[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects

[Verdant Haven]

I can’t remember the issue name, but it was one were I banned cars (I recently unbanned them) and my Insurance industry went up?, this issue happened about a month-ish ago, any reason why?

Still waiting for a answer

"Please."

Unfortunately there isn't enough information to provide any insight here. Without knowing what issue you answered and what option you selected, and waiting until a "month-ish" after it happened so it isn't easily identifiable in your recent history, it isn't readily possible to look into specifics. There are more than a dozen ways to ban cars, and each option where that happens would have its own additional implications, which in turn might affect any given nation differently. Is there a reason why insurance went up? No doubt there is, but sadly we're not in a position to discern details and verify anything without being given at least something to work with.

[Sedgistan]

The Ministers Exposing Themselves issue is about how politicians might have a conflict of interest being in office while owning stocks in the weapons industrial complex. I picked the option to fire them but that lowered my nation's integrity and rocketted Corruption? I think the wires may have been crossed here. Theres a huge political debate right now in the US about not letting people in office have stocks or at least to put them in a blind trust to not rig policies that would benefit those markets economically.

Thank you for your report. I agree that this is problematic. I see backstage that the problem has to do with the factors that make up the Corruption stat. The model could definitely use improvement. I will bring this to the attention of my fellow editors. To fix this problem would require a new version of the current model. This means that a fix will take months or even years. Consider this a known bug.

The Marsupial Illuminati was incorrect on this - the model for the Corruption measure was correct, but there were a couple of bugs with processing issues effects in certain situations. Both have now been fixed.

[Thomasi]

I feel like NS issue algorithm leans to the right. I got knocked down a level on civil rights when I banned tobacco. Like what? Also anything that's not just free market takes down points on the economy.

[Umbratellus]

I feel like NS issue algorithm leans to the right. I got knocked down a level on civil rights when I banned tobacco. Like what? Also anything that's not just free market takes down points on the economy.

Restricting drug use - of any kind; marijuana, meth, alcohol, nicotine, etc. - results in a reduction in civil rights. There's nothing right leaning about that.

[Thomasi]

I feel like NS issue algorithm leans to the right. I got knocked down a level on civil rights when I banned tobacco. Like what? Also anything that's not just free market takes down points on the economy.

Restricting drug use - of any kind; marijuana, meth, alcohol, nicotine, etc. - results in a reduction in civil rights. There's nothing right leaning about that.

I just thought it was weird because national health rose by 350%, life expectancy by 4%, and basically every other good indicator other than economy and civil rights.

But I guess any drug prohibition would lover civil rights

[Dexterra]

I feel like NS issue algorithm leans to the right. I got knocked down a level on civil rights when I banned tobacco. Like what? Also anything that's not just free market takes down points on the economy.

[See above for full context] I just thought it was weird because national health rose by 350%, life expectancy by 4%, and basically every other good indicator other than economy and civil rights.

But I guess any drug prohibition would lover civil rights

The description for the civil rights census ranking ends with "freedoms to go about their personal business without interference or regulation from government." So if the government bans tobacco, surely that would constitute some level of interference or regulation, right?

Also, in my experience, your economy can do quite well without free markets - it matters more where you invest your nation's treasury (subsidizing industry is always good) and how you answer relevant issues. In the context of banning tobacco, that would certainly have a negative effect on your economy with or without free markets - sales would plummet, consumers would have zero safe purchasing options and manufacturers would have to shut down or continue into the black market.

Overall, though, census rankings/site statistics really only lean as right or left as your answer choices; this guide might be able to point you in the right answer direction going forwards. I hope this clears some things up

[Seven Zealous Saints]

Hello there,

today I faced a very weird effect of an issue.

The required date:

State: Seven Zealous Saints

Date: 07/15/22, around 8am CET

Issue: #842, "Leader and the Chocolate Factory"

I picked option Number 2, which seems to me the most adequate reaction for a Right-Wing Utopia that aims at staying one, since it maximizes economic freedom even at the expense of civil rights. Yet I lost [!] some points in economic freedom which even led to a reclassification of my state. Funnily enough it is a “Moralistic Democracy” now, after having done something which is everything but ethical.

I think this effect isn’t just counterintuitive, it must be some bug. Or maybe I’m getting something wrong here?
However, I either hope for this to be fixed or to be enlightened.
Best regards,
SZS

[Verdant Haven]

Hello there,

today I faced a very weird effect of an issue.

