NationStates

Posted: **Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:50 pm**

I've got a civil rights issue that I don't think is covered in the FAQ. In issue #1095 (Make the Cut), which revolves around the mowing of the small grass strip outside your house - giving people the ownership of the extra land (option 3) reduces their civil rights.

Not by much I must admit, but why? I would imagine that giving people control of that land would give you more rights. It even says in the one-liner "grumpy old house owners demand that pedestrians get off their footpaths".

Posted: **Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:52 pm**

Yeah but land that was once publicly owned is now privately owned. For every grumpy old man who gains +1 civil rights from controlling the land, there's 10 people who lose -1 civil rights from not being able to go where they were previously allowed to go.

This is a minor change overall, as you saw, but the trend would still be downwards.

Posted: **Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:14 pm**

Drongonia wrote:I've got a civil rights issue that I don't think is covered in the FAQ. In issue #1095 (Make the Cut), which revolves around the mowing of the small grass strip outside your house - giving people the ownership of the extra land (option 3) reduces their civil rights.

Not by much I must admit, but why? I would imagine that giving people control of that land would give you more rights. It even says in the one-liner "grumpy old house owners demand that pedestrians get off their footpaths".

SherpDaWerp is basically correct. You're forcing everyone (even those who don't want the responsibility) to take over the space in front of their homes. Not only does this potentially interfere with public rights of way (although you should not use the effect lines as a clue, we do not stat based on them) it also is an imposed chore some homeowners may not want.

So there was a tiny fall in civil rights from 51.69 to 51.59.

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:00 am**

I got rid of the VAT (value-added tax) and my taxation went up 1%.
That is option 1 in issues #780

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:09 pm**

The Panlannerkalisiang wrote:I got rid of the VAT (value-added tax) and my taxation went up 1%.
That is option 1 in issues #780

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:- Why didn't tax fall when an option described a corporation tax cut / sales tax cut?

The tax model of the game is very simplistic, and it basically abstracts all spending as income tax and doesn't take into account any idea of government borrowing, deficit spending or tax from sources other than income tax.

That gives us limited tools for simulation.

Corporation tax is rolled into business subsidisation, with lowering of corporate tax representing an effective business subsidisation, and a shifting of tax burden onto the income taxpayer.

Sales tax and VAT, meanwhile, move income tax inversely, as raising more revenue from these forms of taxation decreases the burden on income tax, and vice versa.

This isn't entirely satisfactory, of course, as it means that the descriptions of "Freedom From Taxation" on the graphs aren't accurate, but it's reflective of how the game engine is written and of the simulation's limitations. It basically isn't possible to have burden of taxation and income tax move in opposite directions, as in the simulation all measured tax = income tax.

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:39 pm**

- The name of the nation that had this effect: Tuluseria
- The day that this effect was encountered: 1 Day, 9 Hours ago, so like, ~Noon 11/30/19
- The name of the issue, and if you know it, the number of the issue: #685 Externalities Palmed Off

I chose to upgrade to a high-tech infrastructure of domed cities, impervious to atmospheric conditions. Somehow this dramatically increased my primitiveness and dramatically reduced my scientific advancement. Surely this was in error?

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:43 pm**

Tuluseria wrote:- The name of the nation that had this effect: Tuluseria
- The day that this effect was encountered: 1 Day, 9 Hours ago, so like, ~Noon 11/30/19
- The name of the issue, and if you know it, the number of the issue: #685 Externalities Palmed Off

I chose to upgrade to a high-tech infrastructure of domed cities, impervious to atmospheric conditions. Somehow this dramatically increased my primitiveness and dramatically reduced my scientific advancement. Surely this was in error?

No. Both primitiveness and scientific advancement are secondary stats (relating to a range of backstage stat effects interacting with your own nation). The effects can vary based on your own personal stats.

The issue is working as intended.

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:07 pm**

The Free Joy State wrote:
Tuluseria wrote:- The name of the nation that had this effect: Tuluseria
- The day that this effect was encountered: 1 Day, 9 Hours ago, so like, ~Noon 11/30/19
- The name of the issue, and if you know it, the number of the issue: #685 Externalities Palmed Off

I chose to upgrade to a high-tech infrastructure of domed cities, impervious to atmospheric conditions. Somehow this dramatically increased my primitiveness and dramatically reduced my scientific advancement. Surely this was in error?

No. Both primitiveness and scientific advancement are secondary stats (relating to a range of backstage stat effects interacting with your own nation). The effects can vary based on your own personal stats.

The issue is working as intended.

