[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[The Free Joy State]

I don't know if its necessarily a glitch, just more confused about how it had this specific effect

Issue 547 (Fantastic Beasts and How @@NAME@@ Harmed Them)

Went with option number one (effect was to ban zoos and aquariums etc)

In terms of stat effects I was surprised it actually saw an increase in Tourism (minimal but still surprising as I figured it would drop, though I'm not complaining that it didn't). I'm mainly just wondering how that effect was determined just out of curiosity.

Tourism is a pretty complex stat, comprised of a list of stats that can impact it. A number of those back- and frontstage stats are interacting here, which means that the Tourism stat can change slightly unpredictably.

Here, this had the small -- and for you, desirable -- effect of raising your tourism slightly from 1,476.31 to 1,484.20.

IC, you could think of it this way: Maybe, your tourists disapprove of zoos and so avoid countries that have them?

It's working as intended.

[Trotterdam]

Tourists aren't going to bother to travel to another country to see animals in zoos, since they probably have zoos which stock most of the same animals in their own country too. They might, however, travel to see animals in the wild, which just aren't natively found in their own country...

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Tourists aren't going to bother to travel to another country to see animals in zoos, since they probably have zoos which stock most of the same animals in their own country too. They might, however, travel to see animals in the wild, which just aren't natively found in their own country...

The number of tourists you see in most major zoos would seem to suggest that your generalisation might not always be true. Personally speaking, I've taken the family to visit zoos in many countries, and in fact if we're going to a city for more than few days we tend to have as a high priority its zoo, and its natural history museum, if it has either.

I'd also note that the Tourism stats also reflects domestic tourism.

[South Odreria]

Yesterday, 2/17/19.
This nation.
Issue No. 265, "To bail or not to bail?"
I broke up large corporations, and business subsidization went up?

[The Free Joy State]

Yesterday, 2/17/19.
This nation.
Issue No. 265, "To bail or not to bail?"
I broke up large corporations, and business subsidization went up?

Business subsidisation is a secondary stat, so its effects can vary somewhat based on how the issue's stats interact with your nation.

However, this effect is not unusual, when you consider that the option promotes small "community-based businesses", and small businesses are still businesses that can be subsidised (though your final effect will depend, stat-wise, on where your nation begins).

[Shadowrik]

No nation is going to be eligable for every issue in play, for example nations that are capitalist will not get communist issues and vice versa. Some easter egg issues require you to have done something to get them.

Beyond that and the chain issues that Joy has explained, the issues you will be assigned are random.

The only exception as far as I know are if you write an issue that gets published. Then you get sent the issue so you can see your work.

What do you have to do to get the easter eggs? where can I find that information?

[Bears Armed]

No nation is going to be eligable for every issue in play, for example nations that are capitalist will not get communist issues and vice versa. Some easter egg issues require you to have done something to get them.

Beyond that and the chain issues that Joy has explained, the issues you will be assigned are random.

The only exception as far as I know are if you write an issue that gets published. Then you get sent the issue so you can see your work.

What do you have to do to get the easter eggs? where can I find that information?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=193229&hilit=Easter

[GraySoap]

Am I reading this wrong?



Banning abortion decreased my nation's social conservatism and increased it's civil rights?

[Sanctaria]

Am I reading this wrong?

(Image)

Banning abortion decreased my nation's social conservatism and increased it's civil rights?

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.

[GraySoap]

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.

Ah, thanks. Well that's unexpected but understandable.

[Achaian Peloponnese]

Please bear with me, because I've been getting extremely irritated with this for months (if not years) and the example I'm posting below is only one of many. I haven't come here to complain about it for a while because it's never seemed to matter in the past. But I'm sick of it.

Today I received Issue 818 where the Walt Disney expy wants to build his resort town in the middle of a bunch of houses and wants to force them all to move. I let him: https://i.imgur.com/UEoZRdi.jpg

And the average income of the rich dropped, leading to a lowered wealth gap and higher income equality: https://i.imgur.com/nIWplqv.jpg

The wealth gap is the primary thing that I care about on this nation. I tend to dismiss any issue that requires the government to spend money and increase taxes (the exception being military spending, and even then I sometimes prefer to dismiss). I answer issues when I am 90% sure that they will let rich people do whatever they like for their own profit, especially when the government doesn't have to spend anything to help them (though I have been known in the past to provide corporate subsidies too). This was exactly that kind of issue: Disney wanted to build his theme park, people were in the way, and all he needed was my permission to let him run them out of town. Yet this happened.

