Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

How to check a player's history


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
*

Other than a chronicle sheet is there any way to look up a player's history? The sessions he's played and that kind of stuff?

Just had someone walk in and his PFS number is like 2000 higher than someone who just started playing a couple months ago. It just raised a red flag for me.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Roshan wrote:

Other than a chronicle sheet is there any way to look up a player's history? The sessions he's played and that kind of stuff?

Just had someone walk in and his PFS number is like 2000 higher than someone who just started playing a couple months ago. It just raised a red flag for me.

There is no way, unless you reported all their games. Having a number 2000 higher is not unusual, and if the Number is not "Legal" you would get that warning once you report the game.

Paizo Employee ** Developer

Roshan wrote:

Other than a chronicle sheet is there any way to look up a player's history? The sessions he's played and that kind of stuff?

Just had someone walk in and his PFS number is like 2000 higher than someone who just started playing a couple months ago. It just raised a red flag for me.

If you believe someone to have fabricated Chronicle sheets, you can contact your local venture-captain, or someone at paizo by emailing pathfindersociety@paizo.com.


2000 at this time of year is probably a small amount, since between PaizoCon in June and GenCon in August a lot of new numbers would have been given out.

And like Dragnmoon said, unless every session played was reported online, which one day will hopefully be the case, there is no way to verify other than with the chronicles the player has with them. Of course, you do have the right, and the responsibility, to audit the chronicles if you are suspicious that something is not right.

Edit: and what Mark said too. :)

Andoran ***

As to the number being 2000 higher, even without PaizoCon and GenCon, remember that each "regular" GM probably has a sheet of ten reserved ID numbers, so it is entirely possible for two people, obtaining numbers at the same moment, either from different GMs or one of them online, can have numbers pretty far apart.

2000 numbers would only require 200 GMs to get the reserved numbers. My local area is fairly small, and we would still have 5-6 people who could have batches of reserved numbers. I just gave out another one from my second batch just this past Friday night...

*

He had the scenario sheets so it's all good. Apparently him and a group of his friends started a couple days ago and they played 3 scenarios on their first day.

Something that Enevhar said kinda bugged me though. Aren't all sessions required to be reported online for the character to gain credit?


Roshan wrote:

He had the scenario sheets so it's all good. Apparently him and a group of his friends started a couple days ago and they played 3 scenarios on their first day.

Something that Enevhar said kinda bugged me though. Aren't all sessions required to be reported online for the character to gain credit?

Nope. At this time, physical chronicle sheets still trump online reporting. For example, if someone has a 4th level character with the necessary nine chronicle sheets accompanying their character sheet, but the GMs or Event Coordinators have been too busy or lazy to report all of them online, that character is still legal. Part of the reason that online reporting is not required and is not the only legal option is that there are still a lot of venues with no internet access and thus no way to verify the character online in the PFS database.

Paizo Employee * Webstore Gninja Minion

Roshan wrote:
Something that Enevhar said kinda bugged me though. Aren't all sessions required to be reported online for the character to gain credit?

To gain prestige for the metaplot, yes, but otherwise, it's not 100% required. (We of course do prefer that sessions are reported so we know how and where Pathfinder Society is being played so we know where to send resources, or get a Venture-Captain to the area.)

Cheliax

Liz Courts wrote:
Roshan wrote:
Something that Enevhar said kinda bugged me though. Aren't all sessions required to be reported online for the character to gain credit?
To gain prestige for the metaplot, yes, but otherwise, it's not 100% required. (We of course do prefer that sessions are reported so we know how and where Pathfinder Society is being played so we know where to send resources, or get a Venture-Captain to the area.)

A slightly related aside. I would love to write an app, that given a PFS# (or list there of) would tell you what scenarios the character has played.

This is mainly an idea for something organizers could use to make sure they don't schedule people into mods they've played before.

Trouble is, the info isn't publicly available, which I find, odd.

Osirion **

Nevynxxx wrote:

I would love to write an app, that given a PFS# (or list there of) would tell you what scenarios the character has played.

this type of app has been on my to-do list for ages - i did one previously for LG, and the lack of hard data on just the players i know makes it hard to plan / organise games...just got to get my finger out, buy a website & hosting, and start writing..

