Title: Sartorial Snafu
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing or folk costume in public spaces.
Validity: Must have at least moderately high primitiveness. Must have an average or lower level of scientific advancement. This issue cannot be received by nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
Validity: Not available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“Let @@NAME@@ forge its destiny as a peer to the world’s civilized, dynamic nations,” declares Ata@@STATE@@. While adjusting his tie, he continues, “The persistence of archaic modes of dress, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, is emblematic of national disunity and retrograde manipulation by obscurantists. Though citizens may do as they wish at home, anyone venturing out in public must discard obsolete forms of attire. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER@@’s newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“Let @@NAME@@ forge its destiny as a peer to the world’s civilized, dynamic nations,” declares Ata@@STATE@@. While adjusting his tie, he continues, “The persistence of archaic modes of dress, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, is emblematic of national disunity and retrograde manipulation by obscurantists. Though citizens may do as they wish at home, anyone venturing out in public must discard obsolete forms of attire. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This scheme is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, such sordid impudence is an unpatriotic affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. @@NAME@@ outshines foreign countries, so why imitate outsiders? Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional and folk styles.”
Outcome: past fashion is ever-present in @@DEMONYM@@ dress
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The fabric of civilization remains durable only so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. By dint of historical precedent and nature’s righteous ordinance, one’s choice of raiment should be governed by profession, social status, class, and caste. Enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of labor unrest emanating from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up at night sweating in their gowns
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing or folk costume in public spaces.
Validity: Must have at least moderately high primitiveness. Must have an average or lower level of scientific advancement. This issue cannot be received by nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
Validity: Not available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“Let @@NAME@@ forge its destiny as a peer to the world’s civilized, dynamic nations,” declares Ata@@STATE@@. Adjusting his tie, he continues, “The persistence of archaic modes of dress, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, is emblematic of national disunity and retrograde manipulation by obscurantists. Whilecitizens may do as they wish at home, anyone venturing out in public must discard obsolete forms of attire. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER@@’s newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“Let @@NAME@@ forge its destiny as a peer to the world’s civilized, dynamic nations,” declares Ata@@STATE@@. Adjusting his tie, he continues, “The persistence of archaic modes of dress, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, is emblematic of national disunity and retrograde manipulation by obscurantists. While citizens may do as they wish at home, anyone venturing out in public must discard obsolete forms of attire. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This scheme is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, such sordid impudence is an unpatriotic affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. @@NAME@@ outshines other countries, so why imitate them? Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional and folk styles.”
Outcome: past fashion is ever-present when it comes to @@DEMONYM@@ dress
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. The fabric of civilization remains durable only so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. By dint of historical precedent and nature’s righteous ordinance, one’s choice of raiment should be governed by profession, social status, class, and caste. Enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of labor unrest emanating from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up at night sweating in their gowns
Validity: Must have at least moderately high primitiveness. Must have an average or lower level of scientific advancement. This issue cannot be received by nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
Validity: Not available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“Let @@NAME@@ forge its destiny as a peer to the world’s civilized, dynamic nations,” declares Ata@@STATE@@. Adjusting his tie, he continues, “The persistence of archaic modes of dress, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, is emblematic of national disunity and retrograde manipulation by obscurantists. Whilecitizens may do as they wish at home, anyone venturing out in public must discard obsolete forms of attire. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER@@’s newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“Let @@NAME@@ forge its destiny as a peer to the world’s civilized, dynamic nations,” declares Ata@@STATE@@. Adjusting his tie, he continues, “The persistence of archaic modes of dress, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, is emblematic of national disunity and retrograde manipulation by obscurantists. While citizens may do as they wish at home, anyone venturing out in public must discard obsolete forms of attire. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This scheme is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, such sordid impudence is an unpatriotic affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. @@NAME@@ outshines other countries, so why imitate them? Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional and folk styles.”
Outcome: past fashion is ever-present when it comes to @@DEMONYM@@ dress
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. The fabric of civilization remains durable only so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. By dint of historical precedent and nature’s righteous ordinance, one’s choice of raiment should be governed by profession, social status, class, and caste. Enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of labor unrest emanating from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up at night sweating in their gowns
Title: Sartorial Snafu
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing or folk costume in public spaces.
