YAAP: Conducty1

178 views
Skip to first unread message

Shawn Moore

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 2:29:11 AM4/14/07
to
This ascension's running time is 1h 55m 58s, plus about five minutes
(nethack.alt.org removes small ttyrecs because most of the time it's
just someone scumming).

http://alt.org/nethack/dumplog/Conducty1.lastgame.txt

Conducty1, neutral male gnomish Healer


-----
a A..A|
---------..-- ---
|.......|A..-- --
|..LLA..|..@.---%
|...@...-@@...a @
@ |...@...|A...---
|..V....|...-- -- --
---------.A-- ----.----
D A ...| | -------
----- | |
------- % --
| -
---
|


Conducty1 the Herbalist St:18/06 Dx:23 Co:18 In:24 Wi:23 Ch:18 Neutral
S:12550
Astral Plane $:0 HP:997(1083) Pw:165(165) AC:-36 Xp:20/5120000 T:5420
Satiated


Your inventory
Amulets
Q - a blessed amulet of life saving named V:36-40 (being worn)
O - the blessed Eye of the Aethiopica
Armor
v - a blessed fireproof +6 cloak of displacement (being worn)
r - a blessed fireproof +7 Hawaiian shirt (being worn)
m - a blessed rustproof +5 helm of brilliance (being worn)
t - a blessed fireproof +5 pair of gauntlets of dexterity (being
worn)
j - a blessed fireproof +5 pair of jumping boots (being worn)
u - a blessed greased +5 silver dragon scale mail (being worn)
Spellbooks
x - the blessed Book of the Dead
Potions
F - a cursed potion of gain level
Rings
N - a blessed ring of conflict (on left hand)
H - a blessed ring of free action (on right hand)
M - a blessed ring of levitation
I - a blessed ring of slow digestion
Wands
R - a cursed wand of digging (0:7)
K - a wand of digging (0:2)
X - a wand of secret door detection (0:7)
q - a wand of secret door detection (0:4)
W - a wand of teleportation (0:0)
V - a blessed wand of teleportation (0:5)
T - a wand of teleportation (0:7)
S - a wand of teleportation (0:1)
B - a wand of teleportation (1:0)
Tools
b - a blessed greased bag of holding named main
d - the blessed Bell of Opening (0:2)
U - the blessed greased Eyes of the Overworld (being worn)
w - a blessed magic whistle
Z - the blessed greased Orb of Fate (1:0)
i - the blessed greased fireproof Platinum Yendorian Express Card
k - a cursed skeleton key
s - a blessed stethoscope
c - a blessed tooled horn
P - a blessed towel
h - a blessed +0 unicorn horn

Contents of the bag of holding named main:
a blessed amulet of life saving
a blessed amulet of life saving
a blessed amulet of life saving
a blessed amulet of life saving
a blessed amulet of life saving
a blessed amulet of life saving
a cursed -1 helm of opposite alignment
a blessed +5 pair of levitation boots
4 uncursed scrolls of scare monster
5 potions of unholy water
8 potions of holy water named holy water
5 blessed diluted potions of full healing
a wand of probing (0:7)
a wand of cold (0:4)
a wand of light (0:13)
a wand of sleep (0:7)
a wand of sleep (0:7)
a wand of sleep (0:8)
a wand of sleep (0:3)
a wand of striking (0:6)
a wand of striking (0:7)
a wand of striking (0:4)
a wand of striking (0:5)
a wand of teleportation (0:4)
a wand of teleportation (0:8)
a wand of teleportation (0:8)
a wand of teleportation (0:5)
a wand of teleportation (0:5)
a wand of teleportation (0:7)
a wand of teleportation (0:8)
a wand of teleportation (0:8)
a wand of teleportation (0:8)
a wand of teleportation (0:7)
a wand of teleportation (0:6)
a wand of teleportation (0:5)
a wand of teleportation (0:8)
a wand of teleportation (0:5)
a wand of teleportation (0:4)
a wand of teleportation (0:8)
a wand of teleportation (0:8)
a wand of teleportation (0:4)
a wand of teleportation (0:7)
a wand of teleportation (0:7)
a wand of teleportation (0:0)
a wand of teleportation (0:4)
a wand of teleportation (0:4)
a wand of teleportation (0:0)
a wand of teleportation (0:3)
a wand of teleportation (1:0)
a wand of teleportation named empty (2:0)
a wand of teleportation named empty (1:0)
a wand of teleportation named empty (0:0)
a blessed greased fireproof magic harp (1:3)

Final attributes
You were piously aligned
You were poison resistant
You were magic-protected
You were blinded
You saw invisible
You were telepathic
You were warned
You had infravision
You were invisible to others
You were displaced
You caused conflict
You could jump
You were very fast
You had reflection
You had free action
Your life would have been saved
You were lucky (3)
You had extra luck
Good luck did not time out for you
You survived

Spells known in the end
Name Level Category Fail
a - healing 1 healing 0%
b - extra healing 3 healing 0%
c - stone to flesh 3 healing 0%

Vanquished creatures
Juiblex
The Wizard of Yendor (7 times)
a high priest (4 created)
The Cyclops
a master lich (7 created)
2 balrogs (4 created)
a purple worm (6 created)
a gray dragon (5 created)
a silver dragon (9 created)
a black dragon (8 created)
a blue dragon (7 created)
a green dragon (8 created)
a yellow dragon (7 created)
a minotaur (26 created)
a jabberwock (5 created)
a demilich (8 created)
Vlad the Impaler
a master mind flayer (5 created)
a pit fiend (11 created)
a sandestin (3 created)
a titanothere (4 created)
a disenchanter (7 created)
2 vampire lords (29 created)
an aligned priest (42 created)
an ice devil (6 created)
2 nalfeshnees (6 created)
2 vampires (36 created)
5 ghosts (35 created)
2 winged gargoyles (5 created)
2 ogre kings (9 created)
2 rock trolls (17 created)
an umber hulk (11 created)
an Elvenking (4 created)
a hezrou (24 created)
3 bone devils (18 created)
a stalker (14 created)
an elf-lord (5 created)
a sergeant (9 created)
a barbed devil (11 created)
a vrock (7 created)
3 hell hound pups (7 created)
2 warhorses (5 created)
an erinys (3 created)
a marilith (7 created)
2 sharks (13 created)
3 shocking spheres (8 created)
2 leocrottas (8 created)
a stone giant (8 created)
a green slime (5 created)
2 pit vipers (11 created)
2 pythons (9 created)
5 wraiths (50 created)
a horned devil (6 created)
an incubus (3 created)
3 giant beetles (7 created)
a giant spider (18 created)
2 giant eels (40 created)
a jaguar (2 created)
8 snakes (23 created)
2 soldier ants (3 created)
a fire ant (2 created)
2 giant ants (3 created)
a floating eye (7 created)
6 rabid rats (26 created)
a dwarf zombie (14 created)
4 killer bees (50 created)
2 acid blobs (3 created)
a gas spore
2 giant rats (17 created)
2 garter snakes (6 created)
a goblin (5 created)
a lichen (6 created)
a kobold zombie (7 created)
128 creatures vanquished.

Genocided or extinct species:
erinyes (extinct)
1 species extinct.

