On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Ok, here's what the first paradox was... What's your pseudo-judgement? > > The Not Your Turn card would cancel the effect of any card played > in the last 24 hours (meant as a defense card). > > The Discard Picking card let you grab any card discarded in the > last 24 hours. > > Someone discarded a Not Your Turn. > > play was: play discard picking to pick not your turn, then play > Not your turn to cancel the discard picking play. The paradox > is whether not your turn is in the discard pile. > > How would you settle it?
I'd start by saying that sounds pretty hilarious. Let's see. The Player plays Discard Picking, and the effect of this is that the Player obtains Not Your Turn. The Player then plays Not Your Turn. The effect, according to the rules, should be: "Reverse the effect of Discard Picking, by returning Not Your Turn to this discard pile and then reversing *this* effect." But it's not really meaningful for an effect to reverse itself as part of itself, precisely because the result is defined as being the opposite of itself, and that's not a valid definition. Since the effect specified by the rules is impossible, we instead must choose the next closest thing, which, in my opinion, would be that Not Your Turn does reverse the effect of Discard Picking, but does not reverse the effect of itself. Therefore, Not Your Turn ends up in the discard pile. —the Warrigal