Validity: Must have at least moderately high primitiveness. Must have an average or lower level of scientific advancement. This issue cannot be received by nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
Validity: Not available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie, he continues, “The planet’s most advanced, dynamic nations have already adopted a set of contemporary fashions and standards - business suits, modern trousers, neckties, fedoras, sports caps, t-shirts, jeans, et cetera, so why don’t we do likewise? The continuation of archaic modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER@@’s newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to forge our destiny as peers to the civilized, advanced nations of the world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie, he continues, “The planet’s leading powers have already adopted a set of contemporary fashions and standards - business suits, modern trousers, neckties, fedoras, sports caps, t-shirts, jeans, et cetera, fitted for a rational, modern age. The continuation of archaic modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, that scheme is unpatriotic and an affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. As for the mockery from abroad Ata@@STATE@@’s ilk fret about, who cares? We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, reject this sordid impudence! Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional and folk styles.”
Outcome: when it comes to sartorial fashion in @@NAME@@ the past is never dead
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The debate about a differentiation between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire is just a distraction from serious issues. Namely, that the fabric of civilization only remains durable so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. You surely know that, by dint of historical precedent and nature’s righteous ordinance, one’s choice of raiment should be governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of labor unrest emanating from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up at night sweating in their gowns
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing or folk costume in public spaces.
Validity: Must have at least moderately high primitiveness. Must have an average or lower level of scientific advancement. This issue cannot be received by nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
Validity: Not available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie, he continues, “The planet’s most advanced, dynamic nations have already adopted a set of contemporary fashions and standards - business suits, modern trousers, neckties, fedoras, sports caps, t-shirts, jeans, et cetera, so why don’t we do likewise? The continuation of archaic modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER@@’s newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to forge our destiny as peers to the civilized, advanced nations of the world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie, he continues, “The planet’s leading powers have already adopted a set of contemporary fashions and standards - business suits, modern trousers, neckties, fedoras, sports caps, t-shirts, jeans, et cetera, fitted for a rational, modern age. The continuation of archaic modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, that scheme is unpatriotic and an affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. As for the mockery from abroad Ata@@STATE@@’s ilk fret about, who cares? We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, reject this sordid impudence! Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional and folk styles.”
Outcome: when it comes to sartorial fashion in @@NAME@@ the past is never dead
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The debate about a differentiation between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire is just a distraction from serious issues. Namely, that the fabric of civilization only remains durable so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. You surely know that, by dint of historical precedent and nature’s righteous ordinance, one’s choice of raiment should be governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of labor unrest emanating from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up at night sweating in their gowns
Title: Sartorial Snafu
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing or folk costume in public spaces.
Validity: Must have at least moderately high primitiveness. Must have an average or lower level of scientific advancement. This issue cannot be received by nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
Validity: Not available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie, he continues, “The planet’s most advanced, dynamic nations, the United Federation, East Lebatuck, Blackacre, and Prudenlund, have already adopted a set of contemporary fashions and standards - business suits, modern trousers, neckties, fedoras, sports caps, t-shirts, jeans, et cetera, so why don’t we do likewise? The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER@@’s newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to forge our destiny as peers to the civilized, advanced nations of the world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie, he continues, “The planet’s leading powers, notably the United Federation, East Lebatuck, Blackacre, and Prudenlund, have already adopted a set of contemporary fashions and standards - business suits, modern trousers, neckties, fedoras, sports caps, t-shirts, jeans, et cetera, fitted for a rational, modern age. The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, that scheme is unpatriotic and an affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this sordid impudence. Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional and folk styles.”
Outcome: when it comes to sartorial fashion in @@NAME@@ the past is never dead
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The debate about a differentiation between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire is just a distraction from serious issues. Namely, that the fabric of civilization only remains durable so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. You surely know that, by dint of historical precedent and nature’s righteous ordinance, one’s choice of raiment should be governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of labor unrest emanating from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up at night sweating in their gowns
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing or folk costume in public spaces.
Validity: Must have at least moderately high primitiveness. Must have an average or lower level of scientific advancement. This issue cannot be received by nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
Validity: Not available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie, he continues, “The planet’s most advanced, dynamic nations, the United Federation, East Lebatuck, Blackacre, and Prudenlund, have already adopted a set of contemporary fashions and standards - business suits, modern trousers, neckties, fedoras, sports caps, t-shirts, jeans, et cetera, so why don’t we do likewise? The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER@@’s newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only available to nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to forge our destiny as peers to the civilized, advanced nations of the world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie, he continues, “The planet’s leading powers, notably the United Federation, East Lebatuck, Blackacre, and Prudenlund, have already adopted a set of contemporary fashions and standards - business suits, modern trousers, neckties, fedoras, sports caps, t-shirts, jeans, et cetera, fitted for a rational, modern age. The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, that scheme is unpatriotic and an affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this sordid impudence. Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional and folk styles.”
