[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[The Free Joy State]

26 days late (the text was actually altered on the 2nd January 2019), but just a brief update to this. Following in-depth backstage discussion --we have added further clarification to the third option of #1028. It now reads:

"Excuse me, some of us don't want kids." cries well-known career-woman, @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@. "I've worked hard to get to where I am in my life right now, and I will not sacrifice my career and my ambitions to breed some snotty-nosed kids. Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. I hear that new vat-technology is doing wonders in other places. If you desperately need new brats, why don't you just grow them all in a lab and leave us poor women out of it completely?"

Hopefully, this should further clarify the replacement of biological reproduction with vat-produced people (the "No Sex Policy") with this option.

Forgive the late update, Boss Llama.

I just got whammied by this issue, so, no, it most emphatically does not clarify that.

Slapping an "all" into the sentence does not address the underlying problem.

The issue is a low/falling birth rate.

Option 1 is forcing women to have at least three children.

Option 2 is taking away women's ability to (safely) not get pregnant.

Option 3 is a feminist (naturally) ticked off by these authoritarian ideas and arguing for vat-grown children instead.

"Them all" and "completely" can be read as referring to the additional children/births the nation needs, or even just as an emphatic figure of speech. No way is there any indication to consider the hyper-literal outlandish notion that she is talking about every last one of the nation's future "new brats".

It is utterly beyond me how for such a drastic effect something as small as adding a short clarifying sentence including the word "outlaw" (or "illegal") to option 3 or as a reaction to it in option 4 is apparently too much to ask for.

If there is one group of hills my nation is willing to die on, it's being able to do with your own body as you please, with the hill of sexual liberty most prominent of all, so this seriously sours me on the whole game. I could - begrudgingly - live with no biological reproduction per se, but the policy is called "No Sex", it also canceled sex education, and social conservatism rose significantly, all of which (and more) heavily suggesting to me that even recreational sex is outlawed.

I took in stride how a war I never wanted forever halved my population's average disposable income, and every other setback was fun in its own way, but this effectively ruined the nation of Noveja. Fantastic.

Recreational sex is not outlawed. A future issue will clarify this. It's #1113 (this issue, along with one other, also gives you the option to unban reproductive sex).

As for your predicament, the sentence is perfectly clear. Arguably, once it was easier to get confused but all the information is there:

Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. I hear that new vat-technology is doing wonders in other places. If you desperately need new brats, why don't you just grow them all in a lab and leave us poor women out of it completely?"

"Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. [...]If you desperately need new brats, why don't you just grow them all in a lab and leave us poor women out of it completely?"

The sentences, read properly in their full context, make the option perfectly clear.

If you have not done so yet, I suggest you turn on "Require confirmation before passing legislation" in your Settings.

Please consider this query closed.

[Gudmund]

I'm questioning the results of selecting option 4 on issue #858 Reporting For (Jury) Duty.

Option 4 states “How many times has a jury convicted someone who was obviously innocent or vice versa because they were emotionally persuaded by the attorney? On the other hand, computers don’t base their decision on emotions. They make decisions only on logic and cold hard facts. I propose that all courts should be run by automated systems that will leave no room for error.”

Even if the entirety of the court is replaced with an automated system, that does not abolish the court, and simply changes who runs the system. Despite this, choosing option 4 gives the No Judiciary policy which states "The nation has abolished the court system." and increases corruption by 11.2% despite arguably removing emotional bias from the system.

[Trotterdam]

"Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. [...]If you desperately need new brats, why don't you just grow them all in a lab and leave us poor women out of it completely?"

Doing something voluntarily is not "being put through it".

"Them all" in this context is most naturally read as referring to the "new brats" that the government "desperately needs", i.e. the difference between the desired population frowth and the current population growth, not all children.

[The Free Joy State]

I'm questioning the results of selecting option 4 on issue #858 Reporting For (Jury) Duty.

Option 4 states “How many times has a jury convicted someone who was obviously innocent or vice versa because they were emotionally persuaded by the attorney? On the other hand, computers don’t base their decision on emotions. They make decisions only on logic and cold hard facts. I propose that all courts should be run by automated systems that will leave no room for error.”

Even if the entirety of the court is replaced with an automated system, that does not abolish the court, and simply changes who runs the system. Despite this, choosing option 4 gives the No Judiciary policy which states "The nation has abolished the court system." and increases corruption by 11.2% despite arguably removing emotional bias from the system.

There is no judge or jury, which is the court system (merely a computer system), so the No Judiciary policy is correct.

