Good idea, but I’m a bit nervous about widening this to something as broad as “clauses in a sentence” when the penalty for starting a set of clauses you can’t finish is to be locked out of the game entirely.

If we have some mundane sentence of actions which are affected by another rule (“a player who does X must also do Y” and later in the ruleset “a player with no Z may not do Y”), this could lock out a player who took the action and but failed to “complete all its steps”.

Ah, I forgot the hour clause. But this would still be a problem if a core rule had a “series of clauses” like this.

This would feel safer if instead of saying “all its steps are considered illegal and may be reverted”, we said that any other player could step in and finish processing the actions.

for now.

I feel like Kevan’s objections, while valid, are edge cases that it may or may not be possible to refine away.  as this is better that the status quo.

In my next proposal, I’ll tack on some more specificity—eg that an Atomic Action must be specified as such and that it is confined to only the steps in that list/sentence.

The worst case is that we realise a core or glossary rule contains an impossible Atomic Action causing every proposal and CfJ to be reverted an hour later. We’d be able to repeal the Atomic Actions rule by CfJ to fix it, but it would be annoying.