[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Verdant Haven]

Issue #555, It’s an Honor Just to Be Nominated!

I chose option 1, meaning that parties have open primaries that are transparent and democratic, yet my political freedoms went down? Did I misunderstand something with the issue?

I suspect the issue is that by mandating a certain procedure (ie, the primary system) instead of allowing them to do whatever the heck they want, that is a reduction for them. One system has no regulation, and the other has regulations. Regulations, even good ones, are technically "less freedom."

[The Free Joy State]

Issue #555, It’s an Honor Just to Be Nominated!

I chose option 1, meaning that parties have open primaries that are transparent and democratic, yet my political freedoms went down? Did I misunderstand something with the issue?

No, you didn't misunderstand. This is the result of two competing freedoms being played off against each other: your citizens' freedom to participate in free elections and the freedoms of the political establishment (which are restricted by the line "take power away from the establishment and the big donors").

Your citizens' freedom in elections was already high, so placing restrictions on the political establishment actually overpowered that freedom and caused a small 0.59% fall from 81.62 to 81.14.

Nations where there citizens had lower or moderate political freedoms to begin with would have probably seen their freedoms rise. With NS statistics, your final result partly depends on where you begin.

[Sheole]

I recently came across issue #461 for the second time and after originally choosing to purge everyone I decided my nation could handle scientifically prolonging the life of our glorious leader, after all we grow our humans in vats. However I saw my health drop by I believe some ~50%, and after being able to consistently grow my health with small dips but bigger climbs I saw it return to 0 (0.5). I was additionally taken aback by the weather score but as I have now read thats more of a random score so I dont know how I got such good weather up to this point. I'm only objecting to the fact that prolonging my leaders life would annihilate my health without a seemingly apparent warning that this would take place, and I dont know if there is some issue to reverse this but I would very much appreciate any insight into that as well.
Sorry if this is some kind of stupid mistake I made, I'm pretty new to this whole complaining about issues and I'm still not sure if this is my fault and I'm just whining.

[The Free Joy State]

I recently came across issue #461 for the second time and after originally choosing to purge everyone I decided my nation could handle scientifically prolonging the life of our glorious leader, after all we grow our humans in vats. However I saw my health drop by I believe some ~50%, and after being able to consistently grow my health with small dips but bigger climbs I saw it return to 0 (0.5). I was additionally taken aback by the weather score but as I have now read thats more of a random score so I dont know how I got such good weather up to this point. I'm only objecting to the fact that prolonging my leaders life would annihilate my health without a seemingly apparent warning that this would take place, and I dont know if there is some issue to reverse this but I would very much appreciate any insight into that as well.
Sorry if this is some kind of stupid mistake I made, I'm pretty new to this whole complaining about issues and I'm still not sure if this is my fault and I'm just whining.

The health score is the health of your nation, rather than your leader, so this isn't an unusual effect.

To explain, you diverted healthcare funding away from all of your people to prolong the life of your leader, which would have had a disastrous effect on your nation's health as a whole.

Thanks for the report. Please report any other effects that seem unusual.

EDIT: You will be able to improve the health of your nation, by choosing pro-healthcare options in other issues in future.

[Lovelton]

I decided to make a game show where migrants attempted to become immigrants and had to dodge obstacles etc. When I did that my culture score increased by a respectable 5 percent.

[The Free Joy State]

I decided to make a game show where migrants attempted to become immigrants and had to dodge obstacles etc. When I did that my culture score increased by a respectable 5 percent.

Firstly, welcome to GI.

When you post in this thread, we'd really appreciate it if you could post the name of the issue and the option you picked (the date, if not today, is also helpful). It just helps we editors locate things quicker.

I believe I know what issue you mean, though. It would help if I could see the effect in action to know how it's working.

I can't find where you answered this in the past few days? Did you answer it on this nation or a puppet?

EDIT: I can see that Lovelton answered this issue on the 6th of this month, but I can confirm that there was no change to culture.

The issue appears to be working as intended.

Sometimes -- though that didn't happen here -- complex interactions between backstage stats and an individual nation's stats with secondary effects can cause an unintended movement with factors such as culture.

