Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Gelatinous Cube

Asphere's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 671 posts (673 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 671 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Short answer? Yes. Long answer? People have been requesting 3D modular castles for gaming from other companies for years. I think it will do very well.

Shadow Lodge

Javin Swifthand wrote:

To be honest

if a system works

and all the group enjoy it why change it????

There are different levels of enjoyment. They may enjoy something else even more.

Shadow Lodge

Bluenose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
People like different tlevels of simplification/complexity. Hell, Swords and Wizardry alone acknowledges this, there are three flavors - White Box, Core, and Complete. Its entirely possible for someone to want something simpler than Pathfinder, but more complicated than 1e. 5e falls into that rulws-medium category.
I happen to know a couple of groups that tried 5e and have already given it up already. One, who hardly play anything but 3e, in large part because they thought it was "dumbed down". The other, who largely play games that aren't D&D, because it was too complex for their tastes - they'd heard it was simplified compared to previous editions, but it's certainly not the sort of rules-lite game they like.

Really? I love Pathfinder and I have been playing since 2E. Additionally love all of the rules-lite clones and run them when I can find a full group. Almost all of my friends play 3E of some type and they all seem to love the game. I don't find it "dumbed down" at all. In fact, I am not sure what that even means. Maybe because they got rid of situational modifiers for the disadvantage/advantage mechanic and rolled commonly taken feats into specializations? I happen to like those features. The few friends I have that enjoy playing rules-lite rpgs are coming back into the D&D fold after years away from it.

Shadow Lodge

Video looks pretty cool.

upworks.com link.

I like that you can remove the layers of the castle fairly easily by floors rather than piece by piece.

Shadow Lodge

Alan_Beven wrote:
Given the sales figures of 5e so far I think the pricing seems about right to me.

I suppose. However, if you look at their competition I think it is about $10 too high. That isn't a huge deal. I expected it to be about $39.99. There are definitely people who are refusing to buy it because of the price though and many more opting to not purchase it at their FLGS because of the price difference with Amazon.

Shadow Lodge

AnarianElf1085 wrote:

Most definitely sticking with Pathfinder. I've already invested hundreds of dollars (some were group funds) into the PF books and accessories.

I've looked at the D&D 5th ed rules, and while they look interesting, I can't see myself purchasing more than the PHB, if I find a DM I want to play under. To me, at least, it's too much of an investment to switch from a system that I already love back to D&D. And from what I've seen, there's no guarentee that they won't change to 6th Ed in another few years.

For those who can afford to change systems every few years, and haven't fallen in love with the PF system, or just those who would prefer D&D, good luck and may you have many good campaigns. I just can't afford that investment all over again.

This is the key argument I see...people are already too invested to switch. That makes sense. My entire pathfinder collection was lost when I moved along with some other stuff that makes me want to cry in a closet so I don't mind buying these new books.

I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that they would switch editions in a few years. 4E lasted 6-7 years? That exceeds my definition of a few. Pathfinder has been out for about 5 years right? Also, a 6-7 year tenure for a game that was hated by a huge chunk of the community is not bad. I guess you are referring to 3/3.5E. I would argue thought that many consumers wanted something new. There were things that were perceived as broken with the game. It just turned out that 4E wasn't what many of them wanted and they were willing to play a game they thought was broken over that particular edition.

Shadow Lodge

Congrats on a great Kickstarter! I can't wait to get my books!

Shadow Lodge

ShinHakkaider wrote:

Maybe this thread should be retitled "Yeah I was slumming it with Pathfinder but now that ACTUAL D&D is back I'm better now..."

I love how it seems like Deja vu from around 2007 or so when everyone was basically bashing and saying the same thing about 3.5 in preparation for 4E.

The more things change the more they say the same I guess.

Well I love Pathfinder. I plan on still being a customer and playing in games and I still run a game. I just will also play in 5E and run 5E games. It isn't a religion - you can pick more than one.

