[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[The United Oman]

Today I answered issue 205 and chose answer one the guy talking about people being allowed to eat meat because they are omnivores. Though I chose this it didn't cancel my policy for compulsory vegetarianism.

[Jutsa]

While this is stupid, it is also something that has actually happened in real life in the United States.

Go America!

[Jutsa]

Today I answered issue 205 and chose answer one the guy talking about people being allowed to eat meat because they are omnivores. Though I chose this it didn't cancel my policy for compulsory vegetarianism.

Ok, yes, this is very unusual. I reported it to Ransium because this is almost certainly not supposed to be how it works.

[Ransium]

Today I answered issue 205 and chose answer one the guy talking about people being allowed to eat meat because they are omnivores. Though I chose this it didn't cancel my policy for compulsory vegetarianism.

We messed something up but we fixed it now. Unfortunately, I don't have the power to fix your policy, but if you make that choice again in the future it will have the effect you expect.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

To be clear, I made a cut and paste error when reviewing that issue's stats. Like Ransium says, fixed now.

[Fauxia]

To be clear, I made a cut and paste error when reviewing that issue's stats. Like Ransium says, fixed now.

How was vacation from the thread

[Banana Hammock]

I'm used to seeing unexpected results that don't seem to have anything to do with the issue being decided, but I had 2 results that actually had the OPPOSITE effect on ratings I did expect them to alter.

The strangest one was 4 days ago.
Nation: Banana Hammock
I think the scenario was called "The Path Less Traveled".

It was a scenario where the ports in my nation's northern most cities were blocked by ice in the winter, causing the industry and economy to stall in the winter.

I selected the option to use icebreakers to keep the sea lanes free from ice. The effect was to DECREASE the economy and nearly every single industry. I'm not understanding how that could cause an effect on both the economy and nearly every industry to be worse. I could understand it having very little effect, but worse for both the economy and industry than doing nothing? According to the scenario, they were already shut down for 3 months, so how can they produce less than 0?

The effect I had expected was that freeing the ports to accept imports of raw materials and then export finished goods would INCREASE all industry and the economy. More than likely with some other negative consequences, but on something other than the very categories I'm helping. Could it be that the numbers were recorded backwards in the program?

I will mention the othe unexpected result in another post.

[Banana Hammock]

As mentioned in my other post, I'm used to seeing unexpected results that don't seem to have anything to do with the issue being decided, but I had 2 results that actually had the OPPOSITE effect on ratings I did expect them to alter. This is the (perhaps less) strange result:

Nation: Banana Hammock
When: 3 days ago
Issue: I think it was called "Tempted by the Fruit of Another".

It was an issue where I had to decide on whether to allow canabalism. I chose not to allow it. The effect was that my beverage industry and I think my cheese exports declined. I would have expected them to decline if there were suddenly a new food option available (people), not to mention many nations would suddenly ban food imports from "questionable" sources (like a nation that eats people). Not just from a moral or gross standpoint, there is the whole disease-transmission problem when consuming the same species. Ranther than DECREASE, I would expect these categories to INCREASE if the nation resumed it's focus and production on more traditional foods (not people).

[Jutsa]

In both of these instances, you're probably absorbing larger chunks of the economy into your non-business taxes,
which would probably decrease income in the economy and also decrease job opportunities,
which would also lower your cheese making industry without you knowing if you're hiring police to crack down on cannibalism,
or indirectly by increasing religious spending which'd occur because the system somewhat correlates that sort of option with religiousness.

TBH, I have no idea if this is what's going on, but I honestly can see reasons as to why this might be going on.
Think of it like irl, where totally unexpected consequences come around, but in a limited and sometimes controversial game engine.

(as for your icebreaker one specifically, think about it: you're spending how much on ice breaking, to let one town export... how many goods?)

[Candlewhisper Archive]

To be clear, I made a cut and paste error when reviewing that issue's stats. Like Ransium says, fixed now.

How was vacation from the thread

Ongoing. That post was flagged for my attention. I'm just not going to answer the general queries, which from the looks of things y'all have got in hand anyway.

If you, or other folk who actually know how the game works, see anything that looks in need of genuine attention, then do drop me a line.

[Lamaredia]

Nation: Lamaredia
Issue: @@LEADER@@, Let Your People Go!, number 538
Problem: Choosing the option to make bathrooms gender neutral to accommodate gender fluid persons gave me a rise in authoritarianism and conservatism, while lowering my civil rights. I don't feel like it would fit?

[Jutsa]

That's something that's very controversial. Frankly, I don't even understand it, but it's long since been rules as more-or-less correct.

[Cekoviu]

Nation: Lamaredia
Issue: @@LEADER@@, Let Your People Go!, number 538
Problem: Choosing the option to make bathrooms gender neutral to accommodate gender fluid persons gave me a rise in authoritarianism and conservatism, while lowering my civil rights. I don't feel like it would fit?

This issue was raised previously in this thread, IIRC. The reason it lowers civil rights is because people now have to share bathrooms with the opposite gender, which could be considered an intrusion of privacy by some, and it makes the wait for bathrooms take longer.

[Blood Wine]

irradiating bank notes gave me the WMD policy, that doesn't seem right

[Luna Amore]

irradiating bank notes gave me the WMD policy, that doesn't seem right

It's come up before and this was an editor's reasoning:

Name : Perelingo
Date : 28 november 2017
Issue #656 "Ransoms Noted" activates the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction (in Policies section) when the user chooses the option to irradiate the money paid to the hostage takers. This is nonsense. I have climate treaty, I had the ban of WMDs, m Defense budget is under 0, and I get this.

