[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Azurius]

I think we fundamentally disagree on civil rights. I can't read this option and see it as doing anything but taking away the rights of citizens albiet mildly. Keep in mind, NS tracks civil right relating to crime and punishment.

It is not sensible for that option to decrease civil rights. He only faces punishment if he was guilty in Maxtopia. In Roman-Britannic Empire, he's guilty of (whatever it was in the issue, drunken driven or something) so a deportation of a non citizen who commited a crime is hardly violating anyone's civil rights. Your logic of punishment=less civil rights makes no sense. Punishment of the innocent I could see, but in no way does the issue imply his innocence

Okay here is my personal deduction: You still ban a person from your nation. Even if he or she is a criminal in Maxtopia or wherever and faces punishments there... Even if he or she was a criminal in your nation too. You effectively exile them. That, no matter how you look at it, is a breach of civil rights in my book. Exiling people from a nation is anything but contributing to civil rights, rather the opposite. Regardless of reasons here. Fact is you exile people, and fact is that is indeed a breach of peoples civil rights. The civil right sensible thing to do would be too either leave him be(if he has done nothing in your nation), or charge him inside your nation for the crimes he commited in your nation(not in Maxtopia or god knows where, doesn´t matter). You cannot expect to exile people without any loss to your civil rights.

[Pilarcraft]

Alright. So on issue #158, "Regarding Robbers' Rights"

The Issue, as you know, is about whether or not a homeowner can shoot a trespasser. For reasons unrelated to this post, I picked no. 1: "Nervous homeowners have been blamed for rising death rates amongst carol singers and locksmiths."


But... here's the most confusing of the effects this issue's had:
1) civil rights 2.7%
2) Nudity 0.35%
and 3) Weaponization 6.4%
I can understand why the economic stats dropped. but I can't understand how, exactly, allowing gun owners more rights lowered my gun per capita...

[Azurius]

Alright. So on issue #158, "Regarding Robbers' Rights"

The Issue, as you know, is about whether or not a homeowner can shoot a trespasser. For reasons unrelated to this post, I picked no. 1: "Nervous homeowners have been blamed for rising death rates amongst carol singers and locksmiths."


But... here's the most confusing of the effects this issue's had:
1) civil rights 2.7%
2) Nudity 0.35%
and 3) Weaponization 6.4%
I can understand why the economic stats dropped. but I can't understand how, exactly, allowing gun owners more rights lowered my gun per capita...

It´s a simple thing really: The lower crime goes, the lower weaponization per capita goes. I bet by choosing that option compliance went up.... Yup it did. Here is where your lower weaponization comes from: Less crime. If you look at your chart for crime, see that huge drop in compliance? Now look at how your weaponization instantly went up rapidly as well. It is tied to crime.

So the lower the crime the less weaponization. However, you would still get a RAW increase of weaponization here, however, less crime simply outweighed any raw gain in weaponization through this issue.

If you ask me it makes sense too. Even in a nation that is liberal on guns such as mine, due to a low crimerate only few people will actually get them(because they don´t need them in the first place). I think it´s a bit too extremely tied to compliance in this game though...

Anyway, low crimerates and high weaponization don´t go hand in hand well in this game.

[Pilarcraft]

Alright. So on issue #158, "Regarding Robbers' Rights"

The Issue, as you know, is about whether or not a homeowner can shoot a trespasser. For reasons unrelated to this post, I picked no. 1: "Nervous homeowners have been blamed for rising death rates amongst carol singers and locksmiths."


But... here's the most confusing of the effects this issue's had:
1) civil rights 2.7%
2) Nudity 0.35%
and 3) Weaponization 6.4%
I can understand why the economic stats dropped. but I can't understand how, exactly, allowing gun owners more rights lowered my gun per capita...

It´s a simple thing really: The lower crime goes, the lower weaponization per capita goes. I bet by choosing that option compliance went up.... Yup it did. Here is where your lower weaponization comes from: Less crime. If you look at your chart for crime, see that huge drop in compliance? Now look at how your weaponization instantly went up rapidly as well. It is tied to crime.

So the lower the crime the less weaponization. However, you would still get a RAW increase of weaponization here, however, less crime simply outweighed any raw gain in weaponization through this issue.

If you ask me it makes sense too. Even in a nation that is liberal on guns such as mine, due to a low crimerate only few people will actually get them(because they don´t need them in the first place). I think it´s a bit too extremely tied to compliance in this game though...

Anyway, low crimerates and high weaponization don´t go hand in hand well in this game.

