Help us fix old issues

[Eahland]

I realize this is a weird corner case, but the result blurb for 845.4, "the government-sponsored autobiography 'A(n) @@LEADER@@ For All Seasons' has only been bought by the most loyal of @@LEADER@@'s supporters," doesn't properly detect my leader's 'Æ' initial character as a vowel. i.e., it's "A Æþelwulf v cyning" rather than "An Æþelwulf v cyning" as it should be. If I change my leader's name to "AEþelwulf v cyning", it works properly.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Take that one to technical, I think, as it's to do with coding on the macros.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

Issue #56 option 2 (cut all subsidies to special interest groups) results in an increse to business subsidization.

Shurely shome mishtake?

[The Free Joy State]

Issue #56 option 2 (cut all subsidies to special interest groups) results in an increse to business subsidization.

Shurely shome mishtake?

Business subsidisation is a secondary stat. Basically, the option supports capitalism over the arts (the speaker is from the Capitalism Now Party), by giving a tax cut. This generally -- taking into consideration interactions with your own stats -- causes a knock-on boost to various areas of the economy (with the exception of culture, publication and education areas of the economy -- which all saw a decline in your stats).

If it helps, you could think of it in-character this way: business-owners are putting their tax-cut back into their businesses.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

A tax cut is not the same as subsidization.

[The Free Joy State]

A tax cut is not the same as subsidization.

I explained the real answer: it's a secondary stat, partially related to the tax cut, interacting with other stats and your own stats. "Investing the tax cut" was just a little IC way for you to think of it -- sometimes it helps to think of it in IC terms.

Basically, keeping it strictly OOC, it's working as expected and there's nothing to be changed.

[Leutria]

A tax cut is not the same as subsidization.

Also from the FAQ of the unusual issue result thread

The tax model of the game is very simplistic, and it basically abstracts all spending as income tax and doesn't take into account any idea of government borrowing, deficit spending or tax from sources other than income tax.

...

Corporation tax is rolled into business subsidisation, with lowering of corporate tax representing an effective business subsidisation, and a shifting of tax burden onto the income taxpayer.

[Shoistan]

Trying to add a WA Delegate role to a Nation but it won't work. I can't change it. All it says is "Postion Vacant"

Pls help

[Leutria]

Trying to add a WA Delegate role to a Nation but it won't work. I can't change it. All it says is "Postion Vacant"

Pls help

1. Should be in technical, not got issues. Got issues is for the issues you answer as part of the game, not problems you have
2. WA Delegate position can only be elected, not appointed. Whoever has the most WA endorsements in the region becomes the delegate after the region updates (which happens twice a day)

[Australian rePublic]

I can't believe that no one picked this up earlier. 479.3. How does the guy talk to you if he's riding in a car

[The Free Joy State]

I can't believe that no one picked this up earlier. 479.3. How does the guy talk to you if he's riding in a car

@@LEADER@@ has been stopped by a demonstration. Nothing's moving. So I guess the car's parked. Or -- there are phones in this issue -- so he might be calling you from his phone.

I don't see a problem.

[Stoklomolvi]

I've searched around a bit but I wasn't sure what is the most suitable place to post on this particular topic, so I figured this place is the closest place. Earlier in this thread, the statement

Please only use this thread to report objective mistakes with spelling, grammar or punctuation (and suspected errors in the validities or macros) and not subjective stylistic changes.

was made but I don't think my concern is purely stylistic.

With regards to the "No Sex" policy, the description says "Biological reproduction is prohibited," and the issues point to vat-based cloning of citizenry. However, the title also implies that the act itself (18+ topic so take the implication from here) is also banned; is that implication intended, or just a short way of saying the description (i.e. no sexual reproduction)? It's a bit confusing, I'd say.

If the implication is not intended maybe something like "Cloning: Citizens only reproduce by cloning." would be less prone to misinterpretation. Although, changing the policy would alter the way the policy is presented, from a ban to a permission.

[The Free Joy State]

I've searched around a bit but I wasn't sure what is the most suitable place to post on this particular topic, so I figured this place is the closest place. Earlier in this thread, the statement

Please only use this thread to report objective mistakes with spelling, grammar or punctuation (and suspected errors in the validities or macros) and not subjective stylistic changes.

was made but I don't think my concern is purely stylistic.

With regards to the "No Sex" policy, the description says "Biological reproduction is prohibited," and the issues point to vat-based cloning of citizenry. However, the title also implies that the act itself (18+ topic so take the implication from here) is also banned; is that implication intended, or just a short way of saying the description (i.e. no sexual reproduction)? It's a bit confusing, I'd say.

If the implication is not intended maybe something like "Cloning: Citizens only reproduce by cloning." would be less prone to misinterpretation. Although, changing the policy would alter the way the policy is presented, from a ban to a permission.

The No Sex policy does not outlaw the sex act. It outlaws having children by biological reproduction. People can still have recreational sex.

It is possible, however, for No Sex to appear with/without No Abortion, and No Contraception.

We did discuss changing the policy dependencies, but thought that took too much autonomy away from the player. I do have this draft backstage waiting for an editor to pick it up, designed to clarify the No Sex policy.

If you want to discuss renaming the policy, I can only suggest you start a new thread, here or in Technical.

