Murphy wrote:
What if the CFJ is called:
These are interesting questions. But I think the first thing is
for the Speaker (or whomever is the vote-counter) to set a personal
precedent: "I won't accept that vote because I can't reasonably
figure it out." This is a flexible precedent and not a rule, the
Speaker can modify it for trivial CFJs, etc... and if someone
disagrees, they could CFJ that Speaker didn't make a reasonable
effort to interpret the vote.
This way, the Speaker serves as the first line of simple defense for
abuses of the conditional system. It was written for useful
contractual purposes (e.g. "I vote FOR if Murphy votes FOR as per
eir agreement with me") rather than for going out of the way to
set up silly paradoxes, I'd hate to see it go away because the
Speaker's hands are tied when it comes to filtering out the silly.
Although what you did, pointing out that the intpretation made no
difference, is a useful line of defense, too.
-Goethe
