[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Krusavich]

A few hours ago, I got issue 642, and I chose the first option approving of the creation of the youth organization.

642.1 “Think about it!” says sycophantic Party Coordinator @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, with remnants of silly string and party streamers on his dress uniform suggesting he has perhaps misunderstood his job title. He stands by you on the palace balcony, gesturing to indicate a group of serious-looking children saluting a giant flag. “The patriotism in these kids is admirable! Give them an official youth organisation in the name of our righteous ideology, and call it The Children Of @@LEADER@@! Teach them to sing songs, to swear allegiance to the flag, to camp in the wilderness, maybe how to clean and shoot a rifle. Who knows when a group of wonderfully fit, patriotic boys could come in handy?”

The thing I'm little confused on is why this gave me the Pledge of Allegiance policy. There isn't any mention in the selected option above of anything being mandatory or compulsory, let alone schools being involved whatsoever. I certainly see the connection, but the policy doesn't really match selected prompt in my opinion.

[The Free Joy State]

A few hours ago, I got issue 642, and I chose the first option approving of the creation of the youth organization.

642.1 “Think about it!” says sycophantic Party Coordinator @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, with remnants of silly string and party streamers on his dress uniform suggesting he has perhaps misunderstood his job title. He stands by you on the palace balcony, gesturing to indicate a group of serious-looking children saluting a giant flag. “The patriotism in these kids is admirable! Give them an official youth organisation in the name of our righteous ideology, and call it The Children Of @@LEADER@@! Teach them to sing songs, to swear allegiance to the flag, to camp in the wilderness, maybe how to clean and shoot a rifle. Who knows when a group of wonderfully fit, patriotic boys could come in handy?”

The thing I'm little confused on is why this gave me the Pledge of Allegiance policy. There isn't any mention in the selected option above of anything being mandatory or compulsory, let alone schools being involved whatsoever. I certainly see the connection, but the policy doesn't really match selected prompt in my opinion.

The Pledge of Allegiance is in the quote:

call it The Children Of @@LEADER@@! Teach them to sing songs, to swear allegiance to the flag, to camp in the wilderness, maybe how to clean and shoot a rifle. Who knows when a group of wonderfully fit, patriotic boys could come in handy?”

The Children of @@LEADER@@ are an official organisation, to be taught to sing songs of praise to @@LEADER@@ and salute the flag. I think it's pretty clearly signposted.

[Trotterdam]

The Children of @@LEADER@@ are an official organisation,

But membership is still voluntary. Note that it's being founded in the first place because "The patriotism in these kids is admirable!", and the implication is that its objective is to make better use of the children who already like you, not to instill patriotic values in the children who don't want to be there.

[The Free Joy State]

The Children of @@LEADER@@ are an official organisation,

But membership is still voluntary. Note that it's being founded in the first place because "The patriotism in these kids is admirable!", and the implication is that its objective is to make better use of the children who already like you, not to instill patriotic values in the children who don't want to be there.

This option forms an "official organisation in the name of the state ideology". The context of the whole option strongly signposts that it will not be voluntary and that is what is statted for. In fact, the whole issue is about whether @@NAME@@ wants one youth organisation to "teach the next generation to love [@@LEADER@@] as much as the current one", which strongly suggests a degree of compulsion.

No changes will be made.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

But membership is still voluntary. Note that it's being founded in the first place because "The patriotism in these kids is admirable!", and the implication is that its objective is to make better use of the children who already like you, not to instill patriotic values in the children who don't want to be there.

This option forms an "official organisation in the name of the state ideology". The context of the whole option strongly signposts that it will not be voluntary and that is what is statted for. In fact, the whole issue is about whether @@NAME@@ wants one youth organisation to "teach the next generation to love [@@LEADER@@] as much as the current one", which strongly suggests a degree of compulsion.

No changes will be made.

Agree with FJS.

Also, if I could add, contextually this issue is about Hitler's Youth - the validity criteria for the issue and the pun in the title presumably give that away to the canny reader.