Worth saying that editors can't rename the gameside policies ourselves, so the technical site staff would have to do it. They're very busy people, so -- even if you started a discussion and it turned out that the No Sex was a common cause of confusion and there was popular call for changing the name -- there's no guarantee it would happen and it might take a very long time if it did.

EDIT: Actually, if you could wait a few days before you start a thread (assuming you find the confusion significant enough to do that)? I've had an idea I'd like to take backstage that may help with future confusion.

[Australian rePublic]

I can't believe that no one picked this up earlier. 479.3. How does the guy talk to you if he's riding in a car

@@LEADER@@ has been stopped by a demonstration. Nothing's moving. So I guess the car's parked. Or -- there are phones in this issue -- so he might be calling you from his phone.

I don't see a problem.

Fair enough. Carry on

[Stoklomolvi]

Sure thing, The Free Joy State. I would imagine that most people don't use vats and as such would not have any confusion, but I'll wait a few days and make a thread. Also, I like that issue draft.

[Krogon]

I encountered issue 839. I chose an option in an issue that abolished political parties, so I shouldn't be getting this.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I encountered issue 839. I chose an option in an issue that abolished political parties, so I shouldn't be getting this.

Fair point. I presume your'e referring to 657.3, where all political parties are scrapped and everyone is forced to run as an independent.

That decision is one of many that isn't tracked as a hard policy within the simulation, so basically narrative inconsistencies are inevitable. There's a lot of narrative granularity gaps of this sort in NS, and we've only really started caring about them recently.

Possibly it is a decision that we ought to be hard-tracking, but at present it isn't. To make it worth hard-tracking what we really would need to see is a "reversal issue" that would reinstate political parties. We could then retrospectively add the code for that policy to exist, and go through the issue base for all the appropriate issue exclusions and option validity checks.

As there's 182 flags of the word "party" in the issue base, that'd likely be a big job, but it's one we'd take on if there was a quality reversal issue existing. Granularity may be missing in many places, but it can always be added if there's a good story to justify the work.

[Krogon]

I encountered issue 839. I chose an option in an issue that abolished political parties, so I shouldn't be getting this.

Fair point. I presume your'e referring to 657.3, where all political parties are scrapped and everyone is forced to run as an independent.

That decision is one of many that isn't tracked as a hard policy within the simulation, so basically narrative inconsistencies are inevitable. There's a lot of narrative granularity gaps of this sort in NS, and we've only really started caring about them recently.

Possibly it is a decision that we ought to be hard-tracking, but at present it isn't. To make it worth hard-tracking what we really would need to see is a "reversal issue" that would reinstate political parties. We could then retrospectively add the code for that policy to exist, and go through the issue base for all the appropriate issue exclusions and option validity checks.

As there's 182 flags of the word "party" in the issue base, that'd likely be a big job, but it's one we'd take on if there was a quality reversal issue existing. Granularity may be missing in many places, but it can always be added if there's a good story to justify the work.

That gives me an idea for a follow up issue...

[Trotterdam]

I think that banning political parties is hard to do. The US was never intended to have political parties from the beginning, but it ended up with them anyway.

Some voting systems, such as proportional representation, inherently depend on the recognition of parties. However, even if parties aren't officially recognized by the voting authorities, that doesn't stop candidates from unofficially affiliating with each other to help like-minded politicians run.

[Jutsa]

That idea's been in my list for forever.

Finally got it written today, and I didn't even know this conversation existed until just now. >_>

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think that banning political parties is hard to do. The US was never intended to have political parties from the beginning, but it ended up with them anyway.

Some voting systems, such as proportional representation, inherently depend on the recognition of parties. However, even if parties aren't officially recognized by the voting authorities, that doesn't stop candidates from unofficially affiliating with each other to help like-minded politicians run.

For sure, that's the natural sequel. Political parties get banned, politicians start forming unofficial conspiracies instead. If I was going to write a follow up / reversal, that's where I'd go.

[Jutsa]

That is genuinely what both Krogon and I did.

After discussing it, he's letting me take the reins on it,
though if ever he wants to enter a co-authorship he may.

[Immortal Kriegizstan]

I got that issue about street preachers and being an anti-theistic nation I chose to ban them... which somehow gave me the "Theocracy" policy. I fail to see how banning street preaching makes you a theocracy.

[The Free Joy State]

I got that issue about street preachers and being an anti-theistic nation I chose to ban them... which somehow gave me the "Theocracy" policy. I fail to see how banning street preaching makes you a theocracy.

Please raise unusual policies effects in the Unusual Effects Thread in future.

As for the issue you describe, this is a known bug that we are aware of and which is undergoing discussion backstage. From the OP of the linked thread:

"Why did THIS policy switch on or turn off out of line with the issue's story?"

It may be an error, and something to report here. However, it may not. Read the below information first.

The following policies are not on/off binary flags directed by issue editors, but rather were implemented to change when your nation crosses above or below a certain threshold in various freedoms:

[...]

Another example is Theocracy which indicated minimum freedom in choosing your religion, but actions that endorse being free to practice according to your religion are considered pro-freedom on the same scale. This therefore causes a weird situation where a pro-religious choice can deactivate theocracy.

These things are still in discussion backstage, as clearly this is creating narrative disconnects.

Unfortunately, right now, it's something we all have to live with.

[Australian rePublic]

Issue 0000 is a bit bias against elderly gun nuts, especially considering that we have issues in favour of said gun nuts