On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the
> current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be
> resolved by R1030 ("In a conflict between rules...") or R2240 ("In a
> conflict between clauses of the same rule...")Precedence between rules (though not clauses) was largely the same in 2005 as it is now; the wording of the card paradox is "that card shall be deemed to have not been played", which is not really a rule conflict, though it could arguably be interpreted as one. The reason that a paradox like that is supposed to be unlikely to happen again is that we strictly avoid actual retroactive effects in favor of simulated ones, though some have fallen through the cracks - I think one of those came up in one of BobTHJ's eras, and another just recently with the promises thing, which still hasn't been ruled on.
