[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[BigOstan]

Why does 294 - 1 decrease my political freedom?
A simplified and less corrupt legislative process should have the opposite effect. And this is pretty much what the option promises to do.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it, because this seems less like an incorrectly coded stat effect and more like a misleading/mismatched description. Especially since the description makes it seem like there will be less bureaucratic work, while the outcome states that the amount of work increased.

[Seanat]

For issue #364 (It's UterUs, Not UterYou!), on I think March 27th, I answered the third option, which said "Why don't we just ban sex altogether, and force people to use artificial insemination? That way, we can preview everyone who signs up to have kids..." and it gave me the policies Parental Licensing and No Contraception. It should have given me Parental Licensing and No Sex. (Done on this nation)

Has there been/Is there going to be anything changed about this?

[Trotterdam]

For issue #364 (It's UterUs, Not UterYou!), on I think March 27th, I answered the third option, which said "Why don't we just ban sex altogether, and force people to use artificial insemination? That way, we can preview everyone who signs up to have kids..." and it gave me the policies Parental Licensing and No Contraception. It should have given me Parental Licensing and No Sex. (Done on this nation)

Has there been/Is there going to be anything changed about this?

The No Contraception policy has been removed from the option. It still does not give No Sex. The official explanation for this is that the No Sex policy is misnamed and really means Vat-Grown Citizens, which this option does not give (artificial insemination is something else).

[Nexexen]

Hello!

I'm just coming back to NS after a while away.

My first issue answer two days ago was Issue #479 (@@LEADER@@, Put On The Yellow Light), option 4 (though it showed as #3 for me because I'm not sure I qualified for one of the other options):

"You know, this wouldn't be a problem if we had more public transit in our cities," interjects bus driver @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@ while delaying traffic behind her vehicle. "Fubar and the taxis are both great services, but only for well-off citizens. People who barely make ends meet don't have the luxury of affording a taxi to get around everywhere. It's time to start investing in @@NAME@@'s infrastructure and public transit so that everyone can go about their daily lives. Besides, everyone loves our environmentally friendly buses. They're great for tourism and they're about the only vehicle that is accessible to the handicapped. Not to mention our drivers are much nicer than any taxi driver."

My political apathy score spiked from ~10 to above ~30, which shocked me a bit. Is this because of some change in the metric that wouldn't have taken effect until I answered my first issue in a while? Or is this an intended part of the issue's effect for some reason that I'm not understanding? Just a bit upsetting considering political apathy is something I'd sought (and still seek) to minimize, and I wouldn't have expected any such large change, let alone a small one, from an issue like this.

Thank you so much for any further information, and sorry to bother!

[PM ISLAND]

For this nation, issue 44.1 about two days ago,

Torture is commonly used to extract information from suspected criminals.

Didn't get the corporal punishment policy, why is that?

[Trithereon]

414.1 - attempt to privatize city government - authoritarianism triples

[Trotterdam]

414.1 - attempt to privatize city government - authoritarianism triples

Political freedom decreased because you replaced democracy with rule by the highest bidder.

[The Free Joy State]

316 is one of those rare issues that does NOT erroneously conflate the right of self-defense with violating "freedom of movement"; those are two separate options. Yet when I choose the option for no government involvement, it STILL increases my authoritarianism!

You selected the option that allows people to construct communities with private armed militia and walls topped with razor wire and poisoned barbs.

Having a community designed with things built to cause injury and death to other people (including would-be criminals) would account for the rise in authoritarianism. The same happened on other nations I tested it on.

Why does 294 - 1 decrease my political freedom?
A simplified and less corrupt legislative process should have the opposite effect. And this is pretty much what the option promises to do.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it, because this seems less like an incorrectly coded stat effect and more like a misleading/mismatched description. Especially since the description makes it seem like there will be less bureaucratic work, while the outcome states that the amount of work increased.

It decreased political freedom because it prevented rider bills. Sometimes, a rider added to a bill can be relevant. By preventing them being added -- even if relevant or necessary -- you reduced political freedom.

Anything that reduces the amount of powers politicians have, or members of the public in relation to politics, will reduce political freedoms.

Hello!

