so completely
> mindless; in fact, that seems to be the vast
> majority. For most players, pudding farming even
> once is one time too many.
>

I did it and it was a hoot. It does feel like nethack abuse, so I
didn't ascend and was thereby forgiven by the gods. But just having
all those wonderful artifacts just once sort of gives you an Idea of
what it is like to be Bill Gates. Rich and guilty. Of course there is
wizmode, but that's not the same.

The appallaing thing about pudding farming is the immensity of effect
it has on the game. If Puddings extincted, i.e. didn't divide after
there were 256 of them (?) in the game, dead or alive, puddng farming
would become just another tactic like boulder pushing, pet morphing,
and snuggling up to nurses and foocubi. Hell, when I was setting up
my pudding farm level, which was a lot of work, a succubus showed up
and I got 7 (seven) levels out of her. Is that abuse or tactical
wisdom? I'm sure many would argue both sides.

--
Cheers!
Tsingi
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 12:32:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> writes:

> In the 2003 /dev/null tournment Brian, a member of
> the eis(eit?) team, cornered Pestilence in Astral

eit-brad, IIRC.

--
Panu
"You haven't really been anywhere until you've got back home",
Twoflower in "The Light Fantastic"
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 1:25:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

james wrote:

> Remember when they put the kibosh on ghouls? I expect something
> similar here. It would be very simple to just make the P's stop
> dividing after 120 are created.

I prefer the idea of reducing maxhp as well as hp during pudding split.
It seems a more "natural" way to do it.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 2:35:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jesse Meyer <meyer_spammenot_@ideaone.net> writes:

> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > begin quoting Benjamin Schieder <blindcoder@scavenger.homeip.net>:
> >>Or, to be even more precise, it does the job of pudding farming for you.
> >>So, if you now feel that I did something Bad (and that's Bad with a
> >>capital B)
> >
> > I think you did something Good, with a capital G. Maybe now it'll get
> > fixed.
>
> Fixed? Why?
>
> Remove pudding farming, and you'll just get characters with =oSD
> and the Eye, casting create monster. (How do you think extinctionists
> do it?)

You first have to get the ring, the Eye and the cm spell.
Besides, this still bears some risks (arch-lich summoning
arch-lich or even nastier guys) within, unless you're already
ascension-kitted.

The objection against the farming is not that it allows arbitrary
gains, but that it does so completely riskless and without need
of even the least amount of skill or thought or luck other
than knowing how to farm and to survive until one stumbles
over a brown pudding. Which is not really that much skill
or luck needed. Remember that we're not talking about
farming twenty or two hundred puddings, but about farming
till you have anything one can get in the game.

Surely, unless pudding farming isn't changed, everyone
can 'win' almost any trophy in coming tournaments using
the script, making those void. Actually I played with the
thought of writing such a farming script myself, then
demonstrating it on the tournament (not that I would claim
to deserver the trophies, just for demonstration purposes),
but apparently I was beaten before I started ;-).

Changing it would be easy enough, I believe, by performing
the divide routine just like the multiply routine for
gremlins. [Yes, in that case you could, with clever usage
of conflict, also produce limitless puddings, but that
would be a painful business requiring quite some skill,
so I wouldn't have too much problems with that.]

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 3:24:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> Jesse Meyer <meyer_spammenot_@ideaone.net> writes:

>> Remove pudding farming, and you'll just get characters with =oSD
>> and the Eye, casting create monster. (How do you think
>> extinctionists do it?)

> You first have to get the ring, the Eye and the cm spell.

An extinctionist's first requirement is patience. Anyone with patience
will get a ring of slow digestion, the Eye of the Aethiopica, and the
create monster spell eventually.

> Remember that we're not talking about farming twenty or two hundred
> puddings, but about farming till you have anything one can get in
> the game.

Believe me, you don't need either pudding farming or extinctionalistic
intentions for that. Patience is enough: I speak from experience. My
name is Efembe.

> Changing it would be easy enough, I believe, by performing
> the divide routine just like the multiply routine for
> gremlins. [Yes, in that case you could, with clever usage
> of conflict, also produce limitless puddings, but that
> would be a painful business requiring quite some skill,
> so I wouldn't have too much problems with that.]

A bot could probably be written for that purpose, as well...

--
Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).

The garden of happiness is surrounded by a wall so low only children
can look over it. - "the Orphanage of Hits", former Dutch radio show.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 3:24:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> Having Juiblex and Yeehengu as your constant
> audience lends pudding farming a whole new aspect of
> terror, when every step can be your last.

