[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[SherpDaWerp]

Nation: Holy Catheria
Encountered: 01/16/2024
Issue: You Are Feeling Very Sleepy and Not At All Gay

Unusual Effect: I selected the option to be the most permissible towards conversion therapy, allowing both adults and minors to access their services, and my theocracy policy was cancelled after I had just gotten it back from burning heretics at the stake yesterday.

Theocracy is a funny pseudopolicy, and may turn on and off just from minor modifications to stats with no regard for the actual suggestion of the option. In this case, I can't readily see why we do those modifications, so I'll raise it backstage with my colleagues.

---

#729: "Teenage Kicks", got it in either November 2023 or December 2023, receveing nation is Socialismia (this one).
I chose the first option (that, mind you, was said by a "civil-rights activist") which was along the lines of banning bullying and discrimination. However, my civil rights dropped and my social conservatism rose. See, the thing about civil rights is that the game defines it as "freedoms to go about their personal business without interference or regulation from government". Bullying isn't personal, or relating to one individual, to start with, so limiting it shouldn't reduce civil rights (This is also why the legalization of murder isn't a civil right in my opinion). Another thing is the social conservatism rising. The definition of social conservatism in-game is "restrictions placed on what they may do in their personal lives, whether via community values or government-imposed law" and, again, this mentions the word personal, so the same argument with civil rights could be used here. Or maybe change it to "inclusiveness activist" instead, but that is for the "fix old issues" thread.

Freedom to commit crime has not been considered a part of the system for nearly 8 years now, so your point about the legalisation of murder is moot.

The reason your civil rights went down is fairly straightforward. The option ends with a laundry list of behaviours that the speaker would like to see banned; many of these could be bullying, but a ban will catch not-insignificant amounts of benign behaviour. Seriously, she proposes banning "joking" and "badinage" (banter). It's not just "let's ban bullying", it's "let's ban everything that could possibly be bullying including joking and banter". This is a significant restriction on the general day-to-day business of your people (albeit not very many of them), and so your civil rights go down. You answered the issue long enough ago that it's a pain to look up the exact effects it had, but it would have been less than 0.4 points.

There is a case to be made that we should consider other changes that could occur as a result of this option, so I will raise it with the team. Whatever that discussion comes to, I expect this option will still reduce civil rights, as the amount of bullying this prevents won't anywhere near make up for the amount of normal behaviour that this bans.

---

With those, I think we are up-to-date.

[Trotterdam]

Option 2 directly offers the opportunity for rich citizens (as introduced by a literal rich citizen who has incentive to do this) to pay people money to protest, hence the effect line about poor people protesting.

Option 3 also lets you pay protestors, but doesn't have the relevant focus on "rich people hiring poor people for stuff", which means there's less subtext and less reason for us to base the entire effect line on it. Instead, a few people complain a lot, as the option results in the slightly more generic version of "protestor-for-hire is now a legitimate job".

Umm... everything you describe here matches up with how I think the effect lines should go, and not with how they actually do go according to TalAkMaChen's in-depth report. To reiterate:

1408:2 a few people seem to spend their whole time complaining
1408:3 surprising numbers of poor people are protesting against taxing the rich

The effect line for option 2 mentions nothing about rich or poor people, and the effect line for option 3 mentions nothing about only "a few" people. Either you or TalAkMaChen needs to have seriously and repeatedly gotten confused over which option is which.

Now I've thoroughly strangled the joke to death... could you use the "help fix old issues" thread for stuff like this? The idea is that this thread hosts all the numbers-for-numbers stats, while the other one hosts textual errors (like potentially-swapped effect lines).

Umm... sorry Now we're already here, it's more legible to keep the whole discussion in one thread, but I won't object if the moderators want to tow the whole thing to another thread.

[SherpDaWerp]

Option 2 directly offers the opportunity for rich citizens (as introduced by a literal rich citizen who has incentive to do this) to pay people money to protest, hence the effect line about poor people protesting.

Option 3 also lets you pay protestors, but doesn't have the relevant focus on "rich people hiring poor people for stuff", which means there's less subtext and less reason for us to base the entire effect line on it. Instead, a few people complain a lot, as the option results in the slightly more generic version of "protestor-for-hire is now a legitimate job".

Umm... everything you describe here matches up with how I think the effect lines should go, and not with how they actually do go according to TalAkMaChen's in-depth report. To reiterate:

1408:2 a few people seem to spend their whole time complaining
1408:3 surprising numbers of poor people are protesting against taxing the rich

The effect line for option 2 mentions nothing about rich or poor people, and the effect line for option 3 mentions nothing about only "a few" people. Either you or TalAkMaChen needs to have seriously and repeatedly gotten confused over which option is which.

