[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Indonesia-Korea]

Yes, this one. What was actually happening?

Hmm, that is a somewhat odd feeling effect.

The basic answer is that while banning such behavior does reduce corporate influence on politics, it also serves to censor politicians and limit discourse, which can lead to abuse (choosing to censor rivals more than allies, for example).

I'm not sure if it actually going *up* is a desired effect, though certainly any movements would be tempered by the dual nature of the decision. I'll take it backstage and make sure it's working as intended.

I noticed that there are few issues with similar topics and similar results. The same thing are happening, so is this a normal thing in the West, culturally wise?

[Your lives are mine]

I just received the issue that my military accidentally shot down a civilian plane. However my government has a total ban on planes so.im not sure why there would even be any civilian planes in the first place

[Pogaria]

I just received the issue that my military accidentally shot down a civilian plane. However my government has a total ban on planes so.im not sure why there would even be any civilian planes in the first place

Airplanes from other countries might still fly through your airspace (intentionally or by mistake). Perhaps your military isn't used to seeing civilian planes and just assumed that it was some sort of foreign bomber.

[Verdant Haven]

I noticed that there are few issues with similar topics and similar results. The same thing are happening, so is this a normal thing in the West, culturally wise?

If what you mean is "Is it generally believed in the West that censorship leads to corruption," then I think the answer would be yes.

If you permit politicians to dictate what can and cannot be said, then you will get politicians who abuse that power to prevent others from saying things they don't like.

[Guy]

I know this is a really minor effect, but it's a little confusing.

Option 2, issue 1009 (1009.2), A Woman's Roll

"The Talking Point
The new national campaign exhorts men to "Show Some Class - Don't Sit On Your Ass".

This increased my...social conservatism? That's a bit odd. It's only a small change, 34.15->34.54 (+1.1%), but it seems more like the other two options for this issue would've increased that stat.

Many thanks in advance.

Social conservatism is a secondary stat, somewhat related to civil rights (it tends to rise when civil rights fall). As for civil rights, when you create a social obligation, as you did (here to "Show Some Class - Don't Sit On Your Ass") your civil rights may (but not always) experience a small drop, as they did here (from 71.23 to 70.93)

I appreciate this probably has to do with the way things are coded, but this (option 3 in #1009, displayed as option 2) is clearly the one that is least socially conservative. The effect of increasing social conservatism is certainly unexpected even if ultimately correct - especially as it was a particularly large effect.

On the point made by The Free Joy State (who was the issue author and editor), I can see how running a 'national campaign' telling people they should do something could be seen to decrease civil rights. Perhaps overly philosophically I'd argue that's not right - there is no actual obligation imposed, and the second-order effects probably enhance rather than infringe on civil rights, but that's arguable either way.

In any case, presumably this means the preferred course of action for a nation that seeks to minimise social conservatism is to dismiss this issue?

[SherpDaWerp]

I appreciate this probably has to do with the way things are coded, but this (option 3 in #1009, displayed as option 2) is clearly the one that is least socially conservative. The effect of increasing social conservatism is certainly unexpected even if ultimately correct - especially as it was a particularly large effect.

The big thing here is just that NS's "Social Conservatism" doesn't have anything to do with what "real world" conservatism looks like. It's just there to give badges to nations with poor civil rights, and so acts as an inverse.

In short, any restriction you place on your citizens (disallowing them from owning guns, to use another real-world-political example) will increase social conservatism at the same time as it decreases civil rights, irrespective of what positions real-life conservatives may have on that issue.

A nation seeking to minimise social conservatism should avoid placing any restrictions on its citizens at all. For some issues, that may mean dismissal.

[Thaulandi]

In #454, how come Wage Gaps/the Rich-poor divide goes down after evicting the poor, and redeveloping the properties into something for the rich (option 3)? The choice says 'brand our cities green' where it's quite obvious it's not actually green, as well.

[Improper Classifications]

I recently acquired #815, Embargoed In, which presented the problem of a trade embargo against my nation in regards to agricultural products. I chose option #1, which would have provided for the revolution of the governments embargoing me and promised to reward that revolution with improved exports. However, both my Agricultural and Cheese Exports sector decreased by .16% from selecting the option. Would this option not provide for the increase of those industries rather than the decrease?

[Improper Classifications]

I recently acquired #815, Embargoed In, which presented the problem of a trade embargo against my nation in regards to agricultural products. I chose option #1, which would have provided for the revolution of the governments embargoing me and promised to reward that revolution with improved exports. However, both my Agricultural and Cheese Exports sector decreased by .16% from selecting the option. Would this option not provide for the increase of those industries rather than the decrease?