This is the third time in a row that I've answered a rich person's issue in such a way that it should have increased the wealth gap, and instead did the exact opposite. I've refrained from complaining in the recent past because literally every time I do I'm told that I'm somehow at fault for an issue that does exactly the opposite of what it tells me it will do, but at this point I'm fed up. In my humble opinion, it should not require a degree in mathematics and an in-depth understanding of all the issues you've answered during the last five years in order to determine whether or not the rich man will actually make more money if the issue prompt claims that he will.

[Poiob]

Not to distract from the above well-articulated problem which I hope gets answered, but I'm about to go on a mini-vacation in real life (in which I don't have a computer) so I wanted to point out an issue before I forget later.

I just answered issue #358 'Not Another Teenage Preganancy' with option 2 in which I side with the defense minister and lower the age of consent so as to have a higher population to fight future wars and help the military. Picking this option decreased Defense Forces while increasing Government Size. If anything, shouldn't it be the opposite? That is to say, shouldn't Defense Forces be going up because the military is being further supported with a higher population and the Government Size going down (if it's moving in any direction) since I'm purposely making age-of-consent laws less stringent and now need less associated bureaucracy and Law Enforcement?

Thanks in advance for reading!

[Kommunes Consiviz]

This is the third time in a row that I've answered a rich person's issue in such a way that it should have increased the wealth gap, and instead did the exact opposite. I've refrained from complaining in the recent past because literally every time I do I'm told that I'm somehow at fault for an issue that does exactly the opposite of what it tells me it will do, but at this point I'm fed up. In my humble opinion, it should not require a degree in mathematics and an in-depth understanding of all the issues you've answered during the last five years in order to determine whether or not the rich man will actually make more money if the issue prompt claims that he will.

It's funny that you mention this as I was thinking about mentioning this myself. I'm encountering the same problem, but in the opposite fashion, which is to say that I pick a response which in my mind should be increasing income equality when it actually markedly increases wealth gaps. This has happened quite a number of times. Notably, wealth gaps seem to grow whenever I support "the little guy" in some way, whereas helping the rich dude always has the effect of increasing income equality for some reason. It's happened to me most often in this profile but also on other ones too, so I don't think it's dependent on factors about the nations in question. To me this doesn't make sense; I remember a particularly colourful example in which literally letting the workers "seize the means of production" as the wealthy guy in the story admitted increased wealth gaps! I'd be interested to hear what the official explanation is.

[The Free Joy State]

Please bear with me, because I've been getting extremely irritated with this for months (if not years) and the example I'm posting below is only one of many. I haven't come here to complain about it for a while because it's never seemed to matter in the past. But I'm sick of it.

Today I received Issue 818 where the Walt Disney expy wants to build his resort town in the middle of a bunch of houses and wants to force them all to move. I let him: https://i.imgur.com/UEoZRdi.jpg

And the average income of the rich dropped, leading to a lowered wealth gap and higher income equality: https://i.imgur.com/nIWplqv.jpg

The wealth gap is the primary thing that I care about on this nation. I tend to dismiss any issue that requires the government to spend money and increase taxes (the exception being military spending, and even then I sometimes prefer to dismiss). I answer issues when I am 90% sure that they will let rich people do whatever they like for their own profit, especially when the government doesn't have to spend anything to help them (though I have been known in the past to provide corporate subsidies too). This was exactly that kind of issue: Disney wanted to build his theme park, people were in the way, and all he needed was my permission to let him run them out of town. Yet this happened.

This is the third time in a row that I've answered a rich person's issue in such a way that it should have increased the wealth gap, and instead did the exact opposite. I've refrained from complaining in the recent past because literally every time I do I'm told that I'm somehow at fault for an issue that does exactly the opposite of what it tells me it will do, but at this point I'm fed up. In my humble opinion, it should not require a degree in mathematics and an in-depth understanding of all the issues you've answered during the last five years in order to determine whether or not the rich man will actually make more money if the issue prompt claims that he will.