Outcome: when it comes to sartorial fashion in @@NAME@@ the past is never dead
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The debate about a differentiation between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire is just a distraction from serious issues. Namely, that the fabric of civilization only remains durable so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. You surely know that, by dint of historical precedent and nature’s righteous ordinance, one’s choice of raiment should be governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of labor unrest emanating from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up at night sweating in their gowns
Title: Sartorial Snafu
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing in public places.
Validity: This issue can only be received by nations ranking at least moderately high in primitiveness. Furthermore, recipient nations must have an average or lower level of scientific advancement. The issue cannot be received by nations with the Nudism policy, no matter their other ratings.
Option 1:
Validity: Invalid for nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “The planet’s most advanced, dynamic nations have already adopted a set of modern fashions and standards, so why don’t we do likewise? The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER’s@@ newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only valid for nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to forge our destiny as peers to the civilized, advanced nations of the world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “Most of the world has already adopted a set of fashions and standards, fitted for a rational, modern age. The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, that scheme is unpatriotic and an affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this sordid impudence. Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional styles.”
Outcome: when it comes to sartorial fashion in @@NAME@@ the past is never dead
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The debate about a differentiation between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire is just a distraction from serious issues. Namely, that the fabric of civilization only remains durable so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. You surely know that, by dint of historical precedent and nature's righteous ordinance, one’s choice of raiment should be governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of labor unrest emanating from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up at night sweating in their gowns
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing in public places.
Validity: This issue can only be received by nations ranking at least moderately high in primitiveness. Furthermore, recipient nations must have an average or lower level of scientific advancement. The issue cannot be received by nations with the Nudism policy, no matter their other ratings.
Option 1:
Validity: Invalid for nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “The planet’s most advanced, dynamic nations have already adopted a set of modern fashions and standards, so why don’t we do likewise? The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER’s@@ newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only valid for nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to forge our destiny as peers to the civilized, advanced nations of the world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “Most of the world has already adopted a set of fashions and standards, fitted for a rational, modern age. The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as emblematic of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, that scheme is unpatriotic and an affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this sordid impudence. Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional styles.”
Outcome: when it comes to sartorial fashion in @@NAME@@ the past is never dead
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The debate about a differentiation between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire is just a distraction from serious issues. Namely, that the fabric of civilization only remains durable so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. You surely know that, by dint of historical precedent and nature's righteous ordinance, one’s choice of raiment should be governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of labor unrest emanating from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up at night sweating in their gowns
Title: Sartorial Snafu
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing in public places.
Validity: This issue can only be received by nations possessing at least moderately high primitiveness. It is invalid for nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
Validity: Invalid for nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “The planet’s most advanced, dynamic nations have already adopted a set of modern fashions and standards, so why don’t we do likewise? The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as a sign of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER’s@@ newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only valid for nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to forge our destiny as peers to the civilized, advanced nations of the world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “Most of the world has already adopted a set of fashions and standards, fitted for a rational, modern age. The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as a sign of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, that scheme is unpatriotic and an affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this sordid effrontery. Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional styles.”
Outcome: when it comes to sartorial fashion in @@NAME@@ the past is never dead
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The fabric of civilization only remains durable so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. You surely know that throughout history, the choice of raiment has often been governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of strikes and insubordination from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up sweating in their gowns at night
The Issue: A faction led by an orator known as “Ata@@STATE@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@NAME@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “resistance to modernity,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local variations inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing in public places.
Validity: This issue can only be received by nations possessing at least moderately high primitiveness. It is invalid for nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
Validity: Invalid for nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “The planet’s most advanced, dynamic nations have already adopted a set of modern fashions and standards, so why don’t we do likewise? The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as a sign of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: “modern clothes make modern minds” is @@LEADER’s@@ newest adage
Option 2:
Validity: Only valid for nations with the Atheism policy.