As for corruption, I've taken that for discussion backstage.

"Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. [...]If you desperately need new brats, why don't you just grow them all in a lab and leave us poor women out of it completely?"

Doing something voluntarily is not "being put through it".

"Them all" in this context is most naturally read as referring to the "new brats" that the government "desperately needs", i.e. the difference between the desired population frowth and the current population growth, not all children.

I'm sorry. It appears I was unclear. Let me highlight the relevant portion of my answer:

Please consider this query closed.

[USS Monitor]

"Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. [...]If you desperately need new brats, why don't you just grow them all in a lab and leave us poor women out of it completely?"

Doing something voluntarily is not "being put through it".

"Them all" in this context is most naturally read as referring to the "new brats" that the government "desperately needs", i.e. the difference between the desired population frowth and the current population growth, not all children.

When an editor tells you a query is closed, that means it's closed. Because this has been a recurring problem, you are *** warned for threadjacking ***

[The Free Joy State]

I'm questioning the results of selecting option 4 on issue #858 Reporting For (Jury) Duty.

Option 4 states “How many times has a jury convicted someone who was obviously innocent or vice versa because they were emotionally persuaded by the attorney? On the other hand, computers don’t base their decision on emotions. They make decisions only on logic and cold hard facts. I propose that all courts should be run by automated systems that will leave no room for error.”

Even if the entirety of the court is replaced with an automated system, that does not abolish the court, and simply changes who runs the system. Despite this, choosing option 4 gives the No Judiciary policy which states "The nation has abolished the court system." and increases corruption by 11.2% despite arguably removing emotional bias from the system.

There is no judge or jury, which is the court system (merely a computer system), so the No Judiciary policy is correct.

As for corruption, I've taken that for discussion backstage.

An update on the above.

Having taken this backstage, I can confirm that this is occuring deliberately (however, although an 11.9% corruption rise appears large, the change in raw numbers is quite small -- from 0.80 to 0.89, which is still very low corruption).

My fellow senior editor, Candlewhisper Archive, explained the reasoning thus:

My feeling is that running court judgements based on computer programs are going to have less human oversight, and more potential for people abusing the system by working loopholes in the programming, hacking the system, and so on. I don't think leaving emotions out of the courtroom is anti-corruption either. For example a computer could examine the letter of the law and state that a series of a hundred texts sent on a daily basis counting down from 100 to 0 are free of any content that would qualify as hate speech or abuse, and say there's nothing wrong there, while a human jury would recognise the feeling of trepidation that a countdown produces, and the psychological horror of knowing you're going to receive a text at the same time every day. Or for something less out there, a human court might hear that a mother stealing a toy for her cancer-ridden son who wanted something she couldn't afford as a dying request, and say yes you broke the law, but we totally get that you've been punished enough, let's assign a minimal punishment. A computer court would say that it's theft, pure and simple, and look only to establish the fact that she stole.

Emotional context matters because crimes have emotional impact. Automated systems are always going to have exploitable loopholes. Knowing how to game the system will be the most important thing.

If you have not yet done so, I suggest you go to Settings and turn on "Show More Stats", which will show you your stat changes in more accurate numbers (percentage points are often alarming).

[Gudmund]

There is no judge or jury, which is the court system (merely a computer system), so the No Judiciary policy is correct.

As for corruption, I've taken that for discussion backstage.

An update on the above.

Having taken this backstage, I can confirm that this is occuring deliberately (however, although an 11.9% corruption rise appears large, the change in raw numbers is quite small -- from 0.80 to 0.89, which is still very low corruption).

My fellow senior editor, Candlewhisper Archive, explained the reasoning thus:

My feeling is that running court judgements based on computer programs are going to have less human oversight, and more potential for people abusing the system by working loopholes in the programming, hacking the system, and so on. I don't think leaving emotions out of the courtroom is anti-corruption either. For example a computer could examine the letter of the law and state that a series of a hundred texts sent on a daily basis counting down from 100 to 0 are free of any content that would qualify as hate speech or abuse, and say there's nothing wrong there, while a human jury would recognise the feeling of trepidation that a countdown produces, and the psychological horror of knowing you're going to receive a text at the same time every day. Or for something less out there, a human court might hear that a mother stealing a toy for her cancer-ridden son who wanted something she couldn't afford as a dying request, and say yes you broke the law, but we totally get that you've been punished enough, let's assign a minimal punishment. A computer court would say that it's theft, pure and simple, and look only to establish the fact that she stole.