Now I've thoroughly strangled the joke to death... could you use the "help fix old issues" thread for stuff like this? The idea is that this thread hosts all the numbers-for-numbers stats, while the other one hosts textual errors (like potentially-swapped effect lines).

Umm... sorry Now we're already here, it's more legible to keep the whole discussion in one thread, but I won't object if the moderators want to tow the whole thing to another thread.

Hm, no, I did misread that. Neither of them are incorrect for their options, just not the obvious expectation if you're reading a big spoiler list. I'll ask, but I'm not super keen on getting it changed.

Can't be bothered moving the posts, we're discussing it anyway. Don't stress about it, just a general note for next time.

[La Badlandoj]

I just had a strange result from option 2 of #893 (Bread is the Stuff of Strife) on Carcosa Seri Negara. A fairly straightforward-sounding decision to let restaurants decide whether to give out free bread or not drastically increased Charmlessness, which wasn't too low in the first place -- it went from 25.98 to 57.01, or +31.03/+119%. So far as I can gather from the stats dump, this is the highest Charmlessness increase ever reported from that option, and the mean increase is less than 1. It's pretty funny, so I'm not complaining, but I'm a tad bewildered. Is all the bread made of sawdust and rusty wires?

[Dingbats]

I chose option 3 ("New "Commiserations! It's An Accident!" greetings cards for expectant mothers are selling surprisingly quickly") of issue 1142 (Womb Service), which bans abortion in all circumstances, and my civil rights went up while authoritarianism and social conservatism went down?

This has come up before, so I'm going to quote myself:

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.

As for authoritarianism and social conservatism, they're secondary stats, somewhat tied to civil rights. They both tend to go down when civil rights go up.

Is this still a thing? I chose option 1 'free abortions for all' (paraphrasing) for Womb Service and my civil rights dropped.

[SherpDaWerp]

I just had a strange result from option 2 of #893 (Bread is the Stuff of Strife) on Carcosa Seri Negara. A fairly straightforward-sounding decision to let restaurants decide whether to give out free bread or not drastically increased Charmlessness, which wasn't too low in the first place -- it went from 25.98 to 57.01, or +31.03/+119%. So far as I can gather from the stats dump, this is the highest Charmlessness increase ever reported from that option, and the mean increase is less than 1. It's pretty funny, so I'm not complaining, but I'm a tad bewildered. Is all the bread made of sawdust and rusty wires?

Your nation was just in the absolute peak spot for the stat changes of that option. Editors don't directly code Charmlessness, and the rest of the stat effects for that issue are completely OK.

Please also note that Trott's stats dump is not perfect, and avoids picking up a wide variety of stat changes (e.g. WA members are excluded). Additionally, percentage-based effects can be misleading. 119% seems large, but a change of 31.03 points should be considered relative to the magnitude of the stat - on high-scoring nations it goes up to 5,500.

This has come up before, so I'm going to quote myself:

Is this still a thing? I chose option 1 'free abortions for all' (paraphrasing) for Womb Service and my civil rights dropped.

Yes, it's still a thing. Please note the disclaimer - "generally speaking, allowing for individual stats". There are competing freedoms here - that of the mother vs that of the child. We've made it such that civil rights should always rise, but if you've already maxed out one of the relevant sub-scores you might only see the decrease.

[Postcapitalistworld]

In issue "Playful Petitions Pester Politicians" I chose option 4.
To my surprise, it didn't repeal compulsory nudism policy

[Verdant Haven]

In issue "Playful Petitions Pester Politicians" I chose option 4.
To my surprise, it didn't repeal compulsory nudism policy

Hmm, looks like that whole issue might be in need of a validity against nations with the nudism policy. I'll bring it up backstage.

Thank you for the report.

[Bears Armed]

This nation, just now.

NO. 1'352
The Brains Behind Kuru

Option chosen: #1

Intelligence dropped, but shouldn't taking steps to prevent a degenerative brain disease -- as this option does -- increase intelligence rather than decrease it?
Or did something unusual about this nation's previous stats mean that in this case the secondary effects of other changes were so much larger than the editors considered "normal" for this option that they actually swamped an editorially-planned increase?

[Postcapitalistworld]

A bit late realization, but I don't understand why employing children as "moles" in issue "The Woman From AUNT" didn't lead to legalization of child labor in my nation. These children are basically freelance undercover agents of the law.

[Essic]

I have a small question, I legalized Democracy in my nation, and my patriotism went down from 23 to 11. I also legalized 'devolution' and it decreased patriotism as well. Is this an accidental stat error or if it's not, why? I wonder why Democracy would be unpatriotic to the people.