They'll follow you to another level, where you can ditch them. The
bottom of the mines is a favorite (anywhere below Minetown, really).
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 3:35:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> (killing the Mines Town priest to get your donation
> back is an abuse, but one with a state change,
> preventing you doing the same thing over and over)

I wouldn't call that an abuse. On the other hand, using poly, poly
control, and charm monster to repeatedly become a leprechaun, rob the
VoD priest, pacify, and donate again might be.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 3:42:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> james wrote:
>
> > Remember when they put the kibosh on ghouls? I expect something
> > similar here. It would be very simple to just make the P's stop
> > dividing after 120 are created.
>
> I prefer the idea of reducing maxhp as well as hp during pudding
split.
> It seems a more "natural" way to do it.
>

I sure hope I get to try farming before it's taken out of the game...

YANI - pudding growing

-- The brown pudding doubles as you hit it! --

No more dividing for pudding: once in a while, a pudding doubles its HP
instead of dividing. This would make it very hard to kill. You hit it
and once in a while it doubles. I am not sure what it would add to the
game, but I kinda like the idea of a monster that you have difficulty
getting rid of.

If you add to that an expansion of the monster - a la long worm - you
really have a problem. Giving it some kind of vulnerabilty (fire?)
would help for sure. You can burn or slash part of it - but it's all
the same monster and until you completely get rid of it it stays there.


It get rids of the farming, and create something completely different
that can be a puzzle by itself.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 3:50:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> The problem would be that removing the ability to abuse pudding farming
> will take out a lot of the fun that adding puddings to the game was
> originally supposed to provide.

What fun was adding puddings supposed to provide? If you play in a "normal"
sort of way, you'll probably never get more than a few splits for a given
pudding. If you modified the pudding-splitting code to reduce maxhp for
split puddings, it would still allow this, but reduce the amount of splits
possible to a finite number. There are other things you could change as
well that I don't believe would be counter to the original intent of
puddings, such as changing how the "death drop" works (e.g. have only the
"original" pudding able to create a death drop).

I don't believe that doing either of these things would remove any of the
fun that puddings were "supposed" to provide.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 4:25:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

This is the quick fix to pudding farming. Put an option in the Nethack
defaults file that lets you turn on or off if you will see puddings or
not in your game. Then for things such as tournments if the one hosting
it does not wish players farming puddings they just make it so no
puddings show up in any of the Tournment games.

There you go quick fix for you. Now you don't have to mess with the
game that I have on my computer and remove features just because you
don't like them. You instead add a small feature so that way if you
share a computer with someone you can be on more equel footing... if
you want to be.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 4:30:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Sammiel wrote:
> Jakob Creutzig wrote:

> I don't know about that. A farmbot removes the patience aspect from
> the game,

No. Only from farming, not from the game.

> And Fastest Ascension is one of the hardest 'conducts' since mere
> patience won't help you at all.

Fastest ascension is not "hard", it is lucky. It very much depends on
starting inventory and lucky finds. I think in the tournament, it should
really be awarded per class.

--
Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).

The garden of happiness is surrounded by a wall so low only children
can look over it. - "the Orphanage of Hits", former Dutch radio show.
February 18, 2005 5:04:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Mumon wrote:
> Now you don't have to mess with the game that I have on my computer
> and remove features just because you don't like them.

Changes in new versions don't do this either.
(Not that I'd like to see pudding farming changed)
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 6:02:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

begin quoting Jesse Meyer <meyer_spammenot_@ideaone.net>:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>begin quoting Benjamin Schieder <blindcoder@scavenger.homeip.net>:
>>>Or, to be even more precise, it does the job of pudding farming for you.
>>>So, if you now feel that I did something Bad (and that's Bad with a
>>>capital B)
>>I think you did something Good, with a capital G. Maybe now it'll get
>>fixed.
>Remove pudding farming, and you'll just get characters with =oSD
>and the Eye, casting create monster.

That is significantly more dangerous, at least.

>Its nethack. You can basically live forever. You can get -127 AC.
>You can get 10,000 hps. Or 10,000 mp.

Generally, yes, I'm not a fan of either the possibility to indefinitely
increase HP, MP, AC, intrinsic damage, etc.; or of the fact that there is
no clock on the middle game.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Friday, February.
February 18, 2005 8:02:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <hi84vc.tfu.ln@btinet.net>,
Jesse Meyer <meyer_spammenot_@ideaone.net> wrote:

>Its nethack. You can basically live forever.

