Shattered Kingdoms

So sometimes as a Paragon, I am hesitant to reward a character for the simple fact that I can't remember if I've rewarded them before or not and I don't wish to break any rules on using the reward ability.

Is there a way or would it be possible to implement a Reward History for Paragons so that they could simply check the characters they have rewarded to avoid accidentally rewarding a character multiple times?

You don't need to worry about this. Multiple rewards to the same character within a set time period are automatically rejected.

I agree that the Paragon flag should not be used in this fashion, but there -are- many players on this game who do an incredible job with RP. Is it against the rules to notice some awesome RP on your char and request a PAR to reward them? For instance, I was on a hellion a few years back, ran into another hellion who just RP'd the sh!t out of things, and I had a generally awesome time. I contacted a random PAR and asked them to enlight dude. He did, and it was all good. I've also asked IMMs to enlight people too.

Methinks you answered your own question.

My elaboration would be that if you are not a PAR, then you should definitely feel free to tell paragons or admins if you see some worthy RP. But if you are a PAR and you've already enlightened that person, and you are being rejected from giving them another PAR so soon: Then no, you should not try to get someone else to do it for you.

Nah the way I understood what you said was that if you were to enlight someone twice in say, the same week, that they wouldn't receive it. I know each character is only allowed one enlight per day. My bad

You may have been inactive when this changed, which is possibly the source of the confusion here. Yes, there is still the once per day for a person restriction. But sources of rewards are now also being tracked. So if you have already rewarded a person, and you try to reward them again too soon, it will tell you that you can't do it again yet.

Thanks for the clarification, I do believe that I was in fact inactive while that change took place, I simply didn't want to overstep my bounds as a PAR, the method you have in place makes that pretty much fool proof, so that takes care of that.