Page 93 of 138

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:17 pm
by Temosia
The Free Joy State wrote:
Kommunes Consiviz wrote:Gotcha. :)
I've actually had income equality higher in the past. Am I to take it then that if I keep answering questions in a way that increases it, that it will push my score up eventually, even if it didn't do anything this time? If this is the case, will my answer to this question be noted, or will it not have any effect on my future answers?

Economic freedoms and income equality are actually two separate stats.

Income equality can rise much higher.

Temosia wrote:Hey!

So I just answered issue No. 229 with option 2, to enact freedom of information. My political freedom just went down, which doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

So I understand how that could happen if I chose option 1, because that option just punishes individual politicians for corruption without making the process any more democratic, but option 2 increases governmental transparency, which logically should increase political freedom by making politicians more accountable to voters and the laws that they pass. After all, political freedom would increase if the dealings of a country's dictator were made publicly available, I'm sure you'd agree. Option 3 is obviously the pro-corruption choice, and one could make an argument as to whether allowing bribery increases political freedom or not, but among the three choices, and certainly between the two anti-corruption choices, option 2 is clearly making the country more democratic and thus more politically free. But I'm being pedantic because all of this is self-evident to you all. L.o.l.

The choice also had other weird affects, like making my country's ignorance go up. I mean, I'm trying to have an ignorant populace so that's not an issue for me in particular, but I think it only stands to reason that my country's ignorance should go down as a trade-off to making my citizens more aware of what their country's politicians are doing: knowledge being power and all that jazz.

I read that in the initial post that issues with bribery and political freedom had just been "fixed" in an update, so I'm confused as to why this happened.
This is definitely something you should take a look at.

Freedoms in NS work on a specific metric: freedom from government control.

People gain the right to vote for whoever they want, you gain rights.
People gain the right to marry whoever they want, you gain rights.
People gain the right to protest however they want, you gain rights.

(Be aware that some effects may not be felt on all nations due to their personal stats and some options may have a trade-off between two conflicting freedoms, which may impact the result).

Here -- by compelling ministers to detail all financial gifts and contributions and depriving them of their privacy -- you are reducing their freedoms to keep such details private.

I agree that the politicians' civil rights are being lessened, so personal freedom goes down; that makes sense to me. But in terms of political freedom it's definitely going up.
This is a case of a conflict of freedoms: personal freedom vs. political freedom. In option 2, the political freedom of the voting public is being supported over the freedom of the politicians to take bribes and act against their voters' will without them being aware of it. From the perspective of the politicians, I agree that they're losing their freedom of privacy, but from the perspective of the voters, they're gaining the freedom to know how their elected politicians are acting, which ensures that future votes and candidates adhere to the public's political will, increasing voters' political power. In summary, the public becomes more free from the whims of their government, which is to say the politicians.
Therefore, political freedom should be going up, not down.

Additionally, ignorance going up from enacting freedom of information makes no sense whatsoever. Knowledge =/= ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:28 pm
by The Free Joy State
Temosia wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:Economic freedoms and income equality are actually two separate stats.

Income equality can rise much higher.


Freedoms in NS work on a specific metric: freedom from government control.

People gain the right to vote for whoever they want, you gain rights.
People gain the right to marry whoever they want, you gain rights.
People gain the right to protest however they want, you gain rights.

(Be aware that some effects may not be felt on all nations due to their personal stats and some options may have a trade-off between two conflicting freedoms, which may impact the result).

Here -- by compelling ministers to detail all financial gifts and contributions and depriving them of their privacy -- you are reducing their freedoms to keep such details private.

