[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects Since New Update

[Sanders Voters]

What aspect of building a new airport -- as seen in Option 3, Issue #379 (Stakes On A Plane), on my puppet Tumblr Bloggers -- would raise the death rate by 52.5%?

This nation just answered #084, option 2, to allow concealed carry laws. Weaponisation dropped 3%. So I allow weapons, so less people carry them? I'm going for a heavily armed populace (would have gone with option 1, but that makes forces legislation on the public, and I'm going for an anarchy).

That one's a weird stat, and as discussed earlier in this thread it seems more connected to crime rates (another weird stat -- my youth crime is through the roof, but I'm still listed as 'totally unknown') than the actual amount of weapons owned by your populace. IIRC, concealed carry reduces crime on NS.

[Drasnia]

So I just answered Issue 34 option 3 ( "Get your hands off my fag!" wheezes long-time smoker @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I've been smoking for fifty years and it's never done me any harm. Helps me concentrate, it does! The government should back off on trying to tell me what I can put into my own body. Telling a smoker he can't light up in a restaurant is discrimination, pure and simple. If you want to put a stop to unfairness, stop that.") and my recreational drug use plummeted 514.40 → 406.80 20.9%

Is it supposed to do that? It seems to me that that issue option would relax smoking laws which would make smoking other drugs much easier.

[Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden]

I've had a few more problems with issues when the Civil Rights should have gone up and went down instead, but I can't remember the issues, it
was at least like 3 issues.

[Frenequesta]

So I just answered Issue 34 option 3 ( "Get your hands off my fag!" wheezes long-time smoker @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I've been smoking for fifty years and it's never done me any harm. Helps me concentrate, it does! The government should back off on trying to tell me what I can put into my own body. Telling a smoker he can't light up in a restaurant is discrimination, pure and simple. If you want to put a stop to unfairness, stop that.") and my recreational drug use plummeted 514.40 → 406.80 20.9%

Is it supposed to do that? It seems to me that that issue option would relax smoking laws which would make smoking other drugs much easier.

Those numbers seem unusually high. Around April 15 you answered an issue in such a way that " the state funds the recreational drug habits of every citizen." That doesn't necessarily mean that the drug use was compulsory, though, which is the only explanation I can give as to why your use went down.

[Drasnia]

So I just answered Issue 34 option 3 ( "Get your hands off my fag!" wheezes long-time smoker @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I've been smoking for fifty years and it's never done me any harm. Helps me concentrate, it does! The government should back off on trying to tell me what I can put into my own body. Telling a smoker he can't light up in a restaurant is discrimination, pure and simple. If you want to put a stop to unfairness, stop that.") and my recreational drug use plummeted 514.40 → 406.80 20.9%

Is it supposed to do that? It seems to me that that issue option would relax smoking laws which would make smoking other drugs much easier.

Those numbers seem unusually high. Around April 15 you answered an issue in such a way that " the state funds the recreational drug habits of every citizen." That doesn't necessarily mean that the drug use was compulsory, though, which is the only explanation I can give as to why your use went down.

Yes, I'm purposefully trying to raise my Rec. Drug Use (I was #2 in the world at one point). I thought answering this issue wouldn't change any laws regarding using recreational drugs (I didn't think it would be affected) and if it did, that disallowing establishments from denying service to smokers would actually raise it slightly.

[Menta Lee-IL]

Answered issue #455: Police On Overkill Mode? with #4, and it reduced my law enforcement spending 100% to 0, costing my #1 in the world badge. The effect said "the nation is under martial law." I know this is a parody game, but this is bullshit. No nation on earth would reduce their law enforcement spending to 0 simply because a nation is under martial law with the army in charge.

[Phydios]

Answered issue #455: Police On Overkill Mode? with #4, and it reduced my law enforcement spending 100% to 0, costing my #1 in the world badge. The effect said "the nation is under martial law." I know this is a parody game, but this is bullshit. No nation on earth would reduce their law enforcement spending to 0 simply because a nation is under martial law with the army in charge.

