Help us fix old issues

[Drachmaland]

In Issue #314, the 4th option (i.e. marriage ban) is implemented — and Civil Rights increase by +5. Is this correct?

P.S. Nation affected is Saturday Knight Live (for which there's another effects-code check outstanding).

[Sanctaria]

In Issue #314, the 4th option (i.e. marriage ban) is implemented — and Civil Rights increase by +5. Is this correct?

There are a few instances where choosing this option will increase Civil Rights. Looking at that nation, that seems about right.

[Drachmaland]

In Issue #314, the 4th option (i.e. marriage ban) is implemented — and Civil Rights increase by +5. Is this correct?

There are a few instances where choosing this option will increase Civil Rights. Looking at that nation, that seems about right.

Notwithstanding that I cannot seem to be able to visualize such instances myself I'll take your word for it, Sanctaria. Thanks for looking into this!

[Trotterdam]

Perhaps if divorce or adultery were previously illegal?

[Bears Armed]

Perhaps if state-organised marriages were previously mandatory?

[Drachmaland]

Perhaps if divorce or adultery were previously illegal?

Perhaps if state-organised marriages were previously mandatory?

Thanks for the brainstorming, guys! This nation had indeed made adultery illegal via option 175.1. And state-organized marriages were in fact mandatory, via option 165.3.
Also, I found that in some of its stat-snapshots it had "zero percent divorce rate" in the <NOTABLE> field afterwards (because of implementation of 165.3, so actually divorce wasn't expressly outlawed).

Anyhow, this case also includes a specific value (namely a +5 increase in Civil Rights), which can only imply that the people who want not to get married in a pre-arranged way or to commit adultery are way much more significant in numbers compared to the people wishing to just get married, no?
State-arranged marriage forbids you to marry your loved one, but so does the marriage ban, as well. So how can your Civil Rights increase so much as a result of this?
Am I missing something? Could it be e.g. the fact the new legislation does not expressly outlaw living with any person you may love?

[Aculea]

Anyhow, this case also includes a specific value (namely a +5 increase in Civil Rights), which can only imply that the people who want not to get married in a pre-arranged way or to commit adultery are way much more significant in numbers compared to the people wishing to just get married, no?

The census description doesn't define it as measuring anything, it just puts it in correlation with certain warm fuzzies. I've always imagined it as something you might be able to generate from a close reading of the nation's legal code, and therefore independent of things like demographics. So, no. A +5 in Civil Rights can imply things other than one population being more significant in numbers than another.

I'm not even fond of the idea. Civil rights are not things that become less important simply because there are fewer people who need theirs protected. The opposite, really. It is a nation that protects its tiniest minorities as ably as its greatest majority that deserves the higher civil rights score.

[Aibohphobia]

May I suggest reclassifying this issue as an Easter Egg? Seems a bit strange getting it more than once. It's also more of a fun plot with almost unexpected results, similar to the one

where you choose your favourite colour.

[Sanctaria]

May I suggest reclassifying this issue as an Easter Egg? Seems a bit strange getting it more than once. It's also more of a fun plot with almost unexpected results, similar to the one

where you choose your favourite colour.

Thanks for the suggestion, but we're not going to do that.

[Aibohphobia]

I insist that we establish a Aibohphobian Arts Council

[Luna Amore]

Fixed.

[Aculea]

I have issue #082 AI Researchers Rally For Android Rights in my box right now. If I choose option 3 to ban AI, is it going to be affected by my previously choosing in #472: Rise Of The Machines to let AIs run my economy? You don't actually have to answer that, just throwing it out there in case it wasn't considered.

[Luna Amore]

I have issue #082 AI Researchers Rally For Android Rights in my box right now. If I choose option 3 to ban AI, is it going to be affected by my previously choosing in #472: Rise Of The Machines to let AIs run my economy? You don't actually have to answer that, just throwing it out there in case it wasn't considered.

It will now. >_>

[Aculea]

It will now. >_>

PS I love your flag of the moment.

[Celseon]

Issue 467: "Saving Your Own Foreskin"

Option 1

"This is sick and wrong!" vents trilby-clad protester George W. Han, flinging a copy of a news article strategically between you and your meal. "How can people think that mutilating diaper parts is okay? Religions and cults be damned. As you can read in this editorial, the paper's resident doctor proves beyond doubt that non-necessary circumcision has a host of negative effects. It doesn't matter that they're a doctor of journalism and not urology; it's basically the same thing. Bar emergency medical reasons, you must make circumcision illegal in all circumstances."

"Bar" indicated in red text should be "Barring", shouldn't it?

[Sanctaria]

Issue 467: "Saving Your Own Foreskin"

Option 1

"This is sick and wrong!" vents trilby-clad protester George W. Han, flinging a copy of a news article strategically between you and your meal. "How can people think that mutilating diaper parts is okay? Religions and cults be damned. As you can read in this editorial, the paper's resident doctor proves beyond doubt that non-necessary circumcision has a host of negative effects. It doesn't matter that they're a doctor of journalism and not urology; it's basically the same thing. Bar emergency medical reasons, you must make circumcision illegal in all circumstances."

"Bar" indicated in red text should be "Barring", shouldn't it?

Bar also works.

[King Nephmir II]

Couldn't find a thread for reporting this, but this is the best one I could find. Unless this should be reported in Technical in the future?

I received Issue #218, despite not having homosexuality or homosexual marriage legal in my nation. Is this a bug, or did I somehow unintentionally make homosexual marriage legal?

[Trotterdam]

Couples can live together even if they're not formally recognized as married.

[Aculea]

#037: Traffic Cops Needed on Information Superhighway? is about governmental monitoring of citizens. The first petitioner mentions finding anti-governmental idiots, the third petitioner mentions tyranny. Censoring the internet gives the country has unplugged its internet connection to prevent subversive content, emphasis on preventing subversive content, and the third option, freeing the internet, gives anti-government web sites are springing up, that is, an allowed dissent with the government. All of these scream political freedom to me, and the first two options do decrease political freedom, but after three attempts, the third option, which gives voice to dissent, affects only civil rights. Is this intentional?

Two: #217 Healthcare Services Underfunded, Claim Patients

Option 3: We'd have national surveys to make sure no one cheats which would be expensive - but fair.

Punctuation between cheats and which would be expensive - but fair.

[United States of Natan]

The issue "quickie Marriages Under Scrutiny" has a typo; "license" is spelled wrong. The issue spells it as "licence".

[Luna Amore]

The issue "quickie Marriages Under Scrutiny" has a typo; "license" is spelled wrong. The issue spells it as "licence".

It's a British/American difference.

[Christian Democrats]

As two players have pointed out in the spoilers thread, Issue #480, Option 2 should say "whom" instead of "who."

[Luna Amore]

As two players have pointed out in the spoilers thread, Issue #480, Option 2 should say "whom" instead of "who."

Fixed.

[Sucrati]

Issue Number 478: "The show must go on"

Option number two has handle as 'Handel'

[Trotterdam]

Issue Number 478: "The show must go on"

Option number two has handle as 'Handel'

That's intentional.