Voluntary challenges
You went without food
You were an atheist
You never hit with a wielded weapon
You were a pacifist
You were illiterate
You never genocided any monsters
You never polymorphed an object
You never changed form
You used no wishes

Your skills at the end
Fighting Skills
(none)
Weapon Skills
knife [Basic]
Spellcasting Skills
healing spells [Basic]

Goodbye Conducty1 the Demigod...
You went to your reward with 106150 points,
The Bell of Opening (worth 5000 zorkmids and 12500 points)
The Platinum Yendorian Express Card (worth 7000 zorkmids and 17500
points)
The Book of the Dead (worth 10000 zorkmids and 25000 points)
The Eye of the Aethiopica (worth 4000 zorkmids and 10000 points)
The Eyes of the Overworld (worth 2500 zorkmids and 6250 points)
The Orb of Fate (worth 3500 zorkmids and 8750 points)
7 amulets of life saving (worth 1050 zorkmids),
and 0 pieces of gold, after 5420 moves.
Killer: ascended
You were level 20 with a maximum of 1083 hit points when you ascended.

No Points Name
Hp [max]
1 2147483647 Zadir-Pri-Hum-Fem-Neu died on the Astral Plane.
Killed by overexertion.
4140 [4140]
2 2147483647 ctaboir-Wiz-Gno-Fem-Neu ascended to demigoddess-hood.
3 2145937336 greqrg-Wiz-Hum-Mal-Neu ascended to demigod-hood.
297 [297]
4 2101144364 Lorenz-Cav-Gno-Mal-Neu ascended to demigod-hood.
978 [978]
5 2100989450 art-Wiz-Hum-Mal-Neu ascended to demigod-hood.
21799985 [21800000]
6 2025066518 Jove-Wiz-Hum-Mal-Cha ascended to demigod-hood.
1950 [1950]
7 2003016348 Babamus-Wiz-Hum-Mal-Cha ascended to demigod-hood.
14888 [14888]
8 1050706920 Eidolos-Wiz-Hum-Mal-Neu turned to stone in Gehennom
on level 44 [max 46]. Petrified by a cockatrice
corpse.
1007555 [1007555]
9 1000878100 nailbunny-Wiz-Gno-Mal-Neu ascended to demigod-hood.
15369 [15369]
10 384075270 zid-Wiz-Hum-Mal-Neu ascended to demigod-hood.
5630 [5630]
1998 3382449 tapin-Bar-Hum-Fem-Neu ascended to demigoddess-hood.
236 [334]
1999 3381470 Smello-Hea-Hum-Mal-Neu ascended to demigod-hood.
653 [653]
2000 3380499 Garoad-Wiz-Hum-Mal-Neu choked on his food in
Gehennom on level 30. Choked on a wraith corpse.
398 [398]
106150 Conducty1-Hea-Gno-Mal-Neu ascended to demigod-hood.
997 [1083]

funcrunch

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 4:50:21 AM4/14/07
to
On Apr 13, 11:29 pm, "Shawn Moore" <sar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://alt.org/nethack/dumplog/Conducty1.lastgame.txt

> The Platinum Yendorian Express Card (worth 7000 zorkmids and 17500
> points)

> The Eye of the Aethiopica (worth 4000 zorkmids and 10000 points)
> The Eyes of the Overworld (worth 2500 zorkmids and 6250 points)
> The Orb of Fate (worth 3500 zorkmids and 8750 points)

How did you get all of these without using any wishes?

Shawn Moore

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 4:54:49 AM4/14/07
to

I hit some bones that helped out.

Shawn M Moore

ja...@magic.ms

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 5:37:14 AM4/14/07
to
> I hit some bones that helped out.

Actually he prepared it himself. He hit it on DL5, perfectly dug out,
though not many monsters. Many piles of potions, wands, rings etc. All
squares burned with Elbereth and descriptions what the items are.

Most notable a big stack of fruit juice to not break foodless and
countless full healing, gain level, etc. blabla. A full armor set
lying around on one square, he just needed to equip that.

I could go on with that list :) Essentially it was a bone file
especially prepared for this very character, it has to be his own.

I dunno what I think of it. It's certainly an impressive sport to
prepare all this and utilize it to get such a conduct game.

But that's pretty much it. I would have liked to see some really
impressive conduct game... And it turned out to end at DL5.

Jaina

Derek Ray

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 9:22:38 AM4/14/07
to
ja...@magic.ms wrote:
> But that's pretty much it. I would have liked to see some really
> impressive conduct game... And it turned out to end at DL5.

I believe it was an exercise to clarify the meaning of "impossible", as
opposed to "extremely difficult."

--
Derek

insert clever quotation here

ja...@magic.ms

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 9:36:45 AM4/14/07
to
On Apr 14, 3:22 pm, Derek Ray
<moot@idont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote:

> j...@magic.ms wrote:
> > But that's pretty much it. I would have liked to see some really
> > impressive conduct game... And it turned out to end at DL5.
>
> I believe it was an exercise to clarify the meaning of "impossible", as
> opposed to "extremely difficult."

Don't get me wrong, it's very impressive :D

Seeing the posting as it was though, he neglected all those little
details I posted above and that's what I was disappointed about.

Jaina

Janis Papanagnou

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 10:19:10 AM4/14/07
to
Shawn Moore wrote:
>
> (nethack.alt.org removes small ttyrecs because most of the time it's
> just someone scumming).

That seems to be inappropriate as implemented at present; if you play
a long session, continue with a short session, and proceed again with
a long session (all being the same game), you will have a gap in your
record. (Just noticed that with a recently played game.)

Start scumming should just consider a new game; but I suppose that is
a lot more difficult to find out than just looking at the file sizes.

Janis

Shawn Moore

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 5:25:18 PM4/14/07
to
On Apr 14, 10:19 am, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Shawn Moore wrote:
>
> > (nethack.alt.org removes small ttyrecs because most of the time it's
> > just someone scumming).
>
> That seems to be inappropriate as implemented at present; if you play
> a long session, continue with a short session, and proceed again with
> a long session (all being the same game), you will have a gap in your
> record. (Just noticed that with a recently played game.)

Yes indeed.

> Start scumming should just consider a new game; but I suppose that is
> a lot more difficult to find out than just looking at the file sizes.

Fiendishly difficult unless you can modify nethack.

I also just noticed that Conducty1's ttyrec included another game
before it, so the new time, which is the exact time (no missing
ttyrecs), is 1h 55m 33s.

Shawn M Moore

Janis Papanagnou

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 5:45:57 PM4/14/07
to
Shawn Moore wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:19 am, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Start scumming should just consider a new game; but I suppose that is
>>a lot more difficult to find out than just looking at the file sizes.
>
> Fiendishly difficult unless you can modify nethack.

Hmm.. - It's not necessary (as far as I see) to modify Nethack to achieve
at least some of the cleanup, if file size and file date is correlated
with the date information in the record file; at least that could prevent
rigorous deletion of files that don't fall into the startscum category.

Janis

Shawn Moore

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 7:07:40 PM4/14/07
to
On Apr 14, 5:45 pm, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Shawn Moore wrote:

>> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> Start scumming should just consider a new game; but I suppose that is
>>> a lot more difficult to find out than just looking at the file sizes.
>
>> Fiendishly difficult unless you can modify nethack.
>
> Hmm.. - It's not necessary (as far as I see) to modify Nethack to achieve
> at least some of the cleanup, if file size and file date is correlated
> with the date information in the record file; at least that could prevent
> rigorous deletion of files that don't fall into the startscum category.

Unfortunately only the date is stored in the logfile. It's difficult,
if not impossible, to perfectly match up logfile entries with ttyrecs.
I've tried; looking at ttyrecs is how I would award the realtime
trophy in the June tourney. But I just can't get it right. And for
whatever reason, the guy who runs NAO is reluctant to modify the
nethack binary, so we're stuck with a logfile format that has probably
remained unchanged since the 80s.

