[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects Since New Update

[Gaunergeist]

Hmm...

Well, the size of the percentage comes from the fact you're a new nation, which makes small changes have big percentage effects (https://www.nationstates.net/nation=can ... /id=743331). You're actually looking at a very modest reduction in national cleverness, which then has a knock on effect on scientific advancement.

However, the fact that the option makes your nation less intelligent at all could be discussed further. I'll raise it backstage with Helaw.

Update:
Discussed, and stats amended. This option will not effect scientific advancement in future.

Hey, cool

[Atomic Utopia]

16.2 seems to increase income equality.

I do not see how breaking up unions would do that.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

16.2 seems to increase income equality.

I do not see how breaking up unions would do that.

Lack of system granularity. Doesn't make narrative sense, but its a consequence of the architecture of the game. The stats themselves are assigned sensibly, but some of the stats are causing the wrong sort of secondary effects.

This is one of several known bugs with specific primary stats causing the wrong secondary effects, and the solution needs to come from game engine changes, not assigned stats, and those changes have been flagged with the bosses quite some time ago. I've been told that we'll see them eventually, once the code has been rigorously tested, but we've no timescale on that.

[Christian Democrats]

In James II, Option 631.2 increased the crime rate even though the speaker said that public hangings would be "a grand deterrent" to crime.

In real life, lots of people claim capital punishment deter crime. The initial stats for this option defaulted to it being true.

However, many on the team objected that this had no basis in reality, and that the weight should be on what evidence shows rather than on what a character asserts. A literature search was done, and we reached the conclusion that most experts do not support that capital punishment deters crime.

First, I didn't realize that we had experts in criminology on the issues team. Second, the issues team is being misleading if it gives options effects that are exactly the opposite of what the issue itself says. Third, it appears that your judgment on the efficacy of the death penalty might have more to do with moral perception than empirical evidence.* Fourth, there is not, in any case, any justification for increasing the crime rate when a player selects Option 631.2. At worst, selecting Option 631.2 should have no effect on the crime rate.

____________
* http://nuovoeutile.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/BIASED-ASSIMILATION-AND-ATTITUDE-POLARIZATION.pdf

[Candlewhisper Archive]

First, I didn't realize that we had experts in criminology on the issues team.

We have scientifically minded individuals capable of a literature search. I'm not a criminologist, I admit, but I have been formally trained in critical appraisal and population statistics.

I'll concede that there is difference in opinion amongst criminologists, and heavy political bias influencing the conclusions of each.

As we're not criminologists, the sensible approach appears to be to go with the majority of experts. Expert majority isn't proof by any means of course (for decades, a majority of doctors recommended laying your baby to sleep on their front), it's a better basis for basing our stat decisions than expert minorities.

Second, the issues team is being misleading if it gives options effects that are exactly the opposite of what the issue itself says.

No, that's considered acceptable. Anything a character says is "in character". Example: Dying For A Kiss, option 3:

“Am I missing something obvious here?” asks loutish thug RANDOMNAME, missing something obvious. “Seems to me that the girl dishonored her father, and so her father killed her for the sake of his family name. I mean, why are we saying that’s a bad thing? How could anyone call that a bad thing?”

That's the speaker's opinion, but it doesn't make it true. It being written in an option doesn't make it true that 'honour killings can't be called a bad thing'. Likewise 585.3 it's not true that severed spinal cords can naturally repair themselves, 593.4 asserting that a woman's nakedness is the possession of her husband is not an objectively true statement, 598.2 it's not the case that anyone who objects to rigorous screening must be a terrorist, and so on, and so on.

If you've been assuming that issue option speakers are always right, you're playing a different game.

Third, it appears that your judgment on the efficacy of the death penalty might have more to do with moral perception than empirical evidence.*

We looked at the data and reached a conclusion based on where the weight of the evidence lies. As the evidence is clouded by biases, we instead looked at where the weight of expert opinion lies. That's a good deal more rigour than most politicians apply to real life decisions, and we're just editors working an online game. I think you have to accept the judgements made.

We basically take this stance with most things - go with the expert majority. So, for example, we assume that climate change is not a fiction, that evolution is real, that gravity functions on a macroscopic scale as Newton suggests.

There's different levels of weight of expert majority, of course, and the capital punishment issue is less clear cut than the previous three examples. Even so, we can identify a majority of opinions in criminology, and go with that.

Fourth, there is not, in any case, any justification for increasing the crime rate when a player selects Option 631.2. At worst, selecting Option 631.2 should have no effect on the crime rate.

No increase in crime rate is coded in. Any changes seen within some nations are due to interactions of the direct coded changes and the emergent game engine. For this option (and indeed almost every option this issue), it's more or less a knock on effect of overall reduction in niceness in most nations picking these options. Those decisions of what knocks onto what, of course, are determined by the technical team.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Anyway, tldr version is: stats are fine as it is.

If you want to discuss it further, we can open a discussion in another forum. No change to the issue base will be happening at this time.

