[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects Since New Update

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

Nation: Askatopia, issue 84.1 only gave a very minor increase in weaponisation (0.08 ---> 0.1).
I was previously very anti-gun with that nation, but I'd still expect compulsory gun ownership to raise it more than that.

The right / compulsion to carry guns is not the only factor that affects weaponisation. The simulation obviously doesn't follow the narrative well in this case, but certainly the stat directions for this option are correct. The size of the change is dependent on a multitude of factors though, and as such it's going to give very variable results according to the nation. I suggest looking at it abstractly: even though you've made fun ownership compulsory, an ingrained distaste for firearms in the population means many would rather break the law than carry a gun. That's not to say your decision won't have future consequences - if you can change the character of the population, weaponisation will rise far quicker than if you have restrictive gun controls.

OK, thanks!

[Little Sealand]

Hello, I answered option 2 for issue 643 on Little Sealand.
I was expecting a larger increase in my scientific advancement (376.71 to 378.62) and intelligence (100.29 to 100.31), rather than a around a .5% increase

I also noticed that it affected 39 different stats and only 7 of which were affected above a 1% difference. I'm wondering if you could check the stats of the issue to see if its supposed to have such a small effect, or if its just my nation, as most other issues have a more tangible effect.

[Atomic Utopia]

I selected for more regulation (option one) in "Wheels of Misfortune" and my death rate went up.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Hello, I answered option 2 for issue 643 on Little Sealand.
I was expecting a larger increase in my scientific advancement (376.71 to 378.62) and intelligence (100.29 to 100.31), rather than a around a .5% increase

I also noticed that it affected 39 different stats and only 7 of which were affected above a 1% difference. I'm wondering if you could check the stats of the issue to see if its supposed to have such a small effect, or if its just my nation, as most other issues have a more tangible effect.

The stats of the issue are of appropriate magnitude.

One thing you'll notice, as time goes by, is that decisions you make that are consistent with past decisions will have increasingly small effects. This makes sense really, as your nation's population is coming close to 5 billion, which is about two-thirds of the way to the real world's population. With a nation that big, even a project like a Space Elevator is a relatively small expenditure with a relatively small impact. Apply the same option to a brand new nation, and you'll see much more dramatic changes.

Of course, you and me, we're pretty much small fry by NS standards. Those 20+ billion nations, they barely change at all with many decisions, unless a decision represents a big shift in direction.

Here, I wrote a factbook on the topic, as it's such a common query:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=can ... /id=743331

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I selected for more regulation (option one) in "Wheels of Misfortune" and my death rate went up.

That's an overly simplistic reading that fails to take context into account.

What you did was put in safety standards that were already consistent with your nation's general high level of standards, so didn't much change your overall level of standards on a national level, but did enough to weaken the auto industry. There were also knock on economic effects to this choice, and those knock on economic effects, along with other stat changes, resulted in the game engine calculating your death rate to be marginally higher than it was before.

Death Rate
Bus Surprisal Index 34.58 → 34.64 0.17%

All working as intended.

[Skappola]

A "Friend" in Need
Issue No. 663

Sending humanitarian aid (option 4) caused my scientific advancement to drop by 8.3%?!

[Little Sealand]

Hello, I answered option 2 for issue 643 on Little Sealand.
I was expecting a larger increase in my scientific advancement (376.71 to 378.62) and intelligence (100.29 to 100.31), rather than a around a .5% increase

I also noticed that it affected 39 different stats and only 7 of which were affected above a 1% difference. I'm wondering if you could check the stats of the issue to see if its supposed to have such a small effect, or if its just my nation, as most other issues have a more tangible effect.

The stats of the issue are of appropriate magnitude.

One thing you'll notice, as time goes by, is that decisions you make that are consistent with past decisions will have increasingly small effects. This makes sense really, as your nation's population is coming close to 5 billion, which is about two-thirds of the way to the real world's population. With a nation that big, even a project like a Space Elevator is a relatively small expenditure with a relatively small impact. Apply the same option to a brand new nation, and you'll see much more dramatic changes.