I mean, what's the intention then? Shouldn't converting to domed cities increase scientific advancement and decrease primitiveness under all circumstances? I mean I know the hypothesis space is infinite but it's not like I'd be deconverting from a Kardashev II civilization or something; I don't think the game allows a nation to become that sophisticated. What backstage stat effects can justify a decrease of scientific advancement and an increase of primitiveness when choosing an obviously super high tech choice? It's game breaking.

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:21 pm**

Tuluseria wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:No. Both primitiveness and scientific advancement are secondary stats (relating to a range of backstage stat effects interacting with your own nation). The effects can vary based on your own personal stats.

The issue is working as intended.

I mean, what's the intention then? Shouldn't converting to domed cities increase scientific advancement and decrease primitiveness under all circumstances? I mean I know the hypothesis space is infinite but it's not like I'd be deconverting from a Kardashev II civilization or something; I don't think the game allows a nation to become that sophisticated. What backstage stat effects can justify a decrease of scientific advancement and an increase of primitiveness when choosing an obviously super high tech choice? It's game breaking.

We don't reveal our backstage effects. Ever. We're not allowed to, for one thing.

And it isn't "game-breaking". The changes were fairly small. You can recover by continuing to answer other issues.

The answer you have received is the only answer available for this query.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:37 am**

The Free Joy State wrote:
Tuluseria wrote:
I mean, what's the intention then? Shouldn't converting to domed cities increase scientific advancement and decrease primitiveness under all circumstances? I mean I know the hypothesis space is infinite but it's not like I'd be deconverting from a Kardashev II civilization or something; I don't think the game allows a nation to become that sophisticated. What backstage stat effects can justify a decrease of scientific advancement and an increase of primitiveness when choosing an obviously super high tech choice? It's game breaking.

We don't reveal our backstage effects. Ever. We're not allowed to, for one thing.

And it isn't "game-breaking". The changes were fairly small. You can recover by continuing to answer other issues.

The answer you have received is the only answer available for this query.

Oh, I didn't know there was any privileged information involved. The size of the changes and the secrecy of the information doesn't stop it from being game-breaking, though. It made far less than zero sense. It reduces confidence in the essential character of the system. You say I can recover by continuing to answer other issues, but how will I know if it's safe to select the obviously high tech answer? I cannot.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:44 am**

Remember, the game works a lot with irony and word-play. So, try to figure that the "obviously [something]" may not always increase or decrease that something. Also, your nation is still pretty "fresh", so don't worry -- there will be more "happy mistakes" that don't ruin the nation, but add something to work on. It's not like you choose something and some stat gets you from rank 150000 to 10. Or vice versa. There are some larger changes, but you'll figure that out in due time.

Posted: **Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:31 pm**

Tuluseria wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:We don't reveal our backstage effects. Ever. We're not allowed to, for one thing.

And it isn't "game-breaking". The changes were fairly small. You can recover by continuing to answer other issues.

The answer you have received is the only answer available for this query.

Oh, I didn't know there was any privileged information involved. The size of the changes and the secrecy of the information doesn't stop it from being game-breaking, though. It made far less than zero sense. It reduces confidence in the essential character of the system. You say I can recover by continuing to answer other issues, but how will I know if it's safe to select the obviously high tech answer? I cannot.

Your query has been answered. That these effects are secondary is the only answer and will remain so. Kindly do not stay and argue further. Debate is not the purpose of this thread.

Please consider your query closed.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:38 am**

Issue 961, why did the corruption go up? Never happened before.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:08 am**

According to Trotterdam's stuff, if I'm reading it correctly, a corruption change happens essentially everytime with that option, with the average being a very tiny positive change.

Edit: that is to say, a corruption increase is pretty usual, and your change is incredibly tiny anyways.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:44 am**

Lord Dominator wrote:According to Trotterdam's stuff, if I'm reading it correctly, a corruption change happens essentially everytime with that option, with the average being a very tiny positive change.

Edit: that is to say, a corruption increase is pretty usual, and your change is incredibly tiny anyways.

I think that it's an automatically-coded side effect for the increase in Political Freedom.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:01 pm**

Socialist State of LAY wrote:Issue 961, why did the corruption go up? Never happened before.

Because the secretary, in part, wanted to keep his citizenship to maintain his entitlement to "a free barrel of maple syrup every year" and threatened to hold @@LEADER@@ responsible for the sugar withdrawal (meaning he wanted the perks, rather than feeling any genuine connection to Brancaland). That's a small expression of corruption.

As LD said, the rise was very tiny.

In future, just a note that we don't need any images. Merely the name/number of the issue, the option you picked, the effect you thought unusual, the nation (if not this one) and the date if not today.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:38 am**

This nation.
Just now.
Issue # 210 'Going Postal'.
Option 3: The government relinquishing its postal monopoly somehow increased the size of government...

