[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[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.

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

Wouldn't it be possible to code in a decrease in wealth gaps that automatically nullifies the effect from increased economic freedom in this case? If it's really not possible, then perhaps decoupling wealth gaps from economic freedom should be considered, since the relationship between the two does not appear to be monotonic in real life: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eed9/9 ... c1d978.pdf

[Bears Armed]

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.

Which leads to potentially unfortunate implications in the associated effect line's reference to "more vermin": Is it talking about rats & pigeons & whatever feeding on dropped foodstuffs, or is it referring to the vendors themselves?

[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.

Which leads to potentially unfortunate implications in the associated effect line's reference to "more vermin": Is it talking about rats & pigeons & whatever feeding on dropped foodstuffs, or is it referring to the vendors themselves?

Sure, a decrease in health would likely be warranted as well, if such trade is completely unregulated; I can't remember having seen that effect though.

[Trotterdam]

Which leads to potentially unfortunate implications in the associated effect line's reference to "more vermin": Is it talking about rats & pigeons & whatever feeding on dropped foodstuffs, or is it referring to the vendors themselves?

Huh. The former interpretation hadn't even occurred to me.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

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

Wouldn't it be possible to code in a decrease in wealth gaps that automatically nullifies the effect from increased economic freedom in this case? If it's really not possible, then perhaps decoupling wealth gaps from economic freedom should be considered, since the relationship between the two does not appear to be monotonic in real life: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eed9/9 ... c1d978.pdf

Anything is possible, coding-wise, if someone is willing to code it. However, we've got much bigger simulation deficits with fixes promised for the past 2 years, so I'm not going to add to that job lot any simulation gap that small. Just accept it as a limited simulation.

[Land Without Shrimp]

So - this isn't really an unusual effect as in (what I think) is the absence of an expected effect and possibly a broader overriding question.

Firstly, the broader overriding question. I have somewhat low Health. Been trying to raise that for a while now by choosing all the options I think are the most "pro-Health" but I have determined that there are either very few of these in the game, or that my score is so low that even choosing the "pro-Health" option won't budge the needle. Comments on this?

Secondly, Issue 92 - Mandatory Vaccinations. I chose option 1, making vaccines mandatory. Figured this was the most "pro-Health" option and figured I'd get at least a .01 increase to my Health. I hoped. Instead, no effect to my Health whatsoever (at least it didn't go negative!). If making vaccines mandatory doesn't increase my citizens' health, I'm not really sure what will. Is such a low (or even zero) Health increase intended?

I even checked Trotterdam's site afterwards, and it seems there is *some* Health increase expected, on average. So it might just be that my nation is so low-Health that anything I do is in vain?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So - this isn't really an unusual effect as in (what I think) is the absence of an expected effect and possibly a broader overriding question.

Firstly, the broader overriding question. I have somewhat low Health. Been trying to raise that for a while now by choosing all the options I think are the most "pro-Health" but I have determined that there are either very few of these in the game, or that my score is so low that even choosing the "pro-Health" option won't budge the needle. Comments on this?

Secondly, Issue 92 - Mandatory Vaccinations. I chose option 1, making vaccines mandatory. Figured this was the most "pro-Health" option and figured I'd get at least a .01 increase to my Health. I hoped. Instead, no effect to my Health whatsoever (at least it didn't go negative!). If making vaccines mandatory doesn't increase my citizens' health, I'm not really sure what will. Is such a low (or even zero) Health increase intended?

I even checked Trotterdam's site afterwards, and it seems there is *some* Health increase expected, on average. So it might just be that my nation is so low-Health that anything I do is in vain?

It did make a difference, but you're skewed enough to the extreme that it wasn't enough to visibly register for you. Keep at it though, and you'll eventually see a gain.

[Land Without Shrimp]

So - this isn't really an unusual effect as in (what I think) is the absence of an expected effect and possibly a broader overriding question.

Firstly, the broader overriding question. I have somewhat low Health. Been trying to raise that for a while now by choosing all the options I think are the most "pro-Health" but I have determined that there are either very few of these in the game, or that my score is so low that even choosing the "pro-Health" option won't budge the needle. Comments on this?