Even if Hitler's Youth is "voluntary", it'd clearly be highly unpatriotic to have your children fail to follow their example, eh? And nations of that sort tend to look poorly upon lack of patriotism...

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

My nation is supposed to be a direct democracy, and I have in the past shown that in issues through referendums for every government action, proportional representation, extreme limits on politicians, and sortition (that one did not go well, but it seemed the most democratic choice for that issue). And now by selecting an option that has voting for policies instead of politicians (which seemed to me to be referendums), autocracy has been instituted.
I chose

“Even if Tulsi Haggard stops parading around half-naked, Lisbeth Burrows stops talking about her fry bread recipe, and Ernie Flanders stops conducting symphonies, that won’t stop voters from getting duped,” sulks your Foreign Secretary, Hillary Smoochinger. “As long as elections are a popularity contest, personality politics are going to get in the way of choosing the most qualified candidates. We should just conduct surveys to find out what policies our citizens want, and you could appoint the most qualified experts to implement them. It’s still democracy, except that people are recommending policies instead of voting for candidates.”

of Issue 1082. It seemed to be a choice advocating referendums/direct democracy for government policies, but instead make the government a sham democracy with a behind the scenes autocracy... I should have dismissed the issue for not being completely clear.

[The Free Joy State]

My nation is supposed to be a direct democracy, and I have in the past shown that in issues through referendums for every government action, proportional representation, extreme limits on politicians, and sortition (that one did not go well, but it seemed the most democratic choice for that issue). And now by selecting an option that has voting for policies instead of politicians (which seemed to me to be referendums), autocracy has been instituted.
I chose

“Even if Tulsi Haggard stops parading around half-naked, Lisbeth Burrows stops talking about her fry bread recipe, and Ernie Flanders stops conducting symphonies, that won’t stop voters from getting duped,” sulks your Foreign Secretary, Hillary Smoochinger. “As long as elections are a popularity contest, personality politics are going to get in the way of choosing the most qualified candidates. We should just conduct surveys to find out what policies our citizens want, and you could appoint the most qualified experts to implement them. It’s still democracy, except that people are recommending policies instead of voting for candidates.”

of Issue 1082. It seemed to be a choice advocating referendums/direct democracy for government policies, but instead make the government a sham democracy with a behind the scenes autocracy... I should have dismissed the issue for not being completely clear.

It is coded correctly, the clue was in the phrases "you could appoint the most qualified experts" and "the people are recommending policies instead of voting for candidates".

The word "recommending" suggests that the government are free to ignore suggestions and the option explains that the leader will choose who they (@@LEADER@@) want in power.

We had a lengthy discussion backstage and do feel it's flagged quite clearly as an autocratic option. Although, the use of referenda means that it's less harsh statistically than many other autocracy options.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

My nation is supposed to be a direct democracy, and I have in the past shown that in issues through referendums for every government action, proportional representation, extreme limits on politicians, and sortition (that one did not go well, but it seemed the most democratic choice for that issue). And now by selecting an option that has voting for policies instead of politicians (which seemed to me to be referendums), autocracy has been instituted.
I chose

“Even if Tulsi Haggard stops parading around half-naked, Lisbeth Burrows stops talking about her fry bread recipe, and Ernie Flanders stops conducting symphonies, that won’t stop voters from getting duped,” sulks your Foreign Secretary, Hillary Smoochinger. “As long as elections are a popularity contest, personality politics are going to get in the way of choosing the most qualified candidates. We should just conduct surveys to find out what policies our citizens want, and you could appoint the most qualified experts to implement them. It’s still democracy, except that people are recommending policies instead of voting for candidates.”

of Issue 1082. It seemed to be a choice advocating referendums/direct democracy for government policies, but instead make the government a sham democracy with a behind the scenes autocracy... I should have dismissed the issue for not being completely clear.

