[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects Since New Update

[Convergea]

Issue 70
Option 2

2. "Put to death? Is this really the type of person you want to listen to?" says @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Every day I thank God that I'm an agnostic and don't need to believe this nonsense. Religion shouldn't have anything to do with our government. You should get rid of it immediately!"

why didn't my spirituality funding go away if my government has nothing to do with religion? Is it a corruption issue?

[Phydios]

Issue 70
Option 2

2. "Put to death? Is this really the type of person you want to listen to?" says @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Every day I thank God that I'm an agnostic and don't need to believe this nonsense. Religion shouldn't have anything to do with our government. You should get rid of it immediately!"

why didn't my spirituality funding go away if my government has nothing to do with religion? Is it a corruption issue?

Not an editor, but it's possible to have some vague "spiritual" beliefs without worshipping a deity. At least, that's what I hear. Your Religiousness did go way down, though, and your Secularism went way up.

[Convergea]

Issue 70
Option 2

2. "Put to death? Is this really the type of person you want to listen to?" says @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Every day I thank God that I'm an agnostic and don't need to believe this nonsense. Religion shouldn't have anything to do with our government. You should get rid of it immediately!"

why didn't my spirituality funding go away if my government has nothing to do with religion? Is it a corruption issue?

Not an editor, but it's possible to have some vague "spiritual" beliefs without worshipping a deity. At least, that's what I hear. Your Religiousness did go way down, though, and your Secularism went way up.

Wouldn't providing funding for any spiritual belief or lack thereof count though?

Am I just passing out pamphlets encouraging people to figure out themselves then?

[Phydios]

Not an editor, but it's possible to have some vague "spiritual" beliefs without worshipping a deity. At least, that's what I hear. Your Religiousness did go way down, though, and your Secularism went way up.

Wouldn't providing funding for any spiritual belief or lack thereof count though?

Am I just passing out pamphlets encouraging people to figure out themselves then?

I know as much as you. I'm just guessing. You'll have to see if a mod decides to pop in- their posts are pretty scarce here.

[Convergea]

Wouldn't providing funding for any spiritual belief or lack thereof count though?

Am I just passing out pamphlets encouraging people to figure out themselves then?

I know as much as you. I'm just guessing. You'll have to see if a mod decides to pop in- their posts are pretty scarce here.

Well I'll just assume I'm spending 15 Trillion in encouraging people to figure out their beliefs for themselves, with the rest being embezzled.

[North Americorp]

483.2 (Do You Want Fries With That?):
"...their complaints are ridiculous, I assure you. They should be grateful for the wage they get for, what, flipping a few burgers? Give me a break. I implore you to send in the police and stop these mouth-breathers from scaring away our custom- eh, I mean, to protect our citizens, of course..."

"Labour strikes are routinely squashed by police."

That option significantly increased Income Equality. No minimum wages = more income equality? What?

[Svothlore]

#452: Foetal Furore [Christian Democrats; ed:Sanctaria]

To: me.

The Issue
Video coverage of a protest outside of an abortion clinic has gone viral after the footage indicated that pro-life campaigners prevented ingress of pregnant women, causing the patients visible distress. In response, the Womyn's Liberation League has pushed for a bill that it says would protect access to clinics.

Choice Made
"What about the right to free speech?" pleads @@RANDOMNAME@@, lawyer for the pro-life activists depicted in the footage. "These are public spaces, and my clients should have the freedom, as well as the ability, to get their views across. You may disagree with them, but it would be draconian for the government to prohibit their citizens from revealing to people the truth about any medical procedure they are getting."

Unusual Effect


Why it's unusual
Allowing the right to protest against practices that individuals find immoral is an expansion of civil and political rights, not a contraction of it. Nobody's civil rights are being infringed upon by allowing these people to protest.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

503.3 raises obesity by .4%. Sure that isn't a lot of a raise, but wtf? Nothing relating to obesity is mentioned in the option. Since when does replacing a door with a force field raise obesity? Is this a flaw since it is a new issue or what?

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Allowing the right to protest against practices that individuals find immoral is an expansion of civil and political rights, not a contraction of it. Nobody's civil rights are being infringed upon by allowing these people to protest.

"pro-life campaigners prevented ingress of pregnant women"

[British West Zuzunia]

Allowing the right to protest against practices that individuals find immoral is an expansion of civil and political rights, not a contraction of it. Nobody's civil rights are being infringed upon by allowing these people to protest.