Wealth gaps are a secondary stat made up of a large list of stats; we do not programme them directly.

This option does not have a simple set of stats but plays off the rights of wealthy business owners with the rights of the poor. Your business owners basically have unrestricted rights in your nation so they couldn't improve. Hence, only the other effects were represented in the final stats.

The further you go in any direction, the more these kinds of effects with secondary stats will happen.

Not to distract from the above well-articulated problem which I hope gets answered, but I'm about to go on a mini-vacation in real life (in which I don't have a computer) so I wanted to point out an issue before I forget later.

I just answered issue #358 'Not Another Teenage Preganancy' with option 2 in which I side with the defense minister and lower the age of consent so as to have a higher population to fight future wars and help the military. Picking this option decreased Defense Forces while increasing Government Size. If anything, shouldn't it be the opposite? That is to say, shouldn't Defense Forces be going up because the military is being further supported with a higher population and the Government Size going down (if it's moving in any direction) since I'm purposely making age-of-consent laws less stringent and now need less associated bureaucracy and Law Enforcement?

Thanks in advance for reading!

The rise in government size is due to the defence Ministry supporting new parents with boot camps and military schools. I'll perform a tweak on defence forces, so it should work differently in future.

It's funny that you mention this as I was thinking about mentioning this myself. I'm encountering the same problem, but in the opposite fashion, which is to say that I pick a response which in my mind should be increasing income equality when it actually markedly increases wealth gaps. This has happened quite a number of times. Notably, wealth gaps seem to grow whenever I support "the little guy" in some way, whereas helping the rich dude always has the effect of increasing income equality for some reason. It's happened to me most often in this profile but also on other ones too, so I don't think it's dependent on factors about the nations in question. To me this doesn't make sense; I remember a particularly colourful example in which literally letting the workers "seize the means of production" as the wealthy guy in the story admitted increased wealth gaps! I'd be interested to hear what the official explanation is.

We need names/the number of issues and the option you picked and the date (if not today), not a vague description. I suggest reading the OP of this thread, in the meantime.

[Achaian Peloponnese]

Please bear with me, because I've been getting extremely irritated with this for months (if not years) and the example I'm posting below is only one of many. I haven't come here to complain about it for a while because it's never seemed to matter in the past. But I'm sick of it.

Today I received Issue 818 where the Walt Disney expy wants to build his resort town in the middle of a bunch of houses and wants to force them all to move. I let him: https://i.imgur.com/UEoZRdi.jpg

And the average income of the rich dropped, leading to a lowered wealth gap and higher income equality: https://i.imgur.com/nIWplqv.jpg

The wealth gap is the primary thing that I care about on this nation. I tend to dismiss any issue that requires the government to spend money and increase taxes (the exception being military spending, and even then I sometimes prefer to dismiss). I answer issues when I am 90% sure that they will let rich people do whatever they like for their own profit, especially when the government doesn't have to spend anything to help them (though I have been known in the past to provide corporate subsidies too). This was exactly that kind of issue: Disney wanted to build his theme park, people were in the way, and all he needed was my permission to let him run them out of town. Yet this happened.

This is the third time in a row that I've answered a rich person's issue in such a way that it should have increased the wealth gap, and instead did the exact opposite. I've refrained from complaining in the recent past because literally every time I do I'm told that I'm somehow at fault for an issue that does exactly the opposite of what it tells me it will do, but at this point I'm fed up. In my humble opinion, it should not require a degree in mathematics and an in-depth understanding of all the issues you've answered during the last five years in order to determine whether or not the rich man will actually make more money if the issue prompt claims that he will.

Wealth gaps are a secondary stat made up of a large list of stats; we do not programme them directly.

This option does not have a simple set of stats but plays off the rights of wealthy business owners with the rights of the poor. Your business owners basically have unrestricted rights in your nation so they couldn't improve. Hence, only the other effects were represented in the final stats.

The further you go in any direction, the more these kinds of effects with secondary stats will happen.

