[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I've long dismissed that issue because I figured none of the options looked reasonable. Looks like I've now been retconned into being right.

Using "we should launch rubbish into space" as the "pro-environmentalist" option is just clearly showing a disconnect with reality.

Totally. There's no sane option there. However, I'm not currently rewriting old issues, I'm just assigning rational stats to them. I'm up to #133 now, by the way.

A reasonable approach would probably include such things as recycling and biofuel (as opposed to just trash burning). However, it might lose some of its charm by becoming too rational. I guess that's a discussion to be had if and when we get to rewriting old issues.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

542.1 Results in a decrease in economic freedom.

Yes it does. You're imposing improved practice in atomic waste disposal. A very sensible thing to do, but also a slight contraction of economic freedoms.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

848 Option 2 Has decreased my civil rights?

That's correct. You've (very mildly) set back the cause of gender equality.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I picked option 1 in #453 Parliamentary Playground (introduce a code of conduct to make parliamentarians behave themselves in the chamber) and this cancelled freedom of the press under policies. Seems a bit of a non-sequiter.

Political freedoms shrink a little with a code of conduct.

No actual policy code is changed by this option, so I presume technical team coded that "policy" banner to be based off political freedoms.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I hope this is the right place to discuss unusual policies.

When did I implement child labor?

Probably with an issue I had quite recently that dealt with disabled people in school... Wait let me try to find it.... Issue #830, "Unreasonable Adjustments".

Choosing to send them to simple workforce like mining(since intellectual wise, they will be incapable anyways) automatically enables child labour, even if this is actually only tied to disabled that are denied education and sent to workforce directly...

I personally have mixed feelings about that one. It is definitely true that this is child labour no matter how you twist or turn it. At the same time, it really is only a small portion of disabled kids sooo... Yeah, not really fully fledged child labour either. As said my feelings are mixed and I can´t give you a good answer on how to exactly fix this. Guess that as said technically it is child labour, and hence it is correct to label your nation one that has child labour due to that.

Anyway, you will sooner or later get an issue to remove child labour again like I did.

There's no activation of the policy on this issue. Like you say, it's not applying broadly enough in the population to justify it.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

As of such the easiest way would be to simply tie a nations taxation to what they spend on public/government services. That is my proposed solution. As said this wouldn´t be hard to mathematically code either, since you already have effective codes running for things such as income, percentage of GDP as well as a good black market rating too.

You need to take that to technical, we don't have control over the basic taxation model. I suggest approach the topic now while violet is buzzing with fix-the-game energy!

[Iambored13]

Issue 563.1 is an increase in political freedom?

[Azurius]

I've long dismissed that issue because I figured none of the options looked reasonable. Looks like I've now been retconned into being right.

Using "we should launch rubbish into space" as the "pro-environmentalist" option is just clearly showing a disconnect with reality.

Totally. There's no sane option there. However, I'm not currently rewriting old issues, I'm just assigning rational stats to them. I'm up to #133 now, by the way.

A reasonable approach would probably include such things as recycling and biofuel (as opposed to just trash burning). However, it might lose some of its charm by becoming too rational. I guess that's a discussion to be had if and when we get to rewriting old issues.

Yeah true, then again it would add more invidivualism too which is always also nice to have. Maybe one could add some weird-mad scientist option to make it keep its charm? I.e. like transmutation, opting to transmutate trash chemically into desired elements? Obviously this too would be costly, limited(as transmutation is a very hard to do and delicate process, nonetheless possible if you google it). In my oppinion it would not destroy the charm of it though, rather the opposite.

Probably with an issue I had quite recently that dealt with disabled people in school... Wait let me try to find it.... Issue #830, "Unreasonable Adjustments".

Choosing to send them to simple workforce like mining(since intellectual wise, they will be incapable anyways) automatically enables child labour, even if this is actually only tied to disabled that are denied education and sent to workforce directly...

I personally have mixed feelings about that one. It is definitely true that this is child labour no matter how you twist or turn it. At the same time, it really is only a small portion of disabled kids sooo... Yeah, not really fully fledged child labour either. As said my feelings are mixed and I can´t give you a good answer on how to exactly fix this. Guess that as said technically it is child labour, and hence it is correct to label your nation one that has child labour due to that.

Anyway, you will sooner or later get an issue to remove child labour again like I did.

There's no activation of the policy on this issue. Like you say, it's not applying broadly enough in the population to justify it.

Hmm well I had this one quite recently but before the new policies function(which btw. is cool, I like it!). However, it did enable my nation to be "remarkable for my child workforce" or something like that. Which a follow up issue I got removed again, this was both quite shortly before the new policies option was added.

As of such the easiest way would be to simply tie a nations taxation to what they spend on public/government services. That is my proposed solution. As said this wouldn´t be hard to mathematically code either, since you already have effective codes running for things such as income, percentage of GDP as well as a good black market rating too.