I agree that the politicians' civil rights are being lessened, so personal freedom goes down; that makes sense to me. But in terms of political freedom it's definitely going up.
This is a case of a conflict of freedoms: personal freedom vs. political freedom. In option 2, the political freedom of the voting public is being supported over the freedom of the politicians to take bribes and act against their voters' will without them being aware of it. From the perspective of the politicians, I agree that they're losing their freedom of privacy, but from the perspective of the voters, they're gaining the freedom to know how their elected politicians are acting, which ensures that future votes and candidates adhere to the public's political will, increasing voters' political power. In summary, the public becomes more free from the whims of their government, which is to say the politicians.
Therefore, political freedom should be going up, not down.

Additionally, ignorance going up from enacting freedom of information makes no sense whatsoever. Knowledge =/= ignorance.

Your NS politicians have rights, too. Their political freedoms are impinged by being compelled to produce the details of donors.

That is the way this simulation works.

As for ignorance, it's a secondary stat that reacts with your own stats and backstage stats and which can be slightly unpredictable. I wouldn't read too much into the result. The option didn't promise a reduction in ignorance and you didn't receive one.

There is nothing unusual in these results.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:08 am
by La Badlandoj
So I got a subtle but slightly interesting result from 598.4 ("A Violet Trojan Horse", option that teaches all faiths/lack thereof). My nation is top 10% Religiousness, but has much higher Intelligence and lower Primitiveness than most highly religious nations. The fourth option is the closest thing to an irreligious one in the bunch. I didn't select it for that reason, but suspected that given my unusually high ranking on that there might be a slight decrease in the stat alongside any other changes.

Instead, there was a slight increase. Again, not personally complaining any way, I don't put a lot of attention to that specific stat. I found it interesting even a nation with top-decile Religiousness was apparently too atheistic to become moreso from that option, though, and wondered if nations with more typical stats on that axis would have more drastic and apparently unsuited Religiousness gains. Is it currently coded to be unusually sensitive to any pre-existing atheism? Did it just get confused by my unusual results on the Religiousness-correlated stats?

PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:12 am
by The Free Joy State
La Badlandoj wrote:So I got a subtle but slightly interesting result from 598.4 ("A Violet Trojan Horse", option that teaches all faiths/lack thereof). My nation is top 10% Religiousness, but has much higher Intelligence and lower Primitiveness than most highly religious nations. The fourth option is the closest thing to an irreligious one in the bunch. I didn't select it for that reason, but suspected that given my unusually high ranking on that there might be a slight decrease in the stat alongside any other changes.

Instead, there was a slight increase. Again, not personally complaining any way, I don't put a lot of attention to that specific stat. I found it interesting even a nation with top-decile Religiousness was apparently too atheistic to become moreso from that option, though, and wondered if nations with more typical stats on that axis would have more drastic and apparently unsuited Religiousness gains. Is it currently coded to be unusually sensitive to any pre-existing atheism? Did it just get confused by my unusual results on the Religiousness-correlated stats?

The small increase in religiousness here comes from the compulsion to teach about all faiths.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:24 am
by Tan Coza
590.3, this nation
'Government-sanctioned factory-smashing' decreased primitiveness by 2.9%. Scientific advancement was unaffected.
Seems a bit odd.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:39 am
by The Free Joy State
Tan Coza wrote:590.3, this nation
'Government-sanctioned factory-smashing' decreased primitiveness by 2.9%. Scientific advancement was unaffected.
Seems a bit odd.

Primitiveness and scientific advancement are both secondary stats, both of which are impacted by a large number of variables (some of which are present here, and which interract with each other to produce the output).

That means they can be slightly unpredictable.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:13 am
by La Badlandoj
The Free Joy State wrote:The small increase in religiousness here comes from the compulsion to teach about all faiths.


That was what I thought it would do in general, but I assumed I already had that long-established.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:23 am
by Candlewhisper Archive
La Badlandoj wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:The small increase in religiousness here comes from the compulsion to teach about all faiths.


That was what I thought it would do in general, but I assumed I already had that long-established.


Some stats work that way, others don't.

Like my nation, pretty much the only persistently anti-Compassion thing I do is be horrible to animals. However, even though it's long established that we're horrible to animals, every time I go to an option that is mean to animals, the nation gets a little meaner.

In-universe, I guess it could be reflected as saying "hey, we noticed you're mean to animals, wanna stop that?" and a repeatedly entrenched "no, we like hurting animals" making our hearts colder and colder.

Same for you and religion. Even though you've already established that measure, confirming it makes you more religious.

This is both a simulation flaw and a simulation feature. It's a flaw, as in real life, reaffirming a decision isn't as much of a shift in national character as taking that decision the first time. It's a feature, as NS is primarily a game of satire, and older nations slowly drifting into ridiculous extremes through repeated small decisions is actually pretty funny.

I mean, my nation's citizens fire off 250 quips per hour, but average lifespan is only 21 years. I've not consciously aimed for that, I've just answered issues every day for a few years in a certain direction, and all those little decisions have cumulatively created something hilariously extreme.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:37 am
by Trotterdam
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I mean, my nation's citizens fire off 250 quips per hour, but average lifespan is only 21 years.
So, 46020555 quips in a lifetime? ;)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:10 am
by Candlewhisper Archive
Trotterdam wrote:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I mean, my nation's citizens fire off 250 quips per hour, but average lifespan is only 21 years.
So, 46020555 quips in a lifetime? ;)


I always assumed they stopped when they sleep, and the rate was for while they were awake. Not sure though, they may be sleep-quipping.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:22 am
by Mesadora
- The name of the nation that had this effect
Mesadora
- The day that this effect was encountered
Today, February 14th, 2019.
- The name of the issue, and if you know it, the number of the issue.
"Much Ado About Abortion", #136
Image

Is outlawing Abortion supposed to raise civil rights stats?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:31 am
by The Free Joy State
Mesadora wrote:- The name of the nation that had this effect
Mesadora
- The day that this effect was encountered
Today, February 14th, 2019.
- The name of the issue, and if you know it, the number of the issue.
"Much Ado About Abortion", #136

Is outlawing Abortion supposed to raise civil rights stats?

Yes. 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.

EDIT: It's worth saying that, although your civil rights appear to have risen considerably, in raw numbers, the rise is comparatively small (from 24.17 to 25.75). If you have not yet done so, I suggest you turn on "Show More Stats", which shows a more detailed breakdown of your results. The percentage numbers can make things look larger than they are.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:34 am
by Yesrway
#589 2nd option
Space Program got removed
It's a temporary suspend-thing, but why would it cancel the space program until another issue is received??
Also, I'm sure building infrastructure is kind of Space Program?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:34 am
by Clarissa the Happy and Cheerful Robot
Hi there! So err... I'm pretty perplexed by the effects of this one. Issue 871: It's Not Easy Being Red

“Power to the people!” shouts manifesto co-author Yasmin Miller while starting up the building’s backup generator as the electricity cuts off. “We need to form peaceful, voluntary workers’ co-operatives across Clarissa the Happy and Cheerful Robot. Now more than ever we need true socialism, not another oppressive, bureaucratic hierarchy. Picture it: as the means of production are placed into the workers’ hands, they’ll be able to decide for themselves what to produce, how what they produce is used, and when to show up for work. It’ll be wonderful!”


Income Equality decreased. 80.27 → 59.73 (25.6% decrease)

So... What in Tarnation happened? :P

Or is there something that I don't understand?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:50 am
by Trotterdam
This part:
"Picture it: as the means of production are placed into the workers' hands, they'll be able to decide for themselves what to produce, how what they produce is used, and when to show up for work. It'll be wonderful!"
increases Economic Freedom, which always correlates with Wealth Gaps in this game.

If workers are free to decide for themselves how much or what kind of work they want to do, some are going to work less than others. This is likely to have some kind of effect on their income, even in a socialist nation. It's harder for the government to enforce the "to each according his need" part if it already isn't enforcing the "from each according to his ability" part.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:57 am
by Candlewhisper Archive
Yesrway wrote:#589 2nd option
Space Program got removed
It's a temporary suspend-thing, but why would it cancel the space program until another issue is received??
Also, I'm sure building infrastructure is kind of Space Program?