The devteam has been consistently trying to eliminate the possibility of
living forever. Remember when you could have unchanging and never
starve?

The loophole with pudding farming is that of endless food.
February 18, 2005 8:06:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <apis4q5f5g.fsf@fb04349.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>,
Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:

>Surely, unless pudding farming isn't changed, everyone
>can 'win' almost any trophy in coming tournaments using
>the script, making those void.

Remember when they put the kibosh on ghouls? I expect something
similar here. It would be very simple to just make the P's stop
dividing after 120 are created. Why can't the same effects be had from
gremlins?

Another idea would be to make puddings divide and produce green slimes
every once in a while. Or make them really nasty, like able to take
fooproofing off something in your inventory.
February 18, 2005 8:07:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <cv4j8v$g6o$1@news1.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:

>Believe me, you don't need either pudding farming or extinctionalistic
>intentions for that. Patience is enough: I speak from experience. My
>name is Efembe.

With all due respect, very few of Efembe's techniques can be used today.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:35:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

james wrote:
> Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:

>> Believe me, you don't need either pudding farming or
>> extinctionalistic intentions for that. Patience is enough: I speak
>> from experience. My name is Efembe.

> With all due respect, very few of Efembe's techniques can be used
> today.

His main weapon was the cursed bell of opening, indeed. But as far as I
recall, that was his main "abuse". It just speeded things up. I ran that
character over two years, so even without that trick, patience would
have sufficed, I guess.

I don't really remember hohw I ran that game, although I still have the
posts about it, and also the save file.

--
Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).

The garden of happiness is surrounded by a wall so low only children
can look over it. - "the Orphanage of Hits", former Dutch radio show.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 1:15:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes:
> Surely, unless pudding farming isn't changed, everyone can 'win'
> almost any trophy in coming tournaments using the script, making
> those void.

This would be compelling, were tournament play the sole purpose,
or even the primary purpose, of nethack.

The script is of significance (in terms of tournament play) only to
that set of players who 1) play in tournaments, and 2) wish to P-farm
but 3) either find it too tedious, or lack the skill to bring it off
properly, or both.

I contend that this hypothetical set of people is vanishingly small,
in general and in comparison to the set of people who enjoy quiet
P-farming now and again on single-user systems.

Why don't I save time, and cut right to the part where we claim that
the current crop of tournament winners were all using 'bots (which
they developed in secret) ? After all, there's no way they can prove
they weren't, so it HAS to be true.

Ha ha ha?
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 1:45:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> writes:
> [...] it just irritates me to hell that those whose personalities
> reject pudding farming as "fun for them", insist on rejecting it as
> "fun for me" too, despite my contrary evaluation of the merit of the
> practice.

I'm in complete agreement with you on this point, as a matter of
philosophy and principle, but I still feel compelled to ask:

> So who, exactly, takes harm from me pudding farming, and the game
> being left alone to leave that possible for me and those few others
> willing to do it?

You know, even if the Dev Team released a new version tomorrow which
completely eliminated any possibility of P-farming, that in no way
endows them or anyone else with the power to grab your computer in the
middle of the night and forcibly install that new version when you're
happy with the current one.

If we were talking about Microsoft Visual NetHack.NET Sharp++ (for
dummies, in just 10 days) that might indeed be the case. We aren't,
and it isn't.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 12:50:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

Douglas Henke wrote:
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> writes:

>> [...] it just irritates me to hell that those
>> whose personalities reject pudding farming as
>> "fun for them", insist on rejecting it as "fun
>> for me" too, despite my contrary evaluation of
>> the merit of the practice.

> I'm in complete agreement with you on this point,
> as a matter of philosophy and principle,

Thanks.

> but I still feel compelled to ask:

>> So who, exactly, takes harm from me pudding
>> farming, and the game being left alone to leave
>> that possible for me and those few others willing
>> to do it?

> You know, even if the Dev Team released a new
> version tomorrow which completely eliminated any
> possibility of P-farming, that in no way endows
> them or anyone else with the power to grab your
> computer in the middle of the night and forcibly
> install that new version when you're happy with
> the current one.

Well, that's the theory, but in the case, I'm
leaving this computer behind me and going on a two
month bikeabout household move. When I get to the
other end, I may or may not find my media still
intact, I won't have money to buy a working computer
for a while, and the DevTeam may well have released
another NetHack, 3.4.4, I suppose, before I get back
to where I can play NetHack at home.