Shawn M Moore

Janis Papanagnou

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 7:21:56 PM4/14/07
to
Shawn Moore wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:45 pm, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>Shawn Moore wrote:
>>>Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>
>>>>Start scumming should just consider a new game; but I suppose that is
>>>>a lot more difficult to find out than just looking at the file sizes.
>>
>>>Fiendishly difficult unless you can modify nethack.
>>
>>Hmm.. - It's not necessary (as far as I see) to modify Nethack to achieve
>>at least some of the cleanup, if file size and file date is correlated
>>with the date information in the record file; at least that could prevent
>>rigorous deletion of files that don't fall into the startscum category.
>
> Unfortunately only the date is stored in the logfile. It's difficult,
> if not impossible, to perfectly match up logfile entries with ttyrecs.

I wasn't aiming at "perfectly" matching it. Just the opposite behaviour
(i.e. to delete _all_ the small files) seems inadequate. But, honestly,
I haven't thought through the outlined solution in any depth (so I will
shut up for the moment :-)

> I've tried; looking at ttyrecs is how I would award the realtime
> trophy in the June tourney. But I just can't get it right. And for
> whatever reason, the guy who runs NAO is reluctant to modify the
> nethack binary, so we're stuck with a logfile format that has probably
> remained unchanged since the 80s.

(Well, a quite minor change was the introduction of version information.)

Janis

Sergey Zaharchenko

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 5:38:05 AM4/15/07
to

Hello Shawn!

Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:25:18PM -0700 you wrote:

> > Start scumming should just consider a new game; but I suppose that is
> > a lot more difficult to find out than just looking at the file sizes.
>
> Fiendishly difficult unless you can modify nethack.

Couldn't it be done with, like,

head -c 500 theTtyrec|cat -v|grep 'Restoring save file...' >/dev/null

or

head -c 500 theTtyrec|cat -v|grep 'Shall I pick' >/dev/null

and testing the exit code?

--
DoubleF
No virus detected in this message. Ehrm, wait a minute...
/kernel: pid 56921 (antivirus), uid 32000: exited on signal 9
Oh yes, no virus:)

Shawn Moore

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 6:45:58 AM4/15/07
to
On Apr 15, 5:38 am, Sergey Zaharchenko <doublef-...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> Hello Shawn!
> Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:25:18PM -0700 you wrote:
> > > Start scumming should just consider a new game; but I suppose that is
> > > a lot more difficult to find out than just looking at the file sizes.
> > Fiendishly difficult unless you can modify nethack.
>
> Couldn't it be done with, like, [...]

> head -c 500 theTtyrec|cat -v|grep 'Shall I pick' >/dev/null
> and testing the exit code?

Some people play with their character types already chosen in
their .nethackrc.

Both of these fail to take into account that fruit names, etc can be
named "Restoring save file..." or "Shall I pick". :) Also, the way
ttyrec works is it doesn't print things out that happen in a very
short time interval (I believe, I may be getting the specifics wrong,
but ttyrec doesn't save all frames all the time). This skipping can be
invoked easily by pasting things into nethack.

Shawn M Moore

Janis Papanagnou

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 7:06:11 AM4/15/07
to
Sergey Zaharchenko wrote:
> Hello Shawn!
> Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:25:18PM -0700 you wrote:
>
>>>Start scumming should just consider a new game; but I suppose that is
>>>a lot more difficult to find out than just looking at the file sizes.
>>
>>Fiendishly difficult unless you can modify nethack.
>
> Couldn't it be done with, like,

I'd say, yes.

> head -c 500 theTtyrec|cat -v|grep 'Restoring save file...' >/dev/null
>
> or
>
> head -c 500 theTtyrec|cat -v|grep 'Shall I pick' >/dev/null
>
> and testing the exit code?
>

Along the line of your proposal; you can also omit all the additional
processes (head, cat), pipes, and redirection by using some options to
grep...

grep -aq 'Restoring save file...'

which will exit as soon as a match is found and does not produce output
other then the implicit exit code.

Janis

Janis Papanagnou

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 7:16:46 AM4/15/07
to
Shawn Moore wrote:
> On Apr 15, 5:38 am, Sergey Zaharchenko <doublef-...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>>Hello Shawn!
>>Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:25:18PM -0700 you wrote:
>>
>>>>Start scumming should just consider a new game; but I suppose that is
>>>>a lot more difficult to find out than just looking at the file sizes.
>>>
>>>Fiendishly difficult unless you can modify nethack.
>>
>>Couldn't it be done with, like, [...]
>>head -c 500 theTtyrec|cat -v|grep 'Shall I pick' >/dev/null
>>and testing the exit code?
>
>
> Some people play with their character types already chosen in
> their .nethackrc.
>
> Both of these fail to take into account that fruit names, etc can be
> named "Restoring save file..." or "Shall I pick". :)

Okay, you have put a smiley. But we can neglect any such personal
behaviour in the context of the current cleanup behaviour of NAO.

> Also, the way
> ttyrec works is it doesn't print things out that happen in a very
> short time interval (I believe, I may be getting the specifics wrong,
> but ttyrec doesn't save all frames all the time). This skipping can be
> invoked easily by pasting things into nethack.

I may misunderstand what you meant, but the startup messages would
always be there, I'm sure. (I'm not sure what else you have in mind.)
Guessing... an extended command to paste any string (including the
startup strings)? In that case you can prevent misinterpretation by
either the proposed 'head -c' or by using the grep option '-m1'.

Janis

Kent Paul Dolan

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 8:21:16 AM4/15/07
to
j...@magic.ms wrote:

> Seeing the posting as it was though, he neglected
> all those little details I posted above and that's
> what I was disappointed about.

Indeed. With the supplementary information, we learn
that the original posting was just someone bragging
about cheating by salting a bones file, not
something usually smiled upon in rgrn.

xanthian.


cdi

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 10:48:18 AM4/15/07
to

Without sticking up too much for the OP on this one ...

a) the game was recorded from start to finish
b) he did it on a public server
c) there was no guarantee bones would be left
d) there was no guarantee a successor character
of his would find said bones pile.
e) the OP only used normal game mechanics for
both the games involved in this YAAP.

This YAAP deserves some sort of "best abuse of the rules" recognition,
similar to what the IOCCC gives out for particularly creative gems
[1].

-cdi

[1] The 1988 winner of this award "#include /dev/tty" was particularly
cute.

Janis Papanagnou

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 11:19:11 AM4/15/07
to
cdi wrote:
>
> This YAAP deserves some sort of "best abuse of the rules" recognition,
> similar to what the IOCCC gives out for particularly creative gems
> [1].
>
> [1] The 1988 winner of this award "#include /dev/tty" was particularly
> cute.

Without having looked at the original IOCCC (whatever that is) source;
there are some quotes missing, or <...> brackets. :-} Nice, anyway :-)

Janis

cdi

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 2:59:03 PM4/15/07
to
On Apr 15, 11:19 am, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

IOCCC = International Obfuscated C Code Contest. You're right, I
messed up the title. :/

-cdi

master...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 3:04:26 PM4/15/07
to
On Apr 15, 8:21 am, "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed. With the supplementary information, we learn
> that the original posting was just someone bragging
> about cheating by salting a bones file, not
> something usually smiled upon in rgrn.
>
> xanthian.

Think about it; there was a point to this stunt. No one is trying to
hide anything or garner some sort of praise.

jlue...@uiuc.edu

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 7:06:59 PM4/15/07
to
On Apr 15, 6:16 am, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Just throwing out my own personal experience here... I wrote up a
couple shell scripts that combine ttyrecs into single files by game,
and figure out which ones are ascensions, and whatnot, and out of my
~600mb of ttyrecs, nao has corrupted versions of at least two of them,
to the point where the various tty* utilities fail to read them
properly. As for your solutions, "Shall I pick" isn't what you should
be grepping for, since some people (namely, me, at least) specify race/
role/etc in their .nethackrc. Grepping for the regex "[wW]elcome
(back )? to NetHack" *should* produce the results you want, assuming
ttyrecs are stored correctly. On the other hand, the possibility of a
user using fruit_name="Welcome to NetHack", or even just naming some
item in their inventory with that isn't something you particularly
want to rely on, if you are going to be doing this for any kind of
large scale purpose (such as the quickest ascension trophy in the June
tournament).