It is coded correctly, the clue was in the phrases "you could appoint the most qualified experts" and "the people are recommending policies instead of voting for candidates".

The word "recommending" suggests that the government are free to ignore suggestions and the option explains that the leader will choose who they (@@LEADER@@) want in power.

We had a lengthy discussion backstage and do feel it's flagged quite clearly as an autocratic option. Although, the use of referenda means that it's less harsh statistically than many other autocracy options.

Okay... I still do not understand why recommending policies instead of people is autocratic, but oh well. I will in the future dismiss or check nsindex on any less than totally clear option.

Does it at least increase political freedoms if they are low already? What about integrity?

[The Free Joy State]

It is coded correctly, the clue was in the phrases "you could appoint the most qualified experts" and "the people are recommending policies instead of voting for candidates".

The word "recommending" suggests that the government are free to ignore suggestions and the option explains that the leader will choose who they (@@LEADER@@) want in power.

We had a lengthy discussion backstage and do feel it's flagged quite clearly as an autocratic option. Although, the use of referenda means that it's less harsh statistically than many other autocracy options.

Okay... I still do not understand why recommending policies instead of people is autocratic, but oh well. I will in the future dismiss or check nsindex on any less than totally clear option.

Does it at least increase political freedoms if they are low already? What about integrity?

In your case, it lowered your political freedoms, because they were really quite high. If -- hypothetically -- a nation were to have very low political freedoms, it probably wouldn't effect them. A nation with average political freedoms may only see a small change.

As for integrity, it's a secondary stat, with a huge number of influencing factors. Due to the number of flag changes you experienced when you went from democracy to autocracy (losing several democratic policies), as well as the knock-on effects on other stats, you experienced a loss of integrity. Another nation may see no change at all and some nations may see a small rise. It's entirely due to the way your stats interact with the backstage stats.

I'm sorry you're not happy with your outcome of this issue. If it's any consolation, there are several issues that will give you your democracy back, including "People Request Not So Much Dictatorship, If That's Alright", "Bring Back the Ballot", and "Power to the People". So you will be able to reverse your decision at some point.

[Bakhare]

Why does the environmentalist option in "Poacher Pandemic" DOUBLE my defense forces? I protect an endangered species.

[The Free Joy State]

Why does the environmentalist option in "Poacher Pandemic" DOUBLE my defense forces? I protect an endangered species.

Protecting the animals, including providing armed park rangers to guard the animals around the clock, is why your defence forces went up.

You showed such a pronounced effect because your defence forces were, when compared to other nations in the world rankings, comparatively low.

[Vistulange]

Picking the nurse's option in Issue #461, with the stated effect of "Vistulange has taken the radical step of electing its future leaders" doesn't cancel the policy "autocracy", which explicitly states that the nation does not hold democratic elections.

Is this intentional?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Picking the nurse's option in Issue #461, with the stated effect of "Vistulange has taken the radical step of electing its future leaders" doesn't cancel the policy "autocracy", which explicitly states that the nation does not hold democratic elections.

Is this intentional?

Yes, though only on my part.

My thinking on stat review was that elections of the leader aren't being put into place, they're merely being promised to occur at a time that the current autocrat dies.

However, we're discussing this backstage right now, as clearly this could be read in a few different ways.

Edit: For the time being have put the reinstatement of elections back onto this option, but the discussion remains open.

[The Violetist Republic]

Why wouldn't 21.3 always enact state surveillance? It's instead listed as "sometimes gained from" on the policies page.

[Taliostia]

I just encountered issue 613 "A Nude Day, A Nude Awakening...", and chose option 1.
This resulted in my nations policy of State Surveillance being cancelled. Now while option 2 is the one most heavily associated with surveillance and control, the first option still has an aspect of it, considering it suggested fining people who distribute altered images, and said policy says that "the state heavily monitors citizen behaviour", of which image altering would be an aspect.

Authoritarianism, Social Conservatism, and Ideological Radicality all went up, while Civil Rights went down. The State Surveillance policy change seemed to contradict the affects shown by the stats, and what the option was suggesting.