(one of my puppets: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=asmundia has a 28.81 weaponization rate, with a 2.92 Crime rate. I am not sure if they're really related. but then again there is that "compulsory gun ownership" issue so)

[Businessistan]

this nation
56:2

“Artists and poets should support themselves, like everyone else,” replies Doug Brewer, spokesperson for the Capitalism Now Party. “The suffering taxpayers should be given a break. In fact, we should abolish all government subsidies for special interest groups.”

+0.62% Taxation, -0.28% Freedom from Taxation
I know it is only a very small change, but surely that cannot be correct? what could have caused this?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Agree with all Ransium's points here, in particular on the civil rights drop in extraditing to countries with overly harsh punishments.

I'd also note that on the economic freedom query on 330, this is in fact explicitly covered in the second FAQ of the opening post.

Please read the FAQ guys, it'll save us all time.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Azurius is correct in his assessments of Weaponisation. This is, in fact, due to Crime driving weaponisation.

One way to look at it is that because folk feel safer they're less inclined to stick a pistol in their pocket when they head out of the front door.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

this nation
56:2

“Artists and poets should support themselves, like everyone else,” replies Doug Brewer, spokesperson for the Capitalism Now Party. “The suffering taxpayers should be given a break. In fact, we should abolish all government subsidies for special interest groups.”

+0.62% Taxation, -0.28% Freedom from Taxation
I know it is only a very small change, but surely that cannot be correct? what could have caused this?

It is correct.

Third FAQ, opening post.

- Why didn't tax fall when spending was described as reducing (or why didn't it rise when spending was described as rising)?

The answer usually lies in your economic output.
The more economic output you have, the less %tax you need to support your spending.

Bear in mind that economic output is dependent on a lot of interacting factors. Sometimes an option will cause you to shrink your economy by more than you proportionally shrank your spending, causing a tax rise to support the same spending. Sometimes it won't. Often different things will happen to different nations faced with the same issue choice.

Please use the FAQ guys.

[Trotterdam]

If you ask me it makes sense too. Even in a nation that is liberal on guns such as mine, due to a low crimerate only few people will actually get them(because they don´t need them in the first place).

Not if the crime rate is low because you legalized gun ownership. How would legalizing gun ownership even lower crime if, despite it being legal, nobody actually carries a gun?

It's a known problem, though, been reported many times. I presume there are technical issues that complicate fixing it - and in any case, this is a [violet]-level problem, not something the issue editors can fix.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Not if the crime rate is low because you legalized gun ownership. How would legalizing gun ownership even lower crime if, despite it being legal, nobody actually carries a gun?

Because the possibility that victims carry guns could deter crime, and so less folk arm themselves with criminal intent.

Yeah, my politics doesn't believe in that either, but a general discussion on the simulation of gun freedoms was that it was reasonable to lower crime with increased gun freedoms if the story suggested that was what would happen, as real life evidence isn't solidly conclusive in either direction.

[Auralia]

Option 2 for Issue 32 ("One Wife Is Never Enough, Say Polygamists") reads:

“This is nothing more than sexual deviants using religion as a pretext for perversion!” says Reverend Chip Meyer. “Marriage is one man, one woman, and death do we part. What’s so hard to get? Anything else is a perversion, and must be banned.”

When selecting this issue, the "Marriage Equality" policy, if currently active, should be revoked -- yet this does not happen.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Option 2 for Issue 32 ("One Wife Is Never Enough, Say Polygamists") reads:

“This is nothing more than sexual deviants using religion as a pretext for perversion!” says Reverend Chip Meyer. “Marriage is one man, one woman, and death do we part. What’s so hard to get? Anything else is a perversion, and must be banned.”

When selecting this issue, the "Marriage Equality" policy, if currently active, should be revoked -- yet this does not happen.

Good call. Fixed.

[Auralia]

Option 2 for Issue 32 ("One Wife Is Never Enough, Say Polygamists") reads:

“This is nothing more than sexual deviants using religion as a pretext for perversion!” says Reverend Chip Meyer. “Marriage is one man, one woman, and death do we part. What’s so hard to get? Anything else is a perversion, and must be banned.”

When selecting this issue, the "Marriage Equality" policy, if currently active, should be revoked -- yet this does not happen.

Good call. Fixed.

Thanks. I'm not sure if you're allowed to do this, but would you mind manually cancelling that policy for this nation, since that should have been the effect of selecting that option?

It occurs to me that the issue should also enact the "Permanent Marriage" policy and revoke any policy permitting divorce. Not sure if that already happens.

[Luna Amore]

Good call. Fixed.

Thanks. I'm not sure if you're allowed to do this, but would you mind manually cancelling that policy for this nation, since that should have been the effect of selecting that option?

It occurs to me that the issue should also enact the "Permanent Marriage" policy and revoke any policy permitting divorce. Not sure if that already happens.

