omd, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:35:23 -0700 : > 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.
I guess you mean "that card shall be deemed to have not been played" or other retroactive cancellation need not be considered a "conflict" with the rule enabling the action being cancelled?
What I really meant was something more along the lines that if two rules or clauses jointly are inconsistent (while each without the other is consistent) then they are in conflict. One would just overrule the other. And if they are not jointly inconsistent, what's the problem exactly?
I guess this is wrong? I checked the ruleset to see if "conflict" had a definition, it isn't there.
-Dan