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Nevynxxx wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
Roshan wrote:
Something that Enevhar said kinda bugged me though. Aren't all sessions required to be reported online for the character to gain credit?
To gain prestige for the metaplot, yes, but otherwise, it's not 100% required. (We of course do prefer that sessions are reported so we know how and where Pathfinder Society is being played so we know where to send resources, or get a Venture-Captain to the area.)

A slightly related aside. I would love to write an app, that given a PFS# (or list there of) would tell you what scenarios the character has played.

This is mainly an idea for something organizers could use to make sure they don't schedule people into mods they've played before.

Trouble is, the info isn't publicly available, which I find, odd.

I kind of have a major bit of respect for the rights of privacy. And quite frankly that kind of information isn't your business. Past Network campaigns survived quite all right without this invasiveness and cheaters were caught without it as well. and I think Paizo's can do so as well.

And besides... why should you care what someone else has done? Keep your own sidewalk clean and the rest of the traffic will take care of itself.

Paizo Employee * Webstore Gninja Minion

Privacy issues are precisely why we haven't introduced a feature that allows public access to what scenarios players have been in. Asking players "Hey, what haven't you played yet?" is a lot easier than setting aside programming time from the IT Department as well. :D

Cheliax

LazarX wrote:

I kind of have a major bit of respect for the rights of privacy. And quite frankly that kind of information isn't your business. Past Network campaigns survived quite all right without this invasiveness and cheaters were caught without it as well. and I think Paizo's can do so as well.

And besides... why should you care what someone else has done? Keep your own sidewalk clean and the rest of the traffic will take care of itself.

Lazar: I didn't mean "I want to snoop on people" I meant "I have 100 players in this room in a couple of weeks, and want to organise them into tables such that the tables fulfill the rules of the campaign."

Asking people to provide that info, and sorting it can lead to 1) a lot of time, and 2) issues where it takes a couple of weeks to sort the information, and in that time, the info changes to become invalid..... I'm thinking of an ap aimed at the people who organise big game days really.

Right now, I *could* write that app, but it would require manually getting a list of scenarios people have played and storing them, which in the end wouldn't save much time. I probably wouldn't even display the data, just use it to give a list of valid tables.....

The tech can be used for good or bad I suppose. But I'd be interested to know why you would be worried about others knowing what scenarios your characters have played?

Cheliax

Liz Courts wrote:
Privacy issues are precisely why we haven't introduced a feature that allows public access to what scenarios players have been in. Asking players "Hey, what haven't you played yet?" is a lot easier than setting aside programming time from the IT Department as well. :D

:D

Those poor, poor event organisers.......

Qadira *** Venture-Captain, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Thorkull

Nevynxxx wrote:
Lazar: I didn't mean "I want to snoop on people" I meant "I have 100 players in this room in a couple of weeks, and want to organise them into tables such that the tables fulfill the rules of the campaign."

Let them organize themselves, preferably through a site like Warhorn

Nevynxxx wrote:
The tech can be used for good or bad I suppose. But I'd be interested to know why you would be worried about others knowing what scenarios your characters have played?

What your asking for is essentially a list of everyone who's ever played a PFS game's name, and the time, date and location they played. OK, they can probably filter out the event code, but it wouldn't be too hard to correlate that with the event data in the calendar based on play dates.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Nevynxxx wrote:
The tech can be used for good or bad I suppose. But I'd be interested to know why you would be worried about others knowing what scenarios your characters have played?

Privacy is a slippery slope. Once you ask one thing, others get expected. And quite frankly, the concept of inalienable rights means that I don't need to justify my expectation of them to anyone. If needs came down to it, Paizo HAS that info, at least for every session that's actually been recorded. What need DO YOU have for my information that can't be addressed by less invasive methods including a registration site like Warhorn? If you don't trust me as a player, don't play with me. If you don't trust me as GM, boycott my table. It's really quite that simple.


We need an Angie's List for gamers?

Taldor ***

Locally we've held nearly all information on one particular wikisite, containing information what scenarios the players have played (the player base isn't around hundreds, more like a dozen), which helps to choose a suitable scenario beforehand.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

The best you can do is keep track of you own players.

