So to clarify 101.1 I guess you could add “… directly contradicts these rules (whether by express reference to them or by effect) …”

I would perhaps also add in at the start of 101.2: “Subject to rule 101.1,” which I think would have the effect of making it clear that 101.1 overrides 101.2.

I wish people could run rules through a compiler or something and have the computer spit out the errors.

Section 101 is conveniently already called “The Magic Golden Rules”; I’d probably change 101.1 to say that everything under 101 is an exception (which includes itself), and move the concede rule (104.3a) under 101.

That’s not the most efficient way, because it makes a lot of new rules immutable. I can’t see any rules under 101 for which that would be a problem; but the smallest change would probably be to just change 101.1 to say “The only exceptions are this rule and 104.3a.”

But then…

101.2 says that “When a rule or effect says something can happen and another effect says it can’t, the ‘can’t’ effect wins.” So if rule 104.3a says a player can concede but a card says they can’t, arguably it’s not a direct contradiction (which would fall under the exception to 101.1) but a can/can’t conflict, which the “can’t” should win.

Arguably.

Bloody lawyers.

As a followup exercise, what would be the most efficient way to close that loophole?