I mean no offense, but this is exactly the kind of response that makes me unwilling to complain about things in the first place. "Suck it up" does not solve the inconsistencies. It just makes me wonder what the point of answering issues is if they're going to be reduced to guesswork. I understand that you have priorities in your work, but the fact remains that these problems (and being told "deal with it" in response) have been occurring for ages. If the problem is because this stat (or any stat, for that matter) isn't directly programmed into the game, is no one looking into the possibility of changing that? Even if it takes a while, is there a chance of fixing or mitigating this problem instead of just brushing it off?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Wealth gaps are a secondary stat made up of a large list of stats; we do not programme them directly.

This option does not have a simple set of stats but plays off the rights of wealthy business owners with the rights of the poor. Your business owners basically have unrestricted rights in your nation so they couldn't improve. Hence, only the other effects were represented in the final stats.

The further you go in any direction, the more these kinds of effects with secondary stats will happen.

I mean no offense, but this is exactly the kind of response that makes me unwilling to complain about things in the first place. "Suck it up" does not solve the inconsistencies. It just makes me wonder what the point of answering issues is if they're going to be reduced to guesswork. I understand that you have priorities in your work, but the fact remains that these problems (and being told "deal with it" in response) have been occurring for ages. If the problem is because this stat (or any stat, for that matter) isn't directly programmed into the game, is no one looking into the possibility of changing that? Even if it takes a while, is there a chance of fixing or mitigating this problem instead of just brushing it off?

I understand your frustration, but essentially this isn't something that can be fixed or mitigated from the editorial side, but rather is to do with the underlying mechanics of the simulation.

Essentially, wealth gaps are not something we code for directly, but are an emergent stat dependent on other factors. Those other factors are moving rationally for the issue, but the simulation then takes those numbers and sometimes comes up with unexpected results.

There's a number of known simulation deficits that are hard to fix without the game programmers essentially changing the whole way the simulation works. For example, there's no model of deficit spending, or inflation, nor any way for delayed benefits or delayed costs, nor any penalty for over-taxation, or lack of defence, and so on. Really, wage gaps moving the same way in this circumstance is a pretty small sim deficit as things go.

That's not to say that such deficits are unfixable, more that it seems unlikely they will be fixed any time soon. This is an ancient game that was cobbled together to promote a book. That it has grown and developed over the years from the work of volunteers while remaining entirely free to play is a testament to the strength of the community.

I'm personally very interested in making a better simulation where possible, and there have been a lot of betas and changes in the last few years coming from fruitful discussions with the programmers.

As it turns out, looking at the way that income gaps are calculated has been the subject of one of those discussions, with some suggestions made and discussions had about rebalancing the inputs that drive those stats. The now public Beta 8a covers this to some extent, but there's other changes discussed in private conversations.

Anyway, I hope this answers some of your queries on the topic. Please consider this topic closed as far as this thread is concerned. Non-staff nations unfortunately aren't in a position to input further into the conversation in a useful way, as a lot of the workings of the game are closed to public view. However, rest assured that this is one of many things that is under continuous review, though I'd add a caveat here that it's relatively low on the priority list.

I'd also ask that in future you avoid using deliberately confrontational language, and paraphrasing my colleagues in a way that portrays them as being dismissive or unhelpful. Nobody said to "suck it up", and you weren't "brushed off". Do come back and report any further unexpected issue effects, but please keep the attitude in check.

[Leutria]

Achaian Peloponnese, out of curiosity I checked your nation with the beta mentioned by candlewhisperer. You will like it, so if you are frustrated at least it shows there is one thing on the table that will change things in a way benificial to your goals.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=beta? ... eloponnese

[Trotterdam]

So, as none of the above actually explains what's causing this particular effect, I hope you'll allow me to give a direct answer rather rather than just several paragraphs of explaining why something can't be answered.

The problem is that the game is currently coded so that a rise in Economic Freedom always comes correlated with a rise in Wealth Gaps, and vice versa. This happens even if the freedom is something that is intended to help the poor, such as the freedom to unionize or (relevantly to Achaian Peloponnese's query) the freedom to not be kicked out of your house so someone can build an amusement park on that land, or even if the "freedom" in question is not the government backing off and letting the free market handle itself, but rather, say, implementing antitrust laws to protect the "freedom" of small businesses against interference by major corporations, contradicting the common editor claim that (direct quote):

Freedoms in NS work on a specific metric: freedom from government control.