Grand Lodge **

Players should be self selecting into tables for Cons by and large. If they are unable to manage this exception on their own (ie: know what you've played, know what you are carrying Chronicles for) there really isn't much more you as an organizer can do to help them.
Warhorn and similar are good resources. You can ask players to self identify via wikis or spreadsheets and the like, but these systems are prone to bad data by their very nature. They might help you make a slightly more informed decision than just throwing darts though.

If, as a player, you expect to just show up and play without any more forethought than that you will find yourself not playing at times (or playing for no credit).

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Mark Garringer wrote:
If, as a player, you expect to just show up and play without any more forethought than that you will find yourself not playing at times (or playing for no credit).

You would be amazed how often I see this at Cons.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Privacy is a slippery slope. Once you ask one thing, others get expected. And quite frankly, the concept of inalienable rights means that I don't need to justify my expectation of them to anyone. If needs came down to it, Paizo HAS that info, at least for every session that's actually been recorded. What need DO YOU have for my information that can't be addressed by less invasive methods including a registration site like Warhorn? If you don't trust me as a player, don't play with me. If you don't trust me as GM, boycott my table. It's really quite that simple.

lol, I only said I'd be interested to know, I didn't demand violation of your rights...

I guess I picked the wrong thread to mention this again in. As far as I'm concerned my idea has nothing to do with trust, and everything to do with helping some already overworked and stressed people.

Perhaps cons are organised differently in the UK than in the US, but if PaizoConUK was "self select", I doubt it would actually happen. Our VC puts in an enormous amount of work, and I simply want to help him out.

Anyway, threadjack over. :D

Qadira *

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Nevynxxx wrote:


Anyway, threadjack over. :D

Almost :)

It's a fantastic idea, and I have no problem with a new tick-box on the Paizo site (deselected by default) that when selected allows someone who knows my PFS id to scrape a list of which sessions I've played with which characters. Anything that allows our esteemed VC to spend more time running.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Garringer wrote:
Players should be self selecting into tables for Cons by and large.

'Small but perfectly-formed', WLTM taller lady (or gent), GSOH, for regular escapades toward fun and profit. Travel possible/desired, preferably not in the Cheliax region, as the locals have trouble distinguishing their slips from distinguished denizens of the elder world.

Must like pets, be fond of grooming, piggybacks, and not have an aversion to gingers.

Paizo Employee ** Developer

brock wrote:
Nevynxxx wrote:


Anyway, threadjack over. :D

Almost :)

It's a fantastic idea, and I have no problem with a new tick-box on the Paizo site (deselected by default) that when selected allows someone who knows my PFS id to scrape a list of which sessions I've played with which characters. Anything that allows our esteemed VC to spend more time running.

If we ever did something like this, it would almost certainly be an opt-in situation. But there are currently no plans to make players' session histories public. And venture-captains already have admin privileges regarding reporting of Pathfinder Society events, so a venture-captain can see what someone has played for this very reason—to make their jobs of coordinating regional events easier.


LazarX wrote:
Nevynxxx wrote:
The tech can be used for good or bad I suppose. But I'd be interested to know why you would be worried about others knowing what scenarios your characters have played?
Privacy is a slippery slope. Once you ask one thing, others get expected. And quite frankly, the concept of inalienable rights means that I don't need to justify my expectation of them to anyone. If needs came down to it, Paizo HAS that info, at least for every session that's actually been recorded. What need DO YOU have for my information that can't be addressed by less invasive methods including a registration site like Warhorn? If you don't trust me as a player, don't play with me. If you don't trust me as GM, boycott my table. It's really quite that simple.

Precisely the reason that I do not, and will never post under a name/id that can be connected to my play history. I've already seen one VC here post what he thought was my play history, in public, without my permission. I've seen multiple VC's post about other forum member's play histories as well. Despite Paizo's apparently posted privacy policy.

Given we've already seen one GM say that he likes to look through past chronicles looking for completed faction missions that he can ascribe as "evil acts", I'd hate for some GM that I've never sat down with to decide that a character that I play that has never appeared at his table is evil, based on past success or failure of certain faction missions.