From the issue text:
"[...] pro-life campaigners prevented ingress of pregnant women, causing the patients visible distress[...]"
This is not merely speech. This is interfering with the pregnant women's freedom of travel and right to choice. So, yes, by choosing option 2, which allows them to continue, you are tacitly supporting denying those women their civil rights.

Note that option 1 does not deny the activists their right to speech; it only requires them to do it far enough away that they don't interfere with the women's access to the clinics.

Actually denying the activists' right to speech would be option 4.

[Svothlore]

This is not merely speech. This is interfering with the pregnant women's freedom of travel and right to choice. So, yes, by choosing option 2, which allows them to continue, you are tacitly supporting denying those women their civil rights.

Note that option 1 does not deny the activists their right to speech; it only requires them to do it far enough away that they don't interfere with the women's access to the clinics.

Actually denying the activists' right to speech would be option 4.

Option 1 is most definitely a restriction on the activists' right to free speech. Saying "Yeah, you can protest, but you can only do it where we say you can" wouldn't exactly be a progressive option in the realm of expanding civil rights. In fact, it'd be a lot more regressive than allowing them to protest anywhere they want on public property.

The implication here is that these are public clinics. I'll ignore the fact that public clinics don't exactly exist in Svothlore because all property is privatized and take the issue at face value instead. If it turns out that these activists are being physically disruptive to the extent that accessing the clinic is impossible, then there's nothing stopping them from going to a private clinic for abortions. Letting people block the entrance to a public facility is no more a violation of civil rights than would be cutting funding to the public facility--that is, there is no violation. In other words, accessing a public clinic isn't a civil right.

[Okefenokee Swamp]

Allowing the right to protest against practices that individuals find immoral is an expansion of civil and political rights, not a contraction of it. Nobody's civil rights are being infringed upon by allowing these people to protest.

Like the issue says, they're protesting by not letting anyone enter the clinics. By choosing that option, you're allowing that to continue.

[Gnark]

156.3, enact stricter environmental laws and force corporations to pay for clean-up.

The talking point says, "Heavy industry must go to expensive lengths to dispose of waste," but, while my Employment went down, Economic Output went up, and so did most of my industries, including ones that I would think of as environmentally unfriendly heavy industries, like Automobile Manufacturing, Mining, and Timber Woodchipping. Some went up more than others, but no industry actually went down.

edit: Scratch that last. I hadn't looked at the expanded results. Basket Weaving, Cheese Exports, and Insurance went down. Everything else went up. Those seem like very odd industries to be hit by environmental regulation when those abovementioned all went up.

[British West Zuzunia]

This is not merely speech. This is interfering with the pregnant women's freedom of travel and right to choice. So, yes, by choosing option 2, which allows them to continue, you are tacitly supporting denying those women their civil rights.

Note that option 1 does not deny the activists their right to speech; it only requires them to do it far enough away that they don't interfere with the women's access to the clinics.

Actually denying the activists' right to speech would be option 4.

Option 1 is most definitely a restriction on the activists' right to free speech. Saying "Yeah, you can protest, but you can only do it where we say you can" wouldn't exactly be a progressive option in the realm of expanding civil rights. In fact, it'd be a lot more regressive than allowing them to protest anywhere they want on public property.

Yes, it's a minor restriction on freedom of speech. However, the activists are not merely "speaking". They are "assaulting pregnant women and denying them their freedom of movement and right to seek medical attention". By allowing that to continue, your government is complicit in a much greater denial of rights than the minor restriction on free speech would be, and so your Civil Rights take a net loss.

The implication here is that these are public clinics. I'll ignore the fact that public clinics don't exactly exist in Svothlore because all property is privatized and take the issue at face value instead. If it turns out that these activists are being physically disruptive to the extent that accessing the clinic is impossible, then there's nothing stopping them from going to a private clinic for abortions. Letting people block the entrance to a public facility is no more a violation of civil rights than would be cutting funding to the public facility--that is, there is no violation. In other words, accessing a public clinic isn't a civil right.

No. There is no such implication. The only place the word "public" is used in the issue is describing the space around the clinic where the protests are taking place, as the issue is making the assumption that your roads are public ways like in normal nations. "This is a public space," is an excuse these people often use in reality to excuse assault and harassment, as they carefully stay just outside the clinic's property line.

The activists are in fact being physically disruptive to the extent that accessing the clinic is impossible. That's the entire premise of the issue.

There is no reason to assume that going to a different clinic would result in a different situation. And forcing the women to do so is denying them their right to do business with the clinic of their choice, which is, again, a larger violation of their rights than forcing the protestors to stop assaulting them.