I'm just coming back to NS after a while away.

My first issue answer two days ago was Issue #479 (@@LEADER@@, Put On The Yellow Light), option 4 (though it showed as #3 for me because I'm not sure I qualified for one of the other options):

"You know, this wouldn't be a problem if we had more public transit in our cities," interjects bus driver @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@ while delaying traffic behind her vehicle. "Fubar and the taxis are both great services, but only for well-off citizens. People who barely make ends meet don't have the luxury of affording a taxi to get around everywhere. It's time to start investing in @@NAME@@'s infrastructure and public transit so that everyone can go about their daily lives. Besides, everyone loves our environmentally friendly buses. They're great for tourism and they're about the only vehicle that is accessible to the handicapped. Not to mention our drivers are much nicer than any taxi driver."

My political apathy score spiked from ~10 to above ~30, which shocked me a bit. Is this because of some change in the metric that wouldn't have taken effect until I answered my first issue in a while? Or is this an intended part of the issue's effect for some reason that I'm not understanding? Just a bit upsetting considering political apathy is something I'd sought (and still seek) to minimize, and I wouldn't have expected any such large change, let alone a small one, from an issue like this.

Thank you so much for any further information, and sorry to bother!

I have where you answered the issue in front of me, and all the effects you received, but I can't see that you received any changes to apathy at all.

There certainly are none programmed in with the issue. It sometimes occurs as a secondary effect, although I can't see that that happened here.

414.1 - attempt to privatize city government - authoritarianism triples

Political freedom decreased because you replaced democracy with rule by the highest bidder.

Trotterdam is correct. If you've privatised your city government, no longer have a democracy. You have a localised corporatocracy. The key word in the option is that companies will control everything (including city hall).

[Nexexen]

Hello!

I'm just coming back to NS after a while away.

My first issue answer two days ago was Issue #479 (@@LEADER@@, Put On The Yellow Light), option 4 (though it showed as #3 for me because I'm not sure I qualified for one of the other options):



My political apathy score spiked from ~10 to above ~30, which shocked me a bit. Is this because of some change in the metric that wouldn't have taken effect until I answered my first issue in a while? Or is this an intended part of the issue's effect for some reason that I'm not understanding? Just a bit upsetting considering political apathy is something I'd sought (and still seek) to minimize, and I wouldn't have expected any such large change, let alone a small one, from an issue like this.

Thank you so much for any further information, and sorry to bother!

I have where you answered the issue in front of me, and all the effects you received, but I can't see that you received any changes to apathy at all.

There certainly are none programmed in with the issue. It sometimes occurs as a secondary effect, although I can't see that that happened here.

Thanks for your reply! This is what I'm seeing on my end.



Is it possible that this resulted from me refounding my nation? Now that I'm looking back, that seems to have been the only action I took on May 2. And if so, why might this have changed?

Thank you so much for any further help!

[The Free Joy State]

I have where you answered the issue in front of me, and all the effects you received, but I can't see that you received any changes to apathy at all.

There certainly are none programmed in with the issue. It sometimes occurs as a secondary effect, although I can't see that that happened here.

Thanks for your reply! This is what I'm seeing on my end.



Is it possible that this resulted from me refounding my nation? Now that I'm looking back, that seems to have been the only action I took on May 2. And if so, why might this have changed?

Thank you so much for any further help!

I can see that the issue didn't cause it. You answered this issue on the 3^RD, and I can see that you hadn't answered any issues before that for awhile. This change occurred on the 2^ND.

It's possible that refounding your nation could account for this change. Let me get back to you on that.

Having checked, stats are not affected by re-founding. So, I'm honestly not sure what happened here.

Perhaps the Technical forum can be more help, if you still want to know more. On the other hand, the apathy score is still not high, comparatively. To compare, you have 28.88 for political apathy (which is still pretty low), I have 64.14, and it can go into the hundreds.

Choosing options that increase citizens' engagement in the political process will quickly reduce apathy again.

[Sanctaria]

I have where you answered the issue in front of me, and all the effects you received, but I can't see that you received any changes to apathy at all.

There certainly are none programmed in with the issue. It sometimes occurs as a secondary effect, although I can't see that that happened here.

