[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Alterrum]

Issue #37, option 2, implies heavy government regulation of the internet à la China. Instead, on implementation, a nation in my region got the "No Internet" policy and lost its ID chip policy.

[Dwarfpolis]

This thread is designed for people to report effects due to issues that are unusual, so that they can get feedback from the community regarding it.

So yes, replying to posts that are old and/or have already been resolved kind of clogs up the process.

I picked option 1 to issue 589, and my public transportation increased, from supporting my space program???

Increasing government spending often has knock on effects throughout departments. I imagine this is what you're seeing here. I will check this one backstage though.

(Finally got on a platform to respond suitably)
The logic behind the results is pretty faultless but the result could have been anything more like "natives are being evicted from national reserves to clear way for national monuments" instead of "tourist s come to see this landmark" -50 lifespan.

Charmlessness also increased albeit building a destination, unless that stat is tied to environmental beauty.

I don't really understand the point you are making here. Are you arguing that the effect line should be different?

Charmlessness would likely be a reflection of your nation's policies of kicking native tribes off of land they've used for generations to make way for tourist traps.

Yes, the line should be better phrased so it suggests the changes that take place

[Caracasus]

I picked option 1 to issue 589, and my public transportation increased, from supporting my space program???

Following up on my previous post - the issue in question has now been corrected.

This thread is designed for people to report effects due to issues that are unusual, so that they can get feedback from the community regarding it.

So yes, replying to posts that are old and/or have already been resolved kind of clogs up the process.



Increasing government spending often has knock on effects throughout departments. I imagine this is what you're seeing here. I will check this one backstage though.



I don't really understand the point you are making here. Are you arguing that the effect line should be different?

Charmlessness would likely be a reflection of your nation's policies of kicking native tribes off of land they've used for generations to make way for tourist traps.

Yes, the line should be better phrased so it suggests the changes that take place

I've looked into it and I don't think we're going to change the effect line. The implications of that option are very well foreshadowed in the option text itself.

[Caracasus]

Issue #37, option 2, implies heavy government regulation of the internet à la China. Instead, on implementation, a nation in my region got the "No Internet" policy and lost its ID chip policy.

Looking into this.

UPDATE: This issue is fine as it is. The no internet policy can be activated when the internet is totally outlawed - it can also indicate a nation where the internet itself is so heavily regulated and restricted that it's no longer really the internet.

Think of internet in this instance being relatively free access to the internet.

[Trotterdam]

I don't think that China's firewall is so restrictive as to count as "not really the internet anymore".

Even if we accept that, how would getting rid of the internet remove ID chips? Even if the government was relying on internet connections to track those ID checks (not at all obvious), the government presumably wouldn't be firewalling tself from its "government-approved websites".

[Candlewhisper Archive]

This discussion has been flagged for my attention, thanks Caracasus. I'm happy that the "no internet" policy should be disabled here, as in game the policy checks assume a proper internet is in place. Government-only sites is as good as no internet for the purposes of those checks.

I think I agree with Trotterdam, to some extent on id chips though.

While I think the initial issue 666 needs internet for its premise, but the automated dependency that requires internet to maintain id_chips could go, as there's no absolute requirement for an internet to exist for id chips to continue to be used. However, I think they require computers. We'll discuss this backstage, and if the team agrees, will ask the technical chaps to change the id chips from being dependent on internet to being dependent on computers.

[Alterrum]

This discussion has been flagged for my attention, thanks Caracasus. I'm happy that the "no internet" policy should be disabled here, as in game the policy checks assume a proper internet is in place. Government-only sites is as good as no internet for the purposes of those checks.

"Well, I AM saying we should block out that filth," says a man in a dark hat, stepping from the shadows. "If people want to use the internet, they can view our government-approved sites. Those are swell."

I have to agree with Trotterdam here - the issue only speaks of heavy government regulation, not government monopoly, and China manages this extremely well - the internet ecosystem in China is thriving, even under an army of government regulators who ensure only proper information is allowed.

