[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Xatu the Great]

Choosing the radiate ransom money with the "5 reporters taken hostage and terrorists demand money" unlocks the WMDs policy

[Noahs Second Country]

Choosing the radiate ransom money with the "5 reporters taken hostage and terrorists demand money" unlocks the WMDs policy

In the future, please give the issue number and nation answering the issue so it's easier for us to find the problem. In this case, the issue has been raised before:

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).

[Fel Dramalis]

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.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

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.

The issue doesn't actually code a direct effect on military spending, but instead increases and decreases police spending in options 1 and 2 respectively.

However, the game engine always accompanies spending changes in one department with a simultaneous fractional and opposite change in ALL other government departments. So if you increase police, you marginally decrease health, welfare, foreign aid, etc... and also defence.

Having said all that, I agree that it seems like a reasonable thing to expect those options to be warlike or pacfist, so I've coded in a direct military spend now, so it'll behave more as expected.

[Fel Dramalis]

Thanks very much for explaining. I thought the "intelligence personnel" bit was responsible for the DF increase, which was why I was frustrated with it.

[Qahila]

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]

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.

I'm going to take the liberty of quoting myself:

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.

It's also worth pointing out that your Civil Rights change in raw numbers is rather small, rising from 33.48 to 35.60. If you are yet to do so, I suggest you go to Settings and turn on "Show More Stats", which will give you the raw numbers (the percentages can often be alarming).

[Westinor]

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.

So, a few things. First, I'm not an editor, so take my words with a grain of salt

Second, if I remember correctly the debate on abortion was a bit touchy (stats-wise) and thus to make the story short the editors decided to make it so that both legalizing and banning abortion were an increase to civil rights (since there are very different views and viewpoints in viewing how abortion affects human rights).

Third, is that social conservatism is not really a measure of conservatism in its modern political sense, but rather of how restrictive the government is on its citizens. Basically, it's a counter-stat to civil rights. Though I don't know the specifics of authoritarianism in this regard, I'd assume it acts pretty much like the opposite to civil rights as well (though to a different degree, perhaps. I'm not entirely sure on this). It's important to know that some stats tend to bounce off of other stats, the same way social conservatism bounces off of civil rights, or the way Employment is supposed to go off of several other stats (which ones, I have never been able to figure out).

EDIT: Oh, FJS already responded. Whoops

[Snat]

Issue: Much Ado About Abortion
Decision: Fully ban abortion
Effect: Increased civil rights
Nation: Snat

[SherpDaWerp]

Issue: Much Ado About Abortion
Decision: Fully ban abortion
Effect: Increased civil rights
Nation: Snat

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.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

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."

[SherpDaWerp]

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."

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.

[New Antarcticania]

Option 1 of issue 783 gave me a boost to... basket weaving?

[Electrum]

Option 1 of issue 783 gave me a boost to... basket weaving?

Some industries are stand-ins for other ones. Obviously we don't have a military boots industry to increase stats on, for example.

[Disgraces]

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.

[Noahs Second Country]

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.

I think you may be mistaken, you did not have the vegetarianism policy when you were assigned that issue.

[The Ankhalic Vaspriot]

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.

[Electrum]

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.

Your tax rate did increase, but since your tax rate was already high, it may have not been noticeable. Your freedom from taxation did fall too.

[Dominioan]

My employment went down after I banned automation to force employers to give peoples jobs

[The Free Joy State]

My employment went down after I banned automation to force employers to give peoples jobs

Yep, I see what that is.

Employment is what we call a secondary stat, and there are many backstage stats that interact with your own nation's stats and produce the result. A rise in employment is coded, but -- due to the other stats that impact the secondary Employment stat and which are correctly there -- the impact was counterbalanced and you did not receive a rise in this case (other players' personal stats are different and they may have seen a rise or no change). It is worth pointing out that the fall, in raw numbers, was very small -- from 41.98 to 41.68.

In future, please could you make your reports in the following manner: issue name/number, option selected, effect you believe is unusual, the nation (if you answered on a puppet) and the date (if not today). Thanks!

[Greater Cesnica]

Civil rights went down after I didn't ban skateboards: from Issue #154: "Ban the ‘Boards, Say Pedestrians". I chose option 2:

"Ticketing children for getting out of the house and exercising?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a school teacher, in disbelief. "That's outrageous! It's true that skateboarding can be dangerous but so is walking down the stairs! You want to ban that too?! What we should do is pass laws requiring safety equipment for skaters - if we allocate a little bit of the tax payers' money to the cause, we can build a skate park that will keep our children safe and away from others on the road too."

Authoritarianism also went up??? So, there's literally no option in this issue to fully prevent any decrease in civil rights, since the second option mandates safety equipment too.

[Fauxia]

You mandated safety equipment. That’s a restriction of people’s freedoms, thus civil rights decreases.

[Great Algerstonia]

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.

[Westinor]

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.

[Great Algerstonia]

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.

Yes but my authoritarianism decreased when I picked that option.