Of course, you and me, we're pretty much small fry by NS standards. Those 20+ billion nations, they barely change at all with many decisions, unless a decision represents a big shift in direction.

Here, I wrote a factbook on the topic, as it's such a common query:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=can ... /id=743331

Ah, that would be why. The lack of scaling of effects in NS is a sort of double edged sword for older nations, although I can't imagine the percentage change in 20+ billion nations. Thanks for your helpful response!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

A "Friend" in Need
Issue No. 663

Sending humanitarian aid (option 4) caused my scientific advancement to drop by 8.3%?!

Yeah, that's not right. None of the stat changes should have had any effect on scientific advancement at all, and repeating the experiment on your nation again (don't worry its all simulated, not done to your actual nation) creates no change.

I'll flag this one with the bosses.

[Prosophobia]

Issue 462: choosing to eliminate all street lights should not increase lifespan, decrease primitiveness, increase scientific advancement, decrease ignorance. It doesn't really make sense.

The stat inputs are reasonable here, but the game engine has some excessive secondary effects based on some of these changes, especially with a small improvement in the environment having huge numbers of externality benefits. This has been raised, and I'm told is being reexamined by admin/tech for this next game update.

No changes needed from the editorial side.

Yes. This is what I expected. A complete disconnect. It is almost like the people who determine issue effects actually have no idea of what the issues represent. Have you ever driven down a road without street lights? Yes. Those increase lifespan.

I only need to add this:

"the government's only official statement on the burning down of Prosophobia City was that 'they shouldn't have been so careless', kids laugh off vandalism and arson as "just fun", and concert pianists lie about their occupation to avoid ridicule"

The Last one increased death rates, the first one did not, but of course eliminating street lights wouldn't.

I have seen countless incidents where the results are so out of whack with reality but didn't take the time because I knew this would be the end result of my efforts.

Ignorance is bliss as they say.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Man. I can't stand whiners. I give you an explanation and you give me whine whine whine.

You're not happy with the game works? Try and change it.

That's what I did, when I joined this game. I came late to Nationstates, I thought "hmm, these issues don't work how I'd like them to", and I thought "I don't really get the stat logic here." I thought "this game has some nice features, but someone needs to think about this thing here, and someone needs to cover this gap in the story the issues paint here."

So I wrote some better issues. And they got added. And I learnt how the game worked. And I got noticed for wanting to make the game better, and I got invited to be an editor. Then I took a look at the game engine, found a load of holes, and showed them to everyone and suggested fixes, and got the work on the fixes. Then I reviewed the hundreds of issues in the game and I found ways where the stats weren't looking right, and I started fixing them. Editors then noticed that I really cared about this stuff, and I got bumped up to give me the access to the code I needed to start making changes. I kept at it, kept fine tuning, kept changing things. At the same time I kept links and presence in GI, to make sure that the people who helped me when I started here got their shot at making a change too, and to get new and keen authors on the path to making a difference in this game too. All this has helped the game, and recently they're recognising this too, moving me up a rank again to being a Senior Issues dude.

This is because back when I started playing this game I thought "I'm not sure this works", so I got down on my knees, rolled up my sleeves, took out my toolbox, and started fixing.

I really don't get your mentality. You see problems, and your chosen response is to whine that some perceived authority figures aren't making things better for you.
I've been playing this game half the time you have, and I don't sit around whining that it's not the game I want it to be. I make it the game I want it to be.

You want this game to be better? Make it better. I mean seriously, when you get a flat tyre, do you sit there whining that there ought to be a government tyre-changing service and that the Queen of England ought to give a damn about your broken tyre? Or do you get out of the car, and change the tyre?

I find it hilarious that you're talking about "your efforts". Dude, I spent three hours last night reading and reviewing issue code, as part of a global review of policy code that has been going on for the past three months. Every editor and moderator and game tech is back there doing all sorts of work you can't imagine, for no pay at all, for no reason other than because we want to make a better free game. That's what effort looks like. What you're doing: meh, I use more effort on my morning toilet routine.