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to forge our destiny as peers to the civilized, advanced nations of the world,” declares the orator Ata@@STATE@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “Most of the world has already adopted a set of fashions and standards, fitted for a rational, modern age. The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as a sign of backwardness, manipulation by obscurantist charlatans, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they want at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. And since, happily, you, with characteristic sagacity and foresight, outlawed religion, resistance from nattering clergy won’t be a problem.”
Outcome: “the clothes maketh the man’s mentality” is the government’s new maxim
Option 3:
“This is contemptible, nay, utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely clothed in a set of garments popular among one of the nation’s largest tribes. “No matter how you dress it up, that scheme is unpatriotic and an affront to the unique sartorial heritage our ancestors bequeathed the nation. We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this sordid effrontery. Sway the minds of the masses against such accursed insanity by strongly encouraging all government officials to wear only outfits grounded in this country’s various traditional styles.”
Outcome: when it comes to sartorial fashion in @@NAME@@ the past is never dead
Option 4:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “The fabric of civilization only remains durable so long as social stratification assigns everyone appropriate stations in life. You surely know that throughout history, the choice of raiment has often been governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to enforce that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: threats of strikes and insubordination from the textile guilds keep aristocrats up sweating in their gowns at night
Title: Sartorial Snafu
The Issue: A faction led by a legislator known as “Ata@@DEMONYM@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@DEMONYM@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local styles inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing in public places. The law defines traditional clothing as “modes of attire which trace their lineage back centuries or millennia ago, generally prior to industrialization,” explicitly contrasting the concept with “modern” styles – popular in the United Federation, East Lebatuck, Blackacre, and Prudenlund – of much more recent origin.
Validity: This issue is invalid for nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world by adopting this legislation,” declares Ata@@DEMONYM@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “Most of the world has already adopted what are now a set of modern fashions and standards. The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as a sign of backwardness, obscurantism, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they what at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: the wearing of traditional clothing in public is prohibited by law
Option 2:
“This is utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely garbed in a manner popular five centuries ago. “No matter how you dress it up, this scheme is unpatriotic. How dare ANYONE suggest penalizing the wearing of traditional @@DEMONYM@@ apparel, which serves as a unique link to our heritage and past! We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this repugnant legislation. Go further and promote the traditional clothing styles by wearing such outfits yourself, while also encouraging ministers and cabinet staff to follow suit.”
Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ officials always attend to business clad in traditional styles of clothing
Or: consumer demand for contemporary styles of clothing wanes as the popularity of traditional @@DEMONYM@@ attire surges
Option 3:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “You know how in ages of yore, the choice of raiment was governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to bring back that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: sumptuary laws and social stratification regulate citizens’ clothing options
Policy: Enacts the Feudalism policy
The Issue: A faction led by a legislator known as “Ata@@DEMONYM@@” has been voicing criticism of the continued prevalence of the traditional clothing of @@DEMONYM@@ among the populace. This group argues that such apparel symbolizes “backwardness,” “excessive attachment to a religious and feudal past,” “propensity toward isolationism and parochialism,” and that the existence of myriad local styles inhibits national unity. A week ago, a controversial bill was introduced into the legislature which proposes the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing in public places. The law defines traditional clothing as “modes of attire which trace their lineage back centuries or millennia ago, generally prior to industrialization,” explicitly contrasting the concept with “modern” styles – popular in the United Federation, East Lebatuck, Blackacre, and Prudenlund – of much more recent origin.
Validity: This issue is invalid for nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world by adopting this legislation,” declares Ata@@DEMONYM@@. After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “Most of the world has already adopted what are now a set of modern fashions and standards. The continuation of ancient modes of dress in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as a sign of backwardness, obscurantism, and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they what at home, but penalize anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: the wearing of traditional clothing in public is prohibited by law
Option 2:
“This is utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely garbed in a manner popular five centuries ago. “No matter how you dress it up, this scheme is unpatriotic. How dare ANYONE suggest penalizing the wearing of traditional @@DEMONYM@@ apparel, which serves as a unique link to our heritage and past! We should be standing out from other countries, not imitating them! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this repugnant legislation. Go further and promote the traditional clothing styles by wearing such outfits yourself, while also encouraging ministers and cabinet staff to follow suit.”
Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ officials always attend to business clad in traditional styles of clothing
Or: consumer demand for contemporary styles of clothing wanes as the popularity of traditional @@DEMONYM@@ attire surges
Option 3:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “You know how in ages of yore, the choice of raiment was governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to bring back that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: sumptuary laws and social stratification regulate citizens’ clothing options
Policy: Enacts the Feudalism policy
Title: Sartorial Snafu
The Issue: A bill recently introduced into the legislature has drawn great controversy for proposing the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing in public areas. Supporters and opponents alike are asking @@LEADER@@ to weigh in, as your endorsement or rejection of the plan will be decisive.
Validity: This issue is invalid for nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world by adopting this legislation,” declares a legislator who insists on being called “Ata@@DEMONYM@@.” After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “Most of the world has already adopted what are now a set of modern fashions and standards. The continued existence of ancient modes of attire in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as a sign of backwardness and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they what at home, but fine anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: the wearing of traditional clothing in public spaces is prohibited by law
Option 2:
“This is utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely garbed in a manner popular five centuries ago. “No matter how you dress it up, this scheme is unpatriotic. How dare ANYONE suggest penalizing the wearing of traditional @@DEMONYM@@ apparel, which serves as a unique link to our heritage and past! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this repugnant legislation. Go further and promote the traditional clothing styles by wearing such outfits yourself, while also encouraging ministers and cabinet staff to follow suit.”
Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ officials always attend to business clad in traditional styles of clothing
Or: consumer demand for contemporary styles of clothing wanes as the popularity of traditional @@DEMONYM@@ attire surges
Option 3:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “You know how in ages of yore, the choice of raiment was governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to bring back that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: sumptuary laws and social stratification regulate citizens’ clothing options
Policy: Enacts the Feudalism policy
This issue idea is loosely inspired by some (though not all) of the controversies attending articles of dress code legislation implemented by Reza Shah and Mustafa Kemal. Is the overall concept worthwhile as an issue, and if so, how is the execution so far?
The Issue: A bill recently introduced into the legislature has drawn great controversy for proposing the fining of anyone wearing @@DEMONYM@@ traditional clothing in public areas. Supporters and opponents alike are asking @@LEADER@@ to weigh in, as your endorsement or rejection of the plan will be decisive.
Validity: This issue is invalid for nations with the Nudism policy.
Option 1:
“@@LEADER@@, it is time to solidify our place in the civilized world by adopting this legislation,” declares a legislator who insists on being called “Ata@@DEMONYM@@.” After taking a moment to adjust his tie and fedora, he continues, “Most of the world has already adopted what are now a set of modern fashions and standards. The continued existence of ancient modes of attire in this country, with all these towns, villages, tribes, and clans having their own styles, stands out as a sign of backwardness and national disunity. Even, in some quarters, a cause for mockery! Let citizens do what they what at home, but fine anyone venturing out in public who refuses to get with the times by discarding obsolete forms of dress. As a compromise, the proposed law even includes an exemption for the clergy, distasteful though it is.”
Outcome: the wearing of traditional clothing in public spaces is prohibited by law
Option 2:
“This is utterly outrageous!” thunders bill opponent @@RANDOMNAME@@, exquisitely garbed in a manner popular five centuries ago. “No matter how you dress it up, this scheme is unpatriotic. How dare ANYONE suggest penalizing the wearing of traditional @@DEMONYM@@ apparel, which serves as a unique link to our heritage and past! @@LEADER@@, you need to do more than just reject this repugnant legislation. Go further and promote the traditional clothing styles by wearing such outfits yourself, while also encouraging ministers and cabinet staff to follow suit.”
Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ officials always attend to business clad in traditional styles of clothing
Or: consumer demand for contemporary styles of clothing wanes as the popularity of traditional @@DEMONYM@@ attire surges
Option 3:
“The peasantry are once again wasting your precious time with ill-founded notions,” grumbles Minister of Eccentricity @@RANDOMNAME@@. “You know how in ages of yore, the choice of raiment was governed by profession, social status, class, and caste? It is time to bring back that hierarchy in all its glory, complete with sumptuary laws. No need for a distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ attire – just tailor both into the national code of dress, as threads of the societal pyramid.”
Outcome: sumptuary laws and social stratification regulate citizens’ clothing options
Policy: Enacts the Feudalism policy
This issue idea is loosely inspired by some (though not all) of the controversies attending articles of dress code legislation implemented by Reza Shah and Mustafa Kemal. Is the overall concept worthwhile as an issue, and if so, how is the execution so far?