-doy

Janis Papanagnou

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 7:54:07 PM4/15/07
to
jlue...@uiuc.edu wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:16 am, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>Shawn Moore wrote:
>>
>>>Also, the way
>>>ttyrec works is it doesn't print things out that happen in a very
>>>short time interval (I believe, I may be getting the specifics wrong,
>>>but ttyrec doesn't save all frames all the time). This skipping can be
>>>invoked easily by pasting things into nethack.
>>
>>I may misunderstand what you meant, but the startup messages would
>>always be there, I'm sure. (I'm not sure what else you have in mind.)
>>Guessing... an extended command to paste any string (including the
>>startup strings)? In that case you can prevent misinterpretation by
>>either the proposed 'head -c' or by using the grep option '-m1'.
>
> [...] As for your solutions, "Shall I pick" isn't what you should

> be grepping for, since some people (namely, me, at least) specify race/
> role/etc in their .nethackrc.

Aha, I see what you mean. I haven't considered the second proposal from
Sergey at all; was myself just referring to his first suggestion as you
can see in my posting, and which should work as grep pattern (depending
on how one implements the test maybe modulo the fruit name match).

> Grepping for the regex "[wW]elcome
> (back )? to NetHack" *should* produce the results you want, assuming
> ttyrecs are stored correctly.

Yes, that would be another possibility besides 'Restoring save file...'.
Or do you see any problem with that one, too?

> On the other hand, the possibility of a
> user using fruit_name="Welcome to NetHack", or even just naming some
> item in their inventory with that isn't something you particularly
> want to rely on, if you are going to be doing this for any kind of
> large scale purpose (such as the quickest ascension trophy in the June
> tournament).

Janis

Beolach

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 5:49:36 AM4/16/07
to
In <news:evudv0$9uh$1...@online.de>, Janis Papanagnou
<Janis_Pa...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why couldn't they just check for the existence of a savefile before
starting nethack, rather than grepping the ttyrecs? Requires a bit more
planning ahead, but seems a more foolproof way of avoiding gaps...

Beolach

Janis

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 9:24:07 AM4/16/07
to
On 16 Apr., 11:49, Beolach <beol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In <news:evudv0$9uh$1...@online.de>, Janis Papanagnou
>
> [identifying small start scumming ttyrec files by grep'ing a well known string]

>
>
> Why couldn't they just check for the existence of a savefile before
> starting nethack, rather than grepping the ttyrecs? Requires a bit more
> planning ahead, but seems a more foolproof way of avoiding gaps...

That would not allow batch processing of the existing file base.

Would that generally help to solve the task? Hmm... If I understand
you correct, a non-existing save file and a small _last_ ttyrec file
would indicate a candidate ttyrec file to be removed. The same
condition would be valid, though, for any short lasting final session
of a game that you don't want deleted (e.g. you want to learn about
the death circumstances).

If one wants to do the deletion before/on game startup, a small ttyrec
file could be taken as possible candidate to be additionally grep'ed
for a known string, to avoid the mentioned problem. (You can't avoid
the grep for that purpose, I suppose.)

But batch processing seems much more reliable to me. The "on-startup"
proposal has the advantage that the ttyrec files are not grep'ed
twice. You can have that also in batch mode if you memorize the date
the batch job did run the last time and just inspect the files with a
newer file creation/modification date.

Janis

Jym

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 5:54:43 PM4/16/07
to

Agreed. And also the recognition that *all* conducts together is possible.
Not likely, but still possible.

The "bad" point is that the OP simply showed the final log of the game,
without explaining the trick [usually games with lots of conducts also
have some part of story in the YAAP and I was disappointed after reading
the conducts not to find the story (as well as some precious hints on how
to redo such a masterpeace), of course, further reading gave the
explanation...]
The first post was, at least implicitely, pretending that the stuff was
done in a regular way whilte this was not really the case... I guess
that's also what is disappointing Xanthian.


--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

carlh...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 6:39:32 PM4/16/07
to
On Apr 16, 2:54 pm, Jym <Jean-Yves.Moyen+n...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:

I am shocked at some of you people! The OP's YAAP brought a smile to
_my_ face anyway. It's just a game and people are allowed to have fun
in different ways. I, personally, applaud the OP's diligent efforts
at over-the-top bones-scumming.

The fact that the backstory was not included in the original post
could hardly be considered obfuscation. The ascending character was
so powerful and well stocked with such a small amount of time, and (oh
yeah!) possessing otherwise impossible objects to acquire that there
had to be something out of the ordinary.

Come on you all, lighten up!!!
Carl

sjde...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 8:13:57 PM4/16/07
to
On Apr 14, 9:22 am, Derek Ray
<moot@idont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote:

> j...@magic.ms wrote:
> > But that's pretty much it. I would have liked to see some really
> > impressive conduct game... And it turned out to end at DL5.
>
> I believe it was an exercise to clarify the meaning of "impossible", as
> opposed to "extremely difficult."
>

Exactly. It's the first 12-conduct ascension that's been posted
AFAIK. It's clearly a far cry from doing the same with a single
account in a tournament or something like that, but it's a proof-of-
concept that a 12-conduct ascension is at least possible. It'd have
been nice to clarify that in the OP, but it was pretty obvious from
the listing that it was a gimmick ascension.

Beolach

unread,
Apr 16, 2007, 10:27:28 PM4/16/07
to
In <news:1176729847....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "Janis"
<janis_pa...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 16 Apr., 11:49, Beolach <beol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In <news:evudv0$9uh$1...@online.de>, Janis Papanagnou
>>
>> [identifying small start scumming ttyrec files by grep'ing a well known
>> string]
>>
>>
>> Why couldn't they just check for the existence of a savefile before
>> starting nethack, rather than grepping the ttyrecs? Requires a bit
>> more planning ahead, but seems a more foolproof way of avoiding gaps...
>
> That would not allow batch processing of the existing file base.
>

Right, that's part of what I meant by "Requires a bit more planning
ahead". But since the existing file base will already have deleted false-
positives using the existing start-scum checks, I wouldn't be too worried
about it.

> Would that generally help to solve the task? Hmm... If I understand you
> correct, a non-existing save file and a small _last_ ttyrec file would
> indicate a candidate ttyrec file to be removed. The same condition would
> be valid, though, for any short lasting final session of a game that you
> don't want deleted (e.g. you want to learn about the death
> circumstances).
>
> If one wants to do the deletion before/on game startup, a small ttyrec
> file could be taken as possible candidate to be additionally grep'ed for
> a known string, to avoid the mentioned problem. (You can't avoid the
> grep for that purpose, I suppose.)
>
> But batch processing seems much more reliable to me. The "on-startup"
> proposal has the advantage that the ttyrec files are not grep'ed twice.
> You can have that also in batch mode if you memorize the date the batch
> job did run the last time and just inspect the files with a newer file
> creation/modification date.
>

I don't think that's quite what I was thinking. I was assuming the start-
scum cleaning script is run as a cron job, but the existence or lack
thereof of a savefile at the time of the cron job isn't really useful.
What I was thinking was that dgamelaunch would check for the existence of
a savefile before starting nethack; if a savefile did exist, then the
ttyrec for this session would have, say, a 'c' for "continued" added to
its filename; if there wasn't a savefile, then the ttyrec filename would
have a 'b' for "beginning". Then the start-scum cleaning script would
only look at ttyrecs w/ the 'b'. It might still have some false-
positives if a player starts a game w/ a short session, but even those
could be decreased by the cleaning script checking if the next ttyrec was
also a 'b'.