Who I am, where I am, where I've played, and who I have played with are all my private data, not to be given out without my consent, thankyouverymuch.

Taldor ***

Personally I wouldn't need to know what's your real name, where you live etc. but more about what your character has done.

Let's take an example, like online games. Since there's no real way of checking what games everyone has played via the reporting tool here at Paizo's, it falls to the honor system. I don't mind that, but in particular cases it could be useful to see whether characters 47261-4, 61441-2, 44154-10 and 77163-3 have played scenario #4-05.


Deussu wrote:

Personally I wouldn't need to know what's your real name, where you live etc. but more about what your character has done.

Let's take an example, like online games. Since there's no real way of checking what games everyone has played via the reporting tool here at Paizo's, it falls to the honor system. I don't mind that, but in particular cases it could be useful to see whether characters 47261-4, 61441-2, 44154-10 and 77163-3 have played scenario #4-05.

Unless that you believe someone is lying to you, simply asking them should be sufficient.

If you believe someone is lying to you, and that they have in fact played a module previously, then you have multiple options.

1) "I'm sorry, but I can't give you credit for this module. You can either play the character you were going to play, for zero credit, or you can play a pregen."

2) "I really think you are lying to me about whether or not you have played this module before. As you have apparently broken the "Don't Cheat" rule, I'm not comfortable having you at my table any further. Please leave."

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fozzy Hammer wrote:

Precisely the reason that I do not, and will never post under a name/id that can be connected to my play history. I've already seen one VC here post what he thought was my play history, in public, without my permission. I've seen multiple VC's post about other forum member's play histories as well. Despite Paizo's apparently posted privacy policy.

Character aliases are public information. GM stars are public information. Some posters have posted that they do not play, or have publicly said they are quitting the campaign; we may not be correct to assume they followed thru, but sometimes assumptions get made.

You may want to re-read the Privacy Policy. While personal info should not be posted on the boards, the policy does allow for sharing of some information with 3rd parties, and specifically refers to sharing PFS information with Venture-Captains.

Assuming your sessions have been reported, a GM is going to find out when you have already played a scenario regardless. And if you're not reporting, you're not really playing Organized Play.

And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.

Fozzy Hammer wrote:


Given we've already seen one GM say that he likes to look through past chronicles looking for completed faction missions that he can ascribe as "evil acts", I'd hate for some GM that I've never sat down with to decide that a character that I play that has never appeared at his table is evil, based on past success or failure of certain faction missions.

Can you link to that post?

I recall GMs saying they would flag evil actions on Chronicles (including during Faction Missions), and GMs who would audit Chronicles and deal with characters based on repeated flags. I must have missed someone saying they would retroactively determine a past Prestige gained from another GM must have been an evil act.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Moreland wrote:
If we ever did something like this, it would almost certainly be an opt-in situation. But there are currently no plans to make players' session histories public.

Huh. I never realised they weren't public.

I assumed they were visible, so the owner could have bragging rights, over how much they'd done.

Mark Moreland wrote:
And venture-captains already have admin privileges regarding reporting of Pathfinder Society events, so a venture-captain can see what someone has played for this very reason—to make their jobs of coordinating regional events easier.

I think that answers Nevynxxx' query.

Anything that makes a VC's job easier, in assigning players to games.

Sczarni *** Venture-Lieutenant, Connecticut—Manchester aka Cpt_kirstov

Mark Moreland wrote:
brock wrote:
Nevynxxx wrote:


Anyway, threadjack over. :D

Almost :)

It's a fantastic idea, and I have no problem with a new tick-box on the Paizo site (deselected by default) that when selected allows someone who knows my PFS id to scrape a list of which sessions I've played with which characters. Anything that allows our esteemed VC to spend more time running.

If we ever did something like this, it would almost certainly be an opt-in situation. But ther eare currently no plans to make players' session histories public.

I do think that GMs should be able to see who was reported as playing @ the table. We could until the last code rewrite, and today I got a question that a session that I had DMed, but wasn't the person to enter into the system isn't showing on one player's page. Unfortunatly, I have no way to confirm that or report who it IS showing for incorrectly, as I don't have access to see who it is reported on.