Thanks for your reply! This is what I'm seeing on my end.



Is it possible that this resulted from me refounding my nation? Now that I'm looking back, that seems to have been the only action I took on May 2. And if so, why might this have changed?

Thank you so much for any further help!

There was a normalization of political apathy numbers while you were CTE'd. The likely cause for this spike is they were applied to your nation when you refounded.

[Trotterdam]

Today, I want to talk about the relationship between feudalism and emigration.

When looking at my list, I was surprised to find that #605 1 is one of the only two options in the game that removes No Emigration, despite the issue actually saying nothing about that, the option's primary purpose being to remove Feudalism.

On closer inspection, I found that #61 1, the sole option to give the Feudalism policy, also gives No Emigration. So, this gives the impression that the Feudalism is interpreted as automatically implying No Emigration, and so the latter is gained and lost with the former even when the issue doesn't explicitly talk about it.

However, there are two problems with this.

First, I disagree that Feudalism should actually imply No Emigration. Yes, serfs had little freedom of movement, but a feudal society doesn't consist only of serfs. Nobles and yeomen were also important parts of medieval society, and they generally had somewhat more mobility. Even serfs often had some sort of recourse, though it tended to involve paying their lord through the nose for the priviledge of leaving his service.

Second, the other options which remove Feudalism (#710 4, #894 3, #940 5) don't affect No Emigration, so this policy, whether I agree with it or not, is not applied consistently.

[BigOstan]

It decreased political freedom because it prevented rider bills. Sometimes, a rider added to a bill can be relevant. By preventing them being added -- even if relevant or necessary -- you reduced political freedom.

Anything that reduces the amount of powers politicians have, or members of the public in relation to politics, will reduce political freedoms.

Thanks for the answer! Although some things still aren't very clear to me.

Riders, by definition, aren't on-topic or necessary - a relevant rider isn't a rider anymore, it's just a part of the bill or a provision. But even for a nation trying to pass two completely unrelated laws, a ban on riders is not a problem - they'll just vote on the laws separately.
In fact, voting twice instead of once means more political freedom, because there are more possible choices. Instead of between A+B or nothing, the choice is between A+B, A, B, or nothing.

Also, let's look at the NS description under political freedom. It says: These nations allow citizens the greatest amount of freedom to select their own government. There is no mention of freedoms or powers of politicians. Which makes sense to me. I'd argue that reducing the amount of powers politicians have should increase political freedom. For example, a pure direct democracy should have more political freedom than a multi-party indirect democracy, which would still have more than a two-party system.

And sorry for the triple-post from my puppet. It seems like I was able to log into the game as one nation and into the forum as another - a "feature" I wasn't aware existed.

[Drasnia]

It decreased political freedom because it prevented rider bills. Sometimes, a rider added to a bill can be relevant. By preventing them being added -- even if relevant or necessary -- you reduced political freedom.

Anything that reduces the amount of powers politicians have, or members of the public in relation to politics, will reduce political freedoms.

Thanks for the answer! Although some things still aren't very clear to me.

Riders, by definition, aren't on-topic or necessary - a relevant rider isn't a rider anymore, it's just a part of the bill or a provision. But even for a nation trying to pass two completely unrelated laws, a ban on riders is not a problem - they'll just vote on the laws separately.
In fact, voting twice instead of once means more political freedom, because there are more possible choices. Instead of between A+B or nothing, the choice is between A+B, A, B, or nothing.

Also, let's look at the NS description under political freedom. It says: These nations allow citizens the greatest amount of freedom to select their own government. There is no mention of freedoms or powers of politicians. Which makes sense to me. I'd argue that reducing the amount of powers politicians have should increase political freedom. For example, a pure direct democracy should have more political freedom than a multi-party indirect democracy, which would still have more than a two-party system.

And sorry for the triple-post from my puppet. It seems like I was able to log into the game as one nation and into the forum as another - a "feature" I wasn't aware existed.

Politicians are representatives for the people, so by limiting what they can do for constituents, you've decreased your overall political freedom. You've created a barrier (no riders) that makes it more difficult for the people to be properly represented.

