[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[The Free Joy State]

There's nothing unusual about these effects.

If there is never anything unusual, we wouldn't have a second 100 page thread having to explain them. Are the devs just dead set against telling us what the effects will be before we choose them? Then your job would be a lot easier!

I meant that there was nothing unusual about the effects that you received.

And, to answer your query: yes. We're not allowed to hand out stats and handing them out would change the game from being one of a satirical game of the unintended consequence of politics to... something else entirely.

My rich incomes went down by over 50%, and my income inequality went down by about 70% too, all because I abolished feudalism. This doesn't make any sense because:

A. When feudalism is abolished, it generally causes it to go up, thanks to the displacement of feudal lords by capitalists (such as in the industrial revolution)
B. It went down when I put feudalism in, now it went down when I abolished it. Help?

When you ask a query, we need: the name/number of the issue, the option you picked, the effect, the date (if not today) and the nation (if not this one).

The economic simulation is, as explained in the OP, highly complex -- responding to a vast range of stats. The same is true specifically for incomes of the rich/poor and income inequality -- which are entirely secondary (not programmed by editors, but responsive to a range of stats put into the issue and your unique nation stats).

Try looking at the abolition of feudalism from the other angle -- both the feudal lords and serfs: the serfs are free now, they can work for whoever they want (but, if they are free to succeed, they are free to fail-- so this may not increase income equality). Likewise, wealthy feudal lords who could pay their serfs in produce now have to pay wages -- if they had 50 serfs working their land, they now have 50 paid employees (this will cost their pocket and cause a blip in their income).

Not every nation will receive such effects -- it depends very much where you begin.

As for bringing in feudalism, I have no idea when you did that, so can't track down the specific issue for you. But -- generally -- if you take away people's rights to choose their employment and strip them of financial recompense for their work, incomes go down (though this may not be true for all nations -- as I say a range of stats play into secondary stats, as does your nation's situation. Some people may see no change, or even a rise).

[Bears Armed]

Likewise, wealthy feudal lords who could pay their serfs in produce now have to pay wages -- if they had 50 serfs working their land, they now have 50 paid employees (this will cost their pocket and cause a blip in their income).

Unless what they now have is 50 sharecroppers...

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

My rich incomes went down by over 50%, and my income inequality went down by about 70% too, all because I abolished feudalism. This doesn't make any sense because:

A. When feudalism is abolished, it generally causes it to go up, thanks to the displacement of feudal lords by capitalists (such as in the industrial revolution)
B. It went down when I put feudalism in, now it went down when I abolished it. Help?

A. When feudalism is abolished, it generally causes it to go up, thanks to the displacement of feudal lords by capitalists (such as in the industrial revolution)

I believe you chose 894.3. From what I read, rich incomes dropping, and income inequality dropping makes sense, as rich and powerful nobles are deposed (perhaps even by force.) The assumption that capitalists would fill the void of these nobles, causing income inequality and rich income to rise, was misplaced in this instance, as 894.3 has a socialist speaker, who would very likely advocate for the opposite.

With regards to question B, I must apologize, as I do not know the issue you received, or the option you chose.

Got it. So, don't assume that what you click backfires on you, basically?

[Lamaredia]

Nation: Lamaredia
When: Today
Issue: 1242, Jump Leads

I chose option 3, allowing for more climbing on public buildings to take place. My obesity went up from this, and I'm wondering which part of the option correlates to obesity going up. Is it because the health metric (which understandably went down) is the opposite of the obesity metric? Thank you!

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

Is it because the health metric (which understandably went down) is the opposite of the obesity metric?

Yes, you could say that. Consider this a known flaw in the game.

[Ghost Land]

On my main nation 60s Music, how did 19.2 (legalizing all recreational drugs) plunge my economy and raise my taxes? I'd have thought it would be a deregulation and thus boost the economy and lower taxes.

Edit: my 600th post was about drugs? Nice!

[The Free Joy State]

On my main nation 60s Music, how did 19.2 (legalizing all recreational drugs) plunge my economy and raise my taxes? I'd have thought it would be a deregulation and thus boost the economy and lower taxes.

Edit: my 600th post was about drugs? Nice!

Taxation is known to be a flaw in the simulation, covering only income tax.

Economy, too, is moved by a vast number of interconnected hidden stats, working with your nation's stats according to a very complex simulation. They can be somewhat unpredictable. Testing demonstrates that other nations may receive no change, or possibly a small rise.

[Perelingo]

Issue #1158, option 1 decreased my political freedoms indicator, when the issue was not at all about political rights, only arguably about civil rights.
Furthermore, my Inclusiveness value increased. How can political freedom be decreased when inclusiveness is increasing ?