Beolach

cdi

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 7:07:46 AM4/17/07
to
On Apr 16, 6:39 pm, carlhnel...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:54 pm, Jym <Jean-Yves.Moyen+n...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:

> I am shocked at some of you people! The OP's YAAP brought a smile to
> _my_ face anyway. It's just a game and people are allowed to have fun
> in different ways. I, personally, applaud the OP's diligent efforts
> at over-the-top bones-scumming.

The farming involved (on the bones-scumming side) was ridiculous in
its own right. That account was racking up what seemed like a million
points every 30 seconds or so.

> The fact that the backstory was not included in the original post
> could hardly be considered obfuscation. The ascending character was
> so powerful and well stocked with such a small amount of time, and (oh
> yeah!) possessing otherwise impossible objects to acquire that there
> had to be something out of the ordinary.

I personally got a big kick out of the OP's deadpan response somewhere
upthread when asked about this: "I hit some bones that helped out."

-cdi

David Damerell

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 9:02:34 AM4/17/07
to
Quoting sjde...@yahoo.com <sjde...@yahoo.com>:
>Exactly. It's the first 12-conduct ascension that's been posted
>AFAIK. It's clearly a far cry from doing the same with a single
>account in a tournament or something like that, but it's a proof-of-
>concept that a 12-conduct ascension is at least possible.

Obviously it's possible if you cheat.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Sunday, April - a weekend.

Jym

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 10:29:07 AM4/17/07
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:02:34 +0200, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Quoting sjde...@yahoo.com <sjde...@yahoo.com>:
>> Exactly. It's the first 12-conduct ascension that's been posted
>> AFAIK. It's clearly a far cry from doing the same with a single
>> account in a tournament or something like that, but it's a proof-of-
>> concept that a 12-conduct ascension is at least possible.
>
> Obviously it's possible if you cheat.

Well, this showed that it is possible even without cheating.

Of course, finding such a bone file is not exactly likely... But it's
technically possible.
After all, a pudding farmer being stupidely killed and leaving an insane
bone file is not completely impossible.

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Jove

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 11:35:48 AM4/17/07
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:29:07 +0200, Jym wrote in
<<op.tqxmitmkft6h9m@xrousse>>:

Happened during my last Ascension on NAO.


--
Welcome to NetHack. | I take what I'm given.
| You exploit the game.
All the best, | He's an abusive cheater.
Jove (Joe Bednorz)

Ohle Claussen

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 12:11:01 PM4/17/07
to

Which is one of the reasons why pudding farming is a bit ambivalent.

--
Ohle Claussen | GPG-Key-ID E7149169
----------===========----------
BOFH Excuse #358:
struck by the Good Times virus

Janis Papanagnou

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 12:12:06 PM4/17/07
to
Jove wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:29:07 +0200, Jym wrote in
> <<op.tqxmitmkft6h9m@xrousse>>:
>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:02:34 +0200, David Damerell
>><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>Quoting sjde...@yahoo.com <sjde...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>>>Exactly. It's the first 12-conduct ascension that's been posted
>>>>AFAIK. It's clearly a far cry from doing the same with a single
>>>>account in a tournament or something like that, but it's a proof-of-
>>>>concept that a 12-conduct ascension is at least possible.
>>>
>>>Obviously it's possible if you cheat.
>>
>>Well, this showed that it is possible even without cheating.

For some values of "not cheating".

But how is setting up a bunch of games to achieve a specific goal
in _another_ game not cheating? (Apparently opinons seem to differ
whether all what's possible to do is non-cheating, even if that's
done by external means like bones files, "bones file cheating".)

We shouldn't re-iterate about what that game was, or intended to
be. Apparently to quite some people here the game turned out to be
something different than it first appeared to be. Now it has been
cleared how it was achieved and everyone can form his own opinion
about that game.

For me it is an interesting academic setup. For me, as it had been
presented (intentionally or not), the posting leaves a bad taste.

>>Of course, finding such a bone file is not exactly likely... But it's
>>technically possible.
>>After all, a pudding farmer being stupidely killed and leaving an insane
>>bone file is not completely impossible.
>
> Happened during my last Ascension on NAO.

My current NAO game got spoiled by a pudding farm bones level :-/

Janis

funcrunch

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 3:21:55 PM4/17/07
to
On Apr 17, 9:12 am, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> But how is setting up a bunch of games to achieve a specific goal


> in _another_ game not cheating? (Apparently opinons seem to differ
> whether all what's possible to do is non-cheating, even if that's
> done by external means like bones files, "bones file cheating".)

If it were possible to bones-stuff in such a way that both generating
the bones and having your next character find them were guaranteed,
then I would agree that this is clearly cheating. However, in this
case there's nothing to say that after all that effort the bones would
not have been generated, or that some other player wouldn't have
stumbled upon them and helped themselves to a very nice ascension kit.
So making this attempt at all was a big risk.

> For me it is an interesting academic setup. For me, as it had been
> presented (intentionally or not), the posting leaves a bad taste.

That I certainly agree with.

Janis Papanagnou

unread,
Apr 17, 2007, 3:36:56 PM4/17/07
to
funcrunch wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:12 am, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>But how is setting up a bunch of games to achieve a specific goal
>>in _another_ game not cheating? (Apparently opinons seem to differ
>>whether all what's possible to do is non-cheating, even if that's
>>done by external means like bones files, "bones file cheating".)
>
> If it were possible to bones-stuff in such a way that both generating
> the bones and having your next character find them were guaranteed,
> then I would agree that this is clearly cheating. However, in this
> case there's nothing to say that after all that effort the bones would
> not have been generated, or that some other player wouldn't have
> stumbled upon them and helped themselves to a very nice ascension kit.
> So making this attempt at all was a big risk.

The point for me is that the original game (where the setup was done)
is surely more challenging (and boring if you have to do it several
times until success) than executing the final game where you simply
make use of the setup. Whether you have to try it once or 20 times
until you succeed with the setup does not make the final game less
cheating, in my book.

Janis

Shawn Moore

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 1:11:32 AM4/18/07
to
On Apr 17, 3:36 pm, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> The point for me is that the original game (where the setup was done)
> is surely more challenging (and boring if you have to do it several
> times until success) than executing the final game where you simply
> make use of the setup. Whether you have to try it once or 20 times
> until you succeed with the setup does not make the final game less
> cheating, in my book.
>
> Janis

Being in my somewhat unique position, I must say I disagree. Pudding
farming is an absolutely mindless way to gain arbitrary amounts of
swag. Would I have done this if pudding farming was unviable?
Absolutely not. Ascending with all twelve conducts, quickly
(realtime), and in as few turns as possible, is quite difficult no
matter what bones piles you hit. Just watch the ttyrec (but don't
watch too closely, because you'll see I make probably about a hundred
mistakes :)).

Moving on to the meat of the thread, you are free to call what I did
cheating. If I couldn't deal with people calling it cheating then I
would never have posted it to RGRN. But do consider that I did not
modify the source code or save scum (which are mostly impossible on a
public server); everything was done in-game.

Is this my most impressive ascension? Hardly. But I do think it has
some merit, and in playing that game I ran into a few problems I
previously had never encountered (mostly due to the fact that I very
rarely play pacifist). I'll answer any questions you guys have about
this ascension, because while Jaina hit all the major points, there
are many details.

Shawn M Moore

Janis

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 5:29:44 AM4/18/07
to
On 18 Apr., 07:11, Shawn Moore <sar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...] But do consider that I did not

> modify the source code or save scum (which are mostly impossible on a
> public server); everything was done in-game.