The required date:

State: Seven Zealous Saints

Date: 07/15/22, around 8am CET

Issue: #842, "Leader and the Chocolate Factory"

I picked option Number 2, which seems to me the most adequate reaction for a Right-Wing Utopia that aims at staying one, since it maximizes economic freedom even at the expense of civil rights. Yet I lost [!] some points in economic freedom which even led to a reclassification of my state. Funnily enough it is a “Moralistic Democracy” now, after having done something which is everything but ethical.

I think this effect isn’t just counterintuitive, it must be some bug. Or maybe I’m getting something wrong here?
However, I either hope for this to be fixed or to be enlightened.
Best regards,
SZS

Ahoy! While what happened definitely is counterintuitive, it isn't broken per se - rather, it's a result of where you already were prior to answering.

Basically, the various freedoms (civil, political, and economic) aren't single stats - they are combinations of a number of different subcategories within each of those freedom groups. For example, the right of an employer to outlaw unions is part of one type of economic freedom, but the right of employees to form that union is part of a different type of economic freedom. You chose an option that heavily increases an aspect of economic freedom favoring corporate interests, and heavily reduces an aspect of economic freedom favoring workers. Because employers in your nation were already so favored, their economic freedoms literally couldn't improve enough to offset the reduction to employee economic freedoms created by allowing this factory owner to do what he does. As a result, the overall Economic Freedom trend is downward. In the game's version of an ideal "Right Wing Utopia" nation, everybody has high economic freedom. If you start blocking the freedoms of certain groups (like workers), then that reduces overall economic freedoms and it slips towards other categories.

[Seven Zealous Saints]

Hello there,

today I faced a very weird effect of an issue.

The required date:

State: Seven Zealous Saints

Date: 07/15/22, around 8am CET

Issue: #842, "Leader and the Chocolate Factory"

I picked option Number 2, which seems to me the most adequate reaction for a Right-Wing Utopia that aims at staying one, since it maximizes economic freedom even at the expense of civil rights. Yet I lost [!] some points in economic freedom which even led to a reclassification of my state. Funnily enough it is a “Moralistic Democracy” now, after having done something which is everything but ethical.

I think this effect isn’t just counterintuitive, it must be some bug. Or maybe I’m getting something wrong here?
However, I either hope for this to be fixed or to be enlightened.
Best regards,
SZS

Ahoy! While what happened definitely is counterintuitive, it isn't broken per se - rather, it's a result of where you already were prior to answering.

Basically, the various freedoms (civil, political, and economic) aren't single stats - they are combinations of a number of different subcategories within each of those freedom groups. For example, the right of an employer to outlaw unions is part of one type of economic freedom, but the right of employees to form that union is part of a different type of economic freedom. You chose an option that heavily increases an aspect of economic freedom favoring corporate interests, and heavily reduces an aspect of economic freedom favoring workers. Because employers in your nation were already so favored, their economic freedoms literally couldn't improve enough to offset the reduction to employee economic freedoms created by allowing this factory owner to do what he does. As a result, the overall Economic Freedom trend is downward. In the game's version of an ideal "Right Wing Utopia" nation, everybody has high economic freedom. If you start blocking the freedoms of certain groups (like workers), then that reduces overall economic freedoms and it slips towards other categories.

Hello there,

thank you for your explanation, this really makes sense now - even though it still doesn't make sense in another way, if you get my drift. The game changer here is that they are obviously not single stats and this is what I didn't know. So at least as far as game mechanics are concerned I can see where this came from now, thanks to your explanation.

The substantial problem I'm seeing here is, if things are the way you described them, many freedoms just cancel each other out. So whatever you do, it will be hard to maximize them. Just look at the example you have given: The very point of founding a workers' union is to hinder the employers from doing whatever they want, i.e. limiting their economic freedom (I personally don't that it makes sense to count unions as a contribution to economic freedom whatsoever when it comes to the ideal of a Right Wing Utopia, btw; freedom for everybody is freedom of contract here and this is what the guy in option 2 was referring to, imho).

However, there is thing in this game your explanation might help to understand.The most centrist type of state - the Inoffensive Centrist democracy - is by far the most common. Maybe it's not only the players' opposing or moderate preferences but also the game mechanics that's creating a strong regression to the mean here.

Well, interesting to know, think and talk about.

SZS

[Thomasi]

How did the economy go up 120% over privatizing of restaurants while 25% left the work force?

[Dexterra]

How did the economy go up 120% over privatizing of restaurants while 25% left the work force?

Though I’ve had similar experiences, I assume that this has a lot to do with your specific stats - so while hoping that the issues team might be able to offer you some insight here, I’ll also make an attempt at a subjective opinion for you.

