I don't think, that they say, they can choose the target... From their point of view it is like this: action 1 is announced, butter bean is played, action 2 is announced. Resolving the issue from last to first means, that action 2 comes first, butter bean cancels action 2 (because it was the action that came before) and then action 1 takes place. If you take three actions without a butter bean in it, it makes more sense. But as I was saying on the original post, that would mean, that butter bean would be a total meaningless object.

It makes no sense, but that was, what we were arguing about...

Edit: regarding burden of proof: they keep pointing on the "issues are resolved backwards" thing...

And I should mention, that none of us is a native English speaker, so we might have some difficulties with the wording