Fractional Graph Theory, with emphasis on fractional colorings i.e. the fractional chromatic number and the fractional edge chromatic number. This is the main source: https://www.ams.jhu.edu/ers/books/fractional-graph-theory-a-rational-approach-to-the-theory-of-graphs/
2 Likes
Democracy is when everybody participates. That’s not the case when the only power lies in one group of persons that just happen to win a majority every few years. It is the case, however, when everybody has to expect being asked for their political opinion on any matter and this opinion can influence the political process at any time.
1 Like
And if the Triumvirate decides to turn back to the state we had before, that’s fine.
You better define things by their goals as by an absolute state of things which could be just too much asking from the reality. Who can be always disponible? is there ways to reach everyone at any time?
1 Like
Just to clarify, the timed one is 2 minutes, so the most games in 2 minutes.
Have fun without me. 
3 Likes
Depends on the amount of people. 350 Millions? I don’t know. But 8 Millions? Look, for Sunday in a week, my country asks me to say Aye or Nay on 5 matters:
- A proposal for a new entry to the constitution put forward by the nationalist/populists to put limitations to immigration.
- A new hunting law, that will, among other things, put the decision to shoot problematic wolves into the hands of the states and not the federation. Until now, wolves are under protection and it needs a decision by the federal authorities to shoot a single wolf.
- A law that makes children daycare deducible from federal taxes.
- A law that provides a 2-week parenthood leave for fathers.
- A law that allows the country to buy new combat airplanes for 6 billions.
There is a lively debate about most of these things in the media and the general public. True, participation in these votings is between 45 and 50 %, but if you look who actually goes to vote, it turns out the vast majority of citizens actually regularily go voting! But just on those matters that they actually form an opinion on, and if they’re badly informed, they vote blank. All in all, we are generally well-informed on what’s going on.
3 Likes
I’m the 5th most frequent poster in here?
I don’t even know what is going on in here atm. I followed this until the elections took like 2 weeks to do nothing.
1 Like
I’m afraid that none of the enacted changes are “legitimate”.
I warned exactly this. Gia was declared frolicker. Fine
She does not enact a rule. Fine I guess, can’t force anyone to do anything, I suppose the wording can be understood that if you frolick, you may enact a rule.
She leaves saying she “favored” one option over another. That is completely meaningless (according to rules, that is).
Now, out of any in-game consideration, it may be boring, it may be a gridlock, but the game was (at least at the time) rules are enacted, you follow those rules. I don’t understand what’s the point on not doing that. So far everyone many players benefited from loopholes, but only now someone benefits from not doing anything remotely related to what those rules said.
@Sanonius I don’t mind that you put your mechanics into effect. If that happens that happens. But if to do that you ignore what is being played, I’m a bit uneasy about that.
1 Like
Alright, but what was the point in all this, even in your ruleset with the pinky-promises (which I find very impressive!), if change can only occure one rule at a time?
I think it’s kind of funny that we’re debating about the legitimacy of various differing perspectives of the situation that we find ourselves in. Isn’t that the whole aim of a “semantic” game?
From my view, it seems that either:
- Gia has not formally enacted anything yet, so the game is somewhat stuck in a purgatory-like state, waiting for her to finish her turn as frolicker, while everyone else is blocked from frolicking.
- Gia has implicitly enacted some changes by seeming to express support for some previously stated positions. Perhaps, the other players could help write up and include the official rules, along with all of the loophole jumping (with ridiculous stuff like subclauses) in order to make things validly consistent with other rules.
2 Likes
Let me offer a solution:
I claim that you (@Sanonius ) frolick.
I can do that. Anyone can. That is a big gaping loophole that exists now. So, what you have to do is enact a rule that puts your constitution in effect.
(78 characters long).
1 Like
And I promise, if from now on, rulechanging happens in a predictable and coherent way, I will behave 
Pinky-promise.
Couldn’t one argue that contradicts Rule 15? EDIT: ah, I see, there is a loophole. So what? The whole game is about finding and exploiting loopholes.
Also, why is Rule 17 “on hold”?
Maybe, I don’t know. It seems to me that the wording implies you cannot claim it for yourself.
Rule 17 is on Hold because that happened. Another loophole at the time. I’m surprised that no one has “unheld” it
Well, anyways, I think @Leira’s claim that @Sanonius is frolicking is meaningless, since we still have @Gia as the current frolicker, who seems to have either not enacted a rule, or is still in the process of formalizing such enactment. I don’t think her turn as frolicker is yet over, so that blocks others for now.
This is singular, right? (Addressing @yebellz post ). However I can’t seem to find that only one person can frolick at any given time. I know, it’s convenient, but truly I can’t say that the rules say that.
And what the ! is a “turn” anyway? If nothing else, let’s at least keep a 24h-cycle for the duration of a frolicking unless the frolicker states otherwise.
Ok, I claim that @Vsotvep frolicks, @Haze_with_a_Z frolicks, @Sanonius frolicks (a second time), @martin3141 frolicks, @RubyMineshaft frolicks, @PiggyStardust frolicks.
There, we have many simultaneously frolickers. I guess they can all enact and delete a rule now, in a sort of free-for-all.
2 Likes
No! Your term as Triumvir does not start before tomorrow noon and I can’t frolick twice in a row. 
1 Like
The rules don’t say that you can’t frolick twice simultaneously.
3 Likes