It's surely not "save scum", but rather "bomes file scum", a term that
was -AFAIK- invented here long before this article was posted. And
while bones files are an in-game mechanism I wouldn't call external
bones file _setups_ as "in-game". YMMV.

I haven't initially commented on that game because I think after the
backgrounds had been clarified everyone would find his own opinion.
And with the thus far presented game details it's not even worth
discussing.

> Is this my most impressive ascension? Hardly. But I do think it has
> some merit, and in playing that game I ran into a few problems I
> previously had never encountered (mostly due to the fact that I very
> rarely play pacifist). I'll answer any questions you guys have about
> this ascension, because while Jaina hit all the major points, there
> are many details.

To know about those details, the problems you actually had with the
setup or with the final game, would indeed be interesting to know of.

Janis

Sergey Zaharchenko

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 7:50:20 AM4/18/07
to

Hello Shawn!

Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:11:32PM -0700 you wrote:

> I'll answer any questions you guys have about this ascension,
> because while Jaina hit all the major points, there are many
> details.

Well, since you've offered that, why did Vlad take so long? Couldn't you
have used a purple worm instead of the lousy dragon?

--
DoubleF
No virus detected in this message. Ehrm, wait a minute...
/kernel: pid 56921 (antivirus), uid 32000: exited on signal 9
Oh yes, no virus:)

David Damerell

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 7:56:44 AM4/18/07
to
Quoting Jym <Jean-Yves....@ens-lyon.org>:

><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Obviously it's possible if you cheat.
>Well, this showed that it is possible even without cheating.
>Of course, finding such a bone file is not exactly likely... But it's
>technically possible.

If one were actually playing conducts for the challenge, though, rather
than for whatever satisfaction can be extracted from cheating and not
telling rgrn you cheated... well, what would _you_ do if you got a bones
file that set you up like that? It would have destroyed the challenge, and
you'd have to start again.

So, no, I don't think this shows that the conduct is possible in any
meaningful sense.


--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!

Today is Gloucesterday, April.

David Damerell

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 7:58:03 AM4/18/07
to
Quoting Shawn Moore <sar...@gmail.com>:
>Moving on to the meat of the thread, you are free to call what I did
>cheating.

That's because it's cheating and you are a cheat.

Eighty-seven conducts or none, I don't want to see cheating "ascension"
posts on rgrn. Please never do it again.

deathdruid

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 11:21:44 AM4/18/07
to
On Apr 18, 1:11 am, Shawn Moore <sar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll answer any questions you guys have about
> this ascension, because while Jaina hit all the major points, there
> are many details.

Here's a question: how did you guarantee that you (and only you) would
find your own bones file? Did you start scum until you did?

Congrats on a cool accomplishment, though you could have been more
upfront in your original post.

-Rahul

James

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 1:49:11 PM4/18/07
to
Shawn Moore wrote:
> Moving on to the meat of the thread, you are free to call what I did
> cheating. If I couldn't deal with people calling it cheating then I
> would never have posted it to RGRN. But do consider that I did not
> modify the source code or save scum (which are mostly impossible on a
> public server); everything was done in-game.

First, I'd like to say congratulations: what you did was an interesting
exercise, and certainly not trivial. And while "cheating" is a highly
charged word which admits many definitions and must be weighed on a
greyscale, I'm going to have to say that this probably /was/ cheating.

1. You didn't do it in-game, you did it in-games. It's like a snooker player
agreeing with his opponent to forego the chalk for one frame, then using
his already-chalked cue from the previous frame.

2. You intended to alter the balance of the second game by leaving stuffed
bones, and this intention renders the otherwise innocent act of leaving
bones cheating.

(2.1 You didn't admit to it in the original post.)

Here are some other ways to do a fast ascension on a public server that
would probably be cheating:

i. Exploit bugs.
ii. Use a rerollbot until you start on a square with a /oW (0:3)
iii. Set up a safe area, then press "." until the turn counter overflows.

--
James

jlue...@uiuc.edu

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 3:17:23 PM4/18/07
to
On Apr 18, 6:58 am, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

> Quoting Shawn Moore <sar...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Moving on to the meat of the thread, you are free to call what I did
> >cheating.
>
> That's because it's cheating and you are a cheat.
>
> Eighty-seven conducts or none, I don't want to see cheating "ascension"
> posts on rgrn. Please never do it again.
> --
> David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
> Today is Gloucesterday, April.

Oh, seriously, lighten up. This was obvioiusly posted mostly as a
joke, and for all of these posts to be taking it so seriously really
points out how ridiculous rgrn can be at times. He has said that he
did it mostly just to see if it was possible, and that it is nowhere
near his most impressive ascension, both of which are true (it's not
like he can't ascend without "cheating", see
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.nethack/browse_frm/thread/80615177cc9ba3c2/d37377cc4085533d?lnk=gst&q=yaqap&rnum=1#d37377cc4085533d
for example), so I don't see what the big horrible issue is. For what
it's worth, this could easily have been done during devnull with just
a bit of collaboration between clan members, while remaining entirely
within the rules, so I don't think this is something to be
unconditionally discounted as "cheating", although I agree (both with
you and with Shawn) that this isn't anywhere near as impressive as an
actual conduct game without farming or bones.

On another note, for you to act as the police of rgrn based on your
own definition of "cheating" and what you would like to see on rgrn is
equally ridiculous. I actually enjoyed both watching him play and
reading this thread. Please never do it again.

- doy

David Damerell

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 4:19:56 PM4/18/07
to
Quoting <jlue...@uiuc.edu>:
>On Apr 18, 6:58 am, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>Quoting Shawn Moore <sar...@gmail.com>:
>>>Moving on to the meat of the thread, you are free to call what I did
>>>cheating.
>>That's because it's cheating and you are a cheat.
>>Eighty-seven conducts or none, I don't want to see cheating "ascension"
>>posts on rgrn. Please never do it again.
>On another note, for you to act as the police of rgrn based on your
>own definition of "cheating" and what you would like to see on rgrn is
>equally ridiculous.

Actually, no, it's conventional not to want to see cheated "ascension"
posts here. This is not merely my personal preference but is what is
normal.

Anyone can win by cheating. Who cares?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Gloucesterday, April.

dtype

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 4:34:39 PM4/18/07
to
On Apr 14, 9:19 am, Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> That seems to be inappropriate as implemented at present; if you play
> a long session, continue with a short session, and proceed again with
> a long session (all being the same game), you will have a gap in your
> record. (Just noticed that with a recently played game.)

You're right.

No idea why I even put that in, although it was years ago and there's
no accounting for what I might have been thinking of. I think it was
just general cleanup of startscumming, as suggested, although there
are obvious flaws that have been pointed out.

The cronjob removing small games has been stopped.

-drew

jlue...@uiuc.edu

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 4:41:26 PM4/18/07
to
On Apr 18, 3:19 pm, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

> Quoting <jlueh...@uiuc.edu>:
>
> >On Apr 18, 6:58 am, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> >>Quoting Shawn Moore <sar...@gmail.com>:
> >>>Moving on to the meat of the thread, you are free to call what I did
> >>>cheating.
> >>That's because it's cheating and you are a cheat.
> >>Eighty-seven conducts or none, I don't want to see cheating "ascension"
> >>posts on rgrn. Please never do it again.
> >On another note, for you to act as the police of rgrn based on your
> >own definition of "cheating" and what you would like to see on rgrn is
> >equally ridiculous.
>
> Actually, no, it's conventional not to want to see cheated "ascension"
> posts here. This is not merely my personal preference but is what is
> normal.
>
> Anyone can win by cheating. Who cares?
> --
> David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
> Today is Gloucesterday, April.