At that point I'd be, in the short term, stuck with
a choice between losing pudding farming or losing
all the new features, hoped for merged existing
patches, and bug fixes, a sad choice to be forced to
make.

Not that it would be a long term issue, because I'd
be able to diff the sources and extract the change
that disabled pudding farming (I really can do C
code for a living, I'd just immensely prefer to do
it in a Real OS, like Linux, not this crippled
beast), and build a non-standard Nethack "3.4.4 +=
pudding farming".

That, however, would leave me no longer playing
"vanilla", and commenting in RGRN on gleeful
progress in _my_ games, when I have different
opportunities than others do, wouldn't seem quite
fair.

As Tsingi just commented, the game is a hoot, but
it's a hoot full of loot, when pudding farming.

Continuing to comment as if I were playing the same
game as others, would feel vaguely like bringing
your own patched game to the /dev/null tournament:
the playing field is no long level, and suspicions
of cheating would be rife, whether I were cheating
or not.

> If we were talking about Microsoft Visual
> NetHack.NET Sharp++ (for dummies, in just 10 days)
> that might indeed be the case. We aren't, and it
> isn't.

It isn't a physical compulsion, but I'm a frequent
slave to duty, and duty would find me playing
Vanilla.

xanthian.

And "Microsoft Visual NetHack" just put me deeply
into "virtual hurl mode", too.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:16:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

Mumon wrote:

> This is the quick fix to pudding farming. Put an
> option in the Nethack defaults file that lets you
> turn on or off if you will see puddings or not in
> your game. Then for things such as tournments if
> the one hosting it does not wish players farming
> puddings they just make it so no puddings show up
> in any of the Tournment games.

Well, probably you don't want the fix to _remove_
puddings, in your defaults file fix, they're a fun
part of the game even when not farmed, and sinks
without puddings would be boring. Instead, just
apply the extinction "how many have been created"
count for splitting as well as summoning, reverse
genociding, and random creation, and refuse to split
one if the allowed population count has been
exceeded.

Pudding farming would drop from a major feature to a
minor feature that way, where an entire farming
experience might well produce nothing more useful
than a good pile of sacrifice fodder, instead of the
current slow hail of "as long as you want to keep
getting them" death dropped goodies.

> There you go quick fix for you. Now you don't have
> to mess with the game that I have on my computer
> and remove features just because you don't like
> them. You instead add a small feature so that way
> if you share a computer with someone you can be on
> more equel footing... if you want to be.

There are _lots_ of features of NetHack currently
controlled by #ifdef at compile time I'd rather see
controlled by default file settings at run time, the
biggest one being the length of the scrollback
message list, currently set small enough at compile
time to run NetHack in machines mostly smaller than
anything sold but "palm-tops", these days, but which
in a big strong box with lots of real memory I'd set
at 20000 or so lines, like I do xterm window scroll
buffers, were it settable instead in the NetHack
defaults file, without requiring me to rebuild
NetHack from source.

Your base idea is good though, and is a more general
solution than just for pudding farming; several
other controversial features could be "fixed" this
way, like credit cloning.

xanthian.

Oh, and apropos of nothing, I'm trying both to set
misc.misc in my postings, and since Google Groups
Beta is now better, and a lot more reliable than
MailGate, and newly provides a followup-to header,
to set followups back only to here. I'm probably
forgetting to do the crosspost a lot more than I'm
forgetting to set the followup, but feel free to
yell at me when I neglect either.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:21:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Boudewijn Waijers wrote on Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:30:52 +0100:

> Fastest ascension is not "hard", it is lucky.

If speed ascensions were luck based, we would see a lot more variety
in the people completing them. In the tournament, the top 20 fastest
games were by only six different players.

Of course there is an element of luck in every game of nethack, but speed
ascension is quite demanding, moreso than a normal ascension. I think
you should try ascending in under 30,000 turns before you begin to
comment on the difficulty.

> It very much depends on starting inventory and lucky finds.

That is true. There will be some games where the RNG simply doesn't
provide enough to give you any chance at all at 10,000 turns. But even
then one can still ascend in a relatively fast time. Take a look at
raven's nine ascensions in the tournament:

Kni Hum Mal Cha 18397 (the number is turns)
Wiz Hum Fem Cha 18682
Ran Elf Fem Cha 20587
Val Dwa Fem Law 21833
Pri Elf Fem Cha 22107
Bar Orc Fem Cha 22448
Sam Hum Mal Law 23163
Hea Gno Fem Neu 26356
Rog Hum Mal Cha 30351

Now consider that all of these were without polypiling, wishing for
artifacts (the Eye), or genocide. Please don't tell me you think this
shows luck on his part.