Emotional context matters because crimes have emotional impact. Automated systems are always going to have exploitable loopholes. Knowing how to game the system will be the most important thing.

If you have not yet done so, I suggest you go to Settings and turn on "Show More Stats", which will show you your stat changes in more accurate numbers (percentage points are often alarming).

Alright, the corruption bit is understandable, but I'm still adamant on my stance with the No Judiciary policy being out of place. Option 4 implies that the court is being run by an 'automated system', so how is it possible for said 'automated system' to be running the court if it apparently doesn't exist at all, as according to the No Judiciary policy.

The automated system is just another form of court, considering the definition of a judiciary/court does not explicitly state a human is required. I was expecting something more along the lines of the AI Planning policy to appear. For example, a Automated Court policy, which states "The nation runs an automated court system." instead. Honestly though, I'm just salty at somehow misinterpreting the issue.

[The Free Joy State]

An update on the above.

Having taken this backstage, I can confirm that this is occuring deliberately (however, although an 11.9% corruption rise appears large, the change in raw numbers is quite small -- from 0.80 to 0.89, which is still very low corruption).

My fellow senior editor, Candlewhisper Archive, explained the reasoning thus:


If you have not yet done so, I suggest you go to Settings and turn on "Show More Stats", which will show you your stat changes in more accurate numbers (percentage points are often alarming).

Alright, the corruption bit is understandable, but I'm still adamant on my stance with the No Judiciary policy being out of place. Option 4 implies that the court is being run by an 'automated system', so how is it possible for said 'automated system' to be running the court if it apparently doesn't exist at all, as according to the No Judiciary policy.

The automated system is just another form of court, considering the definition of a judiciary/court does not explicitly state a human is required. I was expecting something more along the lines of the AI Planning policy to appear. For example, a Automated Court policy, which states "The nation runs an automated court system." instead. Honestly though, I'm just salty at somehow misinterpreting the issue.

I appreciate that it's frustrating to be dinged with an unexpected effect. It happens to pretty much everyone in the course of playing the game at some time (it's how my nation ended up with the Socialism policy; an option that ended up suiting it better).

As for the No Judiciary policy, this is how we define it:

No Courts - This policy indicates that lack of traditional courts, which basically means a judge, verbal arguments and evidence for prosecution and defence, and formal sentencing prior to punishment.

The AI-run system is not a traditional court in that sense.

While I understand that you were expecting a new policy, not every effect is represented by a tracked policy. Could there be room for an Automated Court policy or similar (either back- or frontstage), in the future? Perhaps. New policies are added to the game as we receive and edit new issues that require them. If there was a strong issue submission that required nations to have automated courts, the possibility of adding such a policy would be discussed.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'd agree with that. After all, most of the issues that activate the No Judiciary policy do put SOME sort of judgement system in place, whether it's the police dishing out sentences directly, or trial by combat, or whatever. For the policy to have any meaning at all, it has to represent the lack of due process within an official trial setting.

There's definitely potential though for a fun follow up issue to automated judgement, perhaps using some of the examples in my quoted reply above.

I might go and write that now.

[Gudmund]

All good then, thank you for the quick response and explaining things.

[Verdant Haven]

Out of curiosity: while I know adding a whole new policy, especially one that then changes previous issues, is a significant pain, would it be practical to simply modify the visible name of an extent policy?

For example, instead of "No Courts," what if the banner and policy text simply said something more accurate for how the policy is used, like "Non-Traditional Justice System." Many of the complaints I see here related to policies, including some I've filed myself, revolve around the banner saying/being named something very absolute and not really in line with what it means in game.

That would be easier than introducing whole new policies and policy chains, and it feels like it would reduce complaints and misunderstandings dramatically. Is that practical, or am I underestimating the complexity of that solution?

[The Free Joy State]

Out of curiosity: while I know adding a whole new policy, especially one that then changes previous issues, is a significant pain, would it be practical to simply modify the visible name of an extent policy?

For example, instead of "No Courts," what if the banner and policy text simply said something more accurate for how the policy is used, like "Non-Traditional Justice System." Many of the complaints I see here related to policies, including some I've filed myself, revolve around the banner saying/being named something very absolute and not really in line with what it means in game.

That would be easier than introducing whole new policies and policy chains, and it feels like it would reduce complaints and misunderstandings dramatically. Is that practical, or am I underestimating the complexity of that solution?

That would require an Admin to recode the current public visible policy.

