[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects Since New Update

[Tasimah]

I answered option number 3 on issue 365 and it gave no stat changes.

[Phydios]

I answered option number 3 on issue 365 and it gave no stat changes.

Yes, that can happen if your choice didn't result in a change to government policy.

[Venetoland]

Not unusual, but just seeking clarification: I'm sending drunk drivers to rehab, sending law enforcement down. Should I interpret this to mean: AA is effective in Venetoland?

[A Humanist Prognostication]

Not unusual, but just seeking clarification: I'm sending drunk drivers to rehab, sending law enforcement down. Should I interpret this to mean: AA is effective in Venetoland?

The decrease in law enforcement is tiny, but consistent with decreases in other areas of government spending (defense, foreign aid, etc). It looks like the stat changes you see simply reflect a small transfer of government spending/attention to rehabilitation programs, with the money needed to do so having to come from somewhere.

The level of government spending/attention to rehabilitation programs might be reflected in the health and welfare stats, which either remained steady or increased by some tiny amount.

[Venetoland]

Exactly what I suspected Humanist.

[Australian rePublic]

Why is it fair that 264.1 decreases environment andtourism? I thought that ration7ng water wasthe best thing for the environment

[Luna Amore]

Why is it fair that 264.1 decreases environment andtourism? I thought that ration7ng water wasthe best thing for the environment

Moved to the correct thread. Aussie, you've been told repeatedly not to post unusual stat changes in the stickied Help Us Fix thread.

[Venetoland]

I just made retirement optional, and my "Rich Income" rose more than my "Poor Income". Is this because earning power goes up as we age?

[Trotterdam]

I just made retirement optional, and my "Rich Income" rose more than my "Poor Income". Is this because earning power goes up as we age?

Probably because old people who are still capable of working now earn more than old people who are no longer capable of working.

[Venetoland]

In the issue regarding whether a nation should boycott the Olympic Games. I chose to allow them to compete independently, with steroids only being alluded to in passing. My result completely focused on steroids.

[Hen Tao]

In the School Prayer issue (#225), the 2nd option led to this (and these were the absolutely only effects):

• Religiousness: 649.16 → 654.03 +0.75%
• Secularism: 15.13 → 15.11 –0.13%

Is this supposed to happen? After all, I'm told there was school prayer before I got the issue, now there're some peeps not taking part, still Religiousness goes up?

[Leutria]

In the School Prayer issue (#225), the 2nd option led to this (and these were the absolutely only effects):

• Religiousness: 649.16 → 654.03 +0.75%
• Secularism: 15.13 → 15.11 –0.13%

Is this supposed to happen? After all, I'm told there was school prayer before I got the issue, now there're some peeps not taking part, still Religiousness goes up?

You read the issue wrong. The description (emphasis mine):

In order to save the souls of @@NAME@@'s children from eternal damnation, it has been suggested that a daily prayer be made mandatory in schools nationwide.

i.e. there was not mandatory prayer, but it is being considered.

And the option you choose:

2. "Hey now, if there's going to be compulsory school prayer then there ought to be an opt-out system," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a concerned parent. "I don't want my boy to be an part of this collective worship nonsense."

i.e. this option brings in compulsory school prayer, but also creates an opt-out system. So you have brought in school prayer, you are just letting some kids opt-out.

[Hen Tao]

In the School Prayer issue (#225), the 2nd option led to this (and these were the absolutely only effects):

• Religiousness: 649.16 → 654.03 +0.75%
• Secularism: 15.13 → 15.11 –0.13%

Is this supposed to happen? After all, I'm told there was school prayer before I got the issue, now there're some peeps not taking part, still Religiousness goes up?

You read the issue wrong. The description (emphasis mine):

In order to save the souls of @@NAME@@'s children from eternal damnation, it has been suggested that a daily prayer be made mandatory in schools nationwide.

i.e. there was not mandatory prayer, but it is being considered.

And the option you choose:

2. "Hey now, if there's going to be compulsory school prayer then there ought to be an opt-out system," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a concerned parent. "I don't want my boy to be an part of this collective worship nonsense."

i.e. this option brings in compulsory school prayer, but also creates an opt-out system. So you have brought in school prayer, you are just letting some kids opt-out.

Yup, you're right.
Thanks, Leutria!

[Goldenmouth]

#229: Government Saturated In Corruption

Option 3 lowered my country's corruption.

[A Humanist Prognostication]

#229: Government Saturated In Corruption

Option 3 lowered my country's corruption.

Political freedoms are already so low in your country that someone influencing policy, even if in a completely corrupt way, is still a tiny step above all decisions being made exclusively by you alone with no external influence whatsoever.

Dunno if this is actually what's going on, but there's a sick kind of logic to it. At any rate, the change in corruption in your country is so fantastically tiny that it might just be simple rounding error. Or might as well be.

[Arridian Islands]

Option 1 on issue 679 slightly lowered civil rights. I'm not upset, but I'm a bit confused.

[A Humanist Prognostication]

Option 1 on issue 679 slightly lowered civil rights. I'm not upset, but I'm a bit confused.

“Comrade @@LEADER@@, there is no reason for any mistrust between us,” comments @@RANDOMNAME@@, the East Lebatuckese representative, while discreetly placing a listening device under a pot plant. “Our proposal would launch @@NAME@@’s space program to new heights while setting a glorious example of friendship between our two great Motherlands. We’re ready to launch the ‘Spyonya’ module, so just hurry up and agree to build the station already.”

[Shoaldog]

I received Issue #631 'The Violet Mile' and I can't recall that I had the death penalty in my nation.
Actually, my nation lacks prisons completely (although, I must say, that doesn't necessarily mean there's no death penalty, we can just execute some offenders and let all others free).
Plus my Law Enforcement is at –21 almost, wouldn't that be higher if I had the death penalty? (Well, still, I suppose I can have the death penalty and let people execute the criminals with their own hands, without police.)
All in all, is there a way I could check out to see if there's the death penalty in my nation?
And, if the answer is 'no', is getting Issue #631 justified?

[Ransium]

I received Issue #631 'The Violet Mile' and I can't recall that I had the death penalty in my nation.
Actually, my nation lacks prisons completely (although, I must say, that doesn't necessarily mean there's no death penalty, we can just execute some offenders and let all others free).
Plus my Law Enforcement is at –21 almost, wouldn't that be higher if I had the death penalty? (Well, still, I suppose I can have the death penalty and let people execute the criminals with their own hands, without police.)
All in all, is there a way I could check out to see if there's the death penalty in my nation?
And, if the answer is 'no', is getting Issue #631 justified?

Your nation does indeed have the death penalty. Unfortunately I can't say when/why the death penalty was enacted in your nation. There are plenty of ways to reverse it though so keep your eyes peeled.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I received Issue #631 'The Violet Mile' and I can't recall that I had the death penalty in my nation.
Actually, my nation lacks prisons completely (although, I must say, that doesn't necessarily mean there's no death penalty, we can just execute some offenders and let all others free).
Plus my Law Enforcement is at –21 almost, wouldn't that be higher if I had the death penalty? (Well, still, I suppose I can have the death penalty and let people execute the criminals with their own hands, without police.)
All in all, is there a way I could check out to see if there's the death penalty in my nation?
And, if the answer is 'no', is getting Issue #631 justified?

What Ransium said.

Also, I'd like to point out that your situation is not at all unique, in that people often found they had activated various policy flags without realising it. This was one of the major things I sought to eliminate in the big policy review, specifically looking for "gotchas" where you are tricked into changing your government policy without the text telegraphing it.

Prior to the review, it was entirely possible that you'd be flagged as a capital punishment nation purely through an effect line mentioning that you are killing X group of people, with no warning from the text. I've got rid of all of these, and massively reduced the likelihood of you triggering policies by accident: you still have to read the text of options though, of course, and if any nation ends up instituting a death penalty because they pick an option that says "round them up and kill them", then that's their own doing.

We also had a specific discussion as to whether a class of people being singled out for extermination counted as the death penalty (e.g. killing all immigrants, killing all poets). I felt that the death penalty should specifically mean the use of capital punishment as a tool of judicial sentencing, not just the state murdering people. However, after an in-depth discussion, it was decided that if the state kills any people within the nation for any reason, that's enough to trigger the policy. So, might have been one of those sort of things as well.

[Shoaldog]

Thank you, Ransium and Candlewhisper Archive.
Now I know what to do with the violet mile.

[Gogol-Mogol]

I chose option 3 in Issue #618: The Jaws Of A Dilemma, and I actually didn't know what to expect. However, what I'm reporting here is not the effect on my Tourism per se, but the fact that I got a banner saying I have trouble attracting tourists — while my Tourism stats went up and there was even a newspaper underlining that (see picture below):

[A Humanist Prognostication]

I chose option 3 in Issue #618: The Jaws Of A Dilemma, and I actually didn't know what to expect. However, what I'm reporting here is not the effect on my Tourism per se, but the fact that I got a banner saying I have trouble attracting tourists — while my Tourism stats went up and there was even a newspaper underlining that (see picture below):

(Image)

The small increase in Tourism is probably an emergent effect of the slightly bigger (in absolute count, if not necessarily percentage) increases in Environmental Beauty and Eco-Friendliness. #618.3 involves increased environmental protection, which presumably increases environmental beauty, which presumably increases your country's attractiveness. Which might result in an overall increase in Tourism, even if not necessarily at the beach.

The odd juxtaposition of the newspaper headline and banner image is probably just due to a relative lack of temporal resolution in displaying those items. What is simply (probably) boils down to is that one aspect of your choice kinda implies less tourism immediately (thus the banner), but the long-term effects of increased environmentalism imply more tourism further down the line (thus the newspaper headline).

At any rate, one time I got the banner for "you hate then environment" and "you love the environment" at the same time when I privatized my beaches. It was weird, until I remembered that complex political issues can have effects that run the gamut of possible outcomes over a period of time, but NationStates assumes that such gamut only ever lasts exactly one day.

[Ransium]

Trust me, it's way more fun to not know what's happening.

GM: All I can say is things are working as intended for how the model is currently set-up. There's some discussion about changing some things related to tourism that would make this less likely, but for now it is what it is.

AHR: This is actually pretty straightforward you got one banner because eco-friendliness (the amount your government spends on the environment) went down, and another banner because environmental beauty went up.

[A Humanist Prognostication]

AHR: This is actually pretty straightforward you got one banner because eco-friendliness (the amount your government spends on the environment) went down, and another banner because environmental beauty went up.

Well, yeah duh. Even if this conception of eco-friendlinessis pretty dubious The issue is not really how much government spends on beaches, but of how many people use a limited resource in a set amount of time. My government could have just as easily retained a monopoly on beaches, but established or raised user/access fees to limit the number of beachgoers. Thus, arguably, eco-spending increases with environmental beauty.

Unfortunately, this obviously correct solution is not available, and instead my brain has to justify why I've got a banner of a toxic sludgepool right next to my Greenpeace lifetime achievement banner.

And yes, I agree, not having knowledge of the backside very frequently makes this justification far easier. If Watsonian.