Sure, but launches have been suspended, so while you have a space agency, you're not actually "in space", which is what the policy represents. It's an NS way of interpreting suspended launches, of course, but ad absurdiam interpretations of decisions are very much how NS works. As the effect line says

space shuttles are lying silent on the runway till the Space Agency can work out how to fit a creche and a meditation room into their next spacecraft

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:59 am
by Candlewhisper Archive
Trotterdam wrote:This part:
"Picture it: as the means of production are placed into the workers' hands, they'll be able to decide for themselves what to produce, how what they produce is used, and when to show up for work. It'll be wonderful!"
increases Economic Freedom, which always correlates with Wealth Gaps in this game.

If workers are free to decide for themselves how much or what kind of work they want to do, some are going to work less than others. This is likely to have some kind of effect on their income, even in a socialist nation. It's harder for the government to enforce the "to each according his need" part if it already isn't enforcing the "from each according to his ability" part.


This is correct.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:10 am
by Clarissa the Happy and Cheerful Robot
Ahh, okay. That makes sense to me, now that I've looked at it.

It's because while socialist, the workers still got that freedom to whatever they want, and there'll be larger wealth gaps because of that ironically freedom?

:blush:

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:37 am
by Queen Yuno
I got this issue:

The Issue
A delegation from the Queen YUNo Philharmonia has shown up in your office, underlining their petition for the renovation of the nation’s concert halls with a serenade.

The Debate
“The once venerable concert halls of Queen YUNo are in a sorry state,” laments trombonist Vera Gruber, emptying her spit valve into your waste paper basket. “Some are dank, the stucco is crumbling in others, and it’s raining through the backstage roof of another! In the name of culture we must restore these halls to their former glory. It’s only a pittance to the national budget, but to our cultural reputation? Priceless.”

Accept

“These caterwauling miscreants don’t deserve concert halls,” insists Chastity Navratilova, a tone-deaf curmudgeon. “If they can’t support their hobby, then why should we, the suffering taxpayers, prop them up? Concert halls are businesses, and businesses that can’t stay afloat on their own disappear. Such is life. I say leave the whole lot to their inevitable demise.”

Accept

“Times are tight. I sympathize with you,” consoles Harambe Torres, the CEO of Restorations R Us, handing you a decorative ‘Hang In There’ basket of goodies. “However, you need only ask, and - quick as a whip - my company will fund the construction of concert halls all across this fair country. All I ask is that we put up some advertisements in the lobbies and integrate a tasteful nod to sponsors into the programmes.”

Accept

“The only reason to fund these musicians is if they are doing something worthwhile for their country,” says Brigadier General Mary Chavez. “I’ve long said that Queen YUNo’s Armed Forces would benefit greatly from a spic-and-span band in uniform. They would represent the splendor that embodies Queen YUNo and they’d do it with pride! Of course by extension, they would be a part of the active forces and required to serve in battle if necessary. Always good to up the recruitment numbers, right?”



I chose the last option but my defense stats (my nation's no.1 priority) didn't raise Image

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:54 am
by The Free Joy State
Queen YUNo wrote:I got this issue:
The Issue
A delegation from the Queen YUNo Philharmonia has shown up in your office, underlining their petition for the renovation of the nation’s concert halls with a serenade.

The Debate
“The once venerable concert halls of Queen YUNo are in a sorry state,” laments trombonist Vera Gruber, emptying her spit valve into your waste paper basket. “Some are dank, the stucco is crumbling in others, and it’s raining through the backstage roof of another! In the name of culture we must restore these halls to their former glory. It’s only a pittance to the national budget, but to our cultural reputation? Priceless.”