In fact, having a business-friendly and monolingual environment seems to do more for the IT industry than internet freedom - notice the lack of any European tech giants. Also, here is a video detailing the economic and security benefits of internet control in China, with no real impediment to the internet ecosystem itself.

Even if the wording in the issue were changed to imply a government-run internet, then, if that were to lead to its effective collapse, government-run economies should lead to analogous economic results in NS, which is not the case.

[He Qixin]

Choosing 935.2 (this nation, just now) apparently decreased Weather, Cheerfulness, Niceness and Tourism (and a few others)

My Safety and Integrity levels did go up as compensation, so I knew I chose the correct option I wanted. Explain this please! Thanks in advance!

[Trotterdam]

You demonized a popular celebrity. That'll hurt morale.

The rest are knock-on effects. Gloomy moods, gloomy weather. (Yeah, that's cartoon logic, but I can't complain. My nation is based on a cartoon.)

[He Qixin]

You demonized a popular celebrity. That'll hurt morale.

The rest are knock-on effects. Gloomy moods, gloomy weather. (Yeah, that's cartoon logic, but I can't complain. My nation is based on a cartoon.)

But integrity increased. What do you mean?

[The Free Joy State]

You demonized a popular celebrity. That'll hurt morale.

The rest are knock-on effects. Gloomy moods, gloomy weather. (Yeah, that's cartoon logic, but I can't complain. My nation is based on a cartoon.)

But integrity increased. What do you mean?

Trotterdam is right.

As for integrity, prosecuting the policeman who attempted to cover up allegations accounts for the increase in integrity.

[He Qixin]

But integrity increased. What do you mean?

Trotterdam is right.

As for integrity, prosecuting the policeman who attempted to cover up allegations accounts for the increase in integrity.

Alright, thanks guys!

[Dwarfpolis]

Choosing 935.2 (this nation, just now) apparently decreased Weather, Cheerfulness, Niceness and Tourism (and a few others)

My Safety and Integrity levels did go up as compensation, so I knew I chose the correct option I wanted. Explain this please! Thanks in advance!

I think I got this issue too just now, picked the same option, not upset.

Is there some algorythm that decides what sort of issues all nations get so that many nations might get the same issue at once or is issue reception randomized for every country and this was only coincidental?

[The Free Joy State]

Choosing 935.2 (this nation, just now) apparently decreased Weather, Cheerfulness, Niceness and Tourism (and a few others)

My Safety and Integrity levels did go up as compensation, so I knew I chose the correct option I wanted. Explain this please! Thanks in advance!

I think I got this issue too just now, picked the same option, not upset.

Is there some algorythm that decides what sort of issues all nations get so that many nations might get the same issue at once or is issue reception randomized for every country and this was only coincidental?

It's entirely randomised. All nations may get any issue they're eligible for at any time. The only exception to the randomisation is where one answer leads directly to the next (as in chains).

[He Qixin]

Is there some sort of code which sets the randomization?

[Caracasus]

No nation is going to be eligable for every issue in play, for example nations that are capitalist will not get communist issues and vice versa. Some easter egg issues require you to have done something to get them.

Beyond that and the chain issues that Joy has explained, the issues you will be assigned are random.

The only exception as far as I know are if you write an issue that gets published. Then you get sent the issue so you can see your work.

[He Qixin]

No nation is going to be eligable for every issue in play, for example nations that are capitalist will not get communist issues and vice versa. Some easter egg issues require you to have done something to get them.

Beyond that and the chain issues that Joy has explained, the issues you will be assigned are random.

The only exception as far as I know are if you write an issue that gets published. Then you get sent the issue so you can see your work.

I know, but speaking of which, how long does it take for an issue to be published?

[The Free Joy State]

No nation is going to be eligable for every issue in play, for example nations that are capitalist will not get communist issues and vice versa. Some easter egg issues require you to have done something to get them.

Beyond that and the chain issues that Joy has explained, the issues you will be assigned are random.

The only exception as far as I know are if you write an issue that gets published. Then you get sent the issue so you can see your work.

I know, but speaking of which, how long does it take for an issue to be published?

This is not the correct thread for this question. The Writer's Block would be the place to ask.

