[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[SherpDaWerp]

I chose the first option for Issue #445 "Evasive Maneuvers" ("corporations claim the third ounce of any metal traded in a wicker-cone on the Sunday of a full moon as a charitable expense") and I got a huge cut to my Average Income of Rich, Weath Gaps and Freedom From Taxation. From 2.5+ M average income of rich and and a weath gap of approximately 850 I went to less than 1M and 16.5 respectively, which is a dramatic drop, not to say the least.

I do not understand how is allowing corporate loopholes brings down the income of the rich and raises taxes, so this is definitely an unusual effect.

EDIT: Checking my stat graphs, I think issue #210 option 1 ("urban high-volume mailers now receive their mail via chauffeur-driven limousines") is the issue that caused my problem. Which makes the effect all the more incomprehensible because how does privatization of postal services drive down the income of the rich and the weath gap?

See the posts above yours. The changes to Wealth Gaps etc. were caused by the passage of a recent World Assembly resolution.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I chose the first option for Issue #445 "Evasive Maneuvers" ("corporations claim the third ounce of any metal traded in a wicker-cone on the Sunday of a full moon as a charitable expense") and I got a huge cut to my Average Income of Rich, Weath Gaps and Freedom From Taxation. From 2.5+ M average income of rich and and a weath gap of approximately 850 I went to less than 1M and 16.5 respectively, which is a dramatic drop, not to say the least.

I do not understand how is allowing corporate loopholes brings down the income of the rich and raises taxes, so this is definitely an unusual effect.

EDIT: Checking my stat graphs, I think issue #210 option 1 ("urban high-volume mailers now receive their mail via chauffeur-driven limousines") is the issue that caused my problem. Which makes the effect all the more incomprehensible because how does privatization of postal services drive down the income of the rich and the weath gap?

Naa, not your issues. It was your WA membership.

Read the posts directly above yours.

And here's all three of us:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=dab ... hregierung

[Reorganisieren Reichregierung]

I chose the first option for Issue #445 "Evasive Maneuvers" ("corporations claim the third ounce of any metal traded in a wicker-cone on the Sunday of a full moon as a charitable expense") and I got a huge cut to my Average Income of Rich, Weath Gaps and Freedom From Taxation. From 2.5+ M average income of rich and and a weath gap of approximately 850 I went to less than 1M and 16.5 respectively, which is a dramatic drop, not to say the least.

I do not understand how is allowing corporate loopholes brings down the income of the rich and raises taxes, so this is definitely an unusual effect.

EDIT: Checking my stat graphs, I think issue #210 option 1 ("urban high-volume mailers now receive their mail via chauffeur-driven limousines") is the issue that caused my problem. Which makes the effect all the more incomprehensible because how does privatization of postal services drive down the income of the rich and the weath gap?

Naa, not your issues. It was your WA membership.

Read the posts directly above yours.

And here's all three of us:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=dab ... hregierung

Thanks for clearing that up!

Guess I have to answer 100+ issues to get back to 850 hahahaha

[Kyundao]

Nation: Kyundao
Date received: August 6th, 2020
Issue number: 16

On issue 16, I chose option 2 - the option allowing employers to fire anyone without giving a reason why - and my economic freedom went down. That makes no sense to me at all and I checked the issue stats on another website. Isn't economic freedom supposed to go up instead? Option 2 literally gives employers the freedom to fire anyone at any time, so what gives?

There's two economic freedoms at play here - the right of employers to hire and fire freely, and the freedom of employees to undertake strike action without being immediately fired for it.

For an entirely new nation, the former's pro-freedom effect is significantly larger. However, as you tend towards extremes you'll sometimes find a paradoxical shift.

In short, your nation's employers were already mostly unregulated, while your nation's workers still had some employment rights, but that's been diminished by your decision.

It doesn't always make perfect sense, of course. See the first post of this thread for more on how freedoms work in this game.