I completely disagree about 2007 Deja vu. It is so different this time around. No irritating build up, no secrecy as far as the design direction and no shock. When 4E came out there was an instant backlash. I remember watching the reviews pop up on Amazon - one bad review after another. That week the youtube reviews starting coming out and they were just hostile. The community instantly reacted poorly. I recall this because I was super worried about the fact that I had just dropped all of that cash on new books. I stuck it out for just under a year and abandoned it - but I knew it wasn't a good fit for me on the first game. This time around the reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Additionally, people have been testing it for over a year. This time around seems totally different.

Of course people have the same complaints about 3.5E that they did when waiting for 4E. They are REAL problems. They didn't go away. They just weren't as bad for some people as 4E was. I have heard those same issues about 3.5E discussed for the last 10 years or so. People wanted a new edition. A great many just didn't want 4E.

Shadow Lodge

Dennis Harry wrote:
Picked up the Players Guide. Bit disappointed with backgrounds. Gameplay seems good. I will be playing in a 5E pbp so I can test gameplay soon enough.

They are completely optional though. I didn't use their backgrounds for my character.

Shadow Lodge

My home brew campaign will stay Pathfinder, however, I am running a 5E game and playing in a 5E game. So far I have had a lot of fun in the 5E games.

Shadow Lodge

Bave wrote:
KaiserDM wrote:


Dumb down? Interesting verbiage, but some people do want the rules simplified, so YMMV.

A buddy of mine told me about a session he played over the weekend. Fights were generally very fast paced. The advantage/disadvantage system coupled with flater math made each turn go faster. I think he said the group was 7th level. I love PF, but to be frank, I dont think any system has ever had longer, more drug out combats than 3.X.

Can you expand on why you think combats would take longer in 5th?

The problem is with simplified you get undesirable side effects. The simpler a game system is the less variability you have in it. I could easily make a simple game with the rules on a 3x5 card, one class, one race, one mechanic. Great, but it's boring.

The problem I saw in 5th ED was that the damage was toned down heavily, the healing increased dramatically which leads to grinding battles.

Just to be clear...you are talking about 5E D&D right? Not some other game?

Shadow Lodge

Bave wrote:
The entire premise of 5th Ed seems to be to dumb it down, make combat take longer, and continue to bend the curve towards martials away from casters.

Have you played 5E or read it? I am curious because I didn't get this impression when I played or read it. Additionally, combat was very fast. I played in a game last night and the speed of the combat was one of the features that stood out to me. Additionally, 5E essentially just got rid of all of the various situational modifiers and replaced them with the disadvantage/advantage system - you call that dumbed-down but I find it elegant.

Bave wrote:


Who wants to play a game where there isn't any variable dynamics any more? Sure, it's easier, but then you lose so much of the flexibility and variability.

Not sure what you mean here. Class flexibility, combat flexibility, spell flexibility? You aren't saying anything specific here.

Shadow Lodge

Okay so I am in for $80 for hardcover + pdf of 5th edition foes and I added $40 for the Quests of Doom. Will I get the hardcover for QoD and a PDF?

Thanks!

Shadow Lodge

Mearls wrote:

The original tweet doesn't capture the full story - we're not working on an FRCS right now because we are putting the bandwidth available for such a project into thinking about how to do an FRCS.

If you think of how we created fifth edition, we probably put more time and effort into determining what it needed to be (playtest, etc.) than into actually writing the final product.

The DMG is also still in the works - we won't even consider engaging in our next big RPG project until that is out the door, everyone has taken a vacation, and we're ready to tackle another huge project.

This does not equal:

sunshadow21 wrote:
...they don't even have an idea of how to do a campaign guide for FR yet.

The PHB just came out. The MM is coming out soon. The DM guide is still in the works but coming out in November. When a new edition of D&D comes out does the campaign setting typically come out at the same time as the PHB? I don't remember it ever being like that. Also, I would imagine that putting together a campaign setting from already existing source material takes much less time than designing a new game. I think your statement is an overreaction.

Shadow Lodge

Up on eBay

Link

Shadow Lodge

I couldn't think of any American jokes about Americans - we need some! There are plenty of jokes about specific areas of America. I searched for some jokes about Americans but most of the ones I found were probably derived in another country. They were really funny though. I liked this one:

Quote:

An American was telling one of his favorite jokes to a group of friends. "Hell is a place where the cooks are British, the waiters are French, the policemen are Germans, and the trains are run by Italians."