Secondly, Issue 92 - Mandatory Vaccinations. I chose option 1, making vaccines mandatory. Figured this was the most "pro-Health" option and figured I'd get at least a .01 increase to my Health. I hoped. Instead, no effect to my Health whatsoever (at least it didn't go negative!). If making vaccines mandatory doesn't increase my citizens' health, I'm not really sure what will. Is such a low (or even zero) Health increase intended?

I even checked Trotterdam's site afterwards, and it seems there is *some* Health increase expected, on average. So it might just be that my nation is so low-Health that anything I do is in vain?

It did make a difference, but you're skewed enough to the extreme that it wasn't enough to visibly register for you. Keep at it though, and you'll eventually see a gain.

Thank you - appreciate the response! (Also thanks for all the work you do behind the scenes)

[Socialist State of LAY]

4. November 2018. Option 3.

This issue reduced my civil rights from 76.46 to 76.21 - which makes a total of 0.25 points. Again, this issue bans the internet North Korea-style in the whole country. We change the whole internet to bird-based communication. Which bold moderator can convince me that these issue effects make sense? How does literally nuking the internet justify a 0.25 change in civil rights if I have 76.46 civil rights at that point?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The stats for banning the internet are currently very much on the modest side, but are standardised across pretty much all activations of that policy.

We'll discuss reviewing the numbers on this, which are broadly in the right direction but could probably stand to be of larger magnitude. As it'll involve changing many issues however, expect a prolonged discussion.

Which bold moderator can convince me that these issue effects make sense?

Mind your tone please. Your contributions are welcome, but please leave the bad attitude at the front door.

[Ghost Land]

The stats for banning the internet are currently very much on the modest side, but are standardised across pretty much all activations of that policy.

We'll discuss reviewing the numbers on this, which are broadly in the right direction but could probably stand to be of larger magnitude. As it'll involve changing many issues however, expect a prolonged discussion.

Which bold moderator can convince me that these issue effects make sense?

Mind your tone please. Your contributions are welcome, but please leave the bad attitude at the front door.

I don't think banning the Internet has to be a big deal; what if your nation is set in the past, before the Internet was introduced? My main nation 60s Music is set in the late 1960s, before the Internet existed, but other than that it's very libertarian and friendly to people's rights, so it shouldn't be penalised for that.

Maybe have a policy tweak where just putting your primitiveness above, say, 150 automatically does away with the Internet, with no impact on rights?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

We'll talk it over.

[Trotterdam]

I don't think banning the Internet has to be a big deal; what if your nation is set in the past, before the Internet was introduced?

Maybe have a policy tweak where just putting your primitiveness above, say, 150 automatically does away with the Internet, with no impact on rights?

NationStates issues are written in a modern-day perspective, regardless of your roleplay canon. It's impossible for issues to account for everything a roleplayer might come up with.

In real life, even poor third-world countries have access to the internet, though not everyone may be able to afford it (but at least the wealthiest 10% can probably get decent bandwidth).

[Socialist State of LAY]

My main nation 60s Music is set in the late 1960s, before the Internet existed, but other than that it's very libertarian and friendly to people's rights, so it shouldn't be penalised for that.

I have yet to see a libertarian who advocates for the complete ban of the internet, just to advocate for bird-based communication. A 0.25 point civil rights decrease is definitely not justified if you ban the internet, which has severe, severe implications for everyday people. It excludes you from activities with people all around the world, especially with people who have the internet, outside of your borders. It's a very isolating policy.

[Ghost Land]

I don't think banning the Internet has to be a big deal; what if your nation is set in the past, before the Internet was introduced?

Maybe have a policy tweak where just putting your primitiveness above, say, 150 automatically does away with the Internet, with no impact on rights?

NationStates issues are written in a modern-day perspective, regardless of your roleplay canon. It's impossible for issues to account for everything a roleplayer might come up with.

In real life, even poor third-world countries have access to the internet, though not everyone may be able to afford it (but at least the wealthiest 10% can probably get decent bandwidth).

I'm well aware of that. I haven't been living under a rock for the last 20 years.

My main nation 60s Music is set in the late 1960s, before the Internet existed, but other than that it's very libertarian and friendly to people's rights, so it shouldn't be penalised for that.