You need to take that to technical, we don't have control over the basic taxation model. I suggest approach the topic now while violet is buzzing with fix-the-game energy!

Kaykay will do so. Since a fix of the taxation rate is something I have been long looking forward too. Or rather: So far what bugs me the most about NS currently is in fact that very unrealistic income tax system.

[[violet]]

violet is buzzing with fix-the-game energy!

That's my normal state! You're just seeing it because I'm working on issues & rankings at the moment.

[Trotterdam]

I thought about it and I propose a simple solution for that:

[wall of text that takes up my entire monitor]

"Simple". Okay.

Ok, discussion done. The game no longer makes you a "slavery" nation when you institute forced labour on convicts.

Semantically, I'd say this is still slavery, but the narrative uses of that tag imply commercial slavery in the private sector, so the amendments have been made.

Thanks I really appreciate that. And as said in my semantics gulag or private prisoning is not the same as slavery(also we got some issues to embrace actual slavery already so), but I guess everyone has their own oppinion.

Besides the fact that criminals sentenced to labor remain under government control rather than being bought or sold as in chattel slavery, another rather important detail that the children of slaves are usually also automatically born as slaves, whereas unless your country is very corrupt, the children of criminals will in general not automatically be considered criminals. If gulag internment is non-hereditary, then that naturally limits the number of "slaves" your nation will ever have, and thus the impact that those slaves should have on your economic statistics. (Besides, it's not like non-enslaved prisoners have lots of money-making opportunities.)

While I can picture countries where criminals can be sold into true slavery, with all that implies, that shouldn't happen simply as a result of having privately-owned prisons.

[Azurius]

I thought about it and I propose a simple solution for that:

[wall of text that takes up my entire monitor]

"Simple". Okay.

Oh come on, surely you have seen far longer "walls" of text? Besides the solution itself is simple: Tie the taxation rate to what your government spendings in % of your GDP. I just explained more detailed why this in my oppinion is a good idea. Also dayum... you must have a pretty small monitor in that case? Mine isn´t big either... Or maybe it´s just the resolution you choose.

[Fauxia]

"Simple". Okay.

Oh come on, surely you have seen far longer "walls" of text? Besides the solution itself is simple: Tie the taxation rate to what your government spendings in % of your GDP. I just explained more detailed why this in my oppinion is a good idea. Also dayum... you must have a pretty small monitor in that case? Mine isn´t big either... Or maybe it´s just the resolution you choose.

Just because there can be larger walls of text doesn’t mean yours isn’t large.

Also, the taxation stat is only income tax, but income tax is not the pnly way the government can make money, nor is it the only way for normal people. Therefore you can’t just make it the government % of GDP

[Azurius]

Oh come on, surely you have seen far longer "walls" of text? Besides the solution itself is simple: Tie the taxation rate to what your government spendings in % of your GDP. I just explained more detailed why this in my oppinion is a good idea. Also dayum... you must have a pretty small monitor in that case? Mine isn´t big either... Or maybe it´s just the resolution you choose.

Just because there can be larger walls of text doesn’t mean yours isn’t large.

Also, the taxation stat is only income tax, but income tax is not the pnly way the government can make money, nor is it the only way for normal people. Therefore you can’t just make it the government % of GDP

For me that is still a reasonable amount of text but whatever, perceptions are different.

And hell I know that... That is why I also adressed it in that "wall of text" of mine too. To in fact actually prevent such concerns like yours arising, but alas seems it failed lol. Anyway once again: This is the only way. As adding other forms of taxation to this game simply is a mamoth or goliath task that is next to impossible.

First of all you would somehow need to add other forms of taxation to existing nations, some of them which have literally answered thousand of issues already... Good luck with that. That alone is a mammoth task.

But it gets even worse because you would have to address effects on other forms of taxation for every single of the like 860 issues by now... It now becomes an nearly impossible goliath task.

And we are still not done here, as the NS staff would have too build in a lot of complicated program codes which require very complex maths as well. Good luck with that. While I totally agree that the idea of different forms of taxation would be cool, it is simply an next to impossible task to achieve. Keep in mind that none of the NS staff gets paid either. Well maybe we could do that in fact, but we´d need to hire some peeps for this. Professional ones too and not some random idiots. Can you dash out the cash or do you know a sponsor willing to sponsor such a project? If so then please by all means share with us.

[Trotterdam]

A reasonable approach would probably include such things as recycling and biofuel (as opposed to just trash burning). However, it might lose some of its charm by becoming too rational. I guess that's a discussion to be had if and when we get to rewriting old issues.