That makes sense now that I think about it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Comfed]

Date: August 8, 2020

Hi, so on the issue “Keep the Greenbelt Green, Say Protesters” I selected the second option:

“I agree with my comrade here, but @@HE@@ doesn’t go far enough,” says @@RANDOMNAME@@, Director of Ideology. “These protestors are standing in the path of progress. It slows the growth of our economy and harms my secret portfolio - er - the future of our nation, I mean. It’s unpatriotic and we should increase police funding to deal with these troublemakers. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about greenbelts or any other nonsense about keeping the ‘environment’ safe.”

And this happened:

Authoritarianism
milliStalins 8,621.58 → 8,211.83
-4.8%

Might it have something to do with how I generally err on the side of the environment when answering these issues?

[The Free Joy State]

Date: August 8, 2020

Hi, so on the issue “Keep the Greenbelt Green, Say Protesters” I selected the second option:

“I agree with my comrade here, but @@HE@@ doesn’t go far enough,” says @@RANDOMNAME@@, Director of Ideology. “These protestors are standing in the path of progress. It slows the growth of our economy and harms my secret portfolio - er - the future of our nation, I mean. It’s unpatriotic and we should increase police funding to deal with these troublemakers. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about greenbelts or any other nonsense about keeping the ‘environment’ safe.”

And this happened:

(Image)Authoritarianism
milliStalins 8,621.58 → 8,211.83
-4.8%

Might it have something to do with how I generally err on the side of the environment when answering these issues?

Basically, although this is a secondary stat -- and so not altogether predictable (not every nation will respond in the same way) -- for you, it would be somewhat related to taking the attitude that protestors are "troublemakers" to be "dealt with".

[SherpDaWerp]

#1004.2 decreased my Civil Rights by 0.28 points, just now. Tis' but a minor difference, but why is there any change? I'm not impinging on my citizen's rights in any way by keeping the child here - it's the Savoiians who want the kid. The only people I'm blocking or forbidding from doing stuff in this scenario is some Savoiian nutcase who wants to take my citizens!

The only way I can read this effect is if the family themselves wanted to go to Savoiia and I stopped them, but such an important fact would certainly have been mentioned in the issue text if it were true.

In fact, I'm disappointed (but not surprised - it would be such an easy choice) that the will of the parents doesn't play any part in the options. Surely if they want to accept the Savoiians' offer and go, they can, and if they don't want to accept, then they can stay here? For me to send the child overseas without parental consent is basically abduction, and for me to prohibit parents from sending the child overseas would be government overreach. The will of the parents is paramount here, especially in high-rights countries, so it's irksome that it's not even mentioned in the issue.

EDIT: Also, it's odd that Vat nations aren't given consideration. For a child to be vat-birthed and have such major defects is worthy of note - unless, #1340.4's vat-optionality is already tracked and the parents chose to have a kid naturally...

[The Free Joy State]

#1004.2 decreased my Civil Rights by 0.28 points, just now. Tis' but a minor difference, but why is there any change? I'm not impinging on my citizen's rights in any way by keeping the child here - it's the Savoiians who want the kid. The only people I'm blocking or forbidding from doing stuff in this scenario is some Savoiian nutcase who wants to take my citizens!

The only way I can read this effect is if the family themselves wanted to go to Savoiia and I stopped them, but such an important fact would certainly have been mentioned in the issue text if it were true.

It is linked to the restrictions of the rights of the child (in a vegetative state though @@HE@@ is) to seek alternate treatment abroad.

The change coded is fairly small. You only noticed it as much as you did because your own rights are so high.

In fact, I'm disappointed (but not surprised - it would be such an easy choice) that the will of the parents doesn't play any part in the options. Surely if they want to accept the Savoiians' offer and go, they can, and if they don't want to accept, then they can stay here? For me to send the child overseas without parental consent is basically abduction, and for me to prohibit parents from sending the child overseas would be government overreach. The will of the parents is paramount here, especially in high-rights countries, so it's irksome that it's not even mentioned in the issue.

Now you know exactly why the parental opinions were left out. We wanted the issue to be only about the child, so the focus is narrowed to national medical sovereignty.

EDIT: Also, it's odd that Vat nations aren't given consideration. For a child to be vat-birthed and have such major defects is worthy of note - unless, #1340.4's vat-optionality is already tracked and the parents chose to have a kid naturally...

It's not pertinent to this issue. This is an either/or decision, inspired by a real case, not an issue about a mistake at the decanting factory. It can be received with or without Vat-Produced Infants.