The lone European in the group pondered all this for a second and responded, "I can't say about the police and the trains, but you're probably right about going out to eat. A restaurant in Hell would be one where the cooks are British and the waiters are French - and the customers are all Americans."

Shadow Lodge

zylphryx wrote:


How is it we are known for Nobel Laureates and lawnmower deaths???

I am a theorist - I don't know how to use a lawnmower.

Shadow Lodge

It all depends on the apocalypse.

Shadow Lodge

meatrace wrote:
At least that's your doctorate, this is just an undergraduate degree.

I knew plenty of people your age and much older as an undergrad and grad student. Don't let it bother you. Just laugh at the stupid young people.

Shadow Lodge

meatrace wrote:
Scythia wrote:
meatrace wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm attending Arizona State University in my first semester as a transfer student, studying for a B.S. in Applied Computer Science.

I almost wish I was going there.

Just so I'd know there was someone else older than me.
I'm not worried about someone being older than me, I'm more bothered by so many of them being younger. :P
That was my point. I'm 32 and surrounded by teenagers. If TOZ were here with me I wouldn't be the only old guy.

That is pretty much how I felt. I finished my doctorate at 33.

Shadow Lodge

Writing in their journal/diary (since so many Pathfinder villains keep them *see ROTRL*).

Shadow Lodge

Are we doing this or what? I am free most weekends. So far I see

Pennywit
Asphere (me)
Gladior

Do we have a fourth? Also, any GMs? I am currently GMing another game so I would prefer to be a player.

Shadow Lodge

That doesn't annoy me at all (in regard to the OP). What annoys me is when they don't role play at all and constantly ask me (the GM) what they should do next. If they want to play Drizzt, Tass, or Luke Skywalker's motif I am just happy that they are role playing.

Shadow Lodge

Josh M. wrote:
Hama wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Hama wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.
What he said. Also, it absolutely doesn't matter if they are friends or not.
Are your players employees? "Doesn't matter if they are friends or not..." That sounds like a business decision, not a gaming one.

No, but i prefer my players not messing with me. Also, we can still be friends, we just don't game anymore. I take my gaming seriously, if other people don't, i don't see a reason of keeping them around for that particular activity.

@Tinkergoth

What Asphere meant is, i think, that you should mention replacing them, not replacing them for real.

Maybe I just don't have your passion. I just think that the players being friends matters dramatically, is all. If someone winds up being a real problem at the table, the problem will be dealt with. Calling off the day of the game? Not that big of a deal. Maybe I'm too tolerant. I just value the time spent with my friends more than I value a board game. YMMV.

You must be playing with people who have been your friends externally to the game for some time - your tolerance is more understandable if that is the case. The people I play with I have met through gaming. The ones I have now are my friends because they weren't inconsiderate jerks who repeatedly canceled on our group - we weeded those people out.

Also, the medium for the social activity may simply be a game, however, the preparations to GM it and host it equal time and in some cases money. Additionally, the GM and other players may have had opportunities to do something else the night of the game and are now left sitting at home without plans if the game falls through.

Shadow Lodge

Hama wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Hama wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.
What he said. Also, it absolutely doesn't matter if they are friends or not.
Are your players employees? "Doesn't matter if they are friends or not..." That sounds like a business decision, not a gaming one.

No, but i prefer my players not messing with me. Also, we can still be friends, we just don't game anymore. I take my gaming seriously, if other people don't, i don't see a reason of keeping them around for that particular activity.

@Tinkergoth

What Asphere meant is, i think, that you should mention replacing them, not replacing them for real.

Actually I meant replacing them using a hit man. There is a lake near my house that is full of the bodies of inconsiderate tabletop gamers :D

Shadow Lodge

Ellis Mirari wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Hama wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.
What he said. Also, it absolutely doesn't matter if they are friends or not.
Are your players employees? "Doesn't matter if they are friends or not..." That sounds like a business decision, not a gaming one.

We're getting to differences in group structure again.

For some, gaming is run at stores where it may very much be a part of the GM's job there to prep for and run games. The players might also not be friends away from the table, or a few might be friends while others are simple customers. In that context, one should NOT show preferential treatment and give the friend loads of slack while the regular store goes get the shaft after a couple of cancellations.