[Trotterdam]

Sometimes -- though that didn't happen here -- complex interactions between backstage stats and an individual nation's stats with secondary effects can cause an unintended movement with factors such as culture.

That's actually not true. While the majority of census scores can be affected by a variety of complex interactions and secondary effects, Culture is in fact the most consistently-behaving census in the game, with only two other scores being comparably straightforward (and one of them is affected by Culture).

[Boss Llama]

Issue 1028 just hit me with a completely-out-of-left-field "Policy"

The issue text is:

With one of the lowest birth rates in all of 10000 Islands, several experts have warned that over time Boss Llama will face difficulties in sustaining its economy due to the increasingly ageing population.

The first option was to force people to have children a la Soviet Romania, the second was to ban contraceptives, and the third, which I selected, was to grow the extra children we need in vats. It had the following text:

“Excuse me, some of us don’t want kids.” cries well-known career-woman, Layla Underwood. “I’ve worked hard to get to where I am in my life right now, and I will not sacrifice my career and my ambitions to breed some snotty-nosed kids. Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. I hear that new vat-technology is doing wonders in other places. If you desperately need new brats, why don’t you just grow them in a lab and leave women out of it?”

The result of this was my Civil Rights falling, and a "No Sex" Policy stating that biological reproduction is banned. Huh?

This issue was asking about increasing the birth rate, not replacing the existing births. It also is completely illogical to suggest that an issue about increasing birth rate would have a decision that outlaws having children, without it very very clearly saying "We must ban biological reproduction!" The "nobody should be put through that" and "leave women out of it" portions of the quote in the option text logically comes in response to the previous options saying that women should be forced in to motherhood. It does not logically come from a position of "and ban people who DO want children from having them." It even says in the beginning, "some of us" don't want kids. She's clearly not speaking about a blanket policy or prohibition - just an alternative to universally expecting or requiring pregnancy.

Sorry - this one has me pretty cheesed off. The result is not reasonable, predictable, or logical, and despite being the most "civil rights" friendly of those initial three responses, it dropped my CR by nearly 10%. One could reasonably expect a result along the lines of "synthetic humans compete with biologics for dominance" - not "you have extinguished the human race as we know it."

[The Free Joy State]

Issue 1028 just hit me with a completely-out-of-left-field "Policy"

The issue text is:

With one of the lowest birth rates in all of 10000 Islands, several experts have warned that over time Boss Llama will face difficulties in sustaining its economy due to the increasingly ageing population.

The first option was to force people to have children a la Soviet Romania, the second was to ban contraceptives, and the third, which I selected, was to grow the extra children we need in vats. It had the following text:

“Excuse me, some of us don’t want kids.” cries well-known career-woman, Layla Underwood. “I’ve worked hard to get to where I am in my life right now, and I will not sacrifice my career and my ambitions to breed some snotty-nosed kids. Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. I hear that new vat-technology is doing wonders in other places. If you desperately need new brats, why don’t you just grow them in a lab and leave women out of it?”

The result of this was my Civil Rights falling, and a "No Sex" Policy stating that biological reproduction is banned. Huh?

This issue was asking about increasing the birth rate, not replacing the existing births. It also is completely illogical to suggest that an issue about increasing birth rate would have a decision that outlaws having children, without it very very clearly saying "We must ban biological reproduction!" The "nobody should be put through that" and "leave women out of it" portions of the quote in the option text logically comes in response to the previous options saying that women should be forced in to motherhood. It does not logically come from a position of "and ban people who DO want children from having them." It even says in the beginning, "some of us" don't want kids. She's clearly not speaking about a blanket policy or prohibition - just an alternative to universally expecting or requiring pregnancy.

Sorry - this one has me pretty cheesed off. The result is not reasonable, predictable, or logical, and despite being the most "civil rights" friendly of those initial three responses, it dropped my CR by nearly 10%. One could reasonably expect a result along the lines of "synthetic humans compete with biologics for dominance" - not "you have extinguished the human race as we know it."

"Pregnancy is hard work, too; nobody should be put through that" and "grow them in a lab and leave women out of it", taken as whole sentences, seems to clearly signpost that the law is intended for all women.