[Barinive]

How does making the government apologize in the "It's a bird, no it's a plane, wait it was a plane" or an issue of similar name reduce civil rights? It did it by like 5%, reducing it from very good to only good?? Shouldn't it actually increase political freedom?

[Myon]

On issue 464, I picked the option that gave that sounded it would reduce rudeness, by banning hate speech. But it did the opposite!!

The Talking Point

Being impolite in public is punishable by heavy fines.

Recent Trends

...
Rudeness
Insults Per Minute 6.38 → 6.40 0.31%

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... 1c5a44920&

[Verdant Haven]

A bit of catch-up here – I'll answer what I can!

This nation, just now.

NO. 1'352
The Brains Behind Kuru

Option chosen: #1

Intelligence dropped, but shouldn't taking steps to prevent a degenerative brain disease -- as this option does -- increase intelligence rather than decrease it?
Or did something unusual about this nation's previous stats mean that in this case the secondary effects of other changes were so much larger than the editors considered "normal" for this option that they actually swamped an editorially-planned increase?

It's not something unusual in particular, but rather a very tiny knock-on effect from some of the other stats – the affected population from the outbreaks isn't by itself considered large enough to get its own specific statistics, so it's looking at the broader impacts of the program implementation suggested.

A bit late realization, but I don't understand why employing children as "moles" in issue "The Woman From AUNT" didn't lead to legalization of child labor in my nation. These children are basically freelance undercover agents of the law.

They wouldn't be freelance – they'd be a small number of specifically trained and recruited government agents. The child labor policy tends to reflect a broad-based public law that allows children to be hired into everyday workplaces, while this is exclusively a tiny, classified, government program.

I have a small question, I legalized Democracy in my nation, and my patriotism went down from 23 to 11. I also legalized 'devolution' and it decreased patriotism as well. Is this an accidental stat error or if it's not, why? I wonder why Democracy would be unpatriotic to the people.

Generally speaking, Patriotism is increased by (among other things) stuff that centralizes power and strengthens the central government. By removing autocracy (ceding personal power to the voters) and installing devolution (ceding central power to the provinces), you're reducing those things. Don't worry – there are lots of other ways to build up patriotism – those just happen to be some notable ones!

How does making the government apologize in the "It's a bird, no it's a plane, wait it was a plane" or an issue of similar name reduce civil rights? It did it by like 5%, reducing it from very good to only good?? Shouldn't it actually increase political freedom?

Civil Rights and Political Freedom are different things. In regards to the question though, notice that in addition to apologizing, it also says "massively cut back on the number of weapons in circulation." You went from not restricting weaponry at all to having "massive" restrictions – that's the civil rights drop in question.

On issue 464, I picked the option that gave that sounded it would reduce rudeness, by banning hate speech. But it did the opposite!!

The Talking Point

Being impolite in public is punishable by heavy fines.

Recent Trends

...
Rudeness
Insults Per Minute 6.38 → 6.40 0.31%

That's... a very interesting outcome. Studying the stats for a minute, I can see *why* it happened, but I agree it probably shouldn't. I'll bring this up backstage and see if we can give it a tweak.

[Varnash]

Varnash, March 12, 2024

NO. 502
Scientists Declare That @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ Are Persons

Option Chosen: #1

For some reason, my nation classification changed from Authoritarian Democracy to Democratic Socialists, despite my policies stating that my nation practiced capitalism, and despite socialism having absolutely nothing to do with preventing testing on @@ANIMALPLURAL@@.
The Varnashi Administrative Body is capable of interfering with the economy, and public industry is common, so my country’s economic policies are mixed, but my economy doesn’t seem planned/command enough for my country to be considered socialist.
Please provide an explanation.
Thanks!
<3

[Trotterdam]

"Democratic Socialists" is used for nations with low economic freedom, even if they don't have the actual Socialism policy. Basically, you're still allowing private enterprise, but it's so heavily regulated and taxed that the World Assembly still regards you as socialist. Less Soviet Union and more Nordic countries.

[Varnash]

"Democratic Socialists" is used for nations with low economic freedom, even if they don't have the actual Socialism policy. Basically, you're still allowing private enterprise, but it's so heavily regulated and taxed that the World Assembly still regards you as socialist. Less Soviet Union and more Nordic countries.

Oh, that makes sense. Thank you!

<3

[United Umoja]

Instituting vat reproduction with issue #1028 shouldn't cancel Sex Education policies IMO. Sex ed is still valuable. It's not like the vat reproduction policy bans sex itself.

I've taken this backstage for discussion. It may take some time. Please be patient.

Has anything been done since this two year old response? Are the two policies still mutually exclusive? I'm currently facing the same issue and considering a possibility to introduce vat babies to solve demographic problem, but I don't want to lose my sex education (the issue text is in no way implying my citizens would be banned from having sex).