When anything is privatized, withdrawal of government oversight may allow employers to profiteer, monopolize, racketeer and potentially even downright legally steal. It may also help them become wealthy in legitimate or honest ways that might have previously been highly regulated or even forbade. Naturally, in a larger sense, this means that privatization opens the possibility for people to make as much money as they want or can, so (in essence) privatizing something could provide a net positive to the economy mainly because there will be more money with less control. As for the workforce, withdrawal of government oversight will surely come back to haunt paychecks (in terms of hourly wages and salaries as well as when employees are actually paid), recognition of labor rights and standards for both firing and hiring, among other things.

To put it simply, as employers gain more control especially à la privatization, they often use it to gain more profits, and it usually comes at the expense of employees. Hope that makes sense

[West North]

Nation: West North
Time: About ten minutes ago as of time of posting
Issue: #1051 - Take to the Skies

I lifted my ban on airplanes and military spending went down 4%. Would I be correct in thinking this is a knock on effect from the drop in Environmental Beauty (down 22%) causing a reduction in tourism (down 9%) causing a drop in taxes brought in (also down 4%)?

[Umbratellus]

Nation: West North
Time: About ten minutes ago as of time of posting
Issue: #1051 - Take to the Skies

I lifted my ban on airplanes and military spending went down 4%. Would I be correct in thinking this is a knock on effect from the drop in Environmental Beauty (down 22%) causing a reduction in tourism (down 9%) causing a drop in taxes brought in (also down 4%)?

Yeah that's a correct assumption. Increases or decreases (especially large ones) can have knock-on effects to the other departments of your government.

[Thomasi]

I went from NYT Democracy to Democratic Socialism over a forced retirement age of 90 and then went back to NYT Democracy over allowing different cultures to eat different animals.

[West Barack and East Obama]

:rofl:

I went from NYT Democracy to Democratic Socialism over a forced retirement age of 90 and then went back to NYT Democracy over allowing different cultures to eat different animals.

When reporting these, ideally include the following information:

- The name of the nation that had this effect
- The day that this effect was encountered
- The name of the issue, and if you know it, the number of the issue.

[Bears Armed]

:rofl:

I went from NYT Democracy to Democratic Socialism over a forced retirement age of 90 and then went back to NYT Democracy over allowing different cultures to eat different animals.

When reporting these, ideally include the following information:

- The name of the nation that had this effect
- The day that this effect was encountered
- The name of the issue, and if you know it, the number of the issue.

<looks at nation quoted>
Here are Thomasi City's currently-listed Effect lines:

Dozens of viewers go online to hear whether a comma has been added to Clause 5 in Subsection B of Law 58375, 100-year-old politicians are now a thing of the past, Thomasi City has restaurants serving every meat from aardvark to zebra, and national park visitors are reporting a rash of poison ivy sightings.

The one about eating different animals is for issue #1474, 'Cuy Bono?', option 2.

[Dexterra]

I went from NYT Democracy to Democratic Socialism over a forced retirement age of 90 and then went back to NYT Democracy over allowing different cultures to eat different animals.

In part, maybe largely, because those issue answer choices switched you from Capitalism to Socialism and back, you nevertheless danced across classification lines primarily because those choices made your economic freedom and political freedom swing like an ape on greasy monkey bars. These effects, I believe from experience, could even be expected within such circumstances

[RedBrickLand]

NAME:RedBrickLand

DAY EFFECT WAS ENCOUNTERED: Honestly, idk. According to my census, It was probably in June 10th but I do suspect that the actual issue that caused the effect was on June 8th, not sure.

ISSUE: I assume the issue that caused the effect was Issue 542, answered on June 8th. My result was "Global anti-terrorist organisations strongly suspect RedBrickLand of supplying extremist groups." (OPTION 4)
I keep a track of the issues I answer here and it contains the other issues that could've caused this effect, so you can check it out if you like.

EFFECT ENCOUNTERED: Check my nation's safety. Notice a huge drop? Yeah, It's a huge drop. It's not really unusual but my 1 remaining neuron didn't realize that supplying extremist groups may make the nation less safe. I would just like to know which issue caused the effect and why my safety decreased by such a large amount. Thanks!

[Verdant Haven]

NAME:RedBrickLand

DAY EFFECT WAS ENCOUNTERED: Honestly, idk. According to my census, It was probably in June 10th but I do suspect that the actual issue that caused the effect was on June 8th, not sure.