And, banning biological reproduction isn't actually good for civil rights. The law prevents those people who would choose to have children from having them.

FTR, I believe that this issue does not necessarily propose a synthetic or a different type of human, merely humans produced in a different way.

[Lord Dominator]

Just answered 757.2, and had a small decrease in economic freedom. This is a knock-off effect I presume?

[The Free Joy State]

Just answered 757.2, and had a small decrease in economic freedom. This is a knock-off effect I presume?

Not this time, actually.

This option plays off two rights: the right of lending bureaus to lend without governmental interference and the clients' rights to financial privacy (which are restricted by the bureaus gaining the unrestricted rights to "weed out undeserving clients").

You already had few business restrictions, so that barely changed, meaning that their increased freedoms were overshadowed by the lost financial privacy of potential credit bureau clients. This caused the small decrease in economic freedom in your nation.

[Lord Dominator]

Just answered 757.2, and had a small decrease in economic freedom. This is a knock-off effect I presume?

Not this time, actually.

This option plays off two rights: the right of lending bureaus to lend without governmental interference and the clients' rights to financial privacy (which are restricted by the bureaus gaining the unrestricted rights to "weed out undeserving clients").

You already had few business restrictions, so that barely changed, meaning that their increased freedoms were overshadowed by the lost financial privacy of potential credit bureau clients. This caused the small decrease in economic freedom in your nation.

Got it, thanks

[Malanasia]

What shot my tax rate from -131.17 up to -1.71 and increased government size from 0 to 1.41?

[Head Vicuna]

Got a first for me... had an issue that made absolutely zero changes of any kind - total blanks. I realize that changes of less than one one-hundredth of a percent don't show, but should it actually be absolutely nothing changing by more than that? I must have hit an absolutely perfect shot on balance of different stats.

It was issue 323 "Get Teens Out of MyFace" and I selected option 3 - removing all restrictions on adults, while increasing restrictions on children, but simultaneously lowering the age of majority.

[The Free Joy State]

What shot my tax rate from -131.17 up to -1.71 and increased government size from 0 to 1.41?

When you make a report, we need the name of the issue you answered and the option you chose. The date, if not today, is also needed.

Got a first for me... had an issue that made absolutely zero changes of any kind - total blanks. I realize that changes of less than one one-hundredth of a percent don't show, but should it actually be absolutely nothing changing by more than that? I must have hit an absolutely perfect shot on balance of different stats.

It was issue 323 "Get Teens Out of MyFace" and I selected option 3 - removing all restrictions on adults, while increasing restrictions on children, but simultaneously lowering the age of majority.

I see what that is. While there are changes programmed, due to your individual stats (already low in restrictions on adults and fairly high in restrictions on children), the changes programmed didn't impact you.

Another nation could have seen their stats move fairly significantly.

[Apabeossie]

#908 The Forbidden Fruit
Option 3
I just decided to give charity, but why did it increase corruption?

[Lord Dominator]

#908 The Forbidden Fruit
Option 3
I just decided to give charity, but why did it increase corruption?

I'd wager that the IE's are reading that as being a sneaky way to accept bribes and the like.

[The Free Joy State]

#908 The Forbidden Fruit
Option 3
I just decided to give charity, but why did it increase corruption?

Apabeossie, this is the middle-ground option: it can ease restrictive nations' restrictions limits on accepting donations and tighten others'. You had more limits before answering this option than you did afterwards, so relaxing them (by allowing small donations) increased corruption as a secondary stat.

Other nations would see their corruption fall.

[Bath Fin]

Good day. An issue just popped up on my desk about vagrant nomads

Issue #198 Not All Those Who Wander Are Paying
I picked option 4.

Banning any and all nomadic tribes and seizing their illicit property. To my surprise, this seems to have raised my state's civil rights a slight amount. Not a big deal, stamping out that nuisance takes time and careful consideration after all.

The real problem is that this seems to have canceled my policy of State Surveillance. Is there something I over looked? A review of that choice does seem to mention "my property". Something I didn't notice at first as Bath Fin has no concept of private property in the broader sense of the word. Is that what caused the problem? Have I've I inadvertently given private land to my subjects?

[Phydios]

Good day. An issue just popped up on my desk about vagrant nomads

Issue #198 Not All Those Who Wander Are Paying
I picked option 4.

Banning any and all nomadic tribes and seizing their illicit property. To my surprise, this seems to have raised my state's civil rights a slight amount. Not a big deal, stamping out that nuisance takes time and careful consideration after all.

The real problem is that this seems to have canceled my policy of State Surveillance. Is there something I over looked? A review of that choice does seem to mention "my property". Something I didn't notice at first as Bath Fin has no concept of private property in the broader sense of the word. Is that what caused the problem? Have I've I inadvertently given private land to my subjects?

State Surveillance is triggered/canceled when a hidden stat or combo of stats crosses a threshold. Your civil rights increase was likely enough to cross that threshold.

[Trotterdam]

State Surveillance is triggered/canceled when a hidden stat or combo of stats crosses a threshold. Your civil rights increase was likely enough to cross that threshold.

Specifically, State Surveillance is based on having sufficiently low privacy rights. A flaw in the system is that it doesn't distinguish between privacy from the government, and privacy from other eavesdroppers such as corporations or, say, nomads. Hence, by giving people the right to privacy from nomads intruding on their land, you unintentionally also made it harder for the government to spy on them.

Maybe you were reliant on secret police disguised as nomads?

[Misthas]

Issue #541: Spare the Whip, Spoil the Law?

I chose Option 3:
“Members of our legislature have ALWAYS voted according to their conscience,” bellows Sabrina Poindexter, one of the dissenters. “That bill would have destroyed our way of life in Northwest Misthas, and we won’t allow that to happen! You snooty Rasvalin scalawags keep flogging the same old dead horses, trying to bulldoze our culture, and we’re plum sick of it. There’ve gotta be more safeguards against partisan and sectional tyranny. We need to have local control of local issues, and institute a secret ballot in the legislature. Only then are we safe from the storm of wrath and repercussions - from you, from the donors, or from the voters.”

thinking it would keep my society free and corruption down or something of the like. However, it raised my corruption levels from 0.56 to 0.59. Is ther something I'm missing here; is it supposed to raise corruption?

[The Free Joy State]

Good day. An issue just popped up on my desk about vagrant nomads

Issue #198 Not All Those Who Wander Are Paying
I picked option 4.

Banning any and all nomadic tribes and seizing their illicit property. To my surprise, this seems to have raised my state's civil rights a slight amount. Not a big deal, stamping out that nuisance takes time and careful consideration after all.

The real problem is that this seems to have canceled my policy of State Surveillance. Is there something I over looked? A review of that choice does seem to mention "my property". Something I didn't notice at first as Bath Fin has no concept of private property in the broader sense of the word. Is that what caused the problem? Have I've I inadvertently given private land to my subjects?

The answers you've been given about state surveillance are correct.

It was also the granting your citizens privacy from wandering nomads which increased civil rights in your case, as they were already very restricted in all the areas where further restrictions were added (such as the rights of the wandering nomads).

A different nation would have seen substantially different results.

Issue #541: Spare the Whip, Spoil the Law?

I chose Option 3:
“Members of our legislature have ALWAYS voted according to their conscience,” bellows Sabrina Poindexter, one of the dissenters. “That bill would have destroyed our way of life in Northwest Misthas, and we won’t allow that to happen! You snooty Rasvalin scalawags keep flogging the same old dead horses, trying to bulldoze our culture, and we’re plum sick of it. There’ve gotta be more safeguards against partisan and sectional tyranny. We need to have local control of local issues, and institute a secret ballot in the legislature. Only then are we safe from the storm of wrath and repercussions - from you, from the donors, or from the voters.”

thinking it would keep my society free and corruption down or something of the like. However, it raised my corruption levels from 0.56 to 0.59. Is ther something I'm missing here; is it supposed to raise corruption?

I'm going to take this one backstage.

[Bath Fin]

Thank you for the answers!

[Townsvalley]

hey,can you please check my nation. it has has no industry
but still economy is 98 something. howww???
please see. can you fix this?