It takes a GM to modify stats directly on a nation. Since it's just a policy, I've switched it off for you.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It occurs to me that the issue should also enact the "Permanent Marriage" policy and revoke any policy permitting divorce. Not sure if that already happens.

That's already in place. Thanks for the observation though.

[Roman-Britannic Empire]

While it makes sense most of the "funny" restricting options are decreasing civil rights, I think there are some that obviously should not.

At some point I have wish for a cheat sheet because I've been trying for 7 months and ongoing and still haven't gotten what I wanted due to either surprise effects (effects that are NOT errataed in the FAQs like bribery being a political freedom which makes sense to me at least) and due to the dumb "choosing the same option if you repeat the issue does little for you."

The former I can take notes on for when the NSIndex is wrong. The latter is... too punishing for the players in general.

[Drasnia]

While it makes sense most of the "funny" restricting options are decreasing civil rights, I think there are some that obviously should not.

At some point I have wish for a cheat sheet because I've been trying for 7 months and ongoing and still haven't gotten what I wanted due to either surprise effects (effects that are NOT errataed in the FAQs like bribery being a political freedom which makes sense to me at least) and due to the dumb "choosing the same option if you repeat the issue does little for you."

The former I can take notes on for when the NSIndex is wrong. The latter is... too punishing for the players in general.

How does choosing the same option when you repeat an issue and getting little result dumb? You aren't enacting new policy - you're just reaffirming old policy. IRL, there's a world of difference between a government enacting legislation and a government saying "yeah, we still stand behind that decision." It ought to reflect RL. And furthermore, how is it punishing for players?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

This isn't the purpose of the thread.

Specific unexpected effects please, not general grumbles over the game's premises and approaches. Take those elsewhere.

[Roman-Britannic Empire]

Okay here is my personal deduction: You still ban a person from your nation. Even if he or she is a criminal in Maxtopia or wherever and faces punishments there... Even if he or she was a criminal in your nation too. You effectively exile them. That, no matter how you look at it, is a breach of civil rights in my book. Exiling people from a nation is anything but contributing to civil rights, rather the opposite. Regardless of reasons here. Fact is you exile people, and fact is that is indeed a breach of peoples civil rights. The civil right sensible thing to do would be too either leave him be(if he has done nothing in your nation), or charge him inside your nation for the crimes he commited in your nation(not in Maxtopia or god knows where, doesn´t matter). You cannot expect to exile people without any loss to your civil rights.

I don't expect exile to increase civil rights, but for someone guilty in Roman-Britannic Empire and guilty in Maxtopia, I shouldn't get penalized for that no matter what awaits him there. Coming to RBE (man... I wish I knew about the titles thing when I made my first nation) was a privilege and he abused it by (whatever the crime in the issue, I forgot maybe it was drunk driving). Whatever happens to him in Maxtopia should be quite irrelevant as long as he isn't being wrongly punished. And in no way is he being falsely accused in the issue.

Oh and this is specifically about "The Deportation of Mr. B. Leeper" not a general thing. I got so frustrated with Ransium winning (making it harder to recover my CR)that I almost forgot I came for that issue not the generalized thing.

Maybe my civil rights decreased when it said people are "accidentally" sent to Maxtopia, but I didn't intend it to be a generalized deportation thing, just for something this specific (guilty here and guilty there, he gets exradiated)

[Roman-Britannic Empire]

OK... I was trying to streamline the quotation to make it easier to read but I ended up mangling it so that it got attributed to the wrong person.

Point being, I shouldn't have to put up with having the choice of Mr. Leeper roam free in my country or sending him to Brancaland and damaging my relations with them by giving them a problem they don't want.

[Roman-Britannic Empire]

Ok, what I said why kind of not clear. I meant the only deportation options were Maxtopia and the place that didn't want him. I'm sure sending nations people that they don't want would be damaging to relations if they were real nations.

[Ransium]

I think we are all going to have to agree to disagree and move on, because I don't see anyone convincing anyone of anything at this point. (To be clear this is coming from Ransium the IE, not Ransium the moderator.)

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Agreeing with Ransium here. No change is going to happen to that option's stats, let's move on.

[Conservative-Europe]

Issue 585 Option 2 Decreased my lifespan.

[Qwertyuiop asdfghjkl zxcvbnm]

Option 3 of 552

"Okay, boss, here's what you're gonna do!" asserts @@RANDOMNAME@@, one of @@NAME@@'s foremost TV pranksters, wearing a mock military uniform, and leaving security to wonder to how your office was penetrated. "You're gonna get the police to find where these people live. Then you're gonna get in your car, wait till they're on their walk to work... and then... BAM! Drive-by mooning! Come on, it'll be awesome! You want to grab a beer or six to get in the mood?"

This removes the no protests policy and increases political freedom.