Relevant option:

The tank drives off, ruining the gardens around your office. "I can't believe you let amateurs use heavy armor," comments @@RANDOMNAME@@, a military attaché from Maxtopia. "Occupying unruly neighborhoods can reduce unrest, but only if the job is done by professionals. Let the army handle your police work, and you won't have untrained idiots demolishing every street sign in their path. Nothing maintains law and order quite like the barrel of a gun and a proper curfew."

What part of "exaggerated effects" do you not understand? With the army in charge, there's no need for another peacekeeping force, or so NS says. As you say, this is a parody of real-life politics. It does take things to an extreme.
Still don't understand? Try this:
1. Having the military in charge of the nation would reduce the need for other law enforcement personnel.
2. Taking this to an extreme, like NS does, means eliminating all other law enforcement completely.

It can't get any simpler than that.

[Noster]

Issue 192 - Coup d'Etat in NATION

Option 2 - Which sends the military to break apart the gunmen holding the government employees hostage - lowered my Civil Rights. Why is that so?

I've made a lengthier post THIS WAY describing why I think it makes no sense.

Hope somebody can enlighten me.

[Menta Lee-IL]

Answered issue #455: Police On Overkill Mode? with #4, and it reduced my law enforcement spending 100% to 0, costing my #1 in the world badge. The effect said "the nation is under martial law." I know this is a parody game, but this is bullshit. No nation on earth would reduce their law enforcement spending to 0 simply because a nation is under martial law with the army in charge.

Relevant option:

The tank drives off, ruining the gardens around your office. "I can't believe you let amateurs use heavy armor," comments @@RANDOMNAME@@, a military attaché from Maxtopia. "Occupying unruly neighborhoods can reduce unrest, but only if the job is done by professionals. Let the army handle your police work, and you won't have untrained idiots demolishing every street sign in their path. Nothing maintains law and order quite like the barrel of a gun and a proper curfew."

What part of "exaggerated effects" do you not understand? With the army in charge, there's no need for another peacekeeping force, or so NS says. As you say, this is a parody of real-life politics. It does take things to an extreme.
Still don't understand? Try this:
1. Having the military in charge of the nation would reduce the need for other law enforcement personnel.
2. Taking this to an extreme, like NS does, means eliminating all other law enforcement completely.

It can't get any simpler than that.

"Still don't understand?" Your condescending reply is unappreciated.

[Phydios]

Relevant option:

The tank drives off, ruining the gardens around your office. "I can't believe you let amateurs use heavy armor," comments @@RANDOMNAME@@, a military attaché from Maxtopia. "Occupying unruly neighborhoods can reduce unrest, but only if the job is done by professionals. Let the army handle your police work, and you won't have untrained idiots demolishing every street sign in their path. Nothing maintains law and order quite like the barrel of a gun and a proper curfew."

What part of "exaggerated effects" do you not understand? With the army in charge, there's no need for another peacekeeping force, or so NS says. As you say, this is a parody of real-life politics. It does take things to an extreme.
Still don't understand? Try this:
1. Having the military in charge of the nation would reduce the need for other law enforcement personnel.
2. Taking this to an extreme, like NS does, means eliminating all other law enforcement completely.

It can't get any simpler than that.

"Still don't understand?" Your condescending reply is unappreciated.

I apologize for any implication of condescendence there. I merely wished to explain myself as clearly as possible, and sometimes that means saying the same thing multiple ways.

[Venetoland]

It will be glaringly obvious upon explanation, but why does making voting districts equivalent in size disenfranchise rural populations?

[Trotterdam]

Why did outlawing torture (#044) decrease my Pacifism?

It will be glaringly obvious upon explanation, but why does making voting districts equivalent in size disenfranchise rural populations?

Equivalent in number of voters, not land area.