Anyway, to quote Firefly, "I cannot abide useless people."

You a useless person, or you got something useful to say?

[Cultural Hegemony]

Issue 462: choosing to eliminate all street lights should not increase lifespan...

The health effects of light pollution have not been as well defined for humans as for wildlife, although a compelling amount of epidemiologic evidence points to a consistent association between exposure to indoor artificial nighttime light and health problems such as breast cancer, says George Brainard, a professor of neurology at Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. “That association does not prove that artificial light causes the problem. On the other hand, controlled laboratory studies do show that exposure to light during the night can disrupt circadian and neuroendocrine physiology, thereby accelerating tumor growth.”
...
The connection between artificial light and sleep disorders is a fairly intuitive one. Difficulties with adjusting the circadian clock can lead to a number of sleep disorders, including shift-work sleep disorder, which affects people who rotate shifts or work at night, and delayed sleep–phase syndrome, in which people tend to fall asleep very late at night and have difficulty waking up in time for work, school, or social engagements.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/117-a20/

In regards to human, to date there are no doubts that exposure to light at night (LAN) decreases pineal melatonin (MLT) production and secretion and are not only a source for phase shift in daily rhythms
...
Alteration of the circadian clock may cause performance, alertness, sleep and metabolic disorders. Exposure to light at night suppresses the production of the pineal hormone melatonin, and since melatonin is an oncostatic or anti-carcinognenic agent, lower levels in blood may encourage the growth of some type of cancers (Glickman et al., 2002; Stevens et al., 2007; Kloog et al., 2008, 2009; Bullough et al., 2006; Haim et al., 2010). MLT seems to have an influence on coronary heart disease (Brugger et al., 1995). LAN acts directly on physiology, or indirectly by causing sleep disorders and deprivation, that may have negative effects on several disorders
such as diabetes, obesity and others (Haus and Smolensky, 2006; Bass and Turek, 2005). For a brief review of physiological, epidemiological
and ecological consequences of LAN see Navara and Nelson (Navara and Nelson, 2007)

Falchi, F., et al., Limiting the impact of light pollution on human health, environment and stellar visibility,
Journal of Environmental Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.029

Just two out of zillions of Google Scholar search results. Tl;dr -- artificial nighttime lighting may adversely affect human health, with the implication being that reducing/eliminating said lighting may have beneficial effects.

Issue 462: choosing to eliminate all street lights should not...decrease primitiveness, increase scientific advancement, decrease ignorance...

The present and future effect of artificial illumination on ground-based optical astronomical observations in California and Arizona is discussed. It is concluded that the effectiveness of all major observatories in these states is presently or potentially limited by light pollution. Consequently, it is essential that immediate efforts be undertaken to: (1) Control outdoor illumination to lengthen the useful life of existing observatory sites...

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES

There are two ways that light pollution interferes with our ability to study the sky. The first is simply that unshielded lights send their light in all directions, including straight up. This sets the sky aglow, in much the same way that the sun sets the sky aglow during the day. Now, the sky does not glow as brightly at night as it does during the day, but the increase in sky glow caused by cities is enough to make it difficult to see dim objects in the sky. When we try to take a picture of a very dim object, sometimes the glow from the sky is too bright to ever see the object clearly.
...
The second way city lights interfere with astronomy is much more insidious. Often, astronomers want to take the spectra of an object, splitting the light from the telescope into its component colors. When you take a spectrum of fluorescing objects like galaxies, you see that the spectrum is not smooth, but made up of a number of lines. Each line is a unique indicator of the presence of a certain chemical. By studying the strengths of these lines, astronomers can deduce the chemical composition and temperatures of the objects they observe. By noting the redshift of the lines (how far to the red side of the spectrum they are shifted), astronomers can determine how fast the object is moving. Spectroscopy is probably the most valuable tool in the astronomers' toolbox. Unfortunately, city lights play havoc with spectrographs.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate

Two more out of zillions of Google/Scholar search results. Tl;dr -- artificial nighttime lighting directly and adversely affects earth-based astronomical and cosmological research, with the implication being that reducing/eliminating said lighting may have beneficial effects for those sciences.