[SherpDaWerp]

It is linked to the restrictions of the rights of the child (in a vegetative state though @@HE@@ is) to seek alternate treatment abroad.

Ah. I hadn't considered the rights of the child (@@HE@@ can hardly want to seek alternative treatment...), because someone in a vegetative state is unlikely to want anything specific and most IRL places would grant control over their decision-making to someone with legal authority. That explains the Civil Rights drop, thanks!

Now you know exactly why the parental opinions were left out. We wanted the issue to be only about the child, so the focus is narrowed to national medical sovereignty.

Having someone in a position of legal authority over the child muddies this focus a lot, I think, because there's an additional person to make the decision. If there weren't any parents or next-of-kin then there would be no element of "surely someone exists that should make this decision", which is my concern.

It's not pertinent to this issue. This is an either/or decision, inspired by a real case, not an issue about a mistake at the decanting factory. It can be received with or without Vat-Produced Infants.

Ooh, a real case? I couldn't find anything searching "sick child given citizenship" or variations thereof, what should I search for?

That said, tangential as it may be, a child "created" by vats having a "devastating neurological disease that has impacted @@HIS@@ entire nervous system" is extremely unusual (to the point where there's a whole issue on malfunctions in the vats...), so I do think this should be restricted to nations where biological reproduction is permitted.

[The Free Joy State]

Now you know exactly why the parental opinions were left out. We wanted the issue to be only about the child, so the focus is narrowed to national medical sovereignty.

Having someone in a position of legal authority over the child muddies this focus a lot, I think, because there's an additional person to make the decision. If there weren't any parents or next-of-kin then there would be no element of "surely someone exists that should make this decision", which is my concern.

Even where parents exist, IRL, their rights can be subsumed or even removed in the name of doing what's in the best medical interest for a child (which may, and has, included turning off a child's life support).

From an editing standpoint, the parents' opinions also risked overlap with a pre-existing issue about the family of a woman in a persistent vegetative state (#874, Still Life).

Ooh, a real case? I couldn't find anything searching "sick child given citizenship" or variations thereof, what should I search for?

Search for "Alfie Evans case". It was a terribly sad case.

That said, tangential as it may be, a child "created" by vats having a "devastating neurological disease that has impacted @@HIS@@ entire nervous system" is extremely unusual (to the point where there's a whole issue on malfunctions in the vats...), so I do think this should be restricted to nations where biological reproduction is permitted.

This does not overlap with the issue on the malfunction of vats. Bringing in vats does not remove the chance of rare disorders developing.

[SherpDaWerp]

Even where parents exist, IRL, their rights can be subsumed or even removed in the name of doing what's in the best medical interest for a child (which may, and has, included turning off a child's life support).

From an editing standpoint, the parents' opinions also risked overlap with a pre-existing issue about the family of a woman in a persistent vegetative state (#874, Still Life).

I agree on both counts, which is why I said

having someone in a position of legal authority over the child muddies this focus

Search for "Alfie Evans case". It was a terribly sad case.

Wow, yeah. That's quite the ordeal.

Having read the wiki page and couple of news articles, I think the key part of that case that I was missing in my interpretation of the issue was the degree of parental removal. The phrase "have received a court ruling to discontinue life support" doesn't quite convey that the parents' legal custody has been removed.

The case of baby @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ has captured the hearts of the nation. Born with a devastating neurological disease that has impacted @@HIS@@ entire nervous system, the young @@BOY@@ has been left in a vegetative state, @@HIS@@ organs shutting down. Doctors say @@HE@@ has no chance of recovery - though @@HIS@@ parents still hold hope - and have received a court ruling to remove parental custody and discontinue life support. On the day @@FIRSTNAME_1@@’s parents tearfully prepare to say goodbye to their child, the neighbouring theocracy of Savoiia has granted the baby citizenship and demands that you intervene in the case and expatriate @@HIM@@ for treatment.

Changed sentence underlined - I've tried to emphasise more that the parents' custody has been taken away, and they aren't responsible for the child anymore. That's the distinction I was missing - there's no parental consent because parental custody has been removed, and saying "a court ruling to discontinue life support" doesn't properly link to the fact that parental custody has been removed, at least in my mind.

