[Submitted] Sartorial Snafu

by **Nitaiyan** » Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:31 am

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

by **Outer Sparta** » Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:57 am

What's the difference of this proposed idea and other issues that already ban such traditional clothing, such as one about banning the burqa?

by **Nitaiyan** » Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:03 pm

The ban the burka issue focuses on religious symbols and clothing associated with religious belief in schools, whereas this issue is not about a religious factor, except as far as the caveat mentioned in the first option is concerned. The @@LEADER@@'s New Clothes issue does address what leader and ministers wear, although it is more about expenses rather than this dichotomy. Most of the other clothing issues seem to be about nudity or trade protection.

by **Outer Sparta** » Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:05 pm

Nitaiyan wrote:The ban the burka issue focuses on religious symbols and clothing associated with religious belief in schools, whereas this issue is not about a religious factor, except as far as the caveat mentioned in the first option is concerned. The @@LEADER@@'s New Clothes issue does address what leader and ministers wear, although it is more about expenses rather than this dichotomy. Most of the other clothing issues seem to be about nudity or trade protection.

I think you would have a good start if you define what "traditional clothing" is in your issue. That should set the tone and be your main focus.

by **Trotterdam** » Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:32 pm

Why would you ban your own nation's traditional clothing? That kind of thing is usually done out of a xenophobic hatred of other cultures. Which could be your own nation's historical ethnicity, if you've recently been conquered by a different ethnicity that's now oppressing the natives, but it usually isn't.

by **Bears Armed** » Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:27 pm

Trotterdam wrote:Why would you ban your own nation's traditional clothing? That kind of thing is usually done out of a xenophobic hatred of other cultures. Which could be your own nation's historical ethnicity, if you've recently been conquered by a different ethnicity that's now oppressing the natives, but it usually isn't.

In RL Turkey, under Ataturk, it was deliberate westernisation as an attempt at de-Islamicization.

by **Nitaiyan** » Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:41 pm

Trotterdam wrote:Why would you ban your own nation's traditional clothing? That kind of thing is usually done out of a xenophobic hatred of other cultures. Which could be your own nation's historical ethnicity, if you've recently been conquered by a different ethnicity that's now oppressing the natives, but it usually isn't.

It is strange, but there were a few cases in the twentieth century where it happened. Usually, there were two main stated motives. One was that the wearing of traditional clothing was supposedly a sign of backwardness, associated with feudalism, and an impediment to modernization and industrialization. Another was that prohibiting the donning of traditional attire would allegedly foster a national consciousness among the populace, facilitate assimilation of minorities into the primary culture, and inhibit separatism.

In the case I am most familiar with, Reza Shah, the first monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran, basically made those arguments when he pushed through legislation banning the wearing of traditional clothing, both masculine and feminine. He prescribed certain kinds of western fashion, although due to intense conflict with the clergy, he left openexemptions for licensed clerics. Reza Shah's arguments to a large degree echoed those of Ataturk: that supposedly traditional clothing was contrary to "civilization" and that adopting new dress codes would allegedly earn respect abroad from major powers. He also claimed that it would encourage national and linguistic homogenization could by accelerating the assimilation of ethnic minorities and further degrade the political power of large tribes and nomadic pastoralists. He engaged in various other campaigns as well to curtail the independence of the Bakhtiari tribes, as well as Arab ones in Khuzestan.

The Law of Uniformity of Dress, enacted in 1928, required men to discard traditional clothing in favor of certain western styles. The so-called "Pahlavi Headgear" was a result of this. In the 1930s, the chador, hijab, and face veils were proscribed for women, generating massive controversy.

These regulations were lifted in later times, however, they had the effect of reducing the frequency with which traditional clothing is seen in Iran among men (no longer for women). This contrasts with, say, India or certain Arab countries. A similar, more rigidly enforced, process seems to have happened in Turkey. Some post-Qing officials in China also discouraged Hanfu and other forms of traditional clothing, though perhaps more so after the 1940s.

My idea is basically to try to have the first option reflect the mentality described above, while the second option tries to encourage preference for traditional clothing, and the third basically revives sumptuary laws of a kind seen many centuries ago in large portions of the world. Whether this historical oddity is making for a suitable Nationstates issue or not, though.......