I have yet to see a libertarian who advocates for the complete ban of the internet, just to advocate for bird-based communication. A 0.25 point civil rights decrease is definitely not justified if you ban the internet, which has severe, severe implications for everyday people. It excludes you from activities with people all around the world, especially with people who have the internet, outside of your borders. It's a very isolating policy.

I'm not IRL advocating for the ban of the Internet. I'm just pointing out that in the 60s, not having Internet access wouldn't have been considered authoritarian or oppressive at all, as the Internet literally didn't exist, and I should be allowed to roleplay a nation as being set in the past, just as others set theirs in the present or future. As it stands, it works well; the nation of 60s Music has roughly 75-point civil rights, despite not having Internet access, in keeping with the 60s theme of the nation. I'm merely pointing out that this change isn't necessary.

[State of Turelisa]

In response to an issue, I chose a theocratic option, and now, incredibly, my nation, which was an authoritarian democracy, is now democratic socialist, and the government policy of legal homosexual marriage adopted

[Trotterdam]

In response to an issue, I chose a theocratic option, and now, incredibly, my nation, which was an authoritarian democracy, is now democratic socialist, and the government policy of legal homosexual marriage adopted

You really need to supply more detail.

The "theocratic option" you chose was #648 option 3, which is coded to increase Civil Rights (which explains your change in government category - both Authoritarian Democracy and Democratic Socialists have low economic freedom and medium political freedom, but are distinguished by Democratic Socialists having higher civil rights), apparently always according to my data. Probably this is because the option supports religious freedom ("All religions understand this truth, no matter who they worship, so all religions must have the right to put their holy beliefs ahead of mortal law."), even though that's a rather unrealistic position for supporters of religious law to take.

However, that option does not specifically legalize homosexual marriage. You did that four issues earlier, with #438 option 2, an issue which was quite obviously about homosexual marriage. This would also have raised your Civil Rights, but not enough to put you over the edge for a government category change yet.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

269 Option 1.

Why the bleep does not subsidizing newspapers result in a significant tax increase?

[Luna Amore]

269 Option 1.

Why the bleep does not subsidizing newspapers result in a significant tax increase?

You and I disagree on what a significant increase is: Effective Tax Rate 6.15 → 6.24 1.5%

That aside, it's covered in the OP of the thread:

"Why didn't tax / unemployment / black market do what I expected it to?"

NS uses a complex model to calculate a lot of things, which can lead to counter-intuitive results.

- Why didn't tax fall when spending was described as reducing (or why didn't it rise when spending was described as rising)?

The answer usually lies in your economic output.
The more economic output you have, the less %tax you need to support your spending.

Bear in mind that economic output is dependent on a lot of interacting factors. Sometimes an option will cause you to shrink your economy by more than you proportionally shrank your spending, causing a tax rise to support the same spending. Sometimes it won't. Often different things will happen to different nations faced with the same issue choice.

- Why didn't tax fall when an option described a corporation tax cut / sales tax cut?

The tax model of the game is very simplistic, and it basically abstracts all spending as income tax and doesn't take into account any idea of government borrowing, deficit spending or tax from sources other than income tax.

That gives us limited tools for simulation.

Corporation tax is rolled into business subsidisation, with lowering of corporate tax representing an effective business subsidisation, and a shifting of tax burden onto the income taxpayer.

Sales tax and VAT, meanwhile, move income tax inversely, as raising more revenue from these forms of taxation decreases the burden on income tax, and vice versa.

This isn't entirely satisfactory, of course, as it means that the descriptions of "Freedom From Taxation" on the graphs aren't accurate, but it's reflective of how the game engine is written and of the simulation's limitations. It basically isn't possible to have burden of taxation and income tax move in opposite directions, as in the simulation all measured tax = income tax.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

269 Option 1.

Why the bleep does not subsidizing newspapers result in a significant tax increase?

You and I disagree on what a significant increase is: Effective Tax Rate 6.15 → 6.24 1.5%

That aside, it's covered in the OP of the thread:

"Why didn't tax / unemployment / black market do what I expected it to?"

NS uses a complex model to calculate a lot of things, which can lead to counter-intuitive results.

- Why didn't tax fall when spending was described as reducing (or why didn't it rise when spending was described as rising)?

