Call for Judgment: Pending vs Open & Invalid research proposals
Four days have passes as well as the voting has reached quorum with 10 FOR 2 AGAINST. - Chivalrybean
Adminned at 06 Mar 2011 21:56:54 UTC
At the moment the terms “pending” and “open” defined by the rule “Science!” are used in an inappropriate way!
Thus: On the research proposal wki page change the heading from Pending to Open.
In addition the proposed learn grunts: “basic speech”, “custom rite”, “great sky eagle” and “death” are not valid according to the rule “Science!” as their prerequisites are not yet complete or their costs do not obey the rule.
Therefore, these proposals are no votable matter, as the rule states: “If a Research Proposal contains all of these elements then it is considered valid, and it is created as “pending” and may be voted upon.”
Thus do the following: These learn grunts cease to be gamestate and are removed from the blog and the blognomic wiki. If this is not possible, the votes cast on these proposals are not to be considered valid.
cavemen sloppy. cavemen make learn grunts based on research not yet known. cavemen be more tidy
i want anty to be right, but i’m not really sure.
Antaeus:
I agree on first point, i.e. changing wiki from pending to open.
I technically disagree on second point; but agree in spirit. I interpret ‘all these elements’ to refer to Prerequisites, Cost, Effect and Field. Nothing prevents using an open but not complete research projects in a proposal provided it mets all stated rules.
There is the common sense question of whether an open project can be required as a prerequisite in a proposal. I believe new learning can occur from open projects that are partially complete; but this is likely infrequent. I think the right way to deal with this is to offer a proposal and not a call for judgment.