As you should be able to tell from reading my post, I disagree with
your opinion of "cheating". Why is your opinion more important than
mine? And why are you still upset about this? Shawn isn't claiming
this as anything other than it is, as you should be able to tell from
reading his posts in this thread.

- doy

Rachel Elizabeth Dillon

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 4:56:33 PM4/18/07
to
On 2007-04-18, David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Quoting <jlue...@uiuc.edu>:
>>On Apr 18, 6:58 am, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>>Quoting Shawn Moore <sar...@gmail.com>:
>>>>Moving on to the meat of the thread, you are free to call what I did
>>>>cheating.
>>>That's because it's cheating and you are a cheat.
>>>Eighty-seven conducts or none, I don't want to see cheating "ascension"
>>>posts on rgrn. Please never do it again.
>>On another note, for you to act as the police of rgrn based on your
>>own definition of "cheating" and what you would like to see on rgrn is
>>equally ridiculous.
>
> Actually, no, it's conventional not to want to see cheated "ascension"
> posts here. This is not merely my personal preference but is what is
> normal.

So you're objecting to calling it a YAAP, not sharing it at all? I can
see that. He did point to the ttyrec, but most people wouldn't bother
to go look it up. I thought it was pretty obvious from the text and dump
(such that I found the post cute and not harmful) but I suppose I might
have had out of band information.

[actual interesting nethack content starts here]

> Anyone can win by cheating. Who cares?

Actually this particular cheat was pretty interesting. It's certainly a
proof of concept for "doing twelve conducts with all the tools you want."
If combined with a proof of concept for "getting all the tools you
want while maintaining twelve conducts," this could be a step towards
a non-cheating all-conduct game. (and a significant one, I'd think)

I guess all you need for that is a way to survive indefinitely and to
get your pet to pudding farm for you. Slow digestion, polymorph control,
and "You feel like a new man" might handle the indefinite (or at least
near-indefinite, polymorph sources don't last forever) survival. You
could poly your pet into something that could wield a -3 dagger, give
it the -3 dagger, and maneuver carefully? All-conduct farming would be
hard, too...

[end interesting content, resume splitting hairs]

Would a startscummed (for ring of slow digestion, say) all-conduct game be
cheating? What about a player who rolled wizards and played the wizards
he or she got, but only tried to get the all-conduct game on games that
started with useful equipment? What about exploiting bugs? I think there's
actually plenty of room for disagreement about exactly what constitutes
cheating, and while maybe Shawn shouldn't have posted the way he did
if _he_ thought he was cheating, I hope that any one person's opinion
should not prevent the rest of us from the opportunity to decide.

If you're going to get upset at Shawn, I'd rather (though it's not like
my preferences are going to change what you say any more than yours
will change what he posts) that you get upset with him for being a troll
than for being a "cheat" --- I doubt he intended to deceive anyone into
thinking he had accomplished a legitimate 12-conduct game. (If you did,
Shawn, *thwap*) I think that the bad thing he did was not to cheat, but to
be disingenuous about it in his post; if he had said "Not A Valid YAAP,
but still interesting" I don't think you would be calling him out as a
cheat, just thinking that he had too much free time on his hands.

...which, clearly, he does. :)

-r.

jlue...@uiuc.edu

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 5:05:54 PM4/18/07
to
On Apr 18, 3:19 pm, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> Anyone can win by cheating. Who cares?

Also, (and more importantly,) it's not true that "anyone" can win with
12 conducts intact on a public server in under 2 hours and under 6k
turns, "cheating" or not. That's the point of this thread.

- doy

Jym

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 5:26:20 PM4/18/07
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:56:33 +0200, Rachel Elizabeth Dillon
<rac...@akrasiac.org> wrote:

> [actual interesting nethack content starts here]
>
>> Anyone can win by cheating. Who cares?
>
> Actually this particular cheat was pretty interesting. It's certainly a
> proof of concept for "doing twelve conducts with all the tools you want."
> If combined with a proof of concept for "getting all the tools you
> want while maintaining twelve conducts," this could be a step towards
> a non-cheating all-conduct game. (and a significant one, I'd think)
>
> I guess all you need for that is a way to survive indefinitely and to
> get your pet to pudding farm for you. Slow digestion, polymorph control,
> and "You feel like a new man" might handle the indefinite (or at least
> near-indefinite, polymorph sources don't last forever) survival. You
> could poly your pet into something that could wield a -3 dagger, give
> it the -3 dagger, and maneuver carefully? All-conduct farming would be
> hard, too...

I think monsters only death-drop when you killed them yourself.
I remember having tried a "self pudding farm" (in wizmode) where pudding
killed themselves with a rolling boulder trap (and I just had to hit them
in order to split them) but they didn't drop anything and when I spoke
about that here, someone told me that you have to kill the monster in
order to get the death drop.

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Rachel Elizabeth Dillon

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 5:30:33 PM4/18/07
to

Oooh! Hmm, that makes it much harder... Are there any other tactics where
you can convert patience into items?

-r.

funcrunch

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 6:05:37 PM4/18/07
to
On Apr 18, 2:30 pm, Rachel Elizabeth Dillon <rac...@akrasiac.org>
wrote:

> Oooh! Hmm, that makes it much harder... Are there any other tactics where


> you can convert patience into items?

Even if there is, while maintaining 12 conducts no one is going to get
other roles' quest items without bones. Hence my original followup
question of "How did you get all of these [Eye/s, PYEC, Orb] without
any wishes?" (I subsequently saw the 89 million point suicide in the
NAO daily highscore list and guessed, confirmed here...) The question
is how crucial were those artifacts to this ascension?

- funcrunch <- almost never wishes for artifacts FWIW

Shawn Moore

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 12:16:22 AM4/19/07
to
On Apr 18, 11:21 am, deathdruid <r...@genebrew.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:11 am, Shawn Moore <sar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll answer any questions you guys have about
> > this ascension, because while Jaina hit all the major points, there
> > are many details.
>
> Here's a question: how did you guarantee that you (and only you) would
> find your own bones file? Did you start scum until you did?

I dived ten or so healers down to the entrance of dlvl 4 (but then had
to move down to 5 as the donor game's dlvl 4 had the entrance to the
Mines).

Then, just before I killed the donor off, I loaded all ten divers up,
killed the donor, and began descending each account. Humorously the
first diver actually loaded the bones.

> Congrats on a cool accomplishment,

Thank you.

Shawn M Moore

ja...@magic.ms

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 4:58:27 AM4/19/07
to
On Apr 18, 11:30 pm, Rachel Elizabeth Dillon <rac...@akrasiac.org>
wrote:

> Oooh! Hmm, that makes it much harder... Are there any other tactics where
> you can convert patience into items?

The corner stones of his tactics to achieve this ascension was the
abuse of the Eye of the Aethiopica and the Orb of Fate for infinite
level portals. (Indeed he had to wait several times for the cooldowns
to get done).

I would also say that having the Eyes of the Overworld was far far
more than a slight convenience.

So you really can't say this proof of concept (though nice to have)
hints to any strategy.

And to reply to some other postings: Indeed, if the OP had described
(even briefly) how he got to this impressive ascension, the reception
had been way different.

Jaina

David Damerell

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 6:48:28 AM4/19/07
to
Quoting <jlue...@uiuc.edu>:
>As you should be able to tell from reading my post, I disagree with
>your opinion of "cheating".

If you have some tortuous definition of cheating that doesn't include bones
stuffing, frankly, you're just coming up with it for the sake of arguing.
Be careful you don't define black as white and get killed crossing the
road.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Leicesterday, April.

David Damerell

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 6:46:30 AM4/19/07
to
Quoting <jlue...@uiuc.edu>:
>On Apr 18, 3:19 pm, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>Anyone can win by cheating. Who cares?
>Also, (and more importantly,) it's not true that "anyone" can win with
>12 conducts intact on a public server in under 2 hours and under 6k
>turns, "cheating" or not. That's the point of this thread.