I also will try to take into account what one post said about the issue would needing to work in further clarity about what constitutes traditional clothing in this case.

by **Nitaiyan** » Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:18 am

The original post has been edited to show the second and latest draft. I attempted to add some additional clarity about the reasons why a faction is advocating the law, as well as what constitutes traditional clothing.

The most recent version:

by **Verdant Haven** » Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:14 pm

We can add Peter the Great to the list of rulers who did things like this. He famously not just banned traditional Russian clothing and mandated European styles, but also placed a tax on having a traditional beard.

Re: this draft, the idea of addressing traditional clothing and possibly even instituting sumptuary laws for apparel is a fun thought if it can be made to work. Depending how it's written, there might be some conflicts we'd need to resolve with issues like 1036, and a decision fully mandating a certain dress code could be very challenging (since every issue that otherwise references clothing suddenly becomes a potential problem), but that can be looked at further down the line.

My primary thoughts are about the validities desirable if an issue like this is added. You've got the no nudism thing accounted for, but we're also dealing with an assumption that the player's nation is extremely behind the times when it comes to fashion, and that it is full of tribes and clans wearing traditional garb. These are probably worth some other checks to try and limit it to nations where that is most believably the case (it'd be pretty funny for this issue to come up on a space-faring civ with AI citizens and sub-dermal ID chips, for example). While I see that you're suggesting option 3 should enable Feudalism (FYI - don't include policy effects in drafts), given the discussion in hand, what would be your thoughts on having this entire dilemma be directed to nations that already have the feudalism policy? It would require a slight tweak of the main description and that option text, but it does justify things somewhat by having it arise for places that are well-established as anachronistic and having an irregular social structure. Obviously there are other possibilities as well - any thoughts?

Also on the subject of validities, you'll want to include a doppelganger for the first option that doesn't mention clergy, if this is meant to be available to atheistic nations.

Other minor thoughts:

- Description: Do you want that first sentence to include "traditional clothing of @@NAME@@" instead of "@@DEMONYM@@"?

- The description is also quite long. I think you summarize the dilemma pretty well in the beginning, and could drop the entire final sentence ("The law defines..." onward).

- Option 1 speaker, "it is time to solidify..." Also, the word "obscurantism" is a great one, but... is it what you're going for? Does the clothing represent being deliberately obtuse and hiding information? Preventing the diffusion of knowledge? As a philosophical construct it may be a bit arcane here, though that could be exactly what the speaker is going for - so long as the use in this context is deliberate.

- Effect lines: For all of these, try to avoid being literal. That is the style of the earliest issues, but we've long since moved to an effect line style that is meant to be more humorous, and to play with the idea of unintended or ad absurdum consequences of choices.

You write well, and this is a well-conceived draft. Keep it up!

by **Nitaiyan** » Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:36 pm

Thank you for the encouragement! Limiting the issue to nations with the feudal policy, or perhaps ones with either low scientific advancement or high primitiveness is an interesting idea. I will soon create a draft based on that approach, making some tweaks to the main description and options, and then see how it compares to the original version.

I will also see about the other recommendations as well, such as creating a doppelganger version for the first option for atheistic nations, replacing @@DEMONYM@@ with @@NAME@@ in the first sentence, and removing the final sentence of the description.

Ata@@NAME@@ and the faction espousing legislation curtailing the wearing of traditional clothing are implying that a significant swathe of the population is influenced by obscurantists' ideas. In their polemics, they contend that the resistance to what this faction considers "modern clothing" among sizeable sections of the population is an indirect symptom or manifestation of this fact. I will probably need to rework that sentence a bit.

by **Nitaiyan** » Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:39 am

Third Version:

The effect line on option three is in part an abridged reference to a statement that repeatedly appears in the Rusty Lake series. “The past is never dead. It is not even past.” Putting the full thing without commas might be too unwieldly.

This draft requires nations to have fairly high primitiveness in order to receive the issue. Since having high primitiveness generally results in lowish scientific advancement, it further fits. I put “moderately high” instead of outright high since having too stringent of a requirement might overly limit how many nations can receive the issue. Should I also create a draft that requires nations to have the feudalism policy, rather than high primitiveness? That is another possible option. In that case, the sumptuary law option was just tighten regulations about the relation between clothing options and social station.

