On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Sean Hunt <scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > On Aug 1, 2015 12:24, "omd" <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Tanner Swett <tannersw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Rule 2358, which defined Win by Paradox, was present in the ruleset >> > published on 25 August 2013, but absent in the ruleset published on 17 >> > December 2013. I couldn't find any proposals which repealed the rule. >> > So where did it go? >> >> Proposal 7609: >> http://iw.qoid.us/message/%3Calpine.LRH.2.01.1312131214090.30888%40hymn02.u.washington.edu%3E > > So what happens if a paradox is found, anyway?
The same way we resolve any contradiction. We decide which side wins. Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" says that "[w]here the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game." Any "paradox" that isn't resolved by one of the conflict resolution rules certainly constitutes an "inconsistency or unclarity", so Rule 217 can serve as a last-resort paradox resolution mechanism. One might argue that game custom allows you to "resolve" a paradox by saying that the contradiction stands and the relevant statements really are equally true and false. If you ask me, judging that a statement is "equally true and false" amounts to simply not delivering a judgement at all. If an inquiry case has a judgement that its statement is equally true and false, then the judgement needs to be cleared so that a proper judgement can be made. —the Warrigal
