Why option 341.1 decreases Civil Rights when Law's too low?

[Drachmaland]

Issue #341 is this: "After their daughter wandered off into the woods behind her house, a pair of teary-eyed parents interrupts one of your meetings, beseeching you to step up the rescue effort."
Option 1 says: "She's only t-t-three years old!" sobs the lost girl's mother. "She'll never make it out there in the wilderness all alone. She's going to d-d-d-", her husband steps in as she breaks down in tears, "Please, you have to do something! There aren't enough rescue workers out there. You need to hire more or divert them from other areas or something! What's more important than a child's safety?"
The worded effect is: "The national guard is mobilized whenever a mother gets separated from her child at the mall."

When I first had a nation with Civil Rights of 92 go to 91 due to 341.1, while its Law & Order budget remained at 0.0%, I simply said "they can't be serious."
And I tested it once more.
Now I have a nation with Civil Rights of 95 go to 94, while its Law & Order budget remained at 0.0% and its Law Enforcement stat went from -24 to -22 (I sincerely do hope that you do understand what a -22 Law Enforcement, with ZERO allocated funding, means)!
And don't get me started on the effects on other stats: Weaponization fell, Recreation Drug Use went from 83 to 82 (huh?), Pacifism went from -11 to -7 (huh huh huh?)...

Well, the Issues team keeps stressing and repeating that the issues' effects differ from nation to nation depending on a host of factors, but this case proves they obviously don't. I have countries with no Law Enforcement, where I see effects as if Law Enforcement were in place. Any justification for this — especially the drop in Civil Rights?

[Trotterdam]

All I know is that that option has proven entirely ineffective at reducing Lost in Wilderness deaths.

(Records: http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=5612856, http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8176507. Note that the part about affecting weather is outdated as weather is no longer tied to compassion.)

[Drachmaland]

So far the only positive correlation that I've proof for regarding Lost in the Wilderness is with a nation's environmental condition.
In this case 341.1 had these effects on deaths:
Cancer: 14.2 → 14.3
Exposure: 1.1 → 1.1
Murder: 12.6 → 12.4
Heart Disease: 50.9 → 51.0
Old Age: 21.1 → 21.2
Obviously Murder was affected because of the rise in Safety & safety from Crime; its delta was then shared among the biggest other causes.

But the burning question remains: Why on earth does 341.1 decrease Civil Rights in this case?

[Trotterdam]

Wait, you got this issue in a nation that didn't have anyone getting lost in the wilderness in the first place?

[Drachmaland]

Wait, you got this issue in a nation that didn't have anyone getting lost in the wilderness in the first place?

This issue's validity is not related to the Lost-in-Wilderness deaths from what my data show.

[Sanctaria]

I've had a look and option 1's stat changes look correct.

[Trotterdam]

You mean they're incorrect in a way the game's coding doesn't currently make it possible to fix.

[Sanctaria]

You mean they're incorrect in a way the game's coding doesn't currently make it possible to fix.

If that's what I meant, that's what I'd say.

[Drachmaland]

I've had a look and option 1's stat changes look correct.

I understand this means they are correct in the sense that Option 341.1 is meant to lower Civil Rights.
However, I asked a very specific question — that I don't think is really addressed.

[Sanctaria]

I've had a look and option 1's stat changes look correct.

I understand this means they are correct in the sense that Option 341.1 is meant to lower Civil Rights.
However, I asked a very specific question — that I don't think is really addressed.

I'm not going to confirm or deny any specific stat changes in that option, or the justification for them, other than to say the stat changes are correct.

[Trotterdam]

If that's what I meant, that's what I'd say.

Sorry, but if you try to tell me that it's entirely intentional for an issue which is specifically and entirely about people getting lost in the wilderness to neither depend on nor affect how many people get lost in the wilderness, I'm going to have to give you an honorary clown nose.

It'll go well with your reindeer flag.

I'm not going to confirm or deny any specific stat changes in that option, or the justification for them, other than to say the stat changes are correct.

I'm trying to imagine what it'd be like if real life worked like this.

United Nations: "We're passing sanctions against North Korea until they shape up. Your nation is horrible."
North Korea: "Why? What'd we do?"
United Nations: "You have terrible civil rights."
North Korea: "What rights do you think we should start giving our citizens, then?"
United Nations: "We're... not actually sure. Our computer just records that you have low civil rights, but we have no idea how it arrived at this conclusion. We don't really know anything about your nation except this one number."
North Korea: "Maybe computer is just wrong?"
United Nations: "No. Our programmer says he's infallible, and he's infallible, so he must be right."

