[DRAFT] Causing a Nativity Scene

[Kiddian States]

A recent International Wildlife Foundation study on the @@LASTNAME@@ian @@ANIMAL@@ (the species of @@ANIMAL@@ featured on many flags, seals, and other symbols) has concluded in the revision of the official native territory of the species in question. This redrawn territory now shows that the species mostly lives in Brancaland, with only a tiny sliver being in @@NAME@@.

Option 1
Your Minister of Branding walks into your office, looking extremely nervous. “@@LEADER@@, this is a scandal! Our national symbol doesn’t even represent us anymore! Luckily for us, there is a species of @@ANIMAL@@ that lives in @@NAME@@. Sure, it doesn’t have the same vibrant colors that the @@LASTNAME1@@ian version had, not its iconic head shape. I don’t think anyone will care if we remake our national symbols featuring the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ @@ANIMAL@@. After all, accuracy is far more important than aesthetics!”

Bland new national symbols were excitedly unveiled in a recent press conference

Option 2
Your phone rings, and your patriotic uncle is on the other end. “I don’t see why we have to change our symbols! If the problem is that the species isn’t native to our great nation anymore, then why don’t we make it that way! Why don’t we travel in secret to Brancaland, stea- er… permanently borrow some of their @@ANIMAL@@s, and release them into the wild! Sure, some might consider it ‘poaching’ and ‘trespassing on the land of a sovereign nation’, but those nitpickers clearly don’t love our country enough!”

The government releases invasive species “for national pride”

Option 3
‘New Age’ artist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, struts into the room, wearing clothes you never would have thought existed. “Who cares what species the @@ANIMAL@@ is! In fact, why have animals as your symbols at all! Hire me, and I’ll get you some nice geometric shapes as your symbols, fit for the modern day!”

Animals representing @@NAME@@ have been replaced by random shapes on national symbols

Option 4
“Wait, wait!” Says your Minister of Culture. “I have a way where we won’t have to change anything! The problem is this study by the IWF! If we denounce this study and the organization as a whole, then we can say that the species on our symbols still lives in @@NAME@@. Sure, it might not look good opposing a respected organization like the IWF, and it’ll be tough convincing the @@DEMONYMPLURALNOUN@@ that the animal is actually there, but it’ll be worth it in the name of patriotism!”

Believing is seeing, the government says

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Nice, but it would be good for something where someone suggests to make fictional animals instead of the seal

[Kiddian States]

Nice, but it would be good for something where someone suggests to make fictional animals instead of the seal

Seal as in government seal
Like the seal of the United States

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Nice, but it would be good for something where someone suggests to make fictional animals instead of the seal

Seal as in government seal
Like the seal of the United States

Instead of the national animal, then.

[Kiddian States]

Seal as in government seal
Like the seal of the United States

Instead of the national animal, then.

I was giving an example of something that featured the national animal

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Instead of the national animal, then.

I was giving an example of something that featured the national animal

I mean, someone says, ‘instead of @@ANIMAL@@ let’s do a unicorn’
Something like that

[Wallowis]

I was giving an example of something that featured the national animal

I mean, someone says, ‘instead of @@ANIMAL@@ let’s do a unicorn’
Something like that

That wouldn't work though, because issues can't change your settings. If you picked the unicorn option, then you'd need to manually go to settings and change to unicorn or else it would make no sense.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

I mean, someone says, ‘instead of @@ANIMAL@@ let’s do a unicorn’
Something like that

That wouldn't work though, because issues can't change your settings. If you picked the unicorn option, then you'd need to manually go to settings and change to unicorn or else it would make no sense.

No, because it wouldn’t change the national animal. So instead of the speckled mouse (for example) being on the seals, it would be a dragon. You get it?

[Wallowis]

That wouldn't work though, because issues can't change your settings. If you picked the unicorn option, then you'd need to manually go to settings and change to unicorn or else it would make no sense.

No, because it wouldn’t change the national animal. So instead of the speckled mouse (for example) being on the seals, it would be a dragon. You get it?

Oh, ok

[Burger Kings Kingdom]

I think the issue is missing a "Do nothing" option, where someone suggests you just leave the animal the same, and hope no one cares. Maybe the result could be something along the lines of, "citizens are expected not to mind that their patriotic symbols are more patriotic to other nations"

[Kiddian States]

I think the issue is missing a "Do nothing" option, where someone suggests you just leave the animal the same, and hope no one cares. Maybe the result could be something along the lines of, "citizens are expected not to mind that their patriotic symbols are more patriotic to other nations"

The do nothing option is the dismiss issue button
Personally, I wish dismissing the issue fit more into this role, but the official how to write an issue thing says to not put do nothing options

[Verdant Haven]

The idea is an interesting one, but in its current presentation I think it strains the bounds of credibility. Nobody realizing that you're using the wrong species for an extended period of time just doesn't strike me as realistic (if you have a real world example, I'm happy to be proven wrong!). I'm thinking of stuff like the incorrect orientation of the Wright Flyer on the new Ohio license plates, which was noticed and reported by the public within minutes of being unveiled. There are plenty of animal-obsessed kids, not to mention academic professionals, who would catch this kind of thing without even needing to think about it.