[Godular]

Your Scientific Advancement score is outrageously high. Raising it any higher is going to be very difficult- much like how speeding up takes increasingly more energy as you get closer to the speed of light. As far as I know, there's no hard cap, but raising any stat becomes increasingly harder the higher it is.

This is pretty much correct.

There is no cap, but -- the closer you get to any extreme with the stats -- the harder it is for visible changes to occur. If changes that occur are less than one hundredth of a percent of your total, you won't see them represented in your stats. There is still a background change occurring that we can see.

How the heck then are there folks younger than my nation with enormously larger scores?

[The Free Joy State]

Issue #1158, option 1 decreased my political freedoms indicator, when the issue was not at all about political rights, only arguably about civil rights.

The option is changing "the system", referring to the political system, as courts are generally part of the wider political systems of a nation.

Furthermore, my Inclusiveness value increased. How can political freedom be decreased when inclusiveness is increasing ?

They are based on different backstage stats and measure different things. Inclusiveness measures "whether all citizens were commonly treated as equally valuable members of society".

There is nothing unusual in these stats.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

How the heck then are there folks younger than my nation with enormously larger scores?

First thing you can do is answer more issues. Very few stats change unless you answer issues. Population grows on its own, but your scientific advancement will only shift if you answer issues (not withstanding stat mechanic changes and WA resolutions). Age of your nation just reveals how many opportunities you've had to change your stats, not how often you've taken on those opportunities.

Second thing you could do is keep a close on eye on those FIVE nations in the world with higher scientific advancement than you, and see what decisions they're making to push their scientific advancement scores. Anon Zytose and Athretavri are the two nations who are a lot smaller than you but which have better advancement - maybe see if they've worked something out that you haven't.

[Forbokhethe]

On Issue No. 136, the fourth option forces all families to have one child only and presumably aborts the rest because it talks about abortion as a means of population control while enforcing a one child policy. Despite this, answering the issue like this decreases authoritarianism. Seems kinda broken.

[ROFLOLMAO LAND]

Why would 251.2 cause my economy to contract by nearly 11 percent?

This is not at all unusual.

I know this choice typically gives a huge impact to your economy, but maybe too big here? Issue 490 Choice 1 took my economy down from 99.70 to 50.67. Govt spending was only 36.7% of GDP, and business subsidies were only 17% of that. Also crime went from 1.93 to 17. Pretty god dam sure that part is wrong atleast.

Again, idk, not a developer. Maybe I was getting too greedy with decresing my govt size.

Oh, god! The stat changes for that option are horrible.

My fellow editor, Candlewhisper Archive, is currently updating the stat effects of old issues so that they will be consistent with the stat changes of modern issues. This is because the stat effects of old issues tend to be more extreme. Currently, CWA is at Issue #432, and I am sure that he will get to #490 in the near future.

Got this issue again, has candlewhisper gotten to 490?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'd kind of stopped, as we're getting into the era of issues where I was already editing, though I guess in the 400-500s I wasn't really doing much with stats other than trying to learn the ropes. I guess I'd better keep going for a couple of hundred more issues.

[Fauxia]

690.3 dropped my civil rights on this nation by a small but notable amount (2.5/4%). Considering I already had a pledge of allegiance in place, I don’t think this should’ve had an effect. If anything, I’m giving people more freedom in how they recite it and it should raise civil rights. Am I missing something?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

690.3 dropped my civil rights on this nation by a small but notable amount (2.5/4%). Considering I already had a pledge of allegiance in place, I don’t think this should’ve had an effect. If anything, I’m giving people more freedom in how they recite it and it should raise civil rights. Am I missing something?

No, that sounds reasonable. Fixed.

[SherpDaWerp]

Cutting down words to make a language easier to learn dropped my civil rights 4% and political freedoms 10% in 1194.2. I would understand the political freedom drop more if the issue description had more of an element of "they can't protest without words to express dissent", but the description is an immigrant who got confused by the language...
Just checking this is all correct, and if it is I should make not not to do that again.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Cutting down words to make a language easier to learn dropped my civil rights 4% and political freedoms 10% in 1194.2. I would understand the political freedom drop more if the issue description had more of an element of "they can't protest without words to express dissent", but the description is an immigrant who got confused by the language...
Just checking this is all correct, and if it is I should make not not to do that again.

I agree with you. Government limiting language is definitely a drop in free speech, so civil rights should fall, but there's no explicit call out on limiting political disagreement -- it'll just be less eloquent than before.