[Daroso]

Nation: Daroso (this one.)
Time: Seconds before posting.
Effect: Issue 44.2 (banning torture) increased scientific advancement. There does not seem to be any correlation between those two statistics.
Primitiveness decreasing makes some sense, and the increase in intelligence is at worst a stretch. However, there doesn't seem to be any reason for scientific advancement specifically to increase.
Hardly a major issue, but these stats do nudge players to answer issues a certain way -- and it shouldn't do so without good reason.

[Makrimortalis]

In this nation:
In Honey, We Hung the Parliament, taking the first stance (preventing criminals from running for office) increased corruption.
Now, the motives behind the decision are certainly corrupt, but surely removing criminals from office makes the government (and society in general) less?

Thank you for your time if offered.

[BigOstan]

Politicians are representatives for the people, so by limiting what they can do for constituents, you've decreased your overall political freedom. You've created a barrier (no riders) that makes it more difficult for the people to be properly represented.

Country 1 has elections every 4 years. Country 2 has elections every 8 years. There are no other differences between them.

Halving a politician's term limits their power significantly.

Since politicians represent the people and country 1 limits politicians more, country 1 limits what the politician can do for the voters more than country 2. Therefore people in country 1 have better representation. Which means higher political freedom is achieved by having fewer elections.

This doesn't make sense. Political freedom is about the power of elections, not the power of politicians. By allowing riders you give a small group of people the power to bind two unrelated laws together so that voters can't decide on them separately.

[Drasnia]

Politicians are representatives for the people, so by limiting what they can do for constituents, you've decreased your overall political freedom. You've created a barrier (no riders) that makes it more difficult for the people to be properly represented.

Country 1 has elections every 4 years. Country 2 has elections every 8 years. There are no other differences between them.

Halving a politician's term limits their power significantly.

Since politicians represent the people and country 1 limits politicians more, country 1 limits what the politician can do for the voters more than country 2. Therefore people in country 1 have better representation. Which means higher political freedom is achieved by having fewer elections.

This doesn't make sense. Political freedom is about the power of elections, not the power of politicians. By allowing riders you give a small group of people the power to bind two unrelated laws together so that voters can't decide on them separately.

I think the first mistake you're making is assuming less government power equals more political freedom. That assumption can't be made by the NS simulation. There are situations where it would actually be contrary (like how I RP my nation).

NS can't make the assumption that all politicians are good or all politicians are bad. Instead, politicians in a democracy are interpreted as the voice of the people. So in cases where you limit their power without a narrative that's about them acting contrary to the people, you freedoms are going to fall.

[BigOstan]

I think the first mistake you're making is assuming less government power equals more political freedom. That assumption can't be made by the NS simulation. There are situations where it would actually be contrary (like how I RP my nation).

NS can't make the assumption that all politicians are good or all politicians are bad. Instead, politicians in a democracy are interpreted as the voice of the people. So in cases where you limit their power without a narrative that's about them acting contrary to the people, you freedoms are going to fall.

It's not about the government's power to control the people - civil rights already describe that. It's about the people's power to control the government. The two examples aren't a stronger and weaker government, they are the same government controlled in a different way. If the government, however small or big, is controlled by a small group of people, there is no political freedom. You can't assume whoever is elected automatically represents the exact beliefs of the people.

[All are Equal]

Disposable income went up and "rude reatail employees become rude panhandlers". I gather this is because polite employees got better gratuities?

[PM ISLAND]

Hello, In my nation Pm Island, following issue #044.1 I found it suprising that I did not gain Corporal Punishment as a policy. This is because with choosing option 1 it says that criminals are tortured. This is by definition corporal punishment.

[The Free Joy State]

I think the first mistake you're making is assuming less government power equals more political freedom. That assumption can't be made by the NS simulation. There are situations where it would actually be contrary (like how I RP my nation).

NS can't make the assumption that all politicians are good or all politicians are bad. Instead, politicians in a democracy are interpreted as the voice of the people. So in cases where you limit their power without a narrative that's about them acting contrary to the people, you freedoms are going to fall.

