[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects Since New Update

[Sleep]

Issue 320, Criminals To Vote? option 2 has no statistical changes whatsoever. Tested on my puppet, The City-State of Corinth.

The stat that is affected by that choice is already at 0 for that nation and could no go lower, so there is no visible change to anything.

[Outer Sparta]

Issue 320, Criminals To Vote? option 2 has no statistical changes whatsoever. Tested on my puppet, The City-State of Corinth.

The stat that is affected by that choice is already at 0 for that nation and could no go lower, so there is no visible change to anything.

I see.

[Leppikania]

Why did option 83.1 increase Jerma985's economy?

Furthermore, why did option 53.1 decrease my public education?

[[violet]]

Issue 320, Criminals To Vote? option 2 has no statistical changes whatsoever.

This is in the FAQ now, due to it being asked so frequently:

This issue boosted Civil Rights in one nation but not another. What gives?

Issue effects depend on the state of your nation. For example, shutting down a newspaper that's critical of your government is just another day at the office for a Psychotic Dictatorship, but a major policy shift in a nation with a history of protecting the free press. Sharp ideological changes will be very visible, but if you only reaffirm the status quo, some issue choices will change nothing at all.

[[violet]]

Why did option 83.1 increase Jerma985's economy?

This issue option reduces economic barriers to entry, which is a form of economic freedom, which boosts both the "Economy" and "Economic Freedom" rankings. You saw rises of about 4% in each of those. "Economic Output" rose by less, only 0.3%, because you were reducing public spending at the same time.

I'm not quite sure why it modifies barriers to entry, though; need an IE for that.

Furthermore, why did option 53.1 decrease my public education?

I don't see 53.1 in your recent issues.

[Leppikania]

Why did option 83.1 increase Jerma985's economy?

This issue option reduces economic barriers to entry, which is a form of economic freedom, which boosts both the "Economy" and "Economic Freedom" rankings. You saw rises of about 4% in each of those. "Economic Output" rose by less, only 0.3%, because you were reducing public spending at the same time.

I'm not quite sure why it modifies barriers to entry, though; need an IE for that.

Furthermore, why did option 53.1 decrease my public education?

I don't see 53.1 in your recent issues.

Apologies. 59.1.

[[violet]]

Apologies. 59.1.

A 0.08% drop? That's a fall in annual spending from $6,670 to $6,665 per citizen, i.e. $5 per year. The reason is simply background resource allocation as your Welfare Department grew, as discussed on pages 1 & 2 of this thread.

Edit: Oh, are you saying that this issue should increase Education, since it involves mandatory public training? If so, that's one for the Editors.

[Icamera]

I chose 479.4 (The "Fubar" issue, and the public transportation option), and eco-friendliness dropped. Based on the text in Option #4 and on the general results of expanding public transit, that seems a bit counterintuitive, especially since environmental beauty increased.

[New Glubbdubdrib]

#76.3: Suits in Protest
"Get these people out of the street!" advises @@RANDOMNAME@@, local police chief. "They're blocking traffic, and making it impossible for the common man to drive to the megamall!"

Might be worth an another look. It had far less effects than I would've expected: feels like it should at least raise Political Apathy (less protests), raise Industry: Retail (shopping is prioritized over politics), maybe also a slight increase in Ignorance...

[[violet]]

I chose 479.4 (The "Fubar" issue, and the public transportation option), and eco-friendliness dropped. Based on the text in Option #4 and on the general results of expanding public transit, that seems a bit counterintuitive, especially since environmental beauty increased.

Whenever multiple departments or industries all drop by the same tiny amount, it's merely a background reallocation of resources as mentioned in the post above yours.

This issue option does not increase government spending on the environment. The description of Eco-Friendliness is: "The following governments spend the greatest amounts on environmental issues. This may not always be reflected in the quality of that nation's environment."

Essentially, your environment improved but not because you directly spent money on it. Instead, it benefited from the push toward public transport.

