[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Shwe Tu Colony]

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

"This talentless teeny-bopper's pop music may have been criminally bad, but he didn't deserve the death penalty!" jokes online video blogger and police academy dropout @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Clearly law enforcement is struggling with modern technology. @@LEADER@@, if you're watching, take my advice: spend some money on a decent Cyber Crimes division. Fill it with people who might have failed a stupid physical test, but who have tech-savvy and brains. Oh, and in case you're wondering, yes I'd love to join up!"

Drug deals return to the streets as legions of undercover officers stalk the dark web

They are definitely curbing civil rights since now people can't do drug deals online, so they have less rights. Safety increased probably since now the dark web is being scoured for undesirable material, so now your citizens are safer from the unsavory material present on the dark web.

[He Qixin]

Alright, thanks!

[The Free Joy State]

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.

Alterrum, I do understand exactly what you're saying, and I am sorry that you feel that the recently-reviewed effects are a cop-out. This decision was not made lightly. As I say, I am completely pro-choice and had I - as a player - got this result, I'd be here debating with the editors, too.

FTR, some members of the editing team were not overjoyed by the new stats, either. But the whole team ultimately decided that we had to be unbiased and nonpartisan in this, as we always try to be when calculating the effects of issues.

I really wish I could tell you more about the hidden effects that help balance this decision.

I also assure you, there is no risk of redefining civil rights to - for want of a better term - "anything the player thinks is the greater freedom".

[Dwarfpolis]

Why is, or what could make NS stat calculators this top-secret. You may answer as cryptically as you wish.

[The Free Joy State]

Why is, or what could make NS stat calculators this top-secret. You may answer as cryptically as you wish.

My fear of being put on the editing room's rack forbids me to say more than I have.

[Marksville]

Hello again!
Nation: Marksville
Issue: @MajorIndustry@ Workers Strike (#16)
Option: #2 (Can fire workers on strike)
When: Today
Weird Effects: Sigh, where do I start.
Income Equality: rises by 16.4%
Average Income of the Poor: Rises by 11.6%
Taxation: Rises by 1.5%
Economic Freedom: Falls 1.2%
Average Income of the Rich: Falls by 3.4%
Wealth Gaps: Falls by 13.5%

So I don't understand how giving employers to fire as they please raises Income Equality by 16.4% (a huge jump in a nation my size). Are they paying new workers more cash to replace workers on strike?
Also, what are the taxes being spent on? Welfare? The income of the poor just shot up! They should need less government money, not more!
But the part that really gets me is the decrease in the income of the rich. I worked hard to ensure that number increases as much as possible. And apparently, not supporting Unions somehow decreases that? I'm not upset as much as I'm confused...

[Leutria]

Hello again!
Nation: Marksville
Issue: @MajorIndustry@ Workers Strike (#16)
Option: #2 (Can fire workers on strike)
When: Today
Weird Effects: Sigh, where do I start.
Income Equality: rises by 16.4%
Average Income of the Poor: Rises by 11.6%
Taxation: Rises by 1.5%
Economic Freedom: Falls 1.2%
Average Income of the Rich: Falls by 3.4%
Wealth Gaps: Falls by 13.5%

So I don't understand how giving employers to fire as they please raises Income Equality by 16.4% (a huge jump in a nation my size). Are they paying new workers more cash to replace workers on strike?
Also, what are the taxes being spent on? Welfare? The income of the poor just shot up! They should need less government money, not more!
But the part that really gets me is the decrease in the income of the rich. I worked hard to ensure that number increases as much as possible. And apparently, not supporting Unions somehow decreases that? I'm not upset as much as I'm confused...

That is an issue with compeating economic freedoms, so depending on the starting position of the nation you might see economic freedom go up or down. Wealth gaps/income equality are largely determined by economic freedom, so that change was really just because of the way your economic freedom went. Finally don’t look at the %, look at the actual number. Your income equality is still extremely low, it is just because it is such a small number that the % looks big.

To expand on that last point, your currently income is 0.78 and the world average is 35.18. Looking at the %, your actually increase was 0.11, which if my nation had would be a increase of 0.2%, hardly even noticeable.

[Alterrum]

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.



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.

Alterrum, I do understand exactly what you're saying, and I am sorry that you feel that the recently-reviewed effects are a cop-out. This decision was not made lightly. As I say, I am completely pro-choice and had I - as a player - got this result, I'd be here debating with the editors, too.