[Skappola]

#414 Subpar suburbs. Picking to turn the city into the city of the future caused a 9.9% drop in political freedoms, 58% drop in safety, 10% jump in crime, and 30% drop in weather, 3.3% drop in environmental beauty, and 3% increase in wealth gaps. A lot of these effects match up with the result, but the choice gave no indication that this is what it would do.

"These plans, they have no charm, no wonder!" announces Elias Yensid strolling into the room with an elaborate model city. "I present to you the Exploratory Paradigm City of Tomorrow! What my team and I aim to do is transform this rundown one-horse town into the forefront of science, technology, and international togetherness. Maybe we'll even throw in a roller coaster or two. Think of it as a blueprint for the future! With me in full control of course."

"Rundown towns are frequently sold to billionaires for their pet projects."

It doesn't even mention the guy is a billionaire, or that I'm selling the town to him. And what is with the 10% political freedoms drop? Why are the effects more extreme than any other issue I've ever answered?

[Trotterdam]

"These plans, they have no charm, no wonder!" announces Elias Yensid strolling into the room with an elaborate model city. "I present to you the Exploratory Paradigm City of Tomorrow! What my team and I aim to do is transform this rundown one-horse town into the forefront of science, technology, and international togetherness. Maybe we'll even throw in a roller coaster or two. Think of it as a blueprint for the future! With me in full control of course."

Does that answer your question?

And before you object, it would be impossible to have such a degree of deliberate planning without putting someone in control. The alternative would be to let the city grow naturally according to the actions of its citizens, giving you little ability to control its direction.

[Eahland]

New issue #505 ("Florists Blooming Mad"), I think it was option 3, but I'm not positive, it's not in the spoilers yet, and hitting back just tells me I'm not confronted with it anymore... the one that involves genetically engineering the invader into food crops, anyway. The talking point underlines its hallucinogenic properties ("Visions of giant pink wulfs are a common side effect after Eahliscmenn eat their meals."), but there's no effect on Recreational Drug Use?

Also, despite the option's supporter talking up its economic benefits, my Economic Output and many of my industries (besides Agriculture) are down. I'm not really objecting to that - option supporters being wrong about what their pet option's fallout is going to be is reasonable - but I'm not sure if it's intentional.

[Willy Beamish]

504.4:

Finally, fifteen year old Renee sits down at your desk, barely looking at you while she types vigorously at her smartphone. "Jeez, like, get off my back. I can, like, wear whatever I want. Boys are so stupid sometimes. Look at these shorts; they're even patriotic!" She stands up and does a twirl to show her short shorts are in your national colours with Willy Beamish emblazoned across the backside. "Pretty nice right?" She smacks her gum loudly, takes a selfie, and goes back to texting.

"I do what I want!"
Did not raise Youth Rebelliousness at all. Editors always seem to overlook that stat, barely anything affects it at all.

[Bears Armed]

503.3 raises obesity by .4%. Sure that isn't a lot of a raise, but wtf? Nothing relating to obesity is mentioned in the option. Since when does replacing a door with a force field raise obesity? Is this a flaw since it is a new issue or what?

Perhaps because the force-field is "opened" just by pressing a button, which takes even less effort than physically opening a wooden door?

[Aclion]

446 In The Land Of Milk And Money

Letting people sell their breast milk does not increase economic freedom by a single point?

In fact the only thing it changed was inclusiveness. That's pretty unusual.

[Gnark]

#365 "A Busload Of Worry", option 1 (banning anti-gay advertising on public buses) makes Social Conservatism go up?

[Drawkland]

#365 "A Busload Of Worry", option 1 (banning anti-gay advertising on public buses) makes Social Conservatism go up?

Um, what isn't Socially Conservative about that?

[Phydios]

#365 "A Busload Of Worry", option 1 (banning anti-gay advertising on public buses) makes Social Conservatism go up?

Um, what isn't Socially Conservative about that?

#365 "A Busload Of Worry", option 1 (banning anti-gay advertising on public buses) makes Social Conservatism go up?

Social conservatives tend to support the opposition of homosexuality, not oppose it.

[Kaboomlandia]

#011: People Request Not So Much Dictatorship, If That's All Right

Option chosen:
The High Minister for Finance, who also happens to be your brother, dismisses the claim. "What these people fail to realize is that you know what's best for them. The alternative is anarchy! I say stick to your course. And execute these wackos for treason."

Strangely enough, this didn't drop political freedoms. Or civil rights. In fact, this didn't lower any stats at all.

[Trotterdam]

Your political freedoms are 0.57. Prior to the addition of decimal places, they would simply have been 0. They can't get much lower.