[Christian Democrats]

First, I didn't realize that we had experts in criminology on the issues team.

We have scientifically minded individuals capable of a literature search. I'm not a criminologist, I admit, but I have been formally trained in critical appraisal and population statistics.

I'll concede that there is difference in opinion amongst criminologists, and heavy political bias influencing the conclusions of each.

As we're not criminologists, the sensible approach appears to be to go with the majority of experts. Expert majority isn't proof by any means of course (for decades, a majority of doctors recommended laying your baby to sleep on their front), it's a better basis for basing our stat decisions than expert minorities.

Do most experts say that the death penalty increases crime?

Second, the issues team is being misleading if it gives options effects that are exactly the opposite of what the issue itself says.

No, that's considered acceptable. Anything a character says is "in character". Example: Dying For A Kiss, option 3:

“Am I missing something obvious here?” asks loutish thug RANDOMNAME, missing something obvious. “Seems to me that the girl dishonored her father, and so her father killed her for the sake of his family name. I mean, why are we saying that’s a bad thing? How could anyone call that a bad thing?”

That's the speaker's opinion, but it doesn't make it true. It being written in an option doesn't make it true that 'honour killings can't be called a bad thing'. Likewise 585.3 it's not true that severed spinal cords can naturally repair themselves, 593.4 asserting that a woman's nakedness is the possession of her husband is not an objectively true statement, 598.2 it's not the case that anyone who objects to rigorous screening must be a terrorist, and so on, and so on.

If you've been assuming that issue option speakers are always right, you're playing a different game.

The differences are simple. The speakers whom you cite from Issues #632 and #593 are making normative statements, not empirical ones. The speaker from Issue #585 is making a statement that is patently absurd; the speaker from the death penalty issue is not. The portion of the option in Issue #598 that is not a quote states that the speaker "tries to win every debate by claiming all opposing views equate to supporting terrorism."

Fourth, there is not, in any case, any justification for increasing the crime rate when a player selects Option 631.2. At worst, selecting Option 631.2 should have no effect on the crime rate.

No increase in crime rate is coded in. Any changes seen within some nations are due to interactions of the direct coded changes and the emergent game engine. For this option (and indeed almost every option this issue), it's more or less a knock on effect of overall reduction in niceness in most nations picking these options. Those decisions of what knocks onto what, of course, are determined by the technical team.

We've discussed knock-on effects before. If Option 631.2 is going to increase the crime rate in some nations incidentally, then the claim that public executions will be "a grand deterrent" should be removed. The edit would be minor and would not detract from the issue in any way.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

If you want to discuss it further, we can open a discussion in another forum. No change to the issue base will be happening at this time.

I'm being courteous here out of a respect for your previous contributions. This is not the place to debate whether capital punishment deters crime. Let's have that conversation elsewhere please.

If you have a clever answer about how there are other things about the issue that change, please reflect that replying further on this thread, when I've asked you not to, is not going to persuade me to make a change.

Instead, convince me in the open discussion fora that the evidence shows that capital punishment deters crime, and we can then revisit the stats.

[Christian Democrats]

If you want to discuss it further, we can open a discussion in another forum. No change to the issue base will be happening at this time.

I'm being courteous here out of a respect for your previous contributions. This is not the place to debate whether capital punishment deters crime. Let's have that conversation elsewhere please.

If you have a clever answer about how there are other things about the issue that change, please reflect that replying further on this thread, when I've asked you not to, is not going to persuade me to make a change.

Instead, convince me in the open discussion fora that the evidence shows that capital punishment deters crime, and we can then revisit the stats.

In my previous post, I was talking about the wording of the issue since I realize that you cannot control knock-on effects. If the wording of this particular issue option must be discussed "in another forum," where should I open the topic?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Here you go, let's discuss the underlying evidence here:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=414694

The wording of the issue will not be changed at this time, as I don't think design-wise it is necessary for what are character opinions to telegraph stats. Rather, I think that the opinions are in-character attempts to persuade, and the stats then reflect the likely effects of the actual decision made. The two are separate concepts.

Most extreme example of this, would be the weather-control machine which doesn't work: 433.3. Between that extreme and the super-obvious telegraphed effects, narratives are allowed to run the whole range of matching/mismatching character opinions to outcomes.

Moving on... Any other issues to report, anyone?

[Christian Democrats]

Why does Option 613.3 -- the anti-censorship option -- diminish Civil Rights?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Why does Option 613.3 -- the anti-censorship option -- diminish Civil Rights?

The broad explanation of unexpected civil rights movements is here:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=can ... /id=743343

The specific scenario here is clashing civil rights of various sorts. Like most folk, you've recognised that this is a pro-civil rights option in its criticism of censorship and its pro free-speech position, but also missed that the game considers the right to privacy to be a civil right.

The mix of civil rights being affected means that a nations aggregate civil rights score could move in either direction, or not at all, depending on the baseline.