> I think in the tournament, it should really be awarded per class.

Absolutely.


--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 7:14:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Vintermann wrote:
>>It's appaling.

David Damerell wrote:
>What is? Spare us these Google contextless followups!

Well, the topic of the thread is Benjamin Schieder's pudding farmer
bot, so even if you don't have a way of seeing which post I'm replying
to, it should be guessable. Also, OK, I use google, but when using
non-web based newsreader programs I never had any problem seeing what
was a response to what. But fine, I'll give you contexts. Because to
me, complaints about subparagraph breaches of the great usened
formality laws of 1989 are somewhat more annoying than lack of context,
so if that's what it takes, contexts you shall have.

:-(

-V
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 7:50:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

>
>
>>Fastest ascension is not "hard", it is lucky.
>
>
There is no such thing as a "lucky" ascension imho. Many players play
for years before ever ascending a character, this one included. If
someone can do it under 20,000 turns while remaining wishless,
genocideless, etc then it shows a tremendous amount of skill.

jack
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:39:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> Well, that's the theory, but in the case, I'm
> leaving this computer behind me and going on a two
> month bikeabout household move. When I get to the
> other end, I may or may not find my media still
> intact, I won't have money to buy a working computer
> for a while, and the DevTeam may well have released
> another NetHack, 3.4.4, I suppose, before I get back
> to where I can play NetHack at home.
>

What's stopping you downloading one of the old versions? Nethack.org
currently has links to versions going back to at least 3.2.3 (from a
casual scan of the site).

And if you don't like the latest version, the source is available and
you can modify it so that your score is entirely dependent on your
pudding crop if you feel like it.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 12:24:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@cs.sfu.ca> writes:

> james wrote:
>
> > Remember when they put the kibosh on ghouls? I expect something
> > similar here. It would be very simple to just make the P's stop
> > dividing after 120 are created.
>
> I prefer the idea of reducing maxhp as well as hp during pudding split.
> It seems a more "natural" way to do it.

However, as Boudewijn pointed out, it could be quite possible
to script-abuse that, too, using conflict. The hard upper
limit of 120 (or, say 260, I don't care) creations would be
a more reliable mechanism. Alternately, one could alter the
monster-kills-monster HP gain, of course.

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 12:40:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:

> 1. I didn't say *fast* ascension is lucky. I said *fastest* ascension is
> lucky.
> 2. I didn't say fastest ascension is lucky *only*.
>
> For fast *and* fastest, you need skill. For fastest only, you also need
> luck.

Scoring over more than one ascension could potentially ameliorate the luck
problem.

>>> I think in the tournament, it should really be awarded per class.
>
>> Absolutely.
>
> And no wishing for artifacts (the Eye of the Aethiopica and the Orb of
> Detection, in particular, but the game does not track which you wished
> for).

You mean the Orb of Fate, right? The Orb of Detection confers MR, tele,
half spell damage, and can toggle invis.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 12:45:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

james wrote:

> While I don't disagree with the sentiment that the message should
> contain context, I'm still forced to wonder what newsreaders people
> are using that don't make the subject line obvious.

My newsreader makes the subject line obvious, and also permits me to
retrieve the parent article with a single keystroke, but I still want to
see context.

In this case, going through a thread with subject "putting pudding farmers
out of business", when one comes to a post that contains only the text
"It's appalling", it makes no sense unless one retrieves the parent
article, even with the subject line plainly visible.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:18:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Rast wrote:
> Boudewijn Waijers wrote on Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:30:52 +0100:

>> Fastest ascension is not "hard", it is lucky.

> If speed ascensions were luck based, we would see a lot more variety
> in the people completing them. In the tournament, the top 20 fastest
> games were by only six different players.

1. I didn't say *fast* ascension is lucky. I said *fastest* ascension is
lucky.
2. I didn't say fastest ascension is lucky *only*.

For fast *and* fastest, you need skill. For fastest only, you also need
luck.

>> I think in the tournament, it should really be awarded per class.

> Absolutely.

And no wishing for artifacts (the Eye of the Aethiopica and the Orb of
Detection, in particular, but the game does not track which you wished
for).

--
Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).