Citation (also direct quote):

For sure, the government is allowing him to, but is the free market allowing him to? A zero government situation =/= absolute economic freedom, at least not in my mind. Some government interventions preserve and promote economic freedom.

As an addendum:

In my humble opinion, it should not require a degree in mathematics and an in-depth understanding of all the issues you've answered during the last five years in order to determine whether or not the rich man will actually make more money if the issue prompt claims that he will.

It does not. The problem is that the simulation is too simple, not too complex.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Apologies Trotterdam, I should have bolded the relevant part. Let me do so now.

Please consider this topic closed as far as this thread is concerned. Non-staff nations unfortunately aren't in a position to input further into the conversation in a useful way, as a lot of the workings of the game are closed to public view.

I'll also add here something else that editors often say.

Trotterdam is not a staff member. He thinks he knows how the game works, but does not. Please disregard the guidance he is giving you, as it is inaccurate.

So once again.

Please consider this topic closed as far as this thread is concerned. Non-staff nations unfortunately aren't in a position to input further into the conversation in a useful way, as a lot of the workings of the game are closed to public view.

[Trotterdam]

Trotterdam is not a staff member. He thinks he knows how the game works, but does not.

Yes, I do. Please do not lie to players.

Economic Freedom is probably not be the only factor that contributes to Wealth Gaps, but it is definitely a major one, which is supported by overwhelming evidence (and also yourself a few posts ago). There existing issues which raise Economic Freedom when trying to help the poor or lowering it when trying to help the rich is also objectively-recognized fact (and also acknowledged by yourself in the post I quoted).

I admit to not fully understanding all the details of how the game works, but it is disingenuous to dismiss what I have figured out simply because I don't perfectly know everything, any more than you would disregard the theory of evolution because there are some missing links we haven't found yet.

In case that's the point of contention, just to be clear, when I said "the simulation is too simple" I wasn't referring to the entire simulation (I know there are some quite complex parts), just the part pertaining to the link between these two particular stats.

[USS Monitor]

Trotterdam is not a staff member. He thinks he knows how the game works, but does not.

Yes, I do. Please do not lie to players.

THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER. DROP IT NOW.

[Kommunes Consiviz]

It's funny that you mention this as I was thinking about mentioning this myself. I'm encountering the same problem, but in the opposite fashion, which is to say that I pick a response which in my mind should be increasing income equality when it actually markedly increases wealth gaps. This has happened quite a number of times. Notably, wealth gaps seem to grow whenever I support "the little guy" in some way, whereas helping the rich dude always has the effect of increasing income equality for some reason. It's happened to me most often in this profile but also on other ones too, so I don't think it's dependent on factors about the nations in question. To me this doesn't make sense; I remember a particularly colourful example in which literally letting the workers "seize the means of production" as the wealthy guy in the story admitted increased wealth gaps! I'd be interested to hear what the official explanation is.

We need names/the number of issues and the option you picked and the date (if not today), not a vague description. I suggest reading the OP of this thread, in the meantime.

I meant no disrespect. I didn't want to distract from the other person's post and was rather just concurring with the sentiment that there seems to be a recurring pattern to how income equality and wealth gaps worked which seems counterintuitive; I wasn't even going to mention anything until I read the other post. (I have read the original post of the thread, too.)

I did manage to find the issue I was talking about specifically: issue #1108, which is apparently called 'Whiskey Rebellion Brewing'. Again though, I was just talking about a general trend of siding with wealthy businesspeople or corporations increasing income equality and siding against them increasing wealth gaps, a question which has now been addressed.

@Candlewhisper Archive
I'm having some technical issues that are keeping me from cutting and pasting your exact quote, but I just wanted to say that I greatly appreciate all the work you all are doing for this game. I haven't been here very long but I already can tell this is a really amazing community with a lot of dedicated people. Also, thank you all personally for your dedication and helpfulness both out front and behind the scenes for NationStates. That this game has evolved to become what it is now really is very inspiring.

[The Free Joy State]

We need names/the number of issues and the option you picked and the date (if not today), not a vague description. I suggest reading the OP of this thread, in the meantime.