Hi, thanks for the question. The issue is working as intended.

Let's look at the whole answer that you chose [relevant portions highlighted]:

Wild-haired scientist Heidi Quayle barrels into your office, panting heavily. “Stop! We CAN have our cake and eat it too! We should make the drop, but insist on cash payment. Then, we liberally irradiate the bank-notes, and watch as the hostage-takers, their associates and their families die from radiation poisoning. That basically solves the problem!”

In effect, by pumping the money full of radiation, they are turning the money into a WMD. A WMD doesn't have to be nuclear or chemical. Radiological weapons can be just as harmful. That's why it activated the WMD policy. Good news is that, at some time, you will get an issue to reverse the policy.

EDIT: Regarding concerns about the incompatibility of the Climate Treaty and WMDs, I can think of several parties and signatories to the RL Paris Agreement that uphold for themselves the right to have nuclear warheads, so the two aren't incompatible on a national level (my personal RL feelings on the subject notwithstanding).

[Banana Hammock]

In both of these instances, you're probably absorbing larger chunks of the economy into your non-business taxes,
which would probably decrease income in the economy and also decrease job opportunities,
which would also lower your cheese making industry without you knowing if you're hiring police to crack down on cannibalism,
or indirectly by increasing religious spending which'd occur because the system somewhat correlates that sort of option with religiousness.

TBH, I have no idea if this is what's going on, but I honestly can see reasons as to why this might be going on.
Think of it like irl, where totally unexpected consequences come around, but in a limited and sometimes controversial game engine.

(as for your icebreaker one specifically, think about it: you're spending how much on ice breaking, to let one town export... how many goods?)

Icebreakers: wouldn't I actually be increasing job opportunities. Someone has to make the icebreakers. Someone has to pilot them. Someone has to train the pilots. Someone has to sell the fuel to them. Those are jobs. Then there is the factories that are no longer laying workers off every winter. More jobs.

Ports: I believe it said cities. Plural.

As I said, I expected some things to increase. Taxes, maybe, to pay for them. Maybe some negative eco-friendliness impact on polar bears, prmitiveness, and welfare (people working 3 months longer). I could see an argument for increasing income of the rich, average income, wealth gap, either rudeness (I have to work in the cold? Boo.) Or niceness (I got to keep my job? Yay.), Employment (obviously), death rate, government size... All of that could be believable side effects.

What is not believable to me is to have nearly every industry, including the ones I'm directly helping (manufacturing), decrease. I literally gave that industry exactly what they asked for to keep the factories running. The results were much, much worse than doing nothing to help the industry. I say again, they were already producing 0 product for 3 months. You can't make less than 0.

If that's not something that qualifies for an unusual issue effect, then I don't know what does. To me, it's obvious. It is the exact opposite of the expected results. That is unusual.

The canabalism is more a hypothetical issue, since it's not embraced by any nation in the real world (to my knowledge), so that is why I listed that as a lesser of the 2 scenarios. Any argument would be conjecture. But icebreakers are used in real life in the Arctic regions, Antarctic regions, and North American great lakes.

[He Qixin]

Today, this nation. Chose 218.1 to give parents' rights to adopt any children.

Inclusiveness increased, but religiousness dropped?!

I don't see how giving parents' rights to adopt any children decreases religiousness.

[Jutsa]

Huh... good points, Banana. This is something I therefor can not answer, myself.

Hopefully someone better equipped to handle/understand this can come check this out.

@He Qixin: It's not parents' rights to choose any children, it's giving any parents' rights to adopt children.

Specifically, letting homosexual people adopt children. Religions generally are against homosexuals, for some reason,
therefor this has decreased your religiousness going by real-life examples.

[Indrustan]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=enact ... ilemma=620

nation name :https://www.nationstates.net/nation=indrustan
occurred now................


when i select option 1, to provide meals at schools for kids , average disposable income should increase ...but it decreased by 0.54%.

[Leutria]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=enact_dilemma/dilemma=620

nation name :https://www.nationstates.net/nation=indrustan
occurred now................


when i select option 1, to provide meals at schools for kids , average disposable income should increase ...but it decreased by 0.54%.

Average disposable income is simply based on average income and the tax rate. So if the issue made taxes go up (to pay for the lunches), and average income remained the same, then average disposable income drops. This of it more as "After tax income", rather then actual disposable income.

[No Economy]

I answered 108.2, which is an anti-gambling option, but resulted in no decrease in the stat.

[Cekoviu]

I answered 108.2, which is an anti-gambling option, but resulted in no decrease in the stat.

#108 is contingent upon already banning gambling. Since you have no gambling in the first place, you cannot decrease it any further.

[No Economy]

I answered 108.2, which is an anti-gambling option, but resulted in no decrease in the stat.

#108 is contingent upon already banning gambling. Since you have no gambling in the first place, you cannot decrease it any further.

When you pick an anti-industry/government spending option, it will go down even if its negative.

[Allied Iran]

I'm posting this because I'm not sure. I mean, it doesn't exactly fit the NS MO, even if I personally agree with the results.

So, I took the issue #615, Tempted by the Fruit of Another. Answered with #2, which suggests socialist control of the factories that don't have an owner anymore.


And it increased my Econ Freedom by 6.6%, while lowering my tax a little.

Bug or feature?

[Ransium]

#108 is contingent upon already banning gambling. Since you have no gambling in the first place, you cannot decrease it any further.

When you pick an anti-industry/government spending option, it will go down even if its negative.

It's working as intended.