I think that's what he meant.

Pretty much. Though I am not GMing in a store the structure is similar. I met my current group by throwing up an advert for players. I live in the DC area so there were lots of responses. We became friends through the regularly scheduled game.

Shadow Lodge

Josh M. wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.

To each their own, but to me this sounds very harsh. The only amount of notice I need is roughly before I head out the door to the game.

As for "replacing" players, do you have a waiting list of people ready to play? I find that kicking a friend out of a friendly social activity for missing two games to be a good way to wind up losing more friends eventually.

Well I am pretty flexible about which "circumstances warrant it". However, I have allotted my very limited time to planning the session as well as turned down other social activities so that I could be available to GM. If people aren't turning up for petty reasons and potentially ruining games I would look for people who are more reliable and get rid of those who consider the game to be "something to do if nothing better comes along".

Also, I have done this with friends and we are still friends. I just tell them that I am going to replace them with someone who wants to play more frequently and maybe they can play every now and then if someone is unable to make it or I think and extra player works for that session. Typically players who are flaky aren't really devastated by losing their permanent spot.

Shadow Lodge

Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.

Shadow Lodge

Well I am in for $300. This one seems better for GMs with all of the monsters and evil NPCs.

Shadow Lodge

I just gradumatated from college. I finally finished my PhD and was forced naked and alone into the real world. It is terrifying. They expect results in the real world!

Shadow Lodge

I would like to play a Magus.

Shadow Lodge

Justin Rocket wrote:
Quote:

31 USC § 1341 - Limitations on expending and obligating amounts

(1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not—
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;

A poster asserted in a different thread that if the US Government makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure for which funds don't exist, then an appropriation or funds must later be made available.

That seems to be wrong.

As per the law referenced above, the government cannnot make or authorize an obligation or expenditure until -after- the appropriation or funds are available.

In other words, it is illegal to pass a law which creates an obligation on the part of the US government until _after_ the funds/appropriation for those funds already exists.

If it is me you are referring to than I apologize for asserting that. It wasn't what I meant. You were implying that the PPACA was part of the resolution that failed Monday. We were trying to tell you that it wasn't and I mentioned that this move was unprecedented and was not a failure on the Democrats part to not negotiate. From your posts you seem to believe that the PPACA was funded through the resolution and that the house was simply removing it. I said that what the GOP was doing was unprecedented, meaning to make it clear that laws have not been defunded prior to implementation on financial resolutions that they are not part of. Looking back at it what I said was much more muddled.

Shadow Lodge

I am in Silver Spring, MD. I am down to play anything. I don't want to GM (already doing that with another group).

Shadow Lodge

I can play on the weekend. Are you near the metro? Where are you?

Shadow Lodge

thunderspirit wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
Asphere wrote:
It has to be funded until it is repealed.
What administrative law states that? I'd like to read it.
I've got Justin Rocket's back on this (and only this) point: unfunded mandates exist all over Federal law (No Child Left Behind, as merely one example). There's nothing at all that says appropriations have to be made for law enactment. It's a well-rehearsed tactic, even if if it completely circumvents the legislative process.

Can you give an example of one that was defunded before it was implemented and failed?

Shadow Lodge

Bondoid wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
As for stopping the government, the Democrats could have accepted any of the Republican proposals and kept the government running.
You're not even reading this thread, are you? :P
I'm reading it. Some people aren't acknowledging that the Democrats could have accepted the Republican budget and kept the government running. Oh sure, they would have felt that they just handed over a baby to be dropped in a blender, but the Republicans would have felt the same way if they accepted the Democrat budget.
Congress already passed the PPACA. It has to be funded until it is repealed. Laws cannot be repealed by refusing to sign funding bills. Additionally, concessions and negotiations were already made 3 years ago to such an extent that Obama is criticized heavily for compromising too much with conservatives. I am sorry but you clearly just do not understand what is going on here.

This is completely wrong.

The Anti-Deficiency Act of 1984 allows congress to kill government programs by not funding them.

It also makes it illegal for the Executive branch to continue government programs that have been de-funded.

Yes government programs whose cost exceeds what is available in appropriations or funds. The PPACA is funded through its own tax.