Back with another one, this time #1369, Negotiation Complication. The Option #1's text is as follows:

For the past few months, your administration has been working on a landmark trade deal with the historically hostile nation of Blackacre. On the eve of the agreement's planned signing, Georgia Mormont — a high-ranking official from the Blackacrean government — has approached you with the intent to defect.

1. "If we upset the Blackacreans, months of planning could go to waste!" whispers your suspicious Minister of Pragmatism as she glares at the visibly trembling Blackacrean advisor. "Blackacre would never allow their Chief of Staff to defect! We have to turn her away and report this to Blackacre. It may be cold, but I stand — I mean, we stand to make a lot from this trade deal. This agreement could be the path to a long-lasting peace between our two nations — don't let a single defector stand in our way."

Selecting this option would suggest that trade-based industries such as Cheese Exports would benefit from selecting the option. However, the option returns this:

Which is illogical.

[Trotterdam]

#264 technically-option-3 (although it was listed as option 2 on the nation in question):

"This drought is a warning sign sent by our Creator!" shouts a strangely familiar-looking man who has just walked in from the desert clad in camel hair and sandals. "If this nation will only turn from its wicked ways and hearken unto our God, surely He shall grace us with water once more!"

I picked this option on a puppet with Atheism and it didn't repeal the Atheism policy.

Conflicts with religious options in Atheist nations is a personal peeve/project of mine, and I've got a long list of corrections and adjustments I've slowly been working on. This issue somehow slipped past me - I'll add it to my list. Thank you for the heads-up.

Same nation: #658 option 3, still didn't repeal Atheism.

[Harrica]

#61 option 2 gave me no results, the stat section was completely blank. Is this normal?

[Verdant Haven]

#61 option 2 gave me no results, the stat section was completely blank. Is this normal?

It isn't seen too frequently, but some options out there (including this one) can do that. What it indicates here is that the nature of the statistical effects triggered by your selection were already outdone by your existing positions for those stats, so no further change was needed to accurately reflect the decision made. Other nations who make that same choice from a different starting point might find that they have very notable results.

[Urine Town]

On #343, Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? the following sentence was part of Option 1

”Many nations in Urine Good Company have already abolished their most worthless coins. It’s time for Urine Town to follow suit.”

That dialogue contradicts my nation’s lore since Urine Town is the only nation in Urine Good Company (and plan on keeping it that way). I’m also guessing there are plenty of other nations in individual regions who have received this issue.

[Ostrovskiy]

On #343, Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? the following sentence was part of Option 1

”Many nations in Urine Good Company have already abolished their most worthless coins. It’s time for Urine Town to follow suit.”

That dialogue contradicts my nation’s lore since Urine Town is the only nation in Urine Good Company (and plan on keeping it that way). I’m also guessing there are plenty of other nations in individual regions who have received this issue.

The region is also automatically assumed to contain NPN (non player nations), like blackacre, daguo, and the united federation

[Urine Town]

On #343, Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? the following sentence was part of Option 1



That dialogue contradicts my nation’s lore since Urine Town is the only nation in Urine Good Company (and plan on keeping it that way). I’m also guessing there are plenty of other nations in individual regions who have received this issue.

The region is also automatically assumed to contain NPN (non player nations), like blackacre, daguo, and the united federation

Still conflicts with my lore, but this is probably the best argument available for not changing the wording of the issue, I suppose

[Your lives are mine]

I recently banned travelers. The new law states mobile homes are banned. How and why dies this raise Civil rights and lower authoritarianism

[Land Without Shrimp]

Issue 1496, option 1. I was quite sure this would raise integrity and reduce corruption. To my surprise, opposite happened. Is this just because my stats for this are pretty extreme, or is there something I'm missing here? Thanks.

[SherpDaWerp]

The region is also automatically assumed to contain NPN (non player nations), like blackacre, daguo, and the united federation

Still conflicts with my lore, but this is probably the best argument available for not changing the wording of the issue, I suppose

The NS Official Lore™ is that all the NPC nations are in your region. If you've ever played Destiny (the video game), it's a bit like that - the canon is individualised, such that every player, in their own world, is the one who e.g. went to war with Brasilistan, and your region has all the NPC nations in it.

[SherpDaWerp]

I recently banned travelers. The new law states mobile homes are banned. How and why dies this raise Civil rights and lower authoritarianism

Your nation is so incredibly dictatorial that you've banned most things already. When you ban travellers, you're causing a massive decrease in their freedoms, but you're also giving freedom to the land-owners who raised the complaint in the first place. In this case, because you were already so harsh on Civil Rights, you basically couldn't get harsher, so all you see is the land-owners gaining back a little bit of privacy.

