Sorry if it feels like I'm calling you out, but you demonstrate a pretty clear example of what I'm talking about with regarding the actions being evaluated differently.
The idea that we'd have to get unlucky for codifying to be more than one action has no real basis, what we've actually been told is that there's no way to know how the odds on codifying will play out, but it's a difficult task and many wizards that create spells don't end up managing to codify them.
Meanwhile the chance that whatever apparition containment method Mathilde comes up with will require getting locked into an action next turn is basically being argued about as if it's a sure thing.
That all being said, I'm not accusing the thread of being hypocritical for liking codify more than apparitions, the fact that people like one action more than another is completely normal. What I find distasteful is attempting to claim there should be basically a filtering mechanism before certain actions can be proposed in plans, as that sort of gate-keeping will never actually be neutrally implemented.
No issue with you calling me out, because I tried to present myself as someone who acts as a counter-example, primarily because if everything else is equal I would rather do apparitions than RoW, so my arguments in favor of doing RoW are not because I biased towards RoW and that thus there can be a degree of neutrality in arguing against certain actions.
Firstly I would like to argue that the absence of perfection is not a good argument to throw the whole apparatus out the window, which is what you are seeming to argue.
Secondly, even if I am being hypocritical in letting one research pass and not the other, your argument would at most convince me to let neither pass: not both, because my arguments against apparitions will still stand, but as addressed below I don't think I am being hypocritical.
Thirdly, your arguments tend to be abstract and don't actually address the counterarguments that people have brought. Your point of codifying being uncertain is the first argument I have seen you make that RoW will likely take multiple actions. For my place, I accepted pickle's view of its likely to take one action. But up until now, I had no reason to think otherwise.
On the other hand, you have not addressed apparations not taking multiple turns. You have stated that people assume we will be locked into taking action next turn. Pickle has made a strong argument for this happening (unless we want to waste the AP, which isn't ideal by any standard). Personally, I am of the view that apparations will defenitly take multiple actions. (The thread is cautious and we would need to be lucky to complete apparitions in one turn and take voluntary risks to complete apparitions in one turn: risks that can't be mitigated by a completed sword or the gambler coin, so I don't see a one turn apparition happening), but we won't necessarily be locked into apparitions, but it is a possibility. I haven't seen any arguments against this (your only one relies on the thread being uncharacteristically risk taking in matters of our soul). So in other words I view the worst case of RoW as being roughly equivalent to the best case for apparations. Thus it isn't hypocritical to be accepting of RoW, while wishing to delay apparations.
I do acknowledge that the conversation at the beginning could have the appearance of hypocrisy, but given the later clarification people have made of the two research proposals being substantially different, I think that charge has been addressed.
Lastly, we need to have degree of filtering on which plans we
vote on: otherwise everyone would vote for every plan.
You have a different filter than I do, with yours I think being more focused on the immediate turn as opposed to turns in the future. But I think I have done my best to filter in a consistent manner.
Edit: Based on arguments I am not opposed to doing only 2 waystone actions occasionally, however my objections to doing apparitions currently still stand. I will say that the one benefit of doing mapping in particular is that it allows us to work on waystones and still trigger webmat.