Sure they can. They should probably cheat by running the server.

David Damerell

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 7:03:00 AM4/19/07
to
Quoting Rachel Elizabeth Dillon <rac...@akrasiac.org>:
>On 2007-04-18, David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Actually, no, it's conventional not to want to see cheated "ascension"
>>posts here. This is not merely my personal preference but is what is
>>normal.
>So you're objecting to calling it a YAAP, not sharing it at all?

Well, personally I'd prefer not to see it at all, but obviously it's much
worse to pretend it was an ascension. We have to operate on the honour
system in RGRN.

>>Anyone can win by cheating. Who cares?
>Actually this particular cheat was pretty interesting. It's certainly a
>proof of concept for "doing twelve conducts with all the tools you want."
>If combined with a proof of concept for "getting all the tools you
>want while maintaining twelve conducts," this could be a step towards
>a non-cheating all-conduct game. (and a significant one, I'd think)

I don't think so; "with all the tools you want" is 99% of the battle won.
A proof of concept for "walking" with a proof of concept for "being on the
Moon" is a step towards walking on the Moon, but...

>[end interesting content, resume splitting hairs]
>Would a startscummed (for ring of slow digestion, say) all-conduct game be
>cheating?

I'm not sure the presence of grey areas - for example, that some very
tricky conducts don't seem to have any feasible approach that doesn't need
a particular piece of starting equipment - precludes the existence of
black and white areas. If you're trying to do Zen Samurai, it's OK to
startscum; it's not OK to stuff bones.

>started with useful equipment? What about exploiting bugs? I think there's
>actually plenty of room for disagreement about exactly what constitutes
>cheating,

There might be some room, but frankly I think if someone going to argue
that bones-stuffing isn't cheating they're mad.

jlue...@uiuc.edu

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 10:36:58 AM4/19/07
to
On Apr 19, 5:48 am, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

> Quoting <jlueh...@uiuc.edu>:
>
> >As you should be able to tell from reading my post, I disagree with
> >your opinion of "cheating".
>
> If you have some tortuous definition of cheating that doesn't include bones
> stuffing, frankly, you're just coming up with it for the sake of arguing.
> Be careful you don't define black as white and get killed crossing the
> road.

>Quoting <jlueh...@uiuc.edu>:
>
>>On Apr 18, 3:19 pm, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

>>>Anyone can win by cheating. Who cares?

>>Also, (and more importantly,) it's not true that "anyone" can win with
>>12 conducts intact on a public server in under 2 hours and under 6k
>>turns, "cheating" or not. That's the point of this thread.
>
>Sure they can. They should probably cheat by running the server.

Slippery slope arguments and deliberate misinterpretations of what I'm
saying will only get you so far. I'm done arguing about words on the
internet.

- doy

David Damerell

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 11:35:39 AM4/19/07
to
Quoting <jlue...@uiuc.edu>:
>Slippery slope arguments and deliberate misinterpretations of what I'm
>saying will only get you so far. I'm done arguing about words on the
>internet.

Good. Choosing not to defend the idea that bones stuffing isn't cheating
is a wise decision on your part, and I could probably only be bothered to
mock it a little.

Rachel Elizabeth Dillon

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 1:18:59 PM4/19/07
to
On 2007-04-19, David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Rachel Elizabeth Dillon <rac...@akrasiac.org>:
>>On 2007-04-18, David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>Anyone can win by cheating. Who cares?
>>Actually this particular cheat was pretty interesting. It's certainly a
>>proof of concept for "doing twelve conducts with all the tools you want."
>>If combined with a proof of concept for "getting all the tools you
>>want while maintaining twelve conducts," this could be a step towards
>>a non-cheating all-conduct game. (and a significant one, I'd think)
>
> I don't think so; "with all the tools you want" is 99% of the battle won.
> A proof of concept for "walking" with a proof of concept for "being on the
> Moon" is a step towards walking on the Moon, but...

Actually, I think you're right; seeing some of the tricks he used was
still cute but he relied so heavily on all of the stuff he seeded with
that it's not as interesting as I thought. (Though getting it right on
the first try is probably better than I would do.)

>>[end interesting content, resume splitting hairs]
>>Would a startscummed (for ring of slow digestion, say) all-conduct game be
>>cheating?
>
> I'm not sure the presence of grey areas - for example, that some very
> tricky conducts don't seem to have any feasible approach that doesn't need
> a particular piece of starting equipment - precludes the existence of
> black and white areas. If you're trying to do Zen Samurai, it's OK to
> startscum; it's not OK to stuff bones.

Actually that's interesting. That suggests to me that if it's impossible
to do a conduct game without startscumming, then startscumming to do
that game is OK. If it's impossible to do an all-conduct game without
stuffing bones, does that make it OK to stuff bones to do that game?
(One possible answer: "Yes, but that's not an interesting achievement,
so why are you telling us about it?")

>>started with useful equipment? What about exploiting bugs? I think there's
>>actually plenty of room for disagreement about exactly what constitutes
>>cheating,
>
> There might be some room, but frankly I think if someone going to argue
> that bones-stuffing isn't cheating they're mad.

It's clearly cheating. I care more about whether or not it's interesting,
and didn't understand why people got so upset about it. You've helped me
understand some of the reasons, thanks.

-r.

Link

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 1:57:00 PM4/19/07
to
On Apr 14, 4:54 am, "Shawn Moore" <sar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 4:50 am, "funcrunch" <web-goog...@funcrunch.org> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 11:29 pm, "Shawn Moore" <sar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://alt.org/nethack/dumplog/Conducty1.lastgame.txt
> > > The Platinum Yendorian Express Card (worth 7000 zorkmids and 17500
> > > points)
> > > The Eye of the Aethiopica (worth 4000 zorkmids and 10000 points)
> > > The Eyes of the Overworld (worth 2500 zorkmids and 6250 points)
> > > The Orb of Fate (worth 3500 zorkmids and 8750 points)
>
> > How did you get all of these without using any wishes?
>
> I hit some bones that helped out.

This is the part that really bothers me. I can understand that some
people might omit bone-stuffing out of their YAAP post if they don't
understand that it is frowned upon.

However, the word choice of "some bones" really seems like it's being
purposly vague to deceive people into thinking that bone-stuffing was
not used. Because really, if someone doesn't think bone-stuffing is
frowned upon, they would have directly said the bone file was from
their previous character. The words "some bones" implies
unfamiliarity, as if the person doesn't fully remember the details of
whom the bones file was from.


carlh...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 2:48:13 PM4/19/07
to

You use the word "imply", but you can not _know_ the author's intent
so the best that you can do is _infer_.

It seems apparent that some people inferred obfuscation, and found the
YAAP and subsequent response to be deceitful (which is unfortunate);
while others (myself included) inferred irony and/or tongue-in-cheek
humor and appreciated the post.

As far as I'm concerned the concept of cheating does not apply since
it was an academic exercise with a contrived hypothetical condition.
Keep in mind also that Shawn recently acended with an illiterate
wizard in 32k turns so he's obviously running out of other things to
do in Nethack. Like I said earlier, if he's having fun with the game,
then who is anyone else to tell him that he's not doing it right?
Also, I appreciate the academic exercise, so don't mind seeing posts
such as this one so long as the game either does not have any special
conditions (such as stuffed bones files) or at least the true
situation becomes apparent under the most superficial of
inspections.

--
Carl

jlue...@uiuc.edu

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 2:56:02 PM4/19/07
to

Thank you, this is exactly the point I was trying to make.

- doy

Link

unread,
Apr 19, 2007, 3:54:30 PM4/19/07
to