This does not overlap with the issue on the malfunction of vats. Bringing in vats does not remove the chance of rare disorders developing.

This aspect of my query/complaint was also addressed by the background story - I assumed @@HE@@ had one of those born-with-it genetic disorders (i.e. hole in the heart, anencephaly, etc.), not a "random" disorder (more like, motor neuron disease or cancer) that just developed early in life. Vats would be likely to eliminate the former, not so much the latter. That's less crucial to the story, though, so it probably doesn't need clarification in the issue text itself.

[The Free Joy State]

*snip*

There will be no changes to this issue, which is -- as was explained (several posts ago) -- on a very focused subject.

If it is not to your taste, feel free to delete it should it reoccur.

Please consider this query closed.

[SherpDaWerp]

*snip*

There will be no changes to this issue, which is -- as was explained (several posts ago) -- on a very focused subject.

If it is not to your taste, feel free to delete it should it reoccur.

Please consider this query closed.

Alright. Thanks for taking the time to go into it in some depth.

[Picairn]

In Issue #255 "Welfare programs not faring well", I chose Option 4 which is to provide jobs for the poor.

"He has a point," says popular political pundit @@RANDOMNAME@@. "There are a lot of people in the system, and some of them don't really need to be there. The government should be finding these people jobs, so that our welfare system can survive and meet the needs of the truly impoverished. Of course, we're going to have to spend a few @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to achieve this goal. But, what's a little tax hike if it means saving our dying welfare programs and the people who depend on them?"

And yet despite the headline: "The government is using tax revenues to provide jobs for the poor.", my employment stats decreased.

It seems contradictory to me that government job programs would lead to rising unemployment.

[The Free Joy State]

In Issue #255 "Welfare programs not faring well", I chose Option 4 which is to provide jobs for the poor.

"He has a point," says popular political pundit @@RANDOMNAME@@. "There are a lot of people in the system, and some of them don't really need to be there. The government should be finding these people jobs, so that our welfare system can survive and meet the needs of the truly impoverished. Of course, we're going to have to spend a few @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to achieve this goal. But, what's a little tax hike if it means saving our dying welfare programs and the people who depend on them?"

And yet despite the headline: "The government is using tax revenues to provide jobs for the poor.", my employment stats decreased.

It seems contradictory to me that government job programs would lead to rising unemployment.

Employment is what we call a secondary stat, meaning that it takes the all stats programmed in and your own nation's stats and gives an outcome. Unfortunately, many, many stats impact the Employment stat you see. And several of them are on that option. So, it can't guarantee a rise (even though it is appropriately coded).

Many players are receiving a rise (I tested it on a number of test nations, and generally got a rise).

It is working as intended.

[Picairn]

Employment is what we call a secondary stat, meaning that it takes the all stats programmed in and your own nation's stats and gives an outcome. Unfortunately, many, many stats impact the Employment stat you see. And several of them are on that option. So, it can't guarantee a rise (even though it is appropriately coded).

Many players are receiving a rise (I tested it on a number of test nations, and generally got a rise).

It is working as intended.

Thank you for the answer.

[Land Without Shrimp]

Minor question here. Possibly this is working fine, but I raised an eyebrow at it. Got Issue 666 on this nation today and answered with Option 2 (basically rejecting the microchips/identity database). Looking at my results, I was surprised to see my Social Conservatism stat dropped a few points (from 32.71 to 30.93). Not a big drop to be sure, but I'm surprised I got any drop at all. Would have expected a rejection of a universal microchip system would raise my Social Conservatism stat if anything (keep things the status quo! Don't want government meddling!) Am I misunderstanding the Social Conservatism stat and how it's supposed to be affected? Thanks in advance =)

[The Free Joy State]

Minor question here. Possibly this is working fine, but I raised an eyebrow at it. Got Issue 666 on this nation today and answered with Option 2 (basically rejecting the microchips/identity database). Looking at my results, I was surprised to see my Social Conservatism stat dropped a few points (from 32.71 to 30.93). Not a big drop to be sure, but I'm surprised I got any drop at all. Would have expected a rejection of a universal microchip system would raise my Social Conservatism stat if anything (keep things the status quo! Don't want government meddling!) Am I misunderstanding the Social Conservatism stat and how it's supposed to be affected? Thanks in advance =)

Social Conservativism is a secondary stat somewhat adversely related to civil rights.