[Jutsa]

I'm mildly concerned that http://i.imgur.com/qPeT3hX.png this is my nation's employment,
and that the issue I just resolved, "The Low Aspiration Nation"'s first option made hardly a dent in it.

Perhaps the first option simply doesn't work, but I'm really confused as to how the employment could swing so high and low with
issues before and now I can't make a dent. Granted, if people don't have to work and still are able to have a high
standard of living and economy that's fine, but I'm still somewhat concerned about how little a dent this made...
so, perhaps you could explain it to me?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Employment is weird. There's big stat directions modelled into that option, with the intention of creating big improvements in employment. However, design choices in the game engine create some really weird secondary effects that don't make a lot of narrative sense.

The issue's coded stats are all sensibly chosen. It's the game engine that needs to be changed, and this is one of the major things I've historically flagged as needing review. Non-disclosure stops me revealing the specifics to the player base, but trust me when I say it's a really odd stat calculation, and that it has been pointed out how odd it is.

[Drasnia]

Employment is weird. There's big stat directions modelled into that option, with the intention of creating big improvements in employment. However, design choices in the game engine create some really weird secondary effects that don't make a lot of narrative sense.

The issue's coded stats are all sensibly chosen. It's the game engine that needs to be changed, and this is one of the major things I've historically flagged as needing review. Non-disclosure stops me revealing the specifics to the player base, but trust me when I say it's a really odd stat calculation, and that it has been pointed out how odd it is.

For example, while looking at your nation Jutsa, your employment bounces around at the same time your nation went from allowing private enterprise to disallowing private enterprise. I've not really paid too terribly much attention at what goes into calculating employment, but as CWA says, it's a weird one.

[Christian Democrats]

Why does Option 613.3 -- the anti-censorship option -- diminish Civil Rights?

The broad explanation of unexpected civil rights movements is here:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=can ... /id=743343

The specific scenario here is clashing civil rights of various sorts. Like most folk, you've recognised that this is a pro-civil rights option in its criticism of censorship and its pro free-speech position, but also missed that the game considers the right to privacy to be a civil right.

The mix of civil rights being affected means that a nations aggregate civil rights score could move in either direction, or not at all, depending on the baseline.

I agree that privacy is a civil right, but Option 613.3 wouldn't involve the government infringing on that right.

Civil Rights (Martin Luther King, Jr. Units): "The citizens of nations ranked highly enjoy a great amount of civil rights, or freedoms to go about their personal business without interference or regulation from government."

Perhaps, the definition of Civil Rights should be changed.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Honestly, almost none of the stat descriptions describe what the stats actually represent. They never have done. A lot of stats don't even represent anywhere near what you'd expect any reasonable definition of the word to mean.

Civil Rights, stat-side, represents a mish-mash of personal freedoms from government interference, fundamental human rights, and as a default catch-all "a right to X" things which the game considers to not be political or economic.

That wouldn't look very good though, so the page description doesn't say that.

Take the page descriptions not so much as an explanation of the underlying game mechanics, more as "flavour text" for the stat to make the page more interesting.

[Trotterdam]

A lot of stats don't even represent anywhere near what you'd expect any reasonable definition of the word to mean.

Nice to hear you admitting it

[Christian Democrats]

A lot of stats don't even represent anywhere near what you'd expect any reasonable definition of the word to mean.

Nice to hear you admitting it

I agree.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Not so much admitting it as criticizing it. Despite being involved in writing issues, I'm not responsible for the technical side, and have a lot of suggestions as to improvements that need to be made.

[Gaunergeist]

Not so much admitting it as criticizing it. Despite being involved in writing issues, I'm not responsible for the technical side, and have a lot of suggestions as to improvements that need to be made.

Thanks for your contribution to my favorite browser game

[Trotterdam]

I got #639 No Country For Old Men on a nation with an average lifespan of 27.23 years. Should that be possible?

It's kind of irritating because I'm aiming to get #127 Aging Concerns In @@NAME@@ with that nation, so this was the wrong issue to mess up the validity on, for me

I guess double-check #122 Pensioners In Protest and #644 The Old Grey Matter too, while you're at it.

[Ransium]

I got #639 No Country For Old Men on a nation with an average lifespan of 27.23 years. Should that be possible?

It's kind of irritating because I'm aiming to get #127 Aging Concerns In @@NAME@@ with that nation, so this was the wrong issue to mess up the validity on, for me

I guess double-check #122 Pensioners In Protest and #644 The Old Grey Matter too, while you're at it.

What nation? Never mind, yeah it's possible #639 has no validity related to average lifespan. I guess the thinking is no matter what the AVERAGE lifespan is you might have some old people who live to retirement age (even hunter gatherer communities have village elders). Can't say it's consistent between issues though.

[Trotterdam]

What nation?

A Badly Conceived Designation

Surprised it matters.

[Ransium]

It doesn't I was looking at the wrong issue and so I was confused, see above.

Edit: I've brought it up back stage to see if we want to handle those set of issues consistently in their validity criteria or not.