Surely relinquishing the monopoly should mean that it employs a smaller proportion of the nation's postal workers and thus, if it has any effect on this stat at all, reduce government size?

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:18 am**

Roumberre wrote:This nation.
Just now.
Issue # 210 'Going Postal'.
Option 3: The government relinquishing its postal monopoly somehow increased the size of government...

Surely relinquishing the monopoly should mean that it employs a smaller proportion of the nation's postal workers and thus, if it has any effect on this stat at all, reduce government size?

The option talks about increasing taxes to cope with losses to competition. I know that's not super-coherent, but the option seems pretty clear that spending on the postal service is going to increase rather than decrease.

Posted: **Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:51 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Roumberre wrote:This nation.
Just now.
Issue # 210 'Going Postal'.
Option 3: The government relinquishing its postal monopoly somehow increased the size of government...

Surely relinquishing the monopoly should mean that it employs a smaller proportion of the nation's postal workers and thus, if it has any effect on this stat at all, reduce government size?

The option talks about increasing taxes to cope with losses to competition. I know that's not super-coherent, but the option seems pretty clear that spending on the postal service is going to increase rather than decrease.

So 'Government Size' in this context actually means 'Government Spending', rather than"'proportion of everything that is run directly by the government"?
I read that option as meaning that because the state-run postal service would now have a smaller share of the income from this business, due to competition, it would now need a subsidy (at the taxpayers' expense) in order to maintain the same amount of infrastructure (letter boxes, post offices, sorting offices, mail trains, head office, etc) rather than as indicating any actual increase in the service's size...

Hr'rmm, although I suppose there might be an increase in its advertising budget to try retaining customers who might otherwise turn to the newly-allowed rival firms...

____________________________________________

By the way, since the bit in the clause about "I just want more stamps" clearly indicates that the new services would use different stamps of their own rather than just the existing 'national' ones, and stamps often have fancy designs, how about making this option worth a bonus point to the 'Culture' stat?

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:48 am**

The answer given is the answer given.

Moving on...

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:02 pm**

28.1 reduced health on Scientius. Why? Shouldn’t the euthanasia of citizens with illnesses increase the health of the general population?

(In other words, shouldn’t the removal of low data points drive the average upwards, or am I not thinking of the health stat correctly?)

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:52 am**

Fauxia wrote:28.1 reduced health on Scientius. Why? Shouldn’t the euthanasia of citizens with illnesses increase the health of the general population?

(In other words, shouldn’t the removal of low data points drive the average upwards, or am I not thinking of the health stat correctly?)

Interesting point. I was thinking more in terms of euthanasia lowering the average lifespan.

Unfortunately there's no way to have both outcomes - lifespan moves with health. I think given the tools, I'd probably say lifespan should drop while average health increases, and there are fudges I could do to make that happen, but those fudges would produce unexpected effects elsewhere.

All in all, I think lowering lifespan is the way to go, as you could argue that the presence and willingness to use euthanasia will lead to more people rejecting treatment, and being relatively unwell when they could have been healthier.

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2019 3:52 pm**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Fauxia wrote:28.1 reduced health on Scientius. Why? Shouldn’t the euthanasia of citizens with illnesses increase the health of the general population?

(In other words, shouldn’t the removal of low data points drive the average upwards, or am I not thinking of the health stat correctly?)

Interesting point. I was thinking more in terms of euthanasia lowering the average lifespan.

Unfortunately there's no way to have both outcomes - lifespan moves with health. I think given the tools, I'd probably say lifespan should drop while average health increases, and there are fudges I could do to make that happen, but those fudges would produce unexpected effects elsewhere.

All in all, I think lowering lifespan is the way to go, as you could argue that the presence and willingness to use euthanasia will lead to more people rejecting treatment, and being relatively unwell when they could have been healthier.

Oh. Yeah, lifespan should definitely decrease. Thanks for the explanation.

Posted: **Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:39 pm**

Issue 1239 option 2, with this nation

There were very significant economic effects, including an 8% increase to my already high business subsidisation, and 7% decreases to my two largest industries, agriculture and trout fishing.

Given that the issue addresses a very rare occurrence (people being declared dead when they aren't), I don't see why it should have a more dramatic effect on my economy than pretty much any economic issue I've come across.

Posted: **Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:19 pm**

Issue 240, option 1. This nation

Increased taxation by a fairly substantial amount (at least compared to most issues, even economic ones). It's not a massive change, but I'm struggling to understand how reducing pressure on the justice system and making trials less time-consuming would lead to an increase in tax.

NationStates

[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects