[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Ransium]

I'm posting this because I'm not sure. I mean, it doesn't exactly fit the NS MO, even if I personally agree with the results.

So, I took the issue #615, Tempted by the Fruit of Another. Answered with #2, which suggests socialist control of the factories that don't have an owner anymore.


And it increased my Econ Freedom by 6.6%, while lowering my tax a little.

Bug or feature?

Feature. This issue deals with a mix of freedoms. The set of economic freedoms you had at the start and the economic freedoms changed by the issue choice meant more freedom for your nation. Other nations would have gotten different results. See the OP on economic freedoms for more info.

[He Qixin]

Being off-topic here, but I just realized this thread hit 1,000 replies and 1,000 posts! Woohoo!

[Jutsa]

Just as you hit 250. Congrats.

[East green Israel]

I just picked option 921.4 in the country East green Israel. By my understanding, I'm using mass treasure
hunt, to target political rivals. The result line support it when it claim "Hunters often become the hunted".

However, my political freedom rose from 10.71 to 13.57. I realize it was already very low, but I'm interested to know the reasoning behind such counter-intuitive effect.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Been off this answering this thread, but thought I'd say for other editors: I noticed this error separately and have fixed it. The option is now coded correctly.

I just picked option 921.4 in the country East green Israel. By my understanding, I'm using mass treasure
hunt, to target political rivals. The result line support it when it claim "Hunters often become the hunted".

However, my political freedom rose from 10.71 to 13.57. I realize it was already very low, but I'm interested to know the reasoning behind such counter-intuitive effect.

[Jutsa]

Sorry to be a bother, but I'm rather curious: How come picking #921.1 increased my economic freedom?

I mean, I'd get it if its an emergent effect, but I'd think this'd be the most economic-freedom reducing option of all:

you should put an end to these shenanigans and heavily restrict treasure hunting so it complies with public safety standards

(Yes, it doesn't exactly ban treasure hunting, but then again none of the options really do.)

[Banana Hammock]

Issue: Friends, ______, countrymen, lend me your ears.
When: today
Nation: Banana Hammock

Issue was the path to citizenship. Presented options were a) no path to citizenship, b) easy and unrestricted path, c) compromise involved a test for citizenship.

I chose the compromise, which resulted in a drastic decrease in my civil rights. Civil rights, both by dictionary definition and legal definition, are rights held by citizens. You must first be a citizen to have those rights. Thats not an opinion, but both a legal and definitive fact, 1) my decision did nothing to those currently citizens, and therefore, by both definitions, cannot affect civil rights. 2) my decision did not exclude any particular nationality, gender, or any other group, so even taking the incorrect assumption that civil rights include non-citizens, it's not that bad to make someone take a test to change their legal status.

Political freedom also fell. This result I might understand. I am excluding some people (non-citizen immigrants) from the political process. However, the large reduction in civil rights makes no sense of you understand what a civil right actually is, nor for the option I chose.

[The Free Joy State]

Issue: Friends, ______, countrymen, lend me your ears.
When: today
Nation: Banana Hammock

Issue was the path to citizenship. Presented options were a) no path to citizenship, b) easy and unrestricted path, c) compromise involved a test for citizenship.

I chose the compromise, which resulted in a drastic decrease in my civil rights. Civil rights, both by dictionary definition and legal definition, are rights held by citizens. You must first be a citizen to have those rights. Thats not an opinion, but both a legal and definitive fact, 1) my decision did nothing to those currently citizens, and therefore, by both definitions, cannot affect civil rights. 2) my decision did not exclude any particular nationality, gender, or any other group, so even taking the incorrect assumption that civil rights include non-citizens, it's not that bad to make someone take a test to change their legal status.

Political freedom also fell. This result I might understand. I am excluding some people (non-citizen immigrants) from the political process. However, the large reduction in civil rights makes no sense of you understand what a civil right actually is, nor for the option I chose.

Thank you for your report, but the issue is working as intended.

Where your civil right stats start predicts where they'll end. As you started with decent civil rights, choosing any restrictive option (such as making people memorise 40 verses of the national anthem and over 1000 cantons in alphabetical order) will affect them.

Internationally, civil rights have also been confirmed to not just affect people who are currently citizens, as stated by the U.N.'s International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which attests to "the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family".