Shadow Lodge

Justin Rocket wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
As for stopping the government, the Democrats could have accepted any of the Republican proposals and kept the government running.
You're not even reading this thread, are you? :P
I'm reading it. Some people aren't acknowledging that the Democrats could have accepted the Republican budget and kept the government running. Oh sure, they would have felt that they just handed over a baby to be dropped in a blender, but the Republicans would have felt the same way if they accepted the Democrat budget.

Congress already passed the PPACA. It has to be funded until it is repealed. Laws cannot be repealed by refusing to sign funding bills. Additionally, concessions and negotiations were already made 3 years ago to such an extent that Obama is criticized heavily for compromising too much with conservatives. I am sorry but you clearly just do not understand what is going on here.

Shadow Lodge

Justin Rocket wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


That strikes me as problematic. You need to start backing horses with a chance.

That strikes me as problematic. As long as people vote for politicians who "have a chance" because they are backed by the DNC and RNC, our country won't have a chance because the DNC and RNC are killing us.

Quote:


Based on what, exactly?

Actual facts say otherwise. Darned facts.

what actual evidence are you pointing to?

the current failure of federal government came about because our government overreached and got too big. Your represenatives are people who have no experience living like you.

So do you support creating a new legislative mechanism to repeal laws by attaching provisions to funding bills that defund what was democratically agreed upon? Regardless of how you feel about the PPACA - doesn't that strike you as undemocratic and a step in the wrong direction for your big picture goals discussed above? Imagine if it worked. The democrats will use it on the republicans. It would be chaos.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Rocket wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
ACA is a component of funding. It cannot be considered totally unrelated to funding.

EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES is "related" to funding...see my remark above about the Bush tax cuts.

Extortion, plain and simple. Thankfully, it is almost guaranteed to backfire.

When the person you are negotiating with doesn't cooperate, that's not extortion. it is failure on your part (and maybe the other person's part) to negotiate.

They weren't negotiating on the PPAC. It was enacted 3 years ago and became law. It has to be funded unless it can be repealed. That is the process. What is happening now, to my knowledge, has never happened before. It is a political pathway that bypasses the democratic process. It cannot be allowed to work regardless of what it is about.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
Stebehil wrote:

No, the folks are sent home and don´t get any money for that time. Gotta pay some bills? Too bad, thats what you get for working for the gov´t - that what some right-wing nuts would say, I guess.

And what the left-wing nuts would say as well.

I am not sure I follow this whole "both parties are to blame" rhetoric. The PPACA was enacted by congress after much compromise from both parties. The current spending bill has nothing to do with the PPACA other than the fact that some conservatives have used it as a hostage to defund the PPACA.

Friday, 9/20/13 - The House of Representatives passed a Continuing Resolution that would fully fund the government (including things that Republicans don't like) while at the same time defunding Obamacare.

Result: House Republicans compromised on spending that we'd like to see cut in exchange for defunding Obamacare.

Friday, 9/27/13 - The Senate stripped the defunding language out of the House passed Continuing Resolution and sent it back to the House.
Result: Harry Reid and Senate Democrats refused to compromise.

Saturday, 9/28/13 - The House of Representatives added two amendments to the Senate revised Continuing Resolution to delay Obamacare for one year (far from what we were originally willing to agree to) and repeal the medical device tax.
Result: House Republicans compromised away from defunding to delaying Obamacare for one year.

Monday, 9/30/13 - The Senate stripped the two amendments from the House passed Continuing Resolution and sent it back to the House.
Result: Harry Reid and Senate Democrats refuse to compromise one inch on Obamacare.

It looks to me like the responsibility for the failure to reach a solution fell on both parties.

But the PPACA was already enacted by both chambers of congress 3 years ago after heavy compromise from the left. There is a legislative process to challenge established laws - the Republicans have failed 41 times (I think?) to repeal the PPACA via this process. The next step would be to win future elections and to continue to challenge it.

The PPACA was not part of the spending bill. The spending bill is being used as a last attempt to stop the PPACA through unprecedented strategy based on extortion.

