Actually, hunger is relevant because its advantageous to keep hunger high (because its like a visa for getting rewards from the Statolith if you do the fulfillment thing). Having it be low is a bad thing.

The only reason why someone would want to lower Hunger (currently) would be sabotage.

Well, even if that’s true, repealing this bit will lead to less chances of sabotage.

So would gifts in this way not be the same as when you are forced to give nutrients to the supply?

At any rate it might be useful if Hunger were too high in moods and it would otherwise cost more to switch to the ocellus state in order to fulfill. 

Oh wait I misread your proposal. 

It’s not obvious to me that giving nutrients to the supply currently “fulfills” hunger; it decreases it but “fulfills” seems to have a specific meaning that only collecting ambient nutrients does.

That said, anything that shrinks the ruleset is an almost automatic .

You might wind up a situation where you have too many nutrients because the Statolith gave them and no way to get rid of them, so you would be prevented from taking any game actions.

“An Organ may store up to 4 nutrients. If an Organ has more than 4 nutrients after completing a dynastic action, they must give nutrients to its creature’s supply until they only have 4 nutrients before performing any other dynastic action.”

Hm, yeah, I guess that does tacitly allow you to give nutrients.  Sure. 

Card is correct at quoting that, but “must” is a command, it doesn’t grant the ability to actually give nutrients.

You could just give nutrients to a bunch of other people and lock them out of doing anything.

this might cause problems but they can be fixed. Seems sensible.

I keep forgetting to do this myself. thanks.