[SherpDaWerp]

Issue 1496, option 1. I was quite sure this would raise integrity and reduce corruption. To my surprise, opposite happened. Is this just because my status for this are pretty extreme, or is there something I'm missing here? Thanks.

This is already under discussion backstage, following this report. In short, yes, that's not ideal, but we need to run some modelling to check what sort of fixes we can apply without breaking anything else.

[SherpDaWerp]

I recently acquired #815, Embargoed In, which presented the problem of a trade embargo against my nation in regards to agricultural products. I chose option #1, which would have provided for the revolution of the governments embargoing me and promised to reward that revolution with improved exports. However, both my Agricultural and Cheese Exports sector decreased by .16% from selecting the option. Would this option not provide for the increase of those industries rather than the decrease?

Back with another one, this time #1369, Negotiation Complication. The Option #1's text is as follows:

For the past few months, your administration has been working on a landmark trade deal with the historically hostile nation of Blackacre. On the eve of the agreement's planned signing, Georgia Mormont — a high-ranking official from the Blackacrean government — has approached you with the intent to defect.

1. "If we upset the Blackacreans, months of planning could go to waste!" whispers your suspicious Minister of Pragmatism as she glares at the visibly trembling Blackacrean advisor. "Blackacre would never allow their Chief of Staff to defect! We have to turn her away and report this to Blackacre. It may be cold, but I stand — I mean, we stand to make a lot from this trade deal. This agreement could be the path to a long-lasting peace between our two nations — don't let a single defector stand in our way."

Selecting this option would suggest that trade-based industries such as Cheese Exports would benefit from selecting the option. However, the option returns this:

Which is illogical.

Both of these effects are vanishingly small; they're what we call "secondary effects". The second one, especially, is a decrease of only 1.07 points, which is vanishingly tiny for an industry stat. They're just a known consequence of the complex web of underlying stats - we can't really code them out. If you want, you can think of it like this - maybe you're now importing enough cheese from Blackacre that your local dairy industry can't compete.

[Land Without Shrimp]

Issue 1496, option 1. I was quite sure this would raise integrity and reduce corruption. To my surprise, opposite happened. Is this just because my status for this are pretty extreme, or is there something I'm missing here? Thanks.

This is already under discussion backstage, following this report. In short, yes, that's not ideal, but we need to run some modelling to check what sort of fixes we can apply without breaking anything else.

Oh, I totally missed those posts! Ok, thank you. Appreciate the feedback!

[Plato Academia]

I instituted an elimination on the VAT Tax in one of my issues. I imagined that this would decrease taxation as well as increase Freedom From Taxation, but it did not. After having read the main post and understanding that the way Taxation is calculated is only for income tax and related to economic output, can I get someone to restore that decision as undecided again? I'd like to take a second look at it if it's going to affect some of my stats in these ways.

Secondly, why can't we just know ahead of time how a decision is going to affect our country based upon the issue's creator or the calculation behind the scenes. Maybe I'll disagree with the way it's calculated, but I'd at least like to know I didn't betray my fictional country and accidentally increase/decrease its people's rights/taxes/religion/etc.

[Trotterdam]

Conflicts with religious options in Atheist nations is a personal peeve/project of mine, and I've got a long list of corrections and adjustments I've slowly been working on. This issue somehow slipped past me - I'll add it to my list. Thank you for the heads-up.

Same nation: #658 option 3, still didn't repeal Atheism.

And now, I got #570, the entire issue of which doesn't make sense on a nation with Atheism. I picked option 2, which boosted my Religiousness score (9,068.27 → 9,133.97 +0.72%), and it still didn't repeal the Atheism policy.

A Badly Conceived Designation

I think I'm stuck.

[Verdant Haven]

-snip-

The list is a long one - I've got dozens that I'm working on (I want to do them in one broad set of adjustments, rather than piecemeal - hence the long timeline on fixes).

Part of what's going on is that Atheism is a mirror to Theocracy : it's a government policy about what people are permitted to practice. Religiousness on the other hand is a mirror to Secularism: it's a stat that reflects what your population actually believes. The policies definitely impact the stats, but the population's beliefs don't inherently change the law. There are a lot of different possible scenarios for what changes any given issue or option needs in order to have it make sense for those of us with atheist nations. I unfortunately can't give any kind of promises about when these fixes might occur, but I can promise that it's on my radar, and I'm very passionate about this subject, so I will be doing my best to make it happen!