 as commercial advertising. To be honest, I’m probably not going to bother to go off and send a special email with a special subject line – I’m just going to hit “block user” and “delete thread”. But I would also hit “report advertising account to admin”.
aggronlv45
03/03/2013 at 9:39 pm
OK, I’ve been looking at the comments, and I have read the rules, so I’m going to ask this because in all honesty, I’m seriously confused. It sounds to me that, judging by the comics, Original Characters aren’t allowed. Is this true? I dont remember reading that in the rules. Let me give an example. I made a nuzlocke run fanfic about pokemon. I used premade pokemon and one or two minor character from the games, but the main character and the pokemons’ personalities were original (not from the show or games) Does this break the rule?
yemi hikari
03/04/2013 at 5:30 am
Most OCs are allowed. The ones that aren’t allowed are the real person self-inserts.
aggronlv45
03/04/2013 at 6:36 am
thank you very much. I always sprinkle a little of myself in every character, but i never make a character based 100% off anybody real. Not interesting enough in my opinion.
tbww
03/03/2013 at 11:28 pm
.It would make no difference. Just like popular fics always have reviews posted that would bump them up in the review sorted fics, most recent post sorting wod have all the rpgs at the top with constsnt posts. The forums are sorted by revelabce or how much they sre looked at/used so the abandoned ones are at the back and the active ones are front. Forums with more posts hVe more views that keep them at the top. Its perfdct how it is and most recent would require constant change and rank. If someone goes through unactive forums and posts theyre in the front and active ones are back…yeah it needs to stay the same as it is
tbww
03/03/2013 at 11:29 pm
And how about an o c character choice in all fandoms?
Alaverat
03/05/2013 at 6:12 pm
Who sorts by reviews? That seems similar to reading the 100 Most Important Novels or The New York Times Best Seller List. I don’t know anyone who does that. I certainly don’t like a story according to what someone else may say about it.I do not feel any hate or fear of LGBT people. There are discrimination laws in place and they should be obeyed. I thank God I live in a country where all have the right to express their views. The nature and tone of the present discussion convinces me that my religious freedom is being challenged. The discussion has exhibited little tolerance for my convictions. This path is dangerous and one cannot cry out "lack of tolerance and discrimination" while offering no tolerance to others.
My church does not preach hate of anyone and is very strong in a commitment that love is the way to serve people. It helps people in need in many ways you will never see by driving by looking at a building. Come on in. Can we possibly walk away from the fear and hate rhetoric that is based in feelings and not in fact?
Glen Bryant lives in Nixa.<issue_start><issue_comment>Title: [TW-522] Dependencies of waiting tasks appear in 'task next'
username_0: _<NAME> on 2012-03-29T04:09:59Z says:_ 

 I'm not sure if this is a bug, or by design to support some counter-intuitive use case.

The [[Feature_next|documentation for 'next']] says, "the next report has a very good chance of showing appropriate tasks." But suppose I create tasks 1, 2 and 3, then:
<pre>
$ task 1 mod dep:2
$ task 2 mod dep:3
$ task 3 mod wait:tom
$ task next
</pre>

In other words, 1 is blocked by 2, 2 is blocked by 3, and 3 is not to be started until later. The user input implies that 1 and 2 will not be started until on or after the wait date of their blocker. But while 3 does not appear in the 'next' report, 1 and 2 do. I feel like they should not.

This is with task 2.0.0.release-0ubuntu2 on Ubuntu precise.<issue_closed>
<issue_comment>username_0: Migrated metadata:
```
Created: 2012-03-29T04:09:59Z
Modified: 2014-06-06T18:42:53Z
```
<issue_comment>username_0: _<NAME> on 2012-03-29T11:56:06Z says:_ 

 That's a good example, but not a bug.  When a task is waiting, it doesn't show up on most reports, including the next report.  Perhaps it should?

But when a task is blocked, it is not suppressed from the 'next' report, it is merely de-emphasized.  Because those tasks are blocked, they will have a lower urgency score, and will sink lower on the 'next' report.  The example has only three tasks, which doesn't serve well as an example of sorting by urgency because you would need a screenful of tasks before any could drop off the bottom.
<issue_comment>username_0: _<NAME> on 2012-03-29T18:23:33Z says:_ 

 Perhaps because I am using the solarized-dark theme, the blocked tasks (in dark text on a bright background) appear _more_ prominent, despite being at the bottom of the list.

I can see that having the blocked tasks off the first page would be sufficient to avoid the problem, but my particular workflow involves keeping only the tasks I can accomplish in one day visible. Usually this is less than one screenful. Maybe this is very uncommonif so, I'd be OK with having this issue closed.
<issue_comment>username_0: _<NAME> on 2012-04-14T20:09:22Z says:_ 

 Rejecting because:

1) this is not strictly a bug because everything is working as intended
2) the urgency algorithm is tweakable in a way that can achieve the desired results
3) it might be that displaying fewer tasks (task... limit:10) may also be acceptable
4) this is partly a commentary on color choices in a theme.
<issue_comment>username_0: _Profpatsch - on 2013-10-11T22:07:23Z says:_ 

 Is there any situation where one would _want_ these blocked tasks to appear on the list?

Because if there is not, it really makes no sense to show them, since they are blocked by a waiting (and thus not visible) task.
<issue_comment>username_0: The next report shows one page of tasks sorted by urgency.  If you only have 10 tasks, you'll see all tasks in the next report.  Otherwise you'll just see the top N tasks, based on urgency, which is itself a polynomial.

It's not a case of including or excluding tasks from the next report - all tasks are included.  It's a case of tuning the urgency coefficients so the _*order*_ is good.

If you want control over the presence/absence of tasks in a report, add a filter or define a new report.
<issue_comment>username_0: _<NAME> on 2014-06-06T12:11:11Z says:_ 

 I certainly understand what you're saying Paul, but I agree with the other commenters that this is counter intuitive. If tasks that depend on a waiting one show up in "task next" with a low urgency, why don't waiting tasks also show up with a low urgency?
<issue_comment>username_0: _<NAME> on 2014-06-06T18:42:53Z says:_ 

 Hi Ben, it's simply because waiting means hidden.  I suppose that's a higher precedence state, although I've never thought of it that way.Who or what is Origins?
Origins Inc. Was founded in 1995 by a small group of mothers who, having lost their children to adoption, were being continuously re-traumatised each time so-called experts and health professional minimised and invalidated the severe emotional anguish, trauma, and grief left in the wake of their adoption experience, assuming that we, as mothers, should have accepted the loss of our living babies - as if it were possible to do that.
Along with the perpetual violation we felt in having so-called adoption professionals and others justifying and exonerating themsleves of their own complicity in this scandalous practice, that had preyed upon our vunerable state when we were too young, and too oppressed to know how to fight this wicked system, by hearing adoption of newborns now being referred to as a social phenomenon of a social era that is passed - rather than the illicit raping of babies from their mothers that it was - we decided enough was enough.
With everyone adroitly avoiding the truth, at our expense, we realised that by remaining silent we had inadvertantly become the "keepers of the lie" and we knew that