FTR, some members of the editing team were not overjoyed by the new stats, either. But the whole team ultimately decided that we had to be unbiased and nonpartisan in this, as we always try to be when calculating the effects of issues.

I really wish I could tell you more about the hidden effects that help balance this decision.

I also assure you, there is no risk of redefining civil rights to - for want of a better term - "anything the player thinks is the greater freedom".

Well I understand the pressure to placate the religious, and to be honest I don't have a better idea as to how to do it at the moment either. I just wish stats were evaluated consistently, but I'll take your "hidden effects" as good enough for now. Thank you for the kind response.

[Marksville]

Hello again!
Nation: Marksville
Issue: @MajorIndustry@ Workers Strike (#16)
Option: #2 (Can fire workers on strike)
When: Today
Weird Effects: Sigh, where do I start.
Income Equality: rises by 16.4%
Average Income of the Poor: Rises by 11.6%
Taxation: Rises by 1.5%
Economic Freedom: Falls 1.2%
Average Income of the Rich: Falls by 3.4%
Wealth Gaps: Falls by 13.5%

So I don't understand how giving employers to fire as they please raises Income Equality by 16.4% (a huge jump in a nation my size). Are they paying new workers more cash to replace workers on strike?
Also, what are the taxes being spent on? Welfare? The income of the poor just shot up! They should need less government money, not more!
But the part that really gets me is the decrease in the income of the rich. I worked hard to ensure that number increases as much as possible. And apparently, not supporting Unions somehow decreases that? I'm not upset as much as I'm confused...

That is an issue with compeating economic freedoms, so depending on the starting position of the nation you might see economic freedom go up or down. Wealth gaps/income equality are largely determined by economic freedom, so that change was really just because of the way your economic freedom went. Finally don’t look at the %, look at the actual number. Your income equality is still extremely low, it is just because it is such a small number that the % looks big.

To expand on that last point, your currently income is 0.78 and the world average is 35.18. Looking at the %, your actually increase was 0.11, which if my nation had would be a increase of 0.2%, hardly even noticeable.

Ok, that makes scense about the high percentages. But I'm still confused about why refusing to support Unions results in higher wages for workers? And why does it also decrease the income of the rich?
Were my Unions so corrupt that they were actively decreasing wages to pay bribes?

[Leutria]

That is an issue with compeating economic freedoms, so depending on the starting position of the nation you might see economic freedom go up or down. Wealth gaps/income equality are largely determined by economic freedom, so that change was really just because of the way your economic freedom went. Finally don’t look at the %, look at the actual number. Your income equality is still extremely low, it is just because it is such a small number that the % looks big.

To expand on that last point, your currently income is 0.78 and the world average is 35.18. Looking at the %, your actually increase was 0.11, which if my nation had would be a increase of 0.2%, hardly even noticeable.

Ok, that makes scense about the high percentages. But I'm still confused about why refusing to support Unions results in higher wages for workers? And why does it also decrease the income of the rich?
Were my Unions so corrupt that they were actively decreasing wages to pay bribes?

Unfortunately, it is up to you to create a narrative that fits here (or ignore it). The change entirely has to do with the decrease in economic freedom (which went down because your business owners already had a lot of freedom so their increase didn't do much, while your employees lost some of the economic freedom they still had).

To explain the incomes thing, average income is calculated by certain factors, and then that number with wealth gaps (or income equality, they are just opposites) to determine income of the rich and poor. Or in other words, the game does not determine income of the rich and poor on their own, they are simply average income and wealth gaps. So if wealth gaps go down, the income of the rich will go down (unless average income went up enough to offset it).

Now, you just made me thing of a suggestion to bring to technical. Freedom of money in politics was recently excluded in the calculations for corruption from the rest of political freedoms. Maybe freedom to strike can be treated the same way.

[Phydios]

Alterrum, I do understand exactly what you're saying, and I am sorry that you feel that the recently-reviewed effects are a cop-out. This decision was not made lightly. As I say, I am completely pro-abortion and had I - as a player - got this result, I'd be here debating with the editors, too.

FTR, some members of the editing team were not overjoyed by the new stats, either. But the whole team ultimately decided that we had to be unbiased and nonpartisan in this, as we always try to be when calculating the effects of issues.

I really wish I could tell you more about the hidden effects that help balance this decision.

I also assure you, there is no risk of redefining civil rights to - for want of a better term - "anything the player thinks is the greater freedom".