[Sedgistan]

Why did option 83.1 increase Jerma985's economy?

This issue option reduces economic barriers to entry, which is a form of economic freedom, which boosts both the "Economy" and "Economic Freedom" rankings. You saw rises of about 4% in each of those. "Economic Output" rose by less, only 0.3%, because you were reducing public spending at the same time.

I'm not quite sure why it modifies barriers to entry, though; need an IE for that.

The rationale for that is along the lines of "if the government is withdrawing from providing certain services, it gives companies more freedom to operate and compete in those areas".

[Leppikania]

Apparently option 84.2 decreased Generic Beauracracy's weaponization, even though concealed handguns are legal and all.

[Drawkland]

074.1 created a racing league in this nation, but Tourism experienced a drop? Why would that happen?

[Mironus]

314.3 raises Pacifism. That's the 'stone people to death for adultery' option for `An Affair to Remember?`.

It's just a tiny increase, but odd nonetheless.

[Gnejs]

Apparently option 84.2 decreased Generic Beauracracy's weaponization, even though concealed handguns are legal and all.

I'm assuming crime went down/safety up as a consequence of your choice, reducing the number of guns in total. Combined with the fact that the nation in question already had very lax gun laws, overall weaponization went down instead of up; could've been otherwise in another nation.

[Wallenburg]

494.1 increases nudity by .21%. Also, it classified my nation as a "flagrant human rights abuser" when civil rights were "very good".

[Sanctaria]

494.1 increases nudity by .21%. Also, it classified my nation as a "flagrant human rights abuser" when civil rights were "very good".

Actually what happened was that an NGO with an agenda called your nation one of "one of the worst human rights abusers in the world" because your nation, despite its civil rights ratings, allows flogging of criminals.

[Wallenburg]

494.1 increases nudity by .21%. Also, it classified my nation as a "flagrant human rights abuser" when civil rights were "very good".

Actually what happened was that an NGO with an agenda called your nation one of "one of the worst human rights abusers in the world" because your nation, despite its civil rights ratings, allows flogging of criminals.

I don't recall doing that, but okay.

[Rancho Relaxo]

Why did option 16.2 increase my income equality?

[Luna Amore]

Why did option 16.2 increase my income equality?

It increased it by .11 so it's a negligible aftereffect of other stats. It comes down to which nation answers the issue.

[North-by-Northwesteros]

This nation chose 158.1, allowing homeowners to shoot burglars on sight, which decreased Weaponization and Civil Rights (as well as all the related items), while increasing Pacifism.

[[violet]]

This nation chose 158.1, allowing homeowners to shoot burglars on sight, which decreased Weaponization and Civil Rights (as well as all the related items), while increasing Pacifism.

An interesting one! Normally this issue option will increase Weaponization. However, since your populace is already extremely well-armed, and compulsorially so, most of the effects made no difference. But with burglars being more fearful of being shot, crime decreased, and fewer criminals meant fewer weapons, and thus you came out with a net decrease in weapons per citizen overall.

[Dunraven]

That still seems weird.
If gun ownership is compulsory, then just about everyone is well-armed. Not just the criminals. So the decrease in the number of criminals shouldn't have significant effect on Weaponization..

[Sanctaria]

That still seems weird.
If gun ownership is compulsory, then just about everyone is well-armed. Not just the criminals. So the decrease in the number of criminals shouldn't have significant effect on Weaponization..

Without going into massive amounts of detail that would require revealing specific stats, which we're not going to do, the changes do make sense, and [v]'s response is best you're going to get

[The Candy Of Bottles]

That still seems weird.
If gun ownership is compulsory, then just about everyone is well-armed. Not just the criminals. So the decrease in the number of criminals shouldn't have significant effect on Weaponization..

I assume it's per-capita - the criminals likely owned multiple weapons. Looking at Wikipedia, the US has (as of 2014) 112.6 guns for every 100 people, which necessitates people owning multiple weapons.