ISSUE: I assume the issue that caused the effect was Issue 542, answered on June 8th. My result was "Global anti-terrorist organisations strongly suspect RedBrickLand of supplying extremist groups." (OPTION 4)
I keep a track of the issues I answer here and it contains the other issues that could've caused this effect, so you can check it out if you like.

EFFECT ENCOUNTERED: Check my nation's safety. Notice a huge drop? Yeah, It's a huge drop. It's not really unusual but my 1 remaining neuron didn't realize that supplying extremist groups may make the nation less safe. I would just like to know which issue caused the effect and why my safety decreased by such a large amount. Thanks!

Stat changes show up on those graphs at the very next update, so it wasn't anything on the 8th. Rather, you appear to have answered an issue early on the 11th that gave you a new policy, and it's that one that will answer your question. Specifically, you selected an option that includes things like sport-hunting your fellow humans and harvesting body parts for rituals.

[RedBrickLand]

Stat changes show up on those graphs at the very next update, so it wasn't anything on the 8th. Rather, you appear to have answered an issue early on the 11th that gave you a new policy, and it's that one that will answer your question. Specifically, you selected an option that includes things like sport-hunting your fellow humans and harvesting body parts for rituals.

Huh, so it was never because I implemented the WMDs policy. Thanks a lot! That makes a lot of sense now. Well, even if I permanently destroyed the safety of my nation at least now I know why. Also, quick question, what time of day is this "update"? Just asking. Thanks!

[Floofybit]

I am unsure if this is the correct subforum but I got issue no. 371, Lotto Fever, that allowed me the option to ban gambling, but what is strange, is that I have already banned it.

[Verdant Haven]

I am unsure if this is the correct subforum but I got issue no. 371, Lotto Fever, that allowed me the option to ban gambling, but what is strange, is that I have already banned it.

Hello!

That issue is actually meant specifically for nations like yours, that either restrict gambling to an extreme measure, or outright ban it. The fact that gambling is illegal is why your brother was arrested for running a gambling ring, but realizing how much money it earned him is prompting your advisors to suggest legalizing gambling so that the state can make some money as well.

As usual, not everybody agrees, so there is still a speaker who's encouraging you to retain your ban.

[Floofybit]

Thank you so much for your help! That's makes a lot more sense

[Seven Zealous Saints]

- Seven Zealous Saints
- just now
- Much Ado About Abortion

I picked option 3, the most restrictive anti-abortionist one. My civil rights rose (!) by 12% after that. I'm not discussing the number here, that's just natural, since my civil rights are rather low. But why would they rise at all after such a decision?

I understand the thought that might have been father of the thought here - forbidding abortion is a civil right for the unborn child, in the end. But does this really make sense? Since the right to abort is a civil right for the pregnant woman, all of the options of this issue would raise your civil rights, wouldn't they?

Btw, this is a pic of how the stats changed:
https://gyazo.com/7820ba7e233e85b0d29f0b1d0d540d02

I think many of them don't make sense. Authoritarianism drops after this decision? Religiousness rises only by 0.21% (ok, I'm already quite authoritarian in this state), but nudity by 3.2% and intelligence by 2.1%? Come on! I know, it's possible to come up with some somewhat plausible ad hoc explanation for everything, but this seems much more like overly complicated interrelatedness of stats that just doesn't make sense anymore.

[Bears Armed]

- Seven Zealous Saints
- just now
- Much Ado About Abortion

I picked option 3, the most restrictive anti-abortionist one. My civil rights rose (!) by 12% after that. I'm not discussing the number here, that's just natural, since my civil rights are rather low. But why would they rise at all after such a decision?

I understand the thought that might have been father of the thought here - forbidding abortion is a civil right for the unborn child, in the end. But does this really make sense? Since the right to abort is a civil right for the pregnant woman, all of the options of this issue would raise your civil rights, wouldn't they?

They do: The editors decided that that was preferable to them taking an official stand on either side of the argument.

Btw, this is a pic of how the stats changed:
https://gyazo.com/7820ba7e233e85b0d29f0b1d0d540d02

I think many of them don't make sense. Authoritarianism drops after this decision? Religiousness rises only by 0.21% (ok, I'm already quite authoritarian in this state), but nudity by 3.2% and intelligence by 2.1%? Come on! I know, it's possible to come up with some somewhat plausible ad hoc explanation for everything, but this seems much more like overly complicated interrelatedness of stats that just doesn't make sense anymore.

Authoritarianism always drops when Civil Rights rises, Nudity generally rises when Civil Rights does.