Warrigal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> <jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 September 2010 04:05, Warrigal <ihope12...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So, what shall we do first? I guess I can draft a proposal to create
>>> an accumulable currency that you can turn ergs into. What benefits can
>>> we provide for holding this currency? A Losing Condition for lacking
>>> it? Making it required in order to run for office? (Extra votes in
>>> elections?) Letting you use it to extend voting periods? What do you
>>> three think?
>>
>> I think that could be accomplished by making capacitors a bit more
>> accumulable. Are they tradeable, for example? I'd say up the price for
>> creating them out of ergs, and instead make it so that they don't
>> automatically go back to erg form at the start of a week, but rather
>> have to be transformed by the player.
>
> Well, here goes.
>
> I submit a proposal, titled "Capacitative Accumulability", AI = 2, II
> = 1, Tiger as coauthor:
>
> {Amend Rule 2289 by appending to the first paragraph, "Polarisation is
> a capacitor switch with values Charging (default) and Discharging. Any
> player CAN by announcement destroy a Discharging capacitor in eir
> possession to gain an erg."
>
> Amend Rule 2282 by replacing "All ergs and capacitors are destroyed"
> with "All ergs are destroyed" and "For each capacitor . . . its former
> owner." with "All capacitors become Discharging."
>
> Amend rule 2284 by replacing "A player CAN award emself a capacitor
> for a charge of 3 ergs." with "A player CAN award emself a Charging
> capacitor for a charge of 4 ergs."}
>
> What do you think? Would you all vote for this?
>
> —FSCN Member Tanner L. Swett
Does fungibility break this?