It doesn't really make sense.

If you completely ignore the parts where it does.

[Dubious Content]

Why did neither 493.3 nor 628.2 affect my Recreational Drug Use on this account? (Note: This is a puppet of Tinhampton.)

[Really stateless nation]

“We won’t be ‘International’ for long without a capacity increase,” laments Transport Minister Lauren Yates while wringing her hands. “If we want to remain a global hub, we need another runway and we need it now. We’ll have to bulldoze a few houses to clear room, but just think of the microbitcoins we’ll make from all those passengers.”

Homeowners are evicted to make way for new runways.

Income equality:
0.53 → 0.57

Average Income of the Poor:
4,089.44 → 4,443.70

I don't understand how it's possible. Am I missing something?

[Luna Amore]

Why did neither 493.3 nor 628.2 affect my Recreational Drug Use on this account? (Note: This is a puppet of Tinhampton.)

There's only so free you can make people with regards to choice. Working as intended.

[Xqurxyu]

152.2 unlocks the Conference (Partner with private industry) banner. This choice kicks all capitalist out of the country.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

“We won’t be ‘International’ for long without a capacity increase,” laments Transport Minister Lauren Yates while wringing her hands. “If we want to remain a global hub, we need another runway and we need it now. We’ll have to bulldoze a few houses to clear room, but just think of the microbitcoins we’ll make from all those passengers.”

Homeowners are evicted to make way for new runways.

Income equality:
0.53 → 0.57

Average Income of the Poor:
4,089.44 → 4,443.70

I don't understand how it's possible. Am I missing something?

Simulation weirdness, relating to how incomes relate to economic freedoms, and the various ways in which economic freedoms are defined. It's not entirely in keeping with the narrative, but the game engine works that way for sensible reasons. Take it as a "realistic" simulation of how the economy doesn't always respond in an expected or rational way to government policies.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

152.2 unlocks the Conference (Partner with private industry) banner. This choice kicks all capitalist out of the country.

The issue code looks good and appropriate, and are working as intended.

I don't know what conditions trigger that banner though.

[Literary Detectives]

Issue 194.3

"We're fast running out of land and resources here, so why not invade this place, kick out whoever's in power there, and take over? We've got the military power, so why wait? If any of those hippies in the region have somethin' to say about it, they can say hello to our missile programmes, haha!"

Among other odd results ended up with causing a reduction in my defense forces

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Testing with other nations suggests Defense Forces rises appropriately. Looking at your recent answered issues doesn't show you've had this issue in the last couple of weeks.

What date did you answer this issue please, and with which nation?

[Noahs Second Country]

I used to be top 15% inclusiveness... now I am really low. I just noticed this. Can someone tell me what I did?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=noa ... ensusid=71

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I used to be top 15% inclusiveness... now I am really low. I just noticed this. Can someone tell me what I did?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=noa ... ensusid=71

464.4

"the government has embraced apartheid"

[Noahs Second Country]

I used to be top 15% inclusiveness... now I am really low. I just noticed this. Can someone tell me what I did?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=noa ... ensusid=71

464.4

"the government has embraced apartheid"

Oops.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Heh, it happens. I can see all the issue code flag up after I answer an issue, and I STILL managed to accidentally institute slavery in Candlewhisper Archive a few days ago.

[Drasnia]

Heh, it happens. I can see all the issue code flag up after I answer an issue, and I STILL managed to accidentally institute slavery in Candlewhisper Archive a few days ago.

Sounds like just another day in the Archive.

[Venetoland]

2 day ago, I had the opportunity to strengthen my social safety net. I took the opportunity to do just that. It managed to LOWER inclusiveness. How did that happen?