This thread is only for strange stat and effect changes related to issues you have received.

But, I will answer, to save you asking on another thread. Depending on if it's picked up, and by whom, an accepted issue can take weeks, or months, or longer to be published. However, not every issue submitted will be accepted for publication. If this is the case, we don't usually inform the author of that fact.

After you hit submit, the best thing to do is forget about the submission and keep drafting other things.

[He Qixin 2]

I know, but speaking of which, how long does it take for an issue to be published?

This is not the correct thread for this question. The Writer's Block would be the place to ask.

Oh, sorry. Didn't know that. Anyway, thanks for the clarification!
This thread is only for strange stat and effect changes related to issues you have received.

But, I will answer, to save you asking on another thread. Depending on if it's picked up, and by whom, an accepted issue can take weeks, or months, or longer to be published. However, not every issue submitted will be accepted for publication. If this is the case, we don't usually inform the author of that fact.

After you hit submit, the best thing to do is forget about the submission and keep drafting other things.

[Minoa]

How does banning all abortion (#136.3) increase civil rights from 19.92 to 21.23? I expected it to go crashing down.

Tested with West Calypso, 17 March 2018.

[The Free Joy State]

How does banning all abortion (#136.3) increase civil rights from 19.92 to 21.23? I expected it to go crashing down.

Tested with West Calypso, 17 March 2018.

These stats have been recently reviewed, and we had an extensive team-wide discussion on the most responsible stats for banning and legalising abortion.

Abortion is an issue that provokes strong feelings, and it was the feeling of the editing team that we should address abortion in a way that was as realistic as possible within boundaries the simulation (without avoiding the issue altogether).

Here's how one member of the editing team reasoned the theory behind this change:

To pro-choice people, the fetus is not a human upon conception, that happens at some point (which is likely different for different people) in the future. To pro-life people the fetus is usually considered a human baby upon conception.

So if your pro-choice and you allow abortion, you probably think civil rights should increase because women are being granted more rights and no civil rights should be lost because your killing a group of cells, not a human being. If your pro-life and you ban abortion, you probably also think civil rights should increase because your preventing some group of your citizens from being murdered

Thus, banning abortion provides an overall rise in civil rights (as does legalisation) in almost all situations (individual stats withstanding). There are also some other game mechanic effects that can't be disclosed for obvious reasons.

[Trotterdam]

How does banning all abortion (#136.3) increase civil rights from 19.92 to 21.23? I expected it to go crashing down.

Did you previously have a one-child policy? I think we can easily agree that banning abortion is less oppressive than compulsory abortion.

To pro-choice people, the fetus is not a human upon conception, that happens at some point (which is likely different for different people) in the future. To pro-life people the fetus is usually considered a human baby upon conception.

So if your pro-choice and you allow abortion, you probably think civil rights should increase because women are being granted more rights and no civil rights should be lost because your killing a group of cells, not a human being. If your pro-life and you ban abortion, you probably also think civil rights should increase because your preventing some group of your citizens from being murdered

Thus, banning abortion provides an overall rise in civil rights (as does legalisation) in almost all situations (individual stats withstanding). There are also some other game mechanic effects that can't be disclosed for obvious reasons.

Personally, I would have coded banning abortion as decreasing Civil Rights and increasing Compassion (and vice versa for legalizing it). You are, objectively, restricting people from doing something, regardless of whether or not that is something that morally should be restricted according to whoever, but you're doing so out of respect for human life.

Keeping in mind that legalizing actual murder of adults (via duelling, terrorism, etc.) is coded in the game as an increase in rights.

[The Free Joy State]

How does banning all abortion (#136.3) increase civil rights from 19.92 to 21.23? I expected it to go crashing down.

Did you previously have a one-child policy? I think we can easily agree that banning abortion is less oppressive than compulsory abortion.

To pro-choice people, the fetus is not a human upon conception, that happens at some point (which is likely different for different people) in the future. To pro-life people the fetus is usually considered a human baby upon conception.