Accept

“These caterwauling miscreants don’t deserve concert halls,” insists Chastity Navratilova, a tone-deaf curmudgeon. “If they can’t support their hobby, then why should we, the suffering taxpayers, prop them up? Concert halls are businesses, and businesses that can’t stay afloat on their own disappear. Such is life. I say leave the whole lot to their inevitable demise.”

Accept

“Times are tight. I sympathize with you,” consoles Harambe Torres, the CEO of Restorations R Us, handing you a decorative ‘Hang In There’ basket of goodies. “However, you need only ask, and - quick as a whip - my company will fund the construction of concert halls all across this fair country. All I ask is that we put up some advertisements in the lobbies and integrate a tasteful nod to sponsors into the programmes.”

Accept

“The only reason to fund these musicians is if they are doing something worthwhile for their country,” says Brigadier General Mary Chavez. “I’ve long said that Queen YUNo’s Armed Forces would benefit greatly from a spic-and-span band in uniform. They would represent the splendor that embodies Queen YUNo and they’d do it with pride! Of course by extension, they would be a part of the active forces and required to serve in battle if necessary. Always good to up the recruitment numbers, right?”


I chose the last option but my defense stats (my nation's no.1 priority) didn't raise Image

There is a rise programmed, and your backstage numbers reflect that. However, because you already have very well-funded defence forces, the visible stats didn't appear to move (they don't with very small changes).

Basically, once you get as high in the rankings as you are in any stat, it takes a lot longer to push them any further.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:13 am
by Queen Yuno
The Free Joy State wrote:
Queen YUNo wrote:I got this issue:

I chose the last option but my defense stats (my nation's no.1 priority) didn't raise (Image)

There is a rise programmed, and your backstage numbers reflect that. However, because you already have very well-funded defence forces, the visible stats didn't appear to move (they don't with very small changes).

Basically, once you get as high in the rankings as you are in any stat, it takes a lot longer to push them any further.


Oh that's cool. So my Defense DID increase, I just don't see it because it's too small?

That's really cool and makes me feel motivated about it (otherwise I sometimes get the feeling of: what's the point of answering this Defense issue if it doesn't even affect my Defense stat?)

Thanks!

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:50 am
by Ghost Land
How did 83.3 cause that increase to my civil rights? High-speed monorail services don't seem to have anything to do with civil rights, not unless I'm missing something.

At least I can be grateful, though, that it decreased my economic freedom. :D

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:23 am
by The Free Joy State
Ghost Land wrote:How did 83.3 cause that increase to my civil rights? High-speed monorail services don't seem to have anything to do with civil rights, not unless I'm missing something.

At least I can be grateful, though, that it decreased my economic freedom. :D

Allowing "equal access to all the workers, all the time" allowed your citizens more freedom to travel. It's a small change to your civil rights, but looks quite significant on a nation with rights as restricted as yours' is.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:03 pm
by Ghost Land
The Free Joy State wrote:
Ghost Land wrote:How did 83.3 cause that increase to my civil rights? High-speed monorail services don't seem to have anything to do with civil rights, not unless I'm missing something.

At least I can be grateful, though, that it decreased my economic freedom. :D

Allowing "equal access to all the workers, all the time" allowed your citizens more freedom to travel. It's a small change to your civil rights, but looks quite significant on a nation with rights as restricted as yours' is.

That's what I was figuring - thank you!

Also, is economic freedom supposed to change in units of 0.11 (for example, 89.00 being one step above 88.89 and one step below 89.11)?

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:06 pm
by Abidawe
I don't know if its necessarily a glitch, just more confused about how it had this specific effect

Issue 547 (Fantastic Beasts and How @@NAME@@ Harmed Them)

Went with option number one (effect was to ban zoos and aquariums etc)

In terms of stat effects I was surprised it actually saw an increase in Tourism (minimal but still surprising as I figured it would drop, though I'm not complaining that it didn't). I'm mainly just wondering how that effect was determined just out of curiosity.