Poltiical freedom changes removed.

[SherpDaWerp]

I agree with you. Government limiting language is definitely a drop in free speech, so civil rights should fall, but there's no explicit call out on limiting political disagreement -- it'll just be less eloquent than before.

Poltiical freedom changes removed.

Neat.

[TalAkMaChen]

It might not be fully unusual, but 363.4 may change the Secularism value by up a few 80 points, i.e. per cent of capita. Recently it changed at War Dogs XXVI from 17 to 95% atheism rate of the populace. I agree, the option and effect are to dismiss faith and encourage science, but -- just by the government choosing that path (even with Public Protest not outlawed and, well, State Media) -- is such a big change (from one out of six being atheist to 19 out of 20) justified?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It might not be fully unusual, but 363.4 may change the Secularism value by up a few 80 points, i.e. per cent of capita. Recently it changed at War Dogs XXVI from 17 to 95% atheism rate of the populace. I agree, the option and effect are to dismiss faith and encourage science, but -- just by the government choosing that path (even with Public Protest not outlawed and, well, State Media) -- is such a big change (from one out of six being atheist to 19 out of 20) justified?

It's got big effects but it's a big move. You're -- as a state -- condemning all religion as nonsense. That's a pretty hardline position to take.

[Alterrum]

Issue #1254: Sales on Rails, option 2 (legalizing on-board vendors) lowers income equality, which doesn't make sense, as it offers the poor an option to earn money; the game implicitly hints at this by the faulty language used by the vendor, implying a low-class background. I can understand if the economic freedom stat correlates with the wealth gaps stat (something that's unwarranted as well in my opinion, but it's a discussion for another time), and as the former increases, the game automatically increases the latter, but in this case the causation seems to be backwards: poor people clearly get another way of earning income, so wealth gaps should decrease along with an increase in economic freedom.

[Verdant Haven]

I just received issue 625, which is about what to do with a significant value of intercepted illegal goods. I selected option 3, which is as follows:

“This is something of a haul, but these aren’t trade goods anymore: they’re evidence!” says Judiciary Director Sarah Voluntatem. “The goods should be stored as such till the legal processes are complete, then they should be carefully destroyed with a clear accounting trail to ensure ethical practice.”

The context of this and other potential responses makes it clear that this is the "laws as written" response, as well as the one that is supposed to be considered the most ethical and above-board. I was curious to discover however that it came with a civil rights hit.

In what way is it a reduction of civil rights to comply with the laws as they already exist, upholding proper, ethical, and transparent procedure? I certainly get that some of the other responses would increase civil rights and this wouldn't, but I don't feel like it makes sense that this would decrease them - it should be entirely neutral on the subject. Nobody's freedoms are being modified or impinged.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Issue #1254: Sales on Rails, option 2 (legalizing on-board vendors) lowers income equality, which doesn't make sense, as it offers the poor an option to earn money; the game implicitly hints at this by the faulty language used by the vendor, implying a low-class background. I can understand if the economic freedom stat correlates with the wealth gaps stat (something that's unwarranted as well in my opinion, but it's a discussion for another time), and as the former increases, the game automatically increases the latter, but in this case the causation seems to be backwards: poor people clearly get another way of earning income, so wealth gaps should decrease along with an increase in economic freedom.

I agree with you in narrative terms, but simulation limitation prevents this being implemented.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I just received issue 625, which is about what to do with a significant value of intercepted illegal goods. I selected option 3, which is as follows:

“This is something of a haul, but these aren’t trade goods anymore: they’re evidence!” says Judiciary Director Sarah Voluntatem. “The goods should be stored as such till the legal processes are complete, then they should be carefully destroyed with a clear accounting trail to ensure ethical practice.”

The context of this and other potential responses makes it clear that this is the "laws as written" response, as well as the one that is supposed to be considered the most ethical and above-board. I was curious to discover however that it came with a civil rights hit.

In what way is it a reduction of civil rights to comply with the laws as they already exist, upholding proper, ethical, and transparent procedure? I certainly get that some of the other responses would increase civil rights and this wouldn't, but I don't feel like it makes sense that this would decrease them - it should be entirely neutral on the subject. Nobody's freedoms are being modified or impinged.

It's a hangover from the fact that "freedom to commit crime" is still a civil right.

That freedom was discussed almost two years ago and it was agreed it would be removed from the game, as nobody reasonably considers the freedom to commit crime to be a civil right.

Since that decision, we've been using that stat a lot less, as we were expecting it to leave the game. However, like all the other changes that were agreed to and went through beta around that time, we're still waiting on implementation.

Sorry.