While you could raise it (Technical would probably be the best place, rather than this thread), Admins are incredibly busy people. There are only five of them, with a long list of tasks, so -- even if it was added to the to-do list (which would be up to them, not editors) -- I can't guarantee it would be done anytime soon.

[Verdant Haven]

-snip-

That would require an Admin to recode the current public visible policy.

While you could raise it (Technical would probably be the best place, rather than this thread), Admins are incredibly busy people. There are only five of them, with a long list of tasks, so -- even if it was added to the to-do list (which would be up to them, not editors) -- I can't guarantee it would be done anytime soon.

Got it, thank you for the explanation! Figured there must be something more complicated that had kept it from already happening. If I get the chance, I'll see if I can do my research to present a "business case" for a couple reasonable modifications, with some suggested wording that might work for the most problematic ones.

[Nova Yamdnaly]

Why does choosing option 2 in 1056 reclassify me to an anarchy?

[Kylarnatia]

Why does choosing option 2 in 1056 reclassify me to an anarchy?

Your World Assembly Category isn't based on issue choices so much as your Civil Rights, Economy and Political Freedoms ratings (which, granted, increase or decrease dependent upon your choices in issues). Having excessively high Civil Rights and Political Freedom scores often leads to the "Anarchy" categorisation. You can read more about that here.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Why does choosing option 2 in 1056 reclassify me to an anarchy?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50482
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=354021

[Bosenochi]

NATION - Bosenochi
DATE - 2019.02.26
ISSUE - #1009 A Woman's Roll

I went with what seemed to be the progressive "educate men not to demand meals from their wives" option but ended up with these stat changes, which feel like they are very nearly the polar opposite of what I'd have expected:

Inclusiveness +1.7%
Social Conservatism +0.84%
Authoritarianism +0.40%
Nudity (-0.06%)
Intelligence (-0.08%)
Civil Rights (-0.37%)
Recreational Drug Use (-0.63%)
Ideological Radicality (-0.79%)

[Bosenochi]

NATION - Bosenochi
DATE - Everyday since resurrecting my nation in Dec 2018
ISSUE - About ~1/3rd of issues every day

Many issues appear to affect public transport, including so many that would not seem to have any clear nexus to it. And those that do have a nexus seem to affect it in the oppose manner that I'd expect, even with distinctly pro-transit responses causing my public transport to drop. This is the one of the few stats that's consistently seemed to confound me.

I recognise that it could be that issue writers have some thing about affecting public transport, but it seems odd that it would happen so abundantly. Can't help but feel like there's a bug that's regularly causing public transport changes in issues.

[The Free Joy State]

NATION - Bosenochi
DATE - 2019.02.26
ISSUE - #1009 A Woman's Roll

I went with what seemed to be the progressive "educate men not to demand meals from their wives" option but ended up with these stat changes, which feel like they are very nearly the polar opposite of what I'd have expected:

Inclusiveness +1.7%
Social Conservatism +0.84%
Authoritarianism +0.40%
Nudity (-0.06%)
Intelligence (-0.08%)
Civil Rights (-0.37%)
Recreational Drug Use (-0.63%)
Ideological Radicality (-0.79%)

It would be helpful if you could tell me which specific change is confusing you. There's nothing unusual here.

If it's the small civil rights fall and rise in authoritarianism, the authoritarianism is a secondary stat linked to civil rights (the lower your civil rights, the higher your authoritarianism.

Your civil rights had a very small fall, from 65.57 to 65.33 due to the line: "Run a national campaign to tell husbands that they have an obligation to get off their butts and help their wives."

It's the creation of an obligation that lowers civil rights, ever so slightly.

I suggest you go into Settings and turn on "Show More Stats". Percentages are often alarming, while the raw numbers give a more accurate picture.

NATION - Bosenochi
DATE - Everyday since resurrecting my nation in Dec 2018
ISSUE - About ~1/3rd of issues every day

Many issues appear to affect public transport, including so many that would not seem to have any clear nexus to it. And those that do have a nexus seem to affect it in the oppose manner that I'd expect, even with distinctly pro-transit responses causing my public transport to drop. This is the one of the few stats that's consistently seemed to confound me.

I recognise that it could be that issue writers have some thing about affecting public transport, but it seems odd that it would happen so abundantly. Can't help but feel like there's a bug that's regularly causing public transport changes in issues.

In future, if you get any effects that seem especially egregious, please report at the time (as you did above), with the name of the issue and option you picked.