So if your pro-choice and you allow abortion, you probably think civil rights should increase because women are being granted more rights and no civil rights should be lost because your killing a group of cells, not a human being. If your pro-life and you ban abortion, you probably also think civil rights should increase because your preventing some group of your citizens from being murdered

Thus, banning abortion provides an overall rise in civil rights (as does legalisation) in almost all situations (individual stats withstanding). There are also some other game mechanic effects that can't be disclosed for obvious reasons.

Personally, I would have coded banning abortion as decreasing Civil Rights and increasing Compassion (and vice versa for legalizing it). You are, objectively, restricting people from doing something, regardless of whether or not that is something that morally should be restricted according to whoever, but you're doing so out of respect for human life.

Keeping in mind that legalizing actual murder of adults (via duelling, terrorism, etc.) is coded in the game as an increase in rights.

Trotterdam, personally-speaking, I am willing to raise my head over the parapet as being absolutely pro-choice. And I can assure you that, in the backstage debate, all the points about compassion were raised (along with many more points on practicality and health).

Ultimately, though, it was felt better to be as unbiased as possible in this.

Another editor had this to say:

That in mind, I have to say I'm feeling that coming down with a value judgement on one side or the other in game stats wouldn't be an acceptably pluralist position.

As for your other point (about legalising the murder of adults and gaining an increase in civil rights), we have embarked on an ongoing review.

Watch this space. We may be sometime.

[Alterrum]

Personally, I would have coded banning abortion as decreasing Civil Rights and increasing Compassion (and vice versa for legalizing it). You are, objectively, restricting people from doing something, regardless of whether or not that is something that morally should be restricted according to whoever, but you're doing so out of respect for human life.

Well you could also justify the reverse position: it is more compassionate to increase the happiness of a sentient being, rather than an entity lacking consciousness. It depends on where people place the line between what is and what is not worthy of human compassion. However, if you take this to the logical extreme, one would have to say that a universal and singular measure of compassion doesn't really exist, since even, say, an Islamist acts out of compassion regarding the eternal soul of homosexuals when throwing them off rooftops. I believe that an objective measure of compassion does exist, however, when restricted to how much people's actions measurably increase others' well-being in some sense.

To pro-choice people, the fetus is not a human upon conception, that happens at some point (which is likely different for different people) in the future. To pro-life people the fetus is usually considered a human baby upon conception.

So if your pro-choice and you allow abortion, you probably think civil rights should increase because women are being granted more rights and no civil rights should be lost because your killing a group of cells, not a human being. If your pro-life and you ban abortion, you probably also think civil rights should increase because your preventing some group of your citizens from being murdered

Thus, banning abortion provides an overall rise in civil rights (as does legalisation) in almost all situations (individual stats withstanding). There are also some other game mechanic effects that can't be disclosed for obvious reasons.

Now, the above case regarding compassion can easily be mapped onto civil rights as well, and I believe the issue editors have opted for a cop-out, rather than a logically consistent position here, in the line of my reasoning above. Of course people personally think they are being compassionate, or granting civil rights to the unborn, but the only way of knowing what is actually happening is to measure it. Since there is no evidence that fetuses are sentient, one is, by banning abortion, objectively decreasing civil rights. If you don't stick to an objective standard and pick subjective standards, then the civil rights stat become a profile of the player's intentions, not the consequences of their actions, which is certainly the point of it in other issues (banning automobiles should, by the reasoning in this case, increase civil rights as well, because my religion says nature is sentient, and so I am acting in the service of what I believe to be greater freedom). A stat should, at the very least, be consistent in what it reflects.

One might intend to get the dark blue properties in Monopoly, but unless they learn the game's external and non-subjective rules in order to play it well, their intentions won't map well onto the results of their execution. The external nature of Monopoly's rules means they don't care whether someone subjectively thinks the brown properties are the best; not playing in accord with the rules will lead one to lose the game, and this can be extended to a game of civil rights or compassion just as well, unless the game were to lack rules and the winner was decided simply by who felt most passionately that they want to win.

[He Qixin]

Choosing (if I remembered correctly) 902.1 decreased my civil rights slightly, but my safety increased. Explain please.