Well I understand the pressure to placate the religious, and to be honest I don't have a better idea as to how to do it at the moment either. I just wish stats were evaluated consistently, but I'll take your "hidden effects" as good enough for now. Thank you for the kind response.

Mods/IEs, I apologize if this post is too far off-topic for this thread, but I feel compelled to say this quickly: the pro-life movement is not a religious movement. It certainly has more Christians than non-religious, but it is a secular argument with a secular basis and secular goals. (And so atheists can be just as pro-life as Christians.) Religion just provides additional motivation for some (though, unfortunately, many Christians seem to focus exclusively on that part). Many, many people try to discredit the movement by saying "ah, it's just another Christian belief like heaven and hell, there's no real scientific evidence for it", but that couldn't be more wrong. Secular argument, secular basis, secular goals.

Again, I apologize if I am threadjacking here, but I hate this belief so much that I felt compelled to speak against it.

[UtilityLand]

Dilemma # 613

Internet news sites and online communities are abuzz over supposed leaked nude images of you that surfaced online this morning. Amateur photo-manipulation experts have concluded that the images are fakes, but the files have already spread across the internet like wildfire. As the victim of this internet trolling campaign, it may be time for you to address the problem of faked images of this sort.

I chose the second option:

“Kirby Streisand agrees, but Kirby Streisand thinks that we should go further,” agrees the notorious Kirby Streisand, a staunch censorship advocate who once tried to remove all references to his name on the internet. “If it were up to Kirby Streisand, any unauthorized image, name usage, or even a likeness of a person without their permission should automatically be taken down whether it’s on the internet, the news, or any random video.”

It canceled my policy of Mass Surveillance. Looks like a bug. Although if it's not, I would like to hear why this happened.

[The Free Joy State]

Well I understand the pressure to placate the religious, and to be honest I don't have a better idea as to how to do it at the moment either. I just wish stats were evaluated consistently, but I'll take your "hidden effects" as good enough for now. Thank you for the kind response.

Mods/IEs, I apologize if this post is too far off-topic for this thread, but I feel compelled to say this quickly: the pro-life movement is not a religious movement. It certainly has more Christians than non-religious, but it is a secular argument with a secular basis and secular goals. (And so atheists can be just as pro-life as Christians.) Religion just provides additional motivation for some (though, unfortunately, many Christians seem to focus exclusively on that part). Many, many people try to discredit the movement by saying "ah, it's just another Christian belief like heaven and hell, there's no real scientific evidence for it", but that couldn't be more wrong. Secular argument, secular basis, secular goals.

Again, I apologize if I am threadjacking here, but I hate this belief so much that I felt compelled to speak against it.

Thank you for your contribution, Phydios. It was our understanding of the complexity of the pro-life/pro-choice debate that led us to ultimately choose our final effects.

[The Free Joy State]

Dilemma # 613

Internet news sites and online communities are abuzz over supposed leaked nude images of you that surfaced online this morning. Amateur photo-manipulation experts have concluded that the images are fakes, but the files have already spread across the internet like wildfire. As the victim of this internet trolling campaign, it may be time for you to address the problem of faked images of this sort.

I chose the second option:

“Kirby Streisand agrees, but Kirby Streisand thinks that we should go further,” agrees the notorious Kirby Streisand, a staunch censorship advocate who once tried to remove all references to his name on the internet. “If it were up to Kirby Streisand, any unauthorized image, name usage, or even a likeness of a person without their permission should automatically be taken down whether it’s on the internet, the news, or any random video.”

It canceled my policy of Mass Surveillance. Looks like a bug. Although if it's not, I would like to hear why this happened.

It's not a bug. By choosing this option, you gave your citizens the right to have their privacy - including their likeness and name usage - protected on the internet, the news, or "any random video" without their prior consent. Granting citizens the right to decide what information is collected and disseminated about them is prohibitive to allowing the state to monitor all behaviour and communication.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

Date, time: current
Issue no.185: “Bring Back Our Booze!” Cry Revellers

My nation does not have alcohol prohibition in place so there's an error with validity check.

[The Free Joy State]

Date, time: current
Issue no.185: “Bring Back Our Booze!” Cry Revellers

My nation does not have alcohol prohibition in place so there's an error with validity check.

There is a prohibition validity check in place on this issue, and I can confirm that you indeed do not have prohibition and are thus not eligible for #185.

Having checked your received issues over the past few weeks, I have to say that I actually can't find where you received this issue on this nation. Perhaps you got it on a puppet?