[Varnash]

Nation: Varnash
Date: March 16, 2024
Issue: @@LEADER@@ And The Chocolate Factory (No. 842)
Effect: Pacifism went down by 0.41% after I selected option 1, which allows all illegal immigrants to be allowed amnesty and citizenship.
I'd assume this option would raise my pacifism not lower it.

[Postcapitalistworld]

I got "We Need Cash, Sharpish, Say Librarians".
In #2 option owner of a bookstore is worried that sponsorship of libraries will put their bookstore out of business. But this is impossible, as my country has planned economy with private enterprise illegal.

[Yin Jung]

Following new legislation in Yin Jung, companies flee the nation rather than pay their fair share of taxes.

Issue 445 - Evasive Maneuvers
I chose 2. "That's bloody ridiculous!" puffs red-faced protester, @@RANDOM_NAME@@, blowing spittle all over their supercilious counterpart. "They're trying to paint all of this as something that any reasonable person would do - but it just isn't! I don't know every inch of the tax code, and it's not like I can get all these smug big-shots to hang around the flat and tell me how to 'structure my assets', or some other rubbish. They knew what they did was against the spirit of the law, if nothing else - take them for all they've got. It's only fair."

I chose the option to strict the laws and stop corporations from evading taxes, and all of a sudden companies chose to fled my nation, I think this is pretty weird.
I mean, for the sake of other people's rights, I'd assure everyone is fair in paying taxes, but that doesn't mean companies will start to flee the nation just because they couldn't evade taxes.
How am I going to improve my economy if corporations are evading taxes, or fleeing the nations? Plus my nation has high patriotism and civil rights, which mean the people know and love the fact that social welfare and equity is provided.

[Socialismia]

Following new legislation in Yin Jung, companies flee the nation rather than pay their fair share of taxes.

Issue 445 - Evasive Maneuvers
I chose 2. "That's bloody ridiculous!" puffs red-faced protester, @@RANDOM_NAME@@, blowing spittle all over their supercilious counterpart. "They're trying to paint all of this as something that any reasonable person would do - but it just isn't! I don't know every inch of the tax code, and it's not like I can get all these smug big-shots to hang around the flat and tell me how to 'structure my assets', or some other rubbish. They knew what they did was against the spirit of the law, if nothing else - take them for all they've got. It's only fair."

I chose the option to strict the laws and stop corporations from evading taxes, and all of a sudden companies chose to fled my nation, I think this is pretty weird.
I mean, for the sake of other people's rights, I'd assure everyone is fair in paying taxes, but that doesn't mean companies will start to flee the nation just because they couldn't evade taxes.
How am I going to improve my economy if corporations are evading taxes, or fleeing the nations? Plus my nation has high patriotism and civil rights, which mean the people know and love the fact that social welfare and equity is provided.

That's just the average issue effect line, no? Something comedic that also can possibly happen. "I think it's pretty weird" doesn't justify this (as in your post) to be posted in the Unusual Issue Effects. At least in my eyes.

[Barinive]

Following new legislation in Yin Jung, companies flee the nation rather than pay their fair share of taxes.

Issue 445 - Evasive Maneuvers
I chose 2. "That's bloody ridiculous!" puffs red-faced protester, @@RANDOM_NAME@@, blowing spittle all over their supercilious counterpart. "They're trying to paint all of this as something that any reasonable person would do - but it just isn't! I don't know every inch of the tax code, and it's not like I can get all these smug big-shots to hang around the flat and tell me how to 'structure my assets', or some other rubbish. They knew what they did was against the spirit of the law, if nothing else - take them for all they've got. It's only fair."

I chose the option to strict the laws and stop corporations from evading taxes, and all of a sudden companies chose to fled my nation, I think this is pretty weird.
I mean, for the sake of other people's rights, I'd assure everyone is fair in paying taxes, but that doesn't mean companies will start to flee the nation just because they couldn't evade taxes.
How am I going to improve my economy if corporations are evading taxes, or fleeing the nations? Plus my nation has high patriotism and civil rights, which mean the people know and love the fact that social welfare and equity is provided.

removing loopholes on taxes would probably make corporations leave, it's a logical effect of making them pay taxes when some usually use legal loopholes to evade taxes.

[Barinive]

This is probably an oversight but selecting option 3 in issue 1201, but essentialy option 3 makes the government develop a brain chip for interrogation use, but shouldn't this remove the no computers policy?

[Socialismia]

Issue "What a Waste"'s 3rd option (encountered in this nation today) leads to cancelling my 'No WMD' policy, despite the fact that the issue never mentioned anything about weapons of mass destruction. The issue was about nuclear power but there is a clear difference between supporting nuclear power and supporting nuclear weapons...