General reports like this are not very helpful.

However, I can tell you that it's probably not a bug. Public Transport is a secondary stat, which is impacted by a huge number of stats. So, if you're receiving small changes (which you definitely seem to be doing, from a glance over your most recent issues), that's almost certainly fine.

But do let us know at the time if any changes to stats seem especially large or unusual.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Also probably worth noting that the game has always accompanied an increase of government spending in one area with a smaller cut in government spending in all other areas. The net change is still more spending, but I think it's meant to represent changing priorities.

So basically, I suspect when you're seeing drops in Public Transport spending it's because of a knock on effect of another department being funded more.

Generally you'll know this is the case when it's a very small spending drop, and when it's echoed across multiple spending stats in the same quantity.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

Could you please check #277 option1. On the face of it that allows unrestricted press, but I got a small increase in authoritarianism where I would have expected a decrease.

[Sanctaria]

Could you please check #277 option1. On the face of it that allows unrestricted press, but I got a small increase in authoritarianism where I would have expected a decrease.

When you gave the press free reign to do whatever (in this case take photos of whoever), that also meant hitting the privacy rights of individuals. For your nation, the granting of extra rights to the press didn't change much, since they already had a lot of rights, so the effects of restricting the privacy rights shows up more prominently. Hence the increase.

[Bosenochi]

It would be helpful if you could tell me which specific change is confusing you. There's nothing unusual here.

If it's the small civil rights fall and rise in authoritarianism, the authoritarianism is a secondary stat linked to civil rights (the lower your civil rights, the higher your authoritarianism.

Your civil rights had a very small fall, from 65.57 to 65.33 due to the line: "Run a national campaign to tell husbands that they have an obligation to get off their butts and help their wives."

It's the creation of an obligation that lowers civil rights, ever so slightly.

I suggest you go into Settings and turn on "Show More Stats". Percentages are often alarming, while the raw numbers give a more accurate picture.

(already have the stats switched on; I'd just edited it down in hopes of keeping the post cleaner)

It's not the amount of changes, but what's changing in the first place. That the Progressive option would, in particular, boost Social Conservatism? Or reduce Civil Rights?

[Almonaster Nuevo]

Could you please check #277 option1. On the face of it that allows unrestricted press, but I got a small increase in authoritarianism where I would have expected a decrease.

When you gave the press free reign to do whatever (in this case take photos of whoever), that also meant hitting the privacy rights of individuals. For your nation, the granting of extra rights to the press didn't change much, since they already had a lot of rights, so the effects of restricting the privacy rights shows up more prominently. Hence the increase.

Yeah, that's a great explanation about civil rights. But I wasn't talking about civil rights, I was talking about authoritarianism.

[The Free Joy State]

It would be helpful if you could tell me which specific change is confusing you. There's nothing unusual here.

If it's the small civil rights fall and rise in authoritarianism, the authoritarianism is a secondary stat linked to civil rights (the lower your civil rights, the higher your authoritarianism.

Your civil rights had a very small fall, from 65.57 to 65.33 due to the line: "Run a national campaign to tell husbands that they have an obligation to get off their butts and help their wives."

It's the creation of an obligation that lowers civil rights, ever so slightly.

I suggest you go into Settings and turn on "Show More Stats". Percentages are often alarming, while the raw numbers give a more accurate picture.

(already have the stats switched on; I'd just edited it down in hopes of keeping the post cleaner)

It's not the amount of changes, but what's changing in the first place. That the Progressive option would, in particular, boost Social Conservatism? Or reduce Civil Rights?

I explained the drop to civil rights. The creation of a social obligation lowers civil rights, ever so slightly. Social conservatism is a secondary stat that is partially tied to civil rights. The lower your civil rights tend to go, the higher that tends to rise.

There's nothing in these effects that is unusual.

In future, when reporting stats, please only report the ones that are causing confusion. Thanks!

When you gave the press free reign to do whatever (in this case take photos of whoever), that also meant hitting the privacy rights of individuals. For your nation, the granting of extra rights to the press didn't change much, since they already had a lot of rights, so the effects of restricting the privacy rights shows up more prominently. Hence the increase.

Yeah, that's a great explanation about civil rights. But I wasn't talking about civil rights, I was talking about authoritarianism.

Authoritatianism is a secondary stat, tied to civil rights. As civil rights fall, authoritarianism rises and vice versa. Sanctaria has already explained why this issue impacted your civil rights, thus authoritarianism.

There's nothing unusual here.