I meant no disrespect. I didn't want to distract from the other person's post and was rather just concurring with the sentiment that there seems to be a recurring pattern to how income equality and wealth gaps worked which seemed counterintuitive; I wasn't even going to mention anything until I read the other post. (I have read the original post of the thread, too.)

I did manage to find the issue I was talking about specifically: issue #1108, which is apparently called 'Whiskey Rebellion Brewing'. Again though, I was just talking about a general trend of siding with wealthy businesspeople or corporations increasing income equality and siding against them increasing wealth gaps, a question which has seemingly already been addressed.

A word for the future: Different issues may work differently on different nations, and (due to subsequent changes in stats) differently on the same nation at different times. That's why -- if an effect seems really egregious -- editors are best placed to check issue effects, at the time you receive the effect.

Two issues with similar wording may have completely different and perfectly rational backstage effects, and different effects may be expected accordingly.

#1108 looks to be working, but without knowing the option you picked, I can't give you a detailed explanation.

I can see you haven't answered the issue within the last week. If another editor wants to search beyond that, they're free to.

CWA's explanation of wealth gaps is worth keeping in mind in any case.

[Kommunes Consiviz]

A word for the future: Different issues work differently on different nations at different times. That's why editors are best placed to check issue effects, at the time you receive the effect.

Two issues with similar wording may have different backstage effects and different effects may be expected accordingly.

#1108 looks to be working, but without knowing the option you picked, I can't give you a detailed explanation.

I picked option 2, and the text for option 1 mentions how option 2 involves "seizing the means of production". Yeah, I know that results are different for different nations; it was just strange to me that this effect occurred on multiple different profiles, hence why I was concurring with the earlier poster, but again I think I've received an adequate response from Candlewhisper Archive. I'm not looking for redress, so no worries.

[Noveja]

"Pregnancy is hard work, too; nobody should be put through that" and "grow them in a lab and leave women out of it", taken as whole sentences, seems to clearly signpost that the law is intended for all women.

And, banning biological reproduction isn't actually good for civil rights. The law prevents those people who would choose to have children from having them.

FTR, I believe that this issue does not necessarily propose a synthetic or a different type of human, merely humans produced in a different way.

26 days late (the text was actually altered on the 2nd January 2019), but just a brief update to this. Following in-depth backstage discussion --we have added further clarification to the third option of #1028. It now reads:

"Excuse me, some of us don't want kids." cries well-known career-woman, @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@. "I've worked hard to get to where I am in my life right now, and I will not sacrifice my career and my ambitions to breed some snotty-nosed kids. Pregnancy is hard work too; nobody should be put through that. I hear that new vat-technology is doing wonders in other places. If you desperately need new brats, why don't you just grow them all in a lab and leave us poor women out of it completely?"

Hopefully, this should further clarify the replacement of biological reproduction with vat-produced people (the "No Sex Policy") with this option.

Forgive the late update, Boss Llama.

I just got whammied by this issue, so, no, it most emphatically does not clarify that.

Slapping an "all" into the sentence does not address the underlying problem.

The issue is a low/falling birth rate.

Option 1 is forcing women to have at least three children.

Option 2 is taking away women's ability to (safely) not get pregnant.

Option 3 is a feminist (naturally) ticked off by these authoritarian ideas and arguing for vat-grown children instead.

"Them all" and "completely" can be read as referring to the additional children/births the nation needs, or even just as an emphatic figure of speech. No way is there any indication to consider the hyper-literal outlandish notion that she is talking about every last one of the nation's future "new brats".

It is utterly beyond me how for such a drastic effect something as small as adding a short clarifying sentence including the word "outlaw" (or "illegal") to option 3 or as a reaction to it in option 4 is apparently too much to ask for.

If there is one group of hills my nation is willing to die on, it's being able to do with your own body as you please, with the hill of sexual liberty most prominent of all, so this seriously sours me on the whole game. I could - begrudgingly - live with no biological reproduction per se, but the policy is called "No Sex", it also canceled sex education, and social conservatism rose significantly, all of which (and more) heavily suggesting to me that even recreational sex is outlawed.

I took in stride how a war I never wanted forever halved my population's average disposable income, and every other setback was fun in its own way, but this effectively ruined the nation of Noveja. Fantastic.