Within the mechanism of the game, civil rights have a slightly different but very simple definition: the degree of freedom from government control. The less control the government has over your life - who you can marry, where you may go, what you may do when you get there - the better civil rights your country has.

I hope this answers your question.

Sorry to be a bother, but I'm rather curious: How come picking #921.1 increased my economic freedom?

I mean, I'd get it if its an emergent effect, but I'd think this'd be the most economic-freedom reducing option of all:

you should put an end to these shenanigans and heavily restrict treasure hunting so it complies with public safety standards

(Yes, it doesn't exactly ban treasure hunting, but then again none of the options really do.)

Jutsa, I haven't ignored your question (and you're not bothering anyone), but I just need to raise something backstage.

[Caracasus]

Issue: Friends, ______, countrymen, lend me your ears.
When: today
Nation: Banana Hammock

Issue was the path to citizenship. Presented options were a) no path to citizenship, b) easy and unrestricted path, c) compromise involved a test for citizenship.

I chose the compromise, which resulted in a drastic decrease in my civil rights. Civil rights, both by dictionary definition and legal definition, are rights held by citizens. You must first be a citizen to have those rights. Thats not an opinion, but both a legal and definitive fact, 1) my decision did nothing to those currently citizens, and therefore, by both definitions, cannot affect civil rights. 2) my decision did not exclude any particular nationality, gender, or any other group, so even taking the incorrect assumption that civil rights include non-citizens, it's not that bad to make someone take a test to change their legal status.

Political freedom also fell. This result I might understand. I am excluding some people (non-citizen immigrants) from the political process. However, the large reduction in civil rights makes no sense of you understand what a civil right actually is, nor for the option I chose.

Your decrease in civil rights was not drastic - they fell by about 3% from 81 - 79. Bear in mind that any nation - and indeed it is rather assumed in the issue in question that this is the case - which allows immigration will likely have immigrants who work and live within the nation. We're assuming that these people are among those applying for whatever the equivalent of citizenship would be. Making the process of obtaining citizenship for these people significantly harder would have an effect on people living and working in your country, people who for all intents and purposes are under the same rules and legal system of your country will hit your civil rights. This would also affect the spouses, partners and children of those immigrants who may well be citizens of your nation.

EDIT: Also what Joy said.

[Paradiosa]

Issue 45 has two options: 1- subsidize baseball by spending tax money, 2- don't spend taxpayers money for something trivial like games.

I chose option 1 but taxation decreased. Shouldn't it rise? I'm spending more tax money to build stadiums.

[Leutria]

Issue 45 has two options: 1- subsidize baseball by spending tax money, 2- don't spend taxpayers money for something trivial like games.

I chose option 1 but taxation decreased. Shouldn't it rise? I'm spending more tax money to build stadiums.

It generated enough economic activity that it more then payed for whatever expense your government made in building it. So your government can fund itself for a lower tax rate, despite higher expenses.

[He Qixin]

I'm no adult here, but removing minimum wage laws decreases economic efficiency?! (This was today, a few hours ago, on He Qixin 2.)

Also, I chose 828.5 to abolish capital punishment. My civil rights increased, but my political freedom remained unaffected? (Also today, a few hours ago, on this nation.)

[Merconitonitopia]

I'm no adult here, but removing minimum wage laws decreases economic efficiency?! (This was today, a few hours ago, on He Qixin 2.)

well, there's an argument to be made. lower wages = households aren't spending + more money to the wealthy who are less interested in spending = less consumption and production.

[Trotterdam]

Also, I chose 828.5 to abolish capital punishment. My civil rights increased, but my political freedom remained unaffected? (Also today, a few hours ago, on this nation.)

The issue doesn't present it as a political freedoms issue. #12 does, that's because protestors are part of the narrative that time, not because the death penalty and political freedom are invariably linked.

[The Free Joy State]

Sorry to be a bother, but I'm rather curious: How come picking #921.1 increased my economic freedom?

I mean, I'd get it if its an emergent effect, but I'd think this'd be the most economic-freedom reducing option of all:

you should put an end to these shenanigans and heavily restrict treasure hunting so it complies with public safety standards

(Yes, it doesn't exactly ban treasure hunting, but then again none of the options really do.)