It, therefore, wouldn't be overly surprising that some nations may find preserving individuals' bodily integrity could see this effect (all usual disclaimers regarding "different stat sets interact with and so impact different nations differently" apply).

[Land Without Shrimp]

Minor question here. Possibly this is working fine, but I raised an eyebrow at it. Got Issue 666 on this nation today and answered with Option 2 (basically rejecting the microchips/identity database). Looking at my results, I was surprised to see my Social Conservatism stat dropped a few points (from 32.71 to 30.93). Not a big drop to be sure, but I'm surprised I got any drop at all. Would have expected a rejection of a universal microchip system would raise my Social Conservatism stat if anything (keep things the status quo! Don't want government meddling!) Am I misunderstanding the Social Conservatism stat and how it's supposed to be affected? Thanks in advance =)

Social Conservativism is a secondary stat somewhat adversely related to civil rights.

It, therefore, wouldn't be overly surprising that some nations may find preserving individuals' bodily integrity could see this effect (all usual disclaimers regarding "different stat sets interact with and so impact different nations differently" apply).

Understood. Thanks! (And yes, Civil Rights did go up, as expected)

[Merconitonitopia]

Social Conservativism is a secondary stat somewhat adversely related to civil rights.

A bit more than 'somewhat.' Social Conservatism is just a mirror or reverse of Civil Rights.

[Valentine Z]

Social Conservativism is a secondary stat somewhat adversely related to civil rights.

A bit more than 'somewhat.' Social Conservatism is just a mirror or reverse of Civil Rights.

Not a complete 1:1 reverse! ^^ It's some sort of a piecewise equation, from what I can infer. But yes, the higher your CR, the lower your SC! My only wonderment is why it's not 1:1 because both stats have a min-max of 0 to 100.

[Pogaria]

A bit more than 'somewhat.' Social Conservatism is just a mirror or reverse of Civil Rights.

Not a complete 1:1 reverse! ^^ It's some sort of a piecewise equation, from what I can infer. But yes, the higher your CR, the lower your SC! My only wonderment is why it's not 1:1 because both stats have a min-max of 0 to 100.

What graphing software are you using? I like it.

[Valentine Z]

Not a complete 1:1 reverse! ^^ It's some sort of a piecewise equation, from what I can infer. But yes, the higher your CR, the lower your SC! My only wonderment is why it's not 1:1 because both stats have a min-max of 0 to 100.

What graphing software are you using? I like it.

Ohh, it's Matplotlib! ^^ It's a Python package. I got the data from a series of automated API calls within the legal rates, then all through Python. :3

Used to use Excel, but it was horribly slow even with 10,000+ points of data. This one was 200,000+.

[Merconitonitopia]

A bit more than 'somewhat.' Social Conservatism is just a mirror or reverse of Civil Rights.

Not a complete 1:1 reverse! ^^ It's some sort of a piecewise equation, from what I can infer. But yes, the higher your CR, the lower your SC! My only wonderment is why it's not 1:1 because both stats have a min-max of 0 to 100.

It's not exactly 1:1 because of the 'smooshing' thing. The displayed Civil Rights and Political Freedoms censuses are not the same as the underlying data. The Social Conservatism census uses the 'unsmooshed' Civil Rights value.

[Valentine Z]

Not a complete 1:1 reverse! ^^ It's some sort of a piecewise equation, from what I can infer. But yes, the higher your CR, the lower your SC! My only wonderment is why it's not 1:1 because both stats have a min-max of 0 to 100.

It's not exactly 1:1 because of the 'smooshing' thing. The displayed Civil Rights and Political Freedoms censuses are not the same as the underlying data. The Social Conservatism census uses the 'unsmooshed' Civil Rights value.

That's great to know, thanks! You do learn something new every day!

The underlying data are certainly much more interesting, such as in the case with precise HDI or lifespan values that you can get from the API.