The garden of happiness is surrounded by a wall so low only children
can look over it. - "the Orphanage of Hits", former Dutch radio show.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:07:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

begin quoting Mumon <poxsonm@gmail.com>:
>This is the quick fix to pudding farming. Put an option in the Nethack
>defaults file that lets you turn on or off if you will see puddings or
>not in your game.

This is essentially the argument that no abuse should ever be fixed. Would
you also like an option to allow bell-summoned nymphs to drop potions? To
permit Rodney to be paralysed and ditched indefinitely? To permit
polypiling scrolls of mail?

Spare us the context-free followups, too.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Gloucesterday, February.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 5:55:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:

> I think if we don't actively resist Google's
> current attempt to screw up Usenet, we're going to
> be in big trouble.

Gee, much like resisting your attempts to screw up
NetHack? Sauce for the gander, David.

And, I'm posting using Google, and you'll notice the
context, so perhaps you are busy blaming an innocent
party?

I've posted here so far at least four times that the
"show options" at the top of a Google Groups Beta
article contains _another_ "reply" link, which does
exactly what the user wants. Why the Google Groups
Beta developers put a less useful one at the bottom
of articles is subject to endless speculation by
conspiracy theorists.

You haven't seen that?

Oh, right, you've killfiled me, you coward, so you
can keep calling me names without having to read the
responses -- and it keeps you in ignorance and busy
acting the public fool to have done so.

I've got to love the irony.

HNTH

xanthian.

Somebody quote this whole so blunderbrain sees it.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 6:33:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Boudewijn Waijers wrote on Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:18:36 +0100:
> Rast wrote:
> > Boudewijn Waijers wrote on Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:30:52 +0100:
>
> >> Fastest ascension is not "hard", it is lucky.
>
> > If speed ascensions were luck based, we would see a lot more variety
> > in the people completing them. In the tournament, the top 20 fastest
> > games were by only six different players.
>
> 1. I didn't say *fast* ascension is lucky. I said *fastest* ascension is
> lucky.
> 2. I didn't say fastest ascension is lucky *only*.

But you did say that fastest ascension is not "hard".



> >> I think in the tournament, it should really be awarded per class.
>
> > Absolutely.
>
> And no wishing for artifacts (the Eye of the Aethiopica and the Orb of
> Detection, in particular,

Why not? It is part of the game.




--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance
February 21, 2005 7:21:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <1108988054.989500.147270@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Vintermann <scallassig@mailexpire.com> wrote:
>
>
>Vintermann wrote:
>>>It's appaling.
>
>David Damerell wrote:
>>What is? Spare us these Google contextless followups!
>
>Well, the topic of the thread is Benjamin Schieder's pudding farmer
>bot

While I don't disagree with the sentiment that the message should
contain context, I'm still forced to wonder what newsreaders people
are using that don't make the subject line obvious.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:58:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

begin quoting james <fishbowl@conservatory.com>:
>Vintermann <scallassig@mailexpire.com> wrote:
>>Vintermann wrote:
>>>>It's appaling.
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>What is? Spare us these Google contextless followups!
>>Well, the topic of the thread is Benjamin Schieder's pudding farmer bot
>While I don't disagree with the sentiment that the message should
>contain context, I'm still forced to wonder what newsreaders people
>are using that don't make the subject line obvious.

I am not using such a newsreader, but I still can't tell without reference
to the thread tree if he thinks the bot is appalling, or one of the
proposals to tame pudding farming, or the time and patience it takes to
pudding farm, or the tendency for people to use it in the tournament; and
I think if we don't actively resist Google's current attempt to screw up
Usenet, we're going to be in big trouble.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Gloucesterday, February.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:11:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

> In article <1108988054.989500.147270@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Vintermann <scallassig@mailexpire.com> wrote:
>
> >David Damerell wrote:
> >>What is? Spare us these Google contextless followups!
> >
> >Well, the topic of the thread is Benjamin Schieder's pudding farmer
> >bot
>
> While I don't disagree with the sentiment that the message should
> contain context, I'm still forced to wonder what newsreaders people
> are using that don't make the subject line obvious.

It's nothing to do with subject lines (threading doesn't go by subject,
but by the References header), and everything with a. propagation and b.
not needing to go back and forth between two messages.

Richard
February 21, 2005 10:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <yAB*qHOHq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>I am not using such a newsreader, but I still can't tell without reference
>to the thread tree if he thinks the bot is appalling, or one of the
>proposals to tame pudding farming, or the time and patience it takes to
>pudding farm, or the tendency for people to use it in the tournament;

I'm with you David.
!