Thanks for flagging. Further to my earlier answer, there was a small error. NoQ has fixed it.

[Paradiosa]

Issue 45 has two options: 1- subsidize baseball by spending tax money, 2- don't spend taxpayers money for something trivial like games.

I chose option 1 but taxation decreased. Shouldn't it rise? I'm spending more tax money to build stadiums.

It generated enough economic activity that it more then payed for whatever expense your government made in building it. So your government can fund itself for a lower tax rate, despite higher expenses.

Oh, OK then. Makes sense

[Jutsa]

Teehee, many thanks FJS.

Frankly the extra economic freedom wasn't unwelcome.

[Laissez-Faire Economics]

780.a, which eliminates sales tax, just increased taxation by 5.6%. It doesn't seem like a side effect either, since that shows up without expanding the detail tab.

[The Jardiance Regime]

245.2, accepting immigrants for who they are, results in a large increase in obesity

[Animal Equality]

71.2; raising children bilingual from an early age results in a drop in all major industries, a drop in economy, and a drop in several other seemingly non-related fields (e.g eco-friendliness). Absolutely ludicrous.

[Caracasus]

780.a, which eliminates sales tax, just increased taxation by 5.6%. It doesn't seem like a side effect either, since that shows up without expanding the detail tab.

Yep. The game treats all taxes (i.e income tax, corporate tax, sales tax or VAT) in one category. It is hardly ideal, I know. Basically what's happened here is that even though you've eliminated sales tax, your government has been forced to raise or implement taxes in other areas to make up the shortfall.

Issue is basically functioning as intended there. If you notice the wording of the option, it is kind of foreshadowed:

The government could easily make money through other kinds of tax instead of harming my business. I say we get rid of this ridiculous VAT altogether and let our economy thrive without limits!”

245.2, accepting immigrants for who they are, results in a large increase in obesity

That is an odd one, I'll grant you. Likely due to one change having knock-on effects elsewhere.

71.2; raising children bilingual from an early age results in a drop in all major industries, a drop in economy, and a drop in several other seemingly non-related fields (e.g eco-friendliness). Absolutely ludicrous.

Okay. I have checked your nation, but it appears you haven't answered this issue in quite some time - and I'm not trawling back through pages and pages to find when you answered it.

To hazard a guess, you likely saw a drop to industry because your government expanded - probably to finance the extra educational initiatives. What you're likely seeing here is a very small change - which does tend to happen in these cases. Without the actual date you answered the issue, there's not a lot I can do.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

Todwy, 5 mins ago
Issue no. 551 option 2
Title: The Big Fat Glorious Third Reign Of Templedomian Wedding
Book publishing industry gone up... from (negative) 6.65 pts --> (negative) 5.59 pts, or +15.9% increase. This is weird.

[The Free Joy State]

Todwy, 5 mins ago
Issue no. 551 option 2
Title: The Big Fat Glorious Third Reign Of Templedomian Wedding
Book publishing industry gone up... from (negative) 6.65 pts --> (negative) 5.59 pts, or +15.9% increase. This is weird.

The option you chose was to have a magazine sponsor the wedding, in exchange for the leader's implied endorsement of their publication. Here is the option in full:

"Why not let us do all the work?" suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, @@NAME@@'s top wedding planner and chief editor of Bonjour Magazine. "We'll do everything necessary for the wedding, cakes, wedding gowns, the flowers, you name it! Sponsoring your niece's wedding will be the greatest endorsement we could ask for. All you need to do is broadcast the wedding all over @@REGION@@. The profits will be through the roof! It's a win-win!"

That explains the increase in publishing.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

That explains the increase in publishing.

You mean: the increase in un-publishing? Since there's no such industry with the score being negative! Edit: what does the score keep track of anyway? I've always presumed it reflects dollar-value of the industry

[Cekoviu]

That explains the increase in publishing.

You mean: the increase in un-publishing? Since there's no such industry with the score being negative! Edit: what does the score keep track of anyway? I've always presumed it reflects dollar-value of the industry

IIRC, it was previously explained here that negative values represent how much effort would be required to bring the industry back. That would mean that you are now closer to having an actual book publishing industry.