Advertisement
by Xatu the Great » Sun Nov 01, 2020 12:27 pm
Discoveria wrote:Port blood is a raider through and through. Honest.
Sedgistan wrote:Attempted threadjack on sandwiches and satanism removed.
anonymous:Does anyone, other than Port Blood, know the Legend of Port Blood?Tim-Opolis wrote:The Salt Mines will be fueled for months by the tears of silly fascists.
by Noahs Second Country » Sun Nov 01, 2020 12:48 pm
Xatu the Great wrote:Choosing the radiate ransom money with the "5 reporters taken hostage and terrorists demand money" unlocks the WMDs policy
The Free Joy State wrote:Perelingo wrote:Name : Perelingo
Date : 28 november 2017
Issue #656 "Ransoms Noted" activates the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction (in Policies section) when the user chooses the option to irradiate the money paid to the hostage takers. This is nonsense. I have climate treaty, I had the ban of WMDs, m Defense budget is under 0, and I get this.
Hi, thanks for the question. The issue is working as intended.
Let's look at the whole answer that you chose [relevant portions highlighted]:Wild-haired scientist Heidi Quayle barrels into your office, panting heavily. “Stop! We CAN have our cake and eat it too! We should make the drop, but insist on cash payment. Then, we liberally irradiate the bank-notes, and watch as the hostage-takers, their associates and their families die from radiation poisoning. That basically solves the problem!”
In effect, by pumping the money full of radiation, they are turning the money into a WMD. A WMD doesn't have to be nuclear or chemical. Radiological weapons can be just as harmful. That's why it activated the WMD policy. Good news is that, at some time, you will get an issue to reverse the policy.
EDIT: Regarding concerns about the incompatibility of the Climate Treaty and WMDs, I can think of several parties and signatories to the RL Paris Agreement that uphold for themselves the right to have nuclear warheads, so the two aren't incompatible on a national level (my personal RL feelings on the subject notwithstanding).
by Fel Dramalis » Sat Nov 07, 2020 1:49 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive » Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:10 pm
Fel Dramalis wrote:I apologize if this was already brought up--and I also apologize that this seems to straddle the line between "issue effect" and "requesting text edit" topics--but I'd like some clarification on Issue #1296, "Once Upon a Time." Option 1 seems to be the most militaristic option, but whenever I've used this option in any of my nations I seem to lower my defense forces statistic. That in itself I can (kind of) understand--I'm spending time and money on arresting my own soldiers, after all--but I have since used option 2 twice and have received a defense forces increase both times. The option is written as the peacenik's choice: My army should always quit fighting on Maxxmas because it's the most wonderful time of the year, yadda yadda. But the headline when that option is chosen is, "The Dramali football team for the Maxxmas ceasefire consists only of Intelligence Corps personnel." The option text never even hinted that this option should be used for spying. I feel like this is a bait and switch problem: Warlike nations like mine would never purposely choose this option unless the player is using OOC spoilers to find out what's going on (guilty as charged), and peaceful nations are going to be mightily disappointed to make a feel-good decision and encounter a result that was never even implied by the option prompt.
by Fel Dramalis » Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:35 pm
by Qahila » Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:24 am
by The Free Joy State » Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:06 am
Qahila wrote:What is up with the issue 'Much Ado About Abortion?' (Apologies for not having the issue number, it was a day ago and I don't see it on the screenshots I took.)
EDIT: Just googled it and according to the Wiki it is number 136.
I chose to ban it entirely even in life or death situations and I'm very confused by the effects. My civil rights increased by 6.3%, and my intelligence also increased.
Social conservatism and authoritarianism both decreased significantly (2.3% and 4.6%.) Even though the effect description was "abortions are carried out secretly in shady backstreet clinics."
Basically, how on earth does a blanket ban on abortion increase civil rights, and decrease social conservatism/authoritarianism..? Is this a glitch?
I'm from a country that only recently legalized abortion after several high profile cases of women dying. During the (extremely nasty) campaigning period for the referendum I never heard anyone claiming that banning abortion was a human rights issue. Just that it was immoral to have one and the state should continue to recognise this and legislate accordingly.
On the other side, the complete lack of options available to pregnant women/girls was internationally recognised as a serious human rights concern. For example it was a huge priority for Amnesty International, which is extremely unusual for a western country [Ireland.] The U.N, E.U, etc also stated that it was a serious human rights concern.
Basically this result seems incredibly biased. I am not commenting on the morality of either choice; just the effects. In my country at least, pro-choice people viewed it as a civil rights issue. Anti-choice people viewed it as a moral issue. It seems bizarre to me that banning it would therefore increase civil rights rather than more morality-based stats.
The Free Joy State wrote:Awhile back, the team (aware of the deep and personal feelings around the sensitive issue of abortion) took the -- perhaps controversial decision -- to (generally speaking, allowing for individual stats) programme a civil rights rise for both banning and allowing abortion.
Due to the strength of emotion it raises, we felt it inappropriate to come down on either side of this debate.
by Westinor » Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:09 am
Qahila wrote:What is up with the issue 'Much Ado About Abortion?' (Apologies for not having the issue number, it was a day ago and I don't see it on the screenshots I took.)