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

There is a prohibition validity check in place on this issue, and I can confirm that you indeed do not have prohibition and are thus not eligible for #185.

Having checked your received issues over the past few weeks, I have to say that I actually can't find where you received this issue on this nation. Perhaps you got it on a puppet?

It is still sitting there unaddressed.

[He Qixin]

Choosing 58.4 decreased civil rights on Triangle and Square today, about an hour ago.

This does not make sense.

Why?

When you create a nation, the last (I think) statement on the statement-naire states:

It is better to deter criminals than rehabilitate them.

Agreeing to that statement apparently increases social conservatism and decreases civil rights, which means if you disagree with the statement - or you think it is better to rehabilitate criminals, the effects should be vice versa (social conservatism decreases and civil rights increases).

To my understanding, answering 58.4 is the same as disagreeing the last question on the questionnaire when you create a nation. Yet civil rights decreased when I chose 58.4 on Triangle and Square about an hour ago.

But I may have missed something. Explain please.

[Trotterdam]

I guess it's a relative thing. Rehabilitating criminals is more "free" than harshly punishing them, but allowing them to continue committing crimes is more "free" than rehabilitating them.

[He Qixin 2]

But that still doesn't explain my so-called 'unusual statistic effect'?

[Srianna Gestane]

Today's issue for Srianna Gestane (Market Crash, #727) had some odd effects. Somehow, a car ban in a city center resulted in almost +100% to Eco-Friendliness, and yet it didn't increase public transit expenditure at all. There were so many effects it's hard to sort out which ones were direct--I was awarded nine banners at once. At least it makes sense that automobile manufacturing went down.

[The Free Joy State]

There is a prohibition validity check in place on this issue, and I can confirm that you indeed do not have prohibition and are thus not eligible for #185.

Having checked your received issues over the past few weeks, I have to say that I actually can't find where you received this issue on this nation. Perhaps you got it on a puppet?

It is still sitting there unaddressed.

How long have you had it? If you previously had a policy of prohibition - if only for one day - that would have made you eligible, and the issue would remain in your issues box after you cancelled the policy.

My suggestion is that you open the issue and dismiss, so you can receive new ones. Contrary to rumour, dismissing the issue won't have any effect on your nation's stats.

[The Free Joy State]

Today's issue for Srianna Gestane (Market Crash, #727) had some odd effects. Somehow, a car ban in a city center resulted in almost +100% to Eco-Friendliness, and yet it didn't increase public transit expenditure at all. There were so many effects it's hard to sort out which ones were direct--I was awarded nine banners at once. At least it makes sense that automobile manufacturing went down.

The option you chose was to pedestrianise "a large chunk" of the city centre; in my experience, pedestrianisation would also restrict access to public transport (hence no rise in public transportation expenditure). That also explains the rise in eco-friendliness (as less traffic is automatically assumed to be better for the environment).

As for the level of the rise, your end result depends on where you start. In your nation, the rise was from 181.52 to 352.44, a 94.2% rise (the solid numbers can be found - if you've not yet done so, by clicking the button marked "Show More Stats" in your Settings), but nations that begin with higher levels of eco-friendliness would have a much smaller rise in eco-friendliness (similarly, those who began with lower levels would forseeably have a larger rise).

I hope that helps.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

How long have you had it?

Since the time of initial reporting approximately >12 hrs ago.

If you previously had a policy of prohibition - if only for one day - that would have made you eligible, and the issue would remain in your issues box after you cancelled the policy.

Never, hence the bug report.

My suggestion is that you open the issue and dismiss, so you can receive new ones. Contrary to rumour, dismissing the issue won't have any effect on your nation's stats.

I kept the issue on hand as evidence, is all.

[The Free Joy State]

How long have you had it?

Since the time of initial reporting approximately >12 hrs ago.

If you previously had a policy of prohibition - if only for one day - that would have made you eligible, and the issue would remain in your issues box after you cancelled the policy.

Never, hence the bug report.

My suggestion is that you open the issue and dismiss, so you can receive new ones. Contrary to rumour, dismissing the issue won't have any effect on your nation's stats.

I kept the issue on hand as evidence, is all.

Oh, yes. I can see it now (just found a backstage page I never knew we had). I'm honestly not sure why it happened. The issue looks fine, and - as I say - you are excluded from the validity (so shouldn't have got it). But I will raise it backstage to see if anyone has any ideas how that happened.