It's not about the government's power to control the people - civil rights already describe that. It's about the people's power to control the government. The two examples aren't a stronger and weaker government, they are the same government controlled in a different way. If the government, however small or big, is controlled by a small group of people, there is no political freedom. You can't assume whoever is elected automatically represents the exact beliefs of the people.

The question has been answered. Within the simulation, political freedoms include the freedom to vote for whom you like, to stand for election where you like, and to push your politics how you like.

The originally reported issue is working as intended.

Kindly do not continue this argument here.

Disposable income went up and "rude reatail employees become rude panhandlers". I gather this is because polite employees got better gratuities?

In future, please state the name (or number) of the issue, the nation where you received it, and the approximate time.

However, I tracked it down. Disposable income is a secondary stat, in part related to the freedoms and wealth of the rich. You allowed them to fire people who didn't do their job with a smile, which means that business owners' bottom line improves, they get richer and their disposable income increases.

Hello, In my nation Pm Island, following issue #044.1 I found it suprising that I did not gain Corporal Punishment as a policy. This is because with choosing option 1 it says that criminals are tortured. This is by definition corporal punishment.

We've just been discussing this backstage.

Torture is not always linked to capital punishment, and isn't here. Where physical pain is inflicted with the intention of punishing offenders, that is considered capital punishment. Where it is inflicted to extract information or as a weapon in warfare, it's not (although it does cause a pretty hefty drop in civil rights).

44.1 uses physical violence to extract information, so is not classed as corporal punishment. That's why you didn't gain the policy.

EDIT: I'm sorry. I just realised there are two queries I nearly missed.

Nation: Daroso (this one.)
Time: Seconds before posting.
Effect: Issue 44.2 (banning torture) increased scientific advancement. There does not seem to be any correlation between those two statistics.
Primitiveness decreasing makes some sense, and the increase in intelligence is at worst a stretch. However, there doesn't seem to be any reason for scientific advancement specifically to increase.
Hardly a major issue, but these stats do nudge players to answer issues a certain way -- and it shouldn't do so without good reason.

Scientific advancement is a secondary stat. Here, it's related to the acknowledgement of the fact that torture doesn't work, and is actually counterproductive.

In this nation:
In Honey, We Hung the Parliament, taking the first stance (preventing criminals from running for office) increased corruption.
Now, the motives behind the decision are certainly corrupt, but surely removing criminals from office makes the government (and society in general) less?

Thank you for your time if offered.

The motive (of barring a popular group having political influence) is pretty corrupt, which raised your corruption levels. Additionally, anything that limits who can stand for office (by making it easier for the government to restrict opposition by candidates they don't like) can increase corruption as a secondary effect, as it's considered to be limiting political freedoms.

That said, not every nation will receive the same corruption changes. I say this often with effects, because it's true: where you end up depends a lot on where you start.

[Nexexen]

Thanks for your reply! This is what I'm seeing on my end.



Is it possible that this resulted from me refounding my nation? Now that I'm looking back, that seems to have been the only action I took on May 2. And if so, why might this have changed?

Thank you so much for any further help!

There was a normalization of political apathy numbers while you were CTE'd. The likely cause for this spike is they were applied to your nation when you refounded.

Thank you so much Sanctaria. That's what I was wondering about.

And thank you as well The Free Joy State. I really appreciate your help and responsiveness!

[Kwomo]

I've looked through this thread, and apparently Free Speech counts as a civil right.
And a political freedom.
Also, it turns out that this is not the place to discuss this.
I would really like to know where I can raise this issue, because it's killing two of my nations, this one included. Also, there are a number of issues where it makes sense to only affect one, but it ends up affecting both.

If you want a specific issue, here's "Nazi Sympathizers Plan Rally," option 1: this both decreased civil rights and political freedoms.
Free speech, in the context of a political rally, should only affect political freedom. Doing otherwise is silly.

[Trotterdam]

Posting on behalf of someone else in my region.

Emerses just noted that #300 3 ("Why don't you just get rid of these new-fangled licenses and trust a parent's instincts?") failed to remove the Parental Licensing policy.

My own data concurs that it only sometimes removes this policy. In fact, it hasn't been seen removing the policy in a little over two weeks, making me wonder if a recent change to the issue accidentally broke it.