The answer usually lies in your economic output.
The more economic output you have, the less %tax you need to support your spending.

Bear in mind that economic output is dependent on a lot of interacting factors. Sometimes an option will cause you to shrink your economy by more than you proportionally shrank your spending, causing a tax rise to support the same spending. Sometimes it won't. Often different things will happen to different nations faced with the same issue choice.

- Why didn't tax fall when an option described a corporation tax cut / sales tax cut?

The tax model of the game is very simplistic, and it basically abstracts all spending as income tax and doesn't take into account any idea of government borrowing, deficit spending or tax from sources other than income tax.

That gives us limited tools for simulation.

Corporation tax is rolled into business subsidisation, with lowering of corporate tax representing an effective business subsidisation, and a shifting of tax burden onto the income taxpayer.

Sales tax and VAT, meanwhile, move income tax inversely, as raising more revenue from these forms of taxation decreases the burden on income tax, and vice versa.

This isn't entirely satisfactory, of course, as it means that the descriptions of "Freedom From Taxation" on the graphs aren't accurate, but it's reflective of how the game engine is written and of the simulation's limitations. It basically isn't possible to have burden of taxation and income tax move in opposite directions, as in the simulation all measured tax = income tax.

Significant as in "not just a side effect". I'm used to those.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of the linkage to business subsidization.

[Blueflarst]

NationStates Issue No. 829
Commercial ships often report keel and hull damage from coral reef impacts.

Lowered my trouth fishing stat 66%

[Socialist State of LAY]

I'm not IRL advocating for the ban of the Internet. I'm just pointing out that in the 60s, not having Internet access wouldn't have been considered authoritarian or oppressive at all, as the Internet literally didn't exist, and I should be allowed to roleplay a nation as being set in the past, just as others set theirs in the present or future. As it stands, it works well; the nation of 60s Music has roughly 75-point civil rights, despite not having Internet access, in keeping with the 60s theme of the nation. I'm merely pointing out that this change isn't necessary.

No shit Sherlock. What an amazing thought process. The point is: the internet exists right now and banning it is anything but libertarian. Maybe you should check your definition of those terms, before you use them. Also: when guns didn't exist some centuries ago, nobody would have called it authoritarian either. Nonetheless, banning guns is an authoritarian move. I am quite impressed by your lack of knowledge.

[Lamoni]

I'm not IRL advocating for the ban of the Internet. I'm just pointing out that in the 60s, not having Internet access wouldn't have been considered authoritarian or oppressive at all, as the Internet literally didn't exist, and I should be allowed to roleplay a nation as being set in the past, just as others set theirs in the present or future. As it stands, it works well; the nation of 60s Music has roughly 75-point civil rights, despite not having Internet access, in keeping with the 60s theme of the nation. I'm merely pointing out that this change isn't necessary.

No shit Sherlock. What an amazing thought process. The point is: the internet exists right now and banning it is anything but libertarian. Maybe you should check your definition of those terms, before you use them. Also: when guns didn't exist some centuries ago, nobody would have called it authoritarian either. Nonetheless, banning guns is an authoritarian move. I am quite impressed by your lack of knowledge.

You seriously need some time to cool off, before your post goes over the cliff toward flaming. iLoom.

[The Free Joy State]

NationStates Issue No. 829
Commercial ships often report keel and hull damage from coral reef impacts.

Lowered my trouth fishing stat 66%

I can see you've answered that issue, but not especially recently. If you could remember the date, that might help me be more exact with my response.

That said, the option is not aimed at improving your fishing industry, but gives you a protected coral reef -- diverting shipping routes away from the reef. Choosing to create a protected reef in that area will lower fishing there.

As for your drop in fishing, percentages rarely give an accurate representation and can be alarming: I suggest turning on "Show More Stats" in settings, which will give you the raw numbers.

[Superbunny]

In Spare The Whip, Spoil The Law, I chose an option (Option 4, I think, whichever one gives you the line "The ruling party is having a devil of a time keeping order in the ranks.") and although it caused my Corruption level to go down drastically (from 4.14 to 2.91) and rose Political Freedoms to good, I was awarded the Summer Residence banner, which apparently requires you to have deep-rooted corruption even though I just lowered it. Am I missing something?