K Neil Shackleton wrote:

And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.

I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference?


K Neil Shackleton wrote:


Fozzy Hammer wrote:


Given we've already seen one GM say that he likes to look through past chronicles looking for completed faction missions that he can ascribe as "evil acts", I'd hate for some GM that I've never sat down with to decide that a character that I play that has never appeared at his table is evil, based on past success or failure of certain faction missions.

Can you link to that post?

I recall GMs saying they would flag evil actions on Chronicles (including during Faction Missions), and GMs who would audit Chronicles and deal with characters based on repeated flags. I must have missed someone saying they would retroactively determine a past Prestige gained from another GM must have been an evil act.
ThePost
Chris Mortika wrote:
As a GM, I've considered those to be traps: if your PC tries to complete them, I'll note as much on your character sheet. If I already see such a note (or see that you received prestige award in such a scenario), I'll write a note moving your character's alignment one step closer to Evil. If you were already Neutral, your character becomes unplayable.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Paizo puts faction missions in with the expectation that characters will complete them. If you're reading them as turning characters evil, perhaps the problem is that you're misreading the missions and the acts associated with them. Paizo is not going to turn characters evil with faction missions. At least not in and of themselves.

That being said, a Paladin taking up with the Scarzoni is buying trouble.

Grand Lodge **

Fozzy Hammer wrote:
K Neil Shackleton wrote:

And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.

I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference?

Not to speak for Neil, but he may be thinking of playing under 2 different PFS numbers. Which isn't what you said you were doing.


Mark Garringer wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
K Neil Shackleton wrote:

And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.

I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference?
Not to speak for Neil, but he may be thinking of playing under 2 different PFS numbers. Which isn't what you said you were doing.

I can't think that there would be much point of trying to have two different PFS numbers. (Though I can't even find a reference for that, but it's moot to me).

Given that most people generally play with a specific play group, the GM's will generally have your PFS number on file (or on a list, or in a spreadsheet), and playing under separate numbers will just come up as cheesy.

The only reason I could see someone trying is if they wanted to try to get credit for the same scenario multiple times, but the local players would already know that you had played in the scenario.

You might be able to go to a convention and re-play a scenario, but then how would you bring that character back to your home play group?

Even if you were to claim (or in fact did) lose track of your number, then you have still got your friends and fellow players knowing which scenarios you've played, and which you haven't.

Lies are too difficult to keep track of. Too much work for me.


Mark Garringer wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
K Neil Shackleton wrote:

And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.

I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference?
Not to speak for Neil, but he may be thinking of playing under 2 different PFS numbers. Which isn't what you said you were doing.

Well, there is:

page wrote:
Warning: If you already have a registration card do not click this button.

But it's not really in the form of a rule.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

LazarX, there are some Season 0 faction missions that are trouble, in and of themselves. The archetypical action that Mark M. cites, and most people agree, is evil would be to roam through Absalom, setting fires to buildings and trying to cause general chaos and destruction, ignoring any innocent life that would be lost. There's a faction mission in an unretired Season 0 scenario that asks you to do something like that, and then frame someone else.

It's been pointed out to me, though, that a character would have received credit for that mission if it had been a colleague who had done all the mayhem.

Players protested that the Cheliax mission for the very first adventure, Silent Tide, is evil (the characters are explicitly told that their actions will help bind more innocent souls to the yoke of Asmodeus). Josh explicitly told us that the Paracountess was overselling the powers of House Thrune.

I now explain to my players that there are work-arounds to these missions (making sure there's no innocent loss of life, for example), but that simple-mindedly launching into them will have consequences.

--

I've run that Season 0 scenario twice now, once with a PC of the faction in question, and I'd like to offer into the record that yes, setting fires and exploding a warehouse in a crowded marketplace is in fact disruptive to the table, as the rest of the party then stopped chasing after the McGuffin and tried to save lives.

Grand Lodge **

Fozzy Hammer wrote:
But it's not really in the form of a rule.