[Sanctaria]

*snip*

We don't give out stat effects of issues. We investigate claims of mistakes and inaccuracies, and fix when needed, but in this case there is no stat error.

[Sanctaria]

I'm going to have to give you an honorary clown nose.

It'll go well with your reindeer flag.

I was going to wait until December to put on my Xmas flag, but sure why not now since you've made that suggestion.

[Drachmaland]

I understand this means they are correct in the sense that Option 341.1 is meant to lower Civil Rights.
However, I asked a very specific question — that I don't think is really addressed.

I'm not going to confirm or deny any specific stat changes in that option, or the justification for them, other than to say the stat changes are correct.

Judging by the fact that when a similar question arises and there is a reasonable explanation then we are given it (even if it is a bit debatable), we can safely deduce that issue effects fall in one of three categories:
a. The more-or-less reasonable; they range from solidly expected to "expected with a twist". These we can discuss or even argue, but we quite easily reach a consensus that these effects are indeed more-or-less logically justified and valid.
b. The utterly bizarre and far-fetched; sometimes they're even genuinely funny. These, being a most NationStatesesque element of the game, we grow to learn to live with and accept them — and, the most addicted of us, even enjoy them.
c. The ones not having any valid rationale behind them, as if someone was throwing darts on a stats target and incorporating the random results in the effects. In this case, the "Issues Wall" is invoked as a device to avoid addressing the naked elephantine emperor in the living room.

Please don't get me wrong, I have no problem at all with the catch-22 issues, or with the "choose your poison" ones, or with the "no middle-ground" ones, or with the "avoidable vs worse" ones — or even with the "what the heck were they thinking" ones. I have no problem at all with any issue that has a reasonably justifiable effect, no matter how hurting or extreme this can be for a nation, no matter how well disguised it was among the dilemma choices, no matter how surprising it may be for the receiving nation — as long as there is a solid rationale. Nor do I have anything against the Issues Team, God forbid! I deeply appreciate your work, and I think that having issues with irrational effects simply undermines seriously your great work — because we're forced to tell people to just ignore a big chunk of the issues they're valid for (and for which the Issues Team has worked hard and intensively), simply because after the update their Analysis will look as if a tremor-affected gopher messed with their stats.

And to get to know that in nations with zero Law Enforcement, hiring some people in rescue teams leads to drops in Civil Rights, Drug Use & Weaponization, and an increase in their Pacifism, and this was the intended result, makes me feel really disappointed (and sorry for the gopher).

[Sanctaria]

*snip*

This is going to get old quickly.

We don't give out stat effects of issues. We investigate claims of mistakes and inaccuracies, and fix when needed, but in this case there is no stat error.

[Drachmaland]

*snip*

This is going to get old quickly.

The only thing getting old is that you (nothing personal) insist on being irrational. If there were a simple and reasonably justified reason for the effects, it'd be just a matter of mentioning it in half a line of text — or simply giving a hint about it. Nobody asked for giving out formulae and numerical data — the stats mentioned were just intended as "exhibits" for my case for asking. But the moment this becomes a matter of "top secrecy" is more revealing than you may think — it reveals how weak any "rationale" behind these effects most probably is.

[Sanctaria]

This is going to get old quickly.

The only thing getting old is that you (nothing personal) insist on being irrational. If there were a simple and reasonably justified reason for the effects, it'd be just a matter of mentioning it in half a line of text — or simply giving a hint about it. Nobody asked for giving out formulae and numerical data — the stats mentioned were just intended as "exhibits" for my case for asking. But the moment this becomes a matter of "top secrecy" is more revealing than you may think — it reveals how weak any "rationale" behind these effects most probably is.

I'm sorry you think that way.

[Sanctaria]

Hmm. I'm being a little bit unfair on you guys, I suppose. We have given rationale before.

Ok, so in option 1, what's being proposed is that kids never leave their parents side (you can see this in the effect line), and that nation should hire more rescue workers/police men to make sure this is the case i.e. to keep kids safe. Hiring more police/rescue workers will have one effect, and forbidding children from leaving their parents side (with the threat of police coming to drag them back) will have another effect.

This should explain both a hit in civil rights, and an increase in law.

[Drachmaland]

Thank you, Sanctaria!

[Merconitonitopia]

Well, this was an interesting thread.