I would have considered the trash burning to be rational, if there were a little better control on emissions. I actually chose it a few times, but stopped because I didn't like the stats. I generally assumed that the space shuttle option would give the stats I wanted (which, until recently, it apparently did) but always refused to pick it as a matter of principle.

Political freedoms shrink a little with a code of conduct.

No actual policy code is changed by this option, so I presume technical team coded that "policy" banner to be based off political freedoms.

Does that mean it's possible to select an option that does explicitly say to ban freedom of press, and still fail to get the policy because your political freedom was too high to begin with? (Or vice versa, choose to protect freedom of press but because your political freedom was so low it doesn't rise enough to lose the policy.)

I thought that we must have a proper freedom-of-press flag, since it factors heavily into the [@@CAPITAL@@gate] narrative (the chain starts out assuming that you do, gives you an option to abolish it, and remembers whether you did or not when deciding which options to present in the last issue).

Maybe one could add some weird-mad scientist option to make it keep its charm? I.e. like transmutation, opting to transmutate trash chemically into desired elements? Obviously this too would be costly, limited(as transmutation is a very hard to do and delicate process, nonetheless possible if you google it).

If by "limited" you mean "a few atoms at a time". Turning macroscopic quantities of lead into gold remains completely impossible.

[[violet]]

I picked option 1 in #453 Parliamentary Playground (introduce a code of conduct to make parliamentarians behave themselves in the chamber) and this cancelled freedom of the press under policies. Seems a bit of a non-sequiter.

Political freedoms shrink a little with a code of conduct.

No actual policy code is changed by this option, so I presume technical team coded that "policy" banner to be based off political freedoms.

The "Free Press" policy is derived from the political sub-freedom "censorship of political views and commentary on the government," which this issue option modifies.

[Azurius]

A reasonable approach would probably include such things as recycling and biofuel (as opposed to just trash burning). However, it might lose some of its charm by becoming too rational. I guess that's a discussion to be had if and when we get to rewriting old issues.

I would have considered the trash burning to be rational, if there were a little better control on emissions. I actually chose it a few times, but stopped because I didn't like the stats. I generally assumed that the space shuttle option would give the stats I wanted (which, until recently, it apparently did) but always refused to pick it as a matter of principle.

Political freedoms shrink a little with a code of conduct.

No actual policy code is changed by this option, so I presume technical team coded that "policy" banner to be based off political freedoms.

:(

Does that mean it's possible to select an option that does explicitly say to ban freedom of press, and still fail to get the policy because your political freedom was too high to begin with? (Or vice versa, choose to protect freedom of press but because your political freedom was so low it doesn't rise enough to lose the policy.)

I thought that we must have a proper freedom-of-press flag, since it factors heavily into the [@@CAPITAL@@gate] narrative (the chain starts out assuming that you do, gives you an option to abolish it, and remembers whether you did or not when deciding which options to present in the last issue).

Maybe one could add some weird-mad scientist option to make it keep its charm? I.e. like transmutation, opting to transmutate trash chemically into desired elements? Obviously this too would be costly, limited(as transmutation is a very hard to do and delicate process, nonetheless possible if you google it).

If by "limited" you mean "a few atoms at a time". Turning macroscopic quantities of lead into gold remains completely impossible.

How do you want to controll emissions here...? Besides even if it weren´t for them it takes no genuis to see that burning all sorts of toxic waste and releasing it into the atmosphere does no good for peoples health. Other then that you also run into the problem that complex chemical reactions take place when you just burn a pile of lump, forming new partially totally unknown chemical compounds that could potencially cause far more harm and are far more toxic.

To transmutation... I recommend the wikipedia article on that, look it up. Transmutation is not science fiction anymore but actually hard science.

And yes, science actually managed to do what alchemy tried to for centuries: Actually transmutate substances into gold. Well not lead, but it is currently possible with 2 elements: Mercury and platinum.

Well the former is stupid... why would you want to transmutate the more rare and expensive platinum into the less rare gold? Lol. The former makes more sense, however the problem with that is: First of all only 20% of mercury actually turns into gold, the rest turns into other, for us useless, chemical elements. The second problem is that it is a very delicate and an expensive process, costing more then currently mining gold. So it makes no sense economically.

Transmutation itself is a very complex procedure. To break it down easily to understand: You take an heavier chemical element, apply very delicately controlled radiation or other forces to it to achieve electrones kicking out of said element in a highly controlled manner, to turn it into a lighter and desired element, well most of it, of course the rest will turn into other lighter elements. I guess that is enough to show how complex and delicate this process is. Nonetheless it is possible and science actually succeeded in doing it and not only with gold.

Anyway, right now it is economically not feasible as this technology is in its baby steps and simply costs more then raw exploitation of raw ressources. However it will definitely become ever more interesting in the future.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Issue 563.1 is an increase in political freedom?