Right, it does not appear that the Guide expressly forbids you from having more than 1 unique tracking number per player in PFS. *sigh*


Mark Garringer wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
But it's not really in the form of a rule.
Right, it does not appear that the Guide expressly forbids you from having more than 1 unique tracking number per player in PFS. *sigh*

Ya. It appears to fall into that realm of "things that everyone thinks are rules, but aren't".

"Evil acts are forbidden" (No such rule)
"You can't have more than one PFS number" (No such rule)
"You can't have more than one messageboard account" (No such rule)
"You can't craft in PFS" (Crafting Skill is never called out as disallowed).
"Item creation is not allowed" (Arcane Bond)

Grand Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually, I was referring to Paizo accounts, and I did say "frowned upon", not a rule.

I've seen it on here a few times in the past, but here is one example.

Thank you for providing the quote. I agree that is improper, but will save the discussion for a more appropriate thread.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Fozzy Hammer wrote:
I've already seen one VC here post what he thought was my play history, in public, without my permission. I've seen multiple VC's post about other forum member's play histories as well. Despite Paizo's apparently posted privacy policy.

This was largely a misunderstanding regarding the scope of the VC access vs. the privacy policy. It has been clarified, and should not be an issue. A VC or Paizo staff member may check your play history and discuss the contents with YOU, but it should not be made public. On behalf of the VC's, I apologize if this caused problems for any forum posters.

That being said, there is some benefit to VC's being able to access a player's history to help organize scenario offerings. It can also help verify or refute a report of cheating.

And it is as Neil said, "frowned upon" to have multiple Paizo accounts. There are a number of reasons, but the one most applicable to the forums is the "sock puppet" concept that is bad form and grounds for removal.


Bob Jonquet wrote:


And it is as Neil said, "frowned upon" to have multiple Paizo accounts. There are a number of reasons, but the one most applicable to the forums is the "sock puppet" concept that is bad form and grounds for removal.

Yet another unwritten rule? I've been unable to find any mention of such.

No, I'm not a sockpuppet. Either what I write resonates, or it does not. I try very hard to support my opinions with actual rules text, and where rules text does not exist, to point out that my opinion is merely my opinion.

All that said, I will reiterate that rules that are not written are not rules. They might be considered etiquette or custom, if a consensus agrees that they are such, but not rules.


By the time I got to the end of this thread, I honestly could not remember what the OP was even about.

It sounds like everyone is just misunderstanding each other. I'm sure no one meant to insinuate anything negative about anyone's character. Let's remember that this is a forum discussing what is honestly, for nearly all of us, just a fun way to pass the time, even when it includes a bit of paperwork. Can't we all just get along?

And, to the OP.... that is weird, but have you tried just pointing it out and asking the person? Honestly, even if they did make a fake number, what would it hurt? Besides, the fact that the person is so pathetic that they have to make up a fake number for an already free-to-register account and won't be getting any credit at all for it is probably punishment enough.


K Neil Shackleton wrote:


And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.

Honestly, I just read that as tongue-in-cheek. I doubt the web team appreciates people clogging up their servers with multiple accounts.


Fozzy Hammer wrote:
No, I'm not a sockpuppet.

I laughed at that, to be honest. I usually genuinely enjoy reading your posts; they're usually extremely well organized and supported, and I look to you as a real expert on rules. That being said, I had to laugh imagining you going back and forth between accounts, arguing with (or agreeing with) yourself.

And, that being said... I cast DISPEL SOCIAL TENSION.

Paizo Employee PostMonster General

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
"You can't have more than one messageboard account" (No such rule)

Actually, not every rule in the world is spelled out. This one, for example. If we find that an individual is using multiple accounts on paizo.com, we will merge them. We don't care if you use a pseudonym, but we do care that you are a single person. If you want to use different names to present differing points of view or something, that's what messageboard aliases are for.


Gary Teter wrote:
Actually, not every rule in the world is spelled out.

Wait... not every rule is clearly stated? Well, at least ignorance of the law is an excuse... wait, it's not??

Andoran **

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Just to mention, PFS numbers can be weird things. :P My PFS number is relatively low to everyone I play with because I signed up for PFS at Gencon a few years back, but only started playing PFS a couple of months ago.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / How to check a player's history All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.