Shadow Lodge

MMCJawa wrote:

A fellow grad student left on a plane from New Zealand to visit collections at the Smithsonian for 3 weeks before the big vert paleo conferences. The Smithsonian has one of the best collections of marine mammal material in the world, and is crucial for his dissertation research.

Smithsonian is shut down now, and so he is going to be left to try to rearrange his trip and find suitable material elsewhere.

Damn that sucks.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Stebehil wrote:

No, the folks are sent home and don´t get any money for that time. Gotta pay some bills? Too bad, thats what you get for working for the gov´t - that what some right-wing nuts would say, I guess.

And what the left-wing nuts would say as well.

I am not sure I follow this whole "both parties are to blame" rhetoric. The PPACA was enacted by congress after much compromise from both parties. The current spending bill has nothing to do with the PPACA other than the fact that some conservatives have used it as a hostage to defund the PPACA.

Shadow Lodge

Skeld wrote:
Asphere wrote:
I am a contractor at a government lab. We are still open, however, it is uncertain whether or not we will be during the duration of the shutdown - it depends on how long it is shut down. I still get paid even if I am told not to come to work (one of the few perks of being a contractor vs. government employee). I have been told that I am to work at home but I am not allowed to use my personal computer (security reasons) even though 99% of my work involves a computer. Brilliant.

I'm also a contractor in a government lab and I'm at work today. They told us yesterday to keep right on coming in because we still have FY13 money that we can tap.

However, I don't know what kind of contracting deal you have, but I know that if we do get sent home, there is no pay or working from home for me. In fact, I work with a lot of contractors from a lot of different companies (large and small) and I don't know any of them that get paid for not working. The government employees have always gotten back pay for shutdowns; contractors, not so much. (Your contract must be set up differently than the ones I'm used to dealing with.)

-Skeld

Yes I guess it depends on what kind of contractor you are. I am a postdoctoral researcher so things are definitely different for me.

Shadow Lodge

Orthos wrote:
Link for those of us not in the know?

link

Shadow Lodge

I am a contractor at a government lab. We are still open, however, it is uncertain whether or not we will be during the duration of the shutdown - it depends on how long it is shut down. I still get paid even if I am told not to come to work (one of the few perks of being a contractor vs. government employee). I have been told that I am to work at home but I am not allowed to use my personal computer (security reasons) even though 99% of my work involves a computer. Brilliant.

Shadow Lodge

So who had to stay home from work today?

Shadow Lodge

Licensing. To get a license you must undergo an extensive background check that includes your mental health history and the mental health histories of those living with you. Also, it includes a criminal background check. If the automated process catches something it should be flagged and reported to a person who can decide to decline, pass, or bring in for an interview. If you are declined a detailed report should be sent to your and you should be allowed to request an appeal.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why am I not a millionaire? I am a physicist.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Update*

I finally got in touch with someone at the USPS Recovery center. They told me that since I was mailed the label that was on my box she was sure that the box and the books became separated (box busted open). If that was the case, the books would be grouped together and sent to the Mail Recovery Center to be processed. However, that particular department is still working on received items from June. So there is still hope that they will find my items when they get to them. It just might take awhile.

I am fairly surprised that the box busted open. The box I used was from my work and is used to ship scientific equipment with - very thick and sturdy. Additionally, I used tons of tape. The whole box was pretty much covered with tape that wrapped several times around each length. Since it was media mail I am inclined to think that they opened it to make sure that it was books and then did a s@*! job taping it back up.

Shadow Lodge

Sissyl wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Who says I didn't cry like and ugly, ugly baby? My wife feels really bad because she is the one who absent mindlessly forgot to add insurance when she printed off the label (it was the last package). I told her not to worry about it and then secretly locked it away in the vault inside my head to use the next time I do something bad.
Oh, right... one thing. "I forgot" can mean many different things.

I can see how you would think that. However, she plays in my group frequently. Additionally, I landed a job and we had to move in 2 weeks so we were both stressed out with all of the packing and cleaning we had to do. We have the ability to weigh packages and print labels from home so we sat there and did it together. We had a few at the end that were media mail and she just didn't click the button for insurance when we were on the last one. To be honest it was a bit my fault too because she didn't ask about the value and I didn't notice (even though she had for all the other boxes).

1 to 50 of 671 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.