This is covered in the first post FAQ, thanks.

Nudity is legal in my nation.

[The Free Joy State]

Why wouldn't 21.3 always enact state surveillance? It's instead listed as "sometimes gained from" on the policies page.

Firstly, the site you pointed to is player-maintained, not site-staff-maintained and thus is unofficial.

As you did receive the issue, I can tell you that state surveillance is not an on/off policy. It activates when you restrict your citizens' privacy to a significant degree. Although barcoding citizens does restrict their privacy, your citizens are not yet so restricted to the degree that you have the policy (the option's even explicit that there would be no cameras, as that would be a "clear invasion of privacy")

In future reports, please give the name of the issue you received, the option you answered, the date you received it, and the unusual effect only.

This is covered in the first post FAQ, thanks.

Nudity is legal in my nation.

But not mandatory. The FAQ really explains it quite well.

It cancelled state surveillance because it protects peoples' images. It lowered civil rights because it enforced harder restrictions on what kinds of photographs could be released, making tighter controls on modesty. In your case, the tighter restrictions were stronger than the protection of privacy, causing a drop in civil rights and a rise in authoritarianism social conservativism and ideological radicality (the last three are all secondary stats, which are influenced by many things).

This was over a month ago, though. It took me a while to find in our system. Couldn't you have come back sooner if it still bothered you?

[Lord Dominator]

So, just answered 530.2 on this nation, and I'm a bit confused why it lowered my economic freedom (unless of course it's a knock-off effect somehow), since the description explicitly notes the action was already illegal?

[The Free Joy State]

So, just answered 530.2 on this nation, and I'm a bit confused why it lowered my economic freedom (unless of course it's a knock-off effect somehow), since the description explicitly notes the action was already illegal?

Yes. I see what you mean.

I've raised this backstage.

[Lord Dominator]

So, just answered 530.2 on this nation, and I'm a bit confused why it lowered my economic freedom (unless of course it's a knock-off effect somehow), since the description explicitly notes the action was already illegal?

Yes. I see what you mean.

I've raised this backstage.

Thank you (though I know of course no stat changes for me personally)

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

My nation has no military funding (it is negative even), and even abolished the military in the issues about homosexual military people and female military people,yet I still got issue 1097, about a drunken navy fight when at port. Should that not be impossible?

[The Free Joy State]

My nation has no military funding (it is negative even), and even abolished the military in the issues about homosexual military people and female military people,yet I still got issue 1097, about a drunken navy fight when at port. Should that not be impossible?

I've made a change; it shouldn't happen again.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[East Angria]

I just got Issue #858: Reporting for (Jury) Duty and selected option four:

"all courts should be run by automated systems that will leave no room for error"

My Civil Rights stat fell and I got the Policy "No Judicary". This can't be intended, can it? The option explicitly calls for replacing juries with computers. Not for abandoning courts altogether.

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

#587.3 doesn't imply AI citizenship?

(I suppose it doesn't have to, but I'm still disappointed)

[The Free Joy State]

#587.3 doesn't imply AI citizenship?

(I suppose it doesn't have to, but I'm still disappointed)

I've raised this backstage.

EDIT:

So, just answered 530.2 on this nation, and I'm a bit confused why it lowered my economic freedom (unless of course it's a knock-off effect somehow), since the description explicitly notes the action was already illegal?

Yes. I see what you mean.

I've raised this backstage.

Further to this, 530 has been amended.

[The Niceties of Normal Moral Constraints]

#587.3 doesn't imply AI citizenship?

(I suppose it doesn't have to, but I'm still disappointed)

I've raised this backstage.

Thanks!

Yeah, it just seems quite odd for any nation -- democracy, psychotic dictatorship, or anything else -- to allow a non-citizen sentient to make official and legally binding judicial decisions over actual citizens. Or, if that is a thing, it's one of the more insane options, which #587.3 didn't really read as.