EDIT: Just googled it and according to the Wiki it is number 136.
I chose to ban it entirely even in life or death situations and I'm very confused by the effects. My civil rights increased by 6.3%, and my intelligence also increased.
Social conservatism and authoritarianism both decreased significantly (2.3% and 4.6%.) Even though the effect description was "abortions are carried out secretly in shady backstreet clinics."
Basically, how on earth does a blanket ban on abortion increase civil rights, and decrease social conservatism/authoritarianism..? Is this a glitch?
I'm from a country that only recently legalized abortion after several high profile cases of women dying. During the (extremely nasty) campaigning period for the referendum I never heard anyone claiming that banning abortion was a human rights issue. Just that it was immoral to have one and the state should continue to recognise this and legislate accordingly.
On the other side, the complete lack of options available to pregnant women/girls was internationally recognised as a serious human rights concern. For example it was a huge priority for Amnesty International, which is extremely unusual for a western country [Ireland.] The U.N, E.U, etc also stated that it was a serious human rights concern.
Basically this result seems incredibly biased. I am not commenting on the morality of either choice; just the effects. In my country at least, pro-choice people viewed it as a civil rights issue. Anti-choice people viewed it as a moral issue. It seems bizarre to me that banning it would therefore increase civil rights rather than more morality-based stats.
by Snat » Thu Nov 12, 2020 2:02 pm
by SherpDaWerp » Thu Nov 12, 2020 3:22 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Awhile back, the team (aware of the deep and personal feelings around the sensitive issue of abortion) took the -- perhaps controversial decision -- to (generally speaking, allowing for individual stats) programme a civil rights rise for both banning and allowing abortion.
Due to the strength of emotion it raises, we felt it inappropriate to come down on either side of this debate.
by Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana » Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:00 am
by SherpDaWerp » Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:00 am
Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:Option 2 of issue 299 made my taxation go down"We don’t need to be too extreme about this, people." suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, an economist. "To lower emissions, all we need to do is provide an economic incentive not to pollute. By this, I mean put a tax on harmful emissions. This excise tax will serve to encourage the use of cleaner alternative energy sources, while keeping the economy more or less intact and creating a new source of government revenue. Win-wins always sound good to me."
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Why didn't tax fall when an option described a corporation tax cut / sales tax cut?
The tax model of the game is very simplistic, and it basically abstracts all spending as income tax and doesn't take into account any idea of government borrowing, deficit spending or tax from sources other than income tax.
That gives us limited tools for simulation.
Corporation tax is rolled into business subsidisation, with lowering of corporate tax representing an effective business subsidisation, and a shifting of tax burden onto the income taxpayer.
Sales tax and VAT, meanwhile, move income tax inversely, as raising more revenue from these forms of taxation decreases the burden on income tax, and vice versa.
This isn't entirely satisfactory, of course, as it means that the descriptions of "Freedom From Taxation" on the graphs aren't accurate, but it's reflective of how the game engine is written and of the simulation's limitations. It basically isn't possible to have burden of taxation and income tax move in opposite directions, as in the simulation all measured tax = income tax.
by New Antarcticania » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:43 pm
by Electrum » Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:38 am
New Antarcticania wrote:Option 1 of issue 783 gave me a boost to... basket weaving?
by Disgraces » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:35 pm
by Noahs Second Country » Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:20 am
Disgraces wrote:I got this issue while having compulsory vegetarianism (I'm not fully sure), I chose the last option and it enacted the vegetarianism policy again.
by The Ankhalic Vaspriot » Wed Dec 02, 2020 6:31 am
by Electrum » Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:00 pm
The Ankhalic Vaspriot wrote:Chose to fund broadcasts with tax money in "Balancing the Box" on this nation. Taxation didn't move a bit in either way. This seemed odd to me because most issues that suggest using tax money to fund something increase taxation.
by Dominioan » Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:17 pm
by The Free Joy State » Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:54 pm
Dominioan wrote:My employment went down after I banned automation to force employers to give peoples jobs
by Greater Cesnica » Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:20 pm
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Fauxia » Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:32 pm
by Great Algerstonia » Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:14 am
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Westinor » Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:17 am
Great Algerstonia wrote:I picked option 2 on "Keep The Greenbelt Green, says Protestors" just a few minutes ago and my Authoritarianism decreased. I have the socialism policy, so anything I did did not give more leeway to the free market; it only benefited the government at the expense of protestors, not to mention suppression.
by Great Algerstonia » Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:20 am
Westinor wrote:Great Algerstonia wrote:I picked option 2 on "Keep The Greenbelt Green, says Protestors" just a few minutes ago and my Authoritarianism decreased. I have the socialism policy, so anything I did did not give more leeway to the free market; it only benefited the government at the expense of protestors, not to mention suppression.
Exactly. Authoritarianism (as a stat) is a countermeasure of civil rights, and since you lowered Civil Rights, your Authoritarianism went up.
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: ROLASS
Advertisement