One possibility that could be worth pursuing, and might open up even more interesting responses, would be the re-classification by scientists of what was previously one species into two species. This happens constantly, and is certainly not without academic controversy at times, so it could be reasonable to suggest that after careful analysis of recently run genomic sequences some international scientific body has declared that @@ANIMAL@@ is actually two distinct species, with the less distinctive-looking species being identified with the player's nation, while the more camera-friendly version that was traditionally used now being specifically "foreign" in its range. That way there wasn't some big unbelievable mistake that was made – instead, the scientific consensus changed after the fact.

That opens up all sorts of interesting responses, from doubling down on the nobility and inner beauty of the more plain looking version, to banning science textbooks that teach the new information, to… you name it!

[Kiddian States]

The idea is an interesting one, but in its current presentation I think it strains the bounds of credibility. Nobody realizing that you're using the wrong species for an extended period of time just doesn't strike me as realistic (if you have a real world example, I'm happy to be proven wrong!). I'm thinking of stuff like the incorrect orientation of the Wright Flyer on the new Ohio license plates, which was noticed and reported by the public within minutes of being unveiled. There are plenty of animal-obsessed kids, not to mention academic professionals, who would catch this kind of thing without even needing to think about it.

One possibility that could be worth pursuing, and might open up even more interesting responses, would be the re-classification by scientists of what was previously one species into two species. This happens constantly, and is certainly not without academic controversy at times, so it could be reasonable to suggest that after careful analysis of recently run genomic sequences some international scientific body has declared that @@ANIMAL@@ is actually two distinct species, with the less distinctive-looking species being identified with the player's nation, while the more camera-friendly version that was traditionally used now being specifically "foreign" in its range. That way there wasn't some big unbelievable mistake that was made – instead, the scientific consensus changed after the fact.

That opens up all sorts of interesting responses, from doubling down on the nobility and inner beauty of the more plain looking version, to banning science textbooks that teach the new information, to… you name it!

Would the scientific community revising the natural habitat of ANIMAL to include only a tiny sliver in NAME work?
Like a team of scientists studied the iconic species, and found it didn’t inhabit the same territory it used to?

[Trotterdam]

Nobody realizing that you're using the wrong species for an extended period of time just doesn't strike me as realistic (if you have a real world example, I'm happy to be proven wrong!).

There are examples of people making these kinds of mistakes in real life, but you're right that they usually get caught fairly quickly. Though depending on how high-profile the person who made the mistake was, it might still be noteworthy even if it's caught quickly.

There are also cases of nations intentionally having national animals that aren't actually found within their borders, rather than it being a mistake. (The lion is the national animal of several European countries, including the Netherlands, England, and Norway, a place that I'm pretty sure they never inhabited even before overhunting caused them to be extirpated from Europe. The national animal of Scotland is the unicorn, which doesn't even exist.)

On a more meta level, keep in mind that you can't anticipate what players will enter as their national animal. It can be anything ranging from ridiculously common animals that are found everywhere, to iconic animals associated with one specific place that everyone knows, to fictional animals that don't exist in real life but are supposed to exist in that nation's in-character lore, to mythical animals that don't actually exist even in-character, to domesticated animals whose natural range in the wild is irrelevant, and numerous other things. I think players would dislike being told "nope, your national animal doesn't live here" when that goes against their roleplay lore, especially when that happens in only a minority of real-life nations and tends to be deliberate when it does happen.

One possibility that could be worth pursuing, and might open up even more interesting responses, would be the re-classification by scientists of what was previously one species into two species. This happens constantly, and is certainly not without academic controversy at times, so it could be reasonable to suggest that after careful analysis of recently run genomic sequences some international scientific body has declared that @@ANIMAL@@ is actually two distinct species, with the less distinctive-looking species being identified with the player's nation, while the more camera-friendly version that was traditionally used now being specifically "foreign" in its range. That way there wasn't some big unbelievable mistake that was made – instead, the scientific consensus changed after the fact.

That still sounds questionable to me. If there is a clear visible difference between all @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ found in @@NAME@@ and the specific @@ANIMAL@@ used in the picture, someone would have noticed, regardless of whether that difference is formally considered to be a distinct species, a subspecies, or just a local color variation.