563.4 was what you picked. And it's a marginal thing, related to the ability to influence politics that big corporations have, which has slightly increased.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I actually chose it a few times, but stopped because I didn't like the stats. I generally assumed that the space shuttle option would give the stats I wanted (which, until recently, it apparently did) but always refused to pick it as a matter of principle.

Well, the stats are better now, if that helps. Maybe give it another try.

But yes, it's probably the least mad option, as turning waste into fuel is entirely plausible, it's just that a straight "burn it for heat" isn't how that would work.

Does that mean it's possible to select an option that does explicitly say to ban freedom of press, and still fail to get the policy because your political freedom was too high to begin with? (Or vice versa, choose to protect freedom of press but because your political freedom was so low it doesn't rise enough to lose the policy.)

Sure, yes. As violet says, its based off your position on a sliding scale. I woulda told you that explicitly, but generally we editor folk are meant to wait for someone like violet to take the lead before revealing the game engine.

I thought that we must have a proper freedom-of-press flag, since it factors heavily into the [@@CAPITAL@@gate] narrative (the chain starts out assuming that you do, gives you an option to abolish it, and remembers whether you did or not when deciding which options to present in the last issue).

We got a separate flag based on whether the state controls all news media. However its in discussion backstage right now as to whether that flag should even exist, as it duplicates existing functions.

[All are Equal]

I'm respecting the lands and customs of my indigenous population. This sent Business Subsidation UP. Is that to compensate for the lack of business being done?

[Honorias]

I know my nation is min-maxed toward military expansion, but that's precisely why my latest issue experience grinds my gears. Issue 194, regarding a neighbor's genocidal rampage, offers an option where you can annex the place yourself, as suggested by your military advisor, through an invasion. As a result of choosing this option, my military stat dropped 0.19%. While I can imagine why the stat-calculator got this one wonky (since the annexation was intended to acquire resources for industry, most of which duly rose, which the game seems to think must come at the expense of military spending, at least based on my past experience), I am rather peeved that the explicitly military option lowered the military stat at all.

[Trotterdam]

I'm respecting the lands and customs of my indigenous population. This sent Business Subsidation UP. Is that to compensate for the lack of business being done?

#143 3 sounds more like you're respecting the lands and customs of a wacky neopagan cult, rather, but the rest of the question is still valid.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'm respecting the lands and customs of my indigenous population. This sent Business Subsidation UP. Is that to compensate for the lack of business being done?

Not quite. I know I say not to look at percentages generally, but they can be quite useful at times. You'll note business subisdization went up by 0.36%, but so did welfare spending, police spending, health spending, armed forces spending and so on.

In other words, your government grew by 0.36%. As the right wing would dub it, you've become slightly more "big government", and the simulation has thrown out this little emergent drift in spending to reflect that.

However, the stats of this issue are super-heavy handed, and I'm almost up to there on the big stat modernisation (have reached 133), so expect the issue's stats to change in the near future. They're not incorrect per se, they're just executed with an older toolset and philosophy than we currently use.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I know my nation is min-maxed toward military expansion, but that's precisely why my latest issue experience grinds my gears. Issue 194, regarding a neighbor's genocidal rampage, offers an option where you can annex the place yourself, as suggested by your military advisor, through an invasion. As a result of choosing this option, my military stat dropped 0.19%. While I can imagine why the stat-calculator got this one wonky (since the annexation was intended to acquire resources for industry, most of which duly rose, which the game seems to think must come at the expense of military spending, at least based on my past experience), I am rather peeved that the explicitly military option lowered the military stat at all.

It's to do with your nations distorted economy. In most nations, military spending would rise, and in a starting nation this'd be a big shift towards militarisation.

However in your nation, you're pretty much already full of plenty of military capacity to carry out an attack like this, so the resulting increase in military spending was miniscule. However, a bunch of other changes (primarily general industrial growth, but some other things too) resulted in a society that is slightly less militaristic than before. In narrative terms, imagine that your nation did tool up and go on the attack, but the newly acquired territories had less of a militaristic bent than your main nation, so the overall trend of the nation was a slight shift away from militarism.

Also, again, this is a heavy handed older issue, and due for review. Unexpected effects will still happen at the extremes (as is to be expected with a complex emergent simulation) though probably in a narrower nation range than before.

[[violet]]

Does that mean it's possible to select an option that does explicitly say to ban freedom of press, and still fail to get the policy because your political freedom was too high to begin with? (Or vice versa, choose to protect freedom of press but because your political freedom was so low it doesn't rise enough to lose the policy.)

Sure, yes.

I actually don't think this is right... that's not possible. Or at least, it's not possible if everything is working like it's supposed to. We're discussing it backstage.

[Deimosan]

Why does "Unlicensed to Kill" issue marginally increase crime and gambling?