More people live in cities than in rural areas (partly per definition, cities are "places where lots of people live close together", but even if you compare all-people-in-all-cities against all-people-in-all-rural-areas, the former has been growing ever since "farmer" stopped being the occupation of 90% of the populace), so city-dwellers get the bulk of representation.

[Mushet]

My puppet Mercado picked option #2 on Issue #16 letting employers ban people for any reason and it lowered economic freedom slightly and wealth gaps and average income of the rich by a sizeable margin while raising income equality and average income of the poor also by a sizeable margin.

[Venetoland]

Thanks for the explanation, knew it would be obvious.

[Kaboomlandia]

I picked Option #2 on Issue #257: @@LEADER@@ Assassinated...Almost - and nothing happened. Is that intentional?

[Arachaea]

Why the hell do civil rights fall on the issue of government-funded Internet if you agree to it? I can't remember the number, but I clicked issue 1, which said that it would provide real net neutrality, and it dropped my civil rights! What?

[Drasnia]

So I just answered Issue 34 option 3 ( "Get your hands off my fag!" wheezes long-time smoker @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I've been smoking for fifty years and it's never done me any harm. Helps me concentrate, it does! The government should back off on trying to tell me what I can put into my own body. Telling a smoker he can't light up in a restaurant is discrimination, pure and simple. If you want to put a stop to unfairness, stop that.") and my recreational drug use plummeted 514.40 → 406.80 20.9%

Is it supposed to do that? It seems to me that that issue option would relax smoking laws which would make smoking other drugs much easier.

Still hasn't been answered.

[Arachaea]

Why the hell do civil rights fall on the issue of government-funded Internet if you agree to it? I can't remember the number, but I clicked issue 1, which said that it would provide real net neutrality, and it dropped my civil rights! What?

I found out that this issue was #281, and research suggests that it wasn't meant to do so...

[Mironus]

#475: Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

Chose the third option.
Result: `Firing squads regularly execute dissidents`. Civil Rights up by 13.7%, Authoritarianism up by 7.4%.

That seems odd. Especially since Civil Rights and Authoritarianism are usually opposed in issues: when one goes up, the other tends to go down.

[Trotterdam]

That seems odd. Especially since Civil Rights and Authoritarianism are usually opposed in issues: when one goes up, the other tends to go down.

Did you check the other two freedoms? Authoritarianism going up could still happen if Political Freedom went down by more than Civil Rights went up.

Still, I feel that Civil Rights shouldn't have gone up at all. How does that make sense? Unless the issue claims that euthanizing prisoners is literally more merciful than putting them in overcrowded prisons (and even then, that's not exactly civil rights so long as you're not giving them a choice in the matter).

[Drasnia]

That seems odd. Especially since Civil Rights and Authoritarianism are usually opposed in issues: when one goes up, the other tends to go down.

Did you check the other two freedoms? Authoritarianism going up could still happen if Political Freedom went down by more than Civil Rights went up.

Still, I feel that Civil Rights shouldn't have gone up at all. How does that make sense? Unless the issue claims that euthanizing prisoners is literally more merciful than putting them in overcrowded prisons (and even then, that's not exactly civil rights so long as you're not giving them a choice in the matter).

Unless something in the nation was worse than executing dissidents. I have no idea what flags/conditions your nation had before hand.

[Wallenburg]

524.1 completely destroys the basket weaving industry, bringing it down 100%.

[Gnejs]

524.1 completely destroys the basket weaving industry, bringing it down 100%.

That's strange. I'll bring it up with the team. Please stand by.

[Bedetopia]

524.1 completely destroys the basket weaving industry, bringing it down 100%.

Your Basket Weaving was pretty low before the drop, so it might be normal. I've had the same thing happen with Eco-Friendliness.

[Trotterdam]

#006:

2. New Age thinker @@RANDOMNAME@@: a left-field candidate with some radical ideas. "For me, it's not about the name of your religion. It's about discovering your spirituality in whatever guise that takes. Some people call that a cult: I call it taking spirituality to the people."

Shouldn't that raise Inclusiveness?