Would the scientific community revising the natural habitat of ANIMAL to include only a tiny sliver in NAME work?
Like a team of scientists studied the iconic species, and found it didn’t inhabit the same territory it used to?

We already have issues about the national animal being endangered.

[Kiddian States]

Nobody realizing that you're using the wrong species for an extended period of time just doesn't strike me as realistic (if you have a real world example, I'm happy to be proven wrong!).

There are examples of people making these kinds of mistakes in real life, but you're right that they usually get caught fairly quickly. Though depending on how high-profile the person who made the mistake was, it might still be noteworthy even if it's caught quickly.

There are also cases of nations intentionally having national animals that aren't actually found within their borders, rather than it being a mistake. (The lion is the national animal of several European countries, including the Netherlands, England, and Norway, a place that I'm pretty sure they never inhabited even before overhunting caused them to be extirpated from Europe. The national animal of Scotland is the unicorn, which doesn't even exist.)

On a more meta level, keep in mind that you can't anticipate what players will enter as their national animal. It can be anything ranging from ridiculously common animals that are found everywhere, to iconic animals associated with one specific place that everyone knows, to fictional animals that don't exist in real life but are supposed to exist in that nation's in-character lore, to mythical animals that don't actually exist even in-character, to domesticated animals whose natural range in the wild is irrelevant, and numerous other things. I think players would dislike being told "nope, your national animal doesn't live here" when that goes against their roleplay lore, especially when that happens in only a minority of real-life nations and tends to be deliberate when it does happen.

One possibility that could be worth pursuing, and might open up even more interesting responses, would be the re-classification by scientists of what was previously one species into two species. This happens constantly, and is certainly not without academic controversy at times, so it could be reasonable to suggest that after careful analysis of recently run genomic sequences some international scientific body has declared that @@ANIMAL@@ is actually two distinct species, with the less distinctive-looking species being identified with the player's nation, while the more camera-friendly version that was traditionally used now being specifically "foreign" in its range. That way there wasn't some big unbelievable mistake that was made – instead, the scientific consensus changed after the fact.

That still sounds questionable to me. If there is a clear visible difference between all @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ found in @@NAME@@ and the specific @@ANIMAL@@ used in the picture, someone would have noticed, regardless of whether that difference is formally considered to be a distinct species, a subspecies, or just a local color variation.

Would the scientific community revising the natural habitat of ANIMAL to include only a tiny sliver in NAME work?
Like a team of scientists studied the iconic species, and found it didn’t inhabit the same territory it used to?

We already have issues about the national animal being endangered.

Okay, two things
First, if you read the original issue, then you would know that I created a fictional specific species of ANIMAL. It might get a little complicated if the national animal is already a specific species, but oh well
Second, I’m not saying that the species is endangered, just that it doesn’t really live in NAME anymore

[Kiddian States]

Edited

[Kiddian States]

Bump

[Kiddian States]

Bump

[Socialist Ancomistan]

I feel like this issue should only apply to nations who's national animal "teeters on the brink of extinction.* Otherwise, I'd imagine the nation doing a good job at preserving it's habitat and not running into that kind of a problem

[Kiddian States]

I feel like this issue should only apply to nations who's national animal "teeters on the brink of extinction.* Otherwise, I'd imagine the nation doing a good job at preserving it's habitat and not running into that kind of a problem

Well, it’s mostly about Animal not living there anymore, not habitat destruction

[Kiddian States]

Bump

[American Collectivism]

Scenario 3 should be edited or removed IMO. The issue focuses on the national animal’s habitat, not the nation’s flag, especially because most nations in this game don’t have an animal on their flag. I would refer to the comment above which says to have an option keeping the status quo

[Kiddian States]

Scenario 3 should be edited or removed IMO. The issue focuses on the national animal’s habitat, not the nation’s flag, especially because most nations in this game don’t have an animal on their flag. I would refer to the comment above which says to have an option keeping the status quo

First, the issue is about national symbols and the habitat thing was just the inciting incident for the debate. Second, I do not mean the nations flag (unless applicable), I mean some of the more obscure flags, seals, etc. that might feature the national animal. And for a status quo option, according to the ‘How to Write An Issue’ thread, an option for doing nothing is the dismiss button. I don’t like it, but that’s how it is

[Australian rePublic]

Ummm... wouldn't you know where the animals are located before selecting a national animal? How did you not know this hundreds of years ago?

[Kiddian States]

Ummm... wouldn't you know where the animals are located before selecting a national animal? How did you not know this hundreds of years ago?

Well, the habitat changed
Its the inciting incident for the issue