Basically with this issue, Leader is confronting a situation and debate at least somewhat similar to what Peter the Great, Ataturk, and Reza Shah participated in.

by **Outer Sparta** » Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:33 am

Nitaiyan wrote:Thank you for the encouragement! Limiting the issue to nations with the feudal policy, or perhaps ones with either low scientific advancement or high primitiveness is an interesting idea. I will soon create a draft based on that approach, making some tweaks to the main description and options, and then see how it compares to the original version.

I will also see about the other recommendations as well, such as creating a doppelganger version for the first option for atheistic nations, replacing @@DEMONYM@@ with @@NAME@@ in the first sentence, and removing the final sentence of the description.

Ata@@NAME@@ and the faction espousing legislation curtailing the wearing of traditional clothing are implying that a significant swathe of the population is influenced by obscurantists' ideas. In their polemics, they contend that the resistance to what this faction considers "modern clothing" among sizeable sections of the population is an indirect symptom or manifestation of this fact. I will probably need to rework that sentence a bit.

With this angle of limiting the validity, you definitely get a better sense of the issue. Traditional clothing is more adequately defined in those cases since it may tie to your nation's feudal traditions, primitive traditions, etc.

Modern clothing, you can go plenty of routes, just find what definition of modern clothing you use the most.

by **Nitaiyan** » Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:49 am

Here is the most recent version:

This is another, separate version that only has possession of the feudalism policy and the absence of the nudism policy as requirements to receive the issue:

In one case, the requirement is for a nation to have above average primitiveness, average or lower scientific advancement, and lack the nudism policy. In the other, the requirement is to possess the feudalism policy, while simultaneously eschewing the nudism policy. Either way, compatibility with issue #1036 could be an issue. There may be ways to work it out, however. The second option in that issue seems to focus heavily on wearing foreign clothing styles during trips abroad, so as to better appeal to other states.

by **Nitaiyan** » Fri Sep 10, 2021 4:22 pm

Outer Sparta wrote:
Nitaiyan wrote:Thank you for the encouragement! Limiting the issue to nations with the feudal policy, or perhaps ones with either low scientific advancement or high primitiveness is an interesting idea. I will soon create a draft based on that approach, making some tweaks to the main description and options, and then see how it compares to the original version.

I will also see about the other recommendations as well, such as creating a doppelganger version for the first option for atheistic nations, replacing @@DEMONYM@@ with @@NAME@@ in the first sentence, and removing the final sentence of the description.

Ata@@NAME@@ and the faction espousing legislation curtailing the wearing of traditional clothing are implying that a significant swathe of the population is influenced by obscurantists' ideas. In their polemics, they contend that the resistance to what this faction considers "modern clothing" among sizeable sections of the population is an indirect symptom or manifestation of this fact. I will probably need to rework that sentence a bit.

With this angle of limiting the validity, you definitely get a better sense of the issue. Traditional clothing is more adequately defined in those cases since it may tie to your nation's feudal traditions, primitive traditions, etc.

Modern clothing, you can go plenty of routes, just find what definition of modern clothing you use the most.

I am considering adjusting certain sentences in options 1 and 2 (or 1a and 1b?) to help flesh out what is being referred to as modern clothing in this issue:

In terms of issue compatibility, issue #504 would mesh uncomfortably with this one if a nation selected certain paradoxical combinations of options. It would seem that the nature of issue 504 would often end up being incongruous with having the feudal policy in general. This one, along with 1036, seem to present the greatest challenge in terms of compatibility.

Issue #8 poses no problem. The issue about trade protectionism and clothing manufacture also is about matter separate from this subject. Issue #1425 impinges on the attire of government officials, but does not seem to present an insurmountable contradiction with this one (it is more about quality and price). Option 1 on Issue #128/Ban the Burka would make an unusual combination with option 3 on this issue, but could conceivably happen. Perhaps the nation in question is riven by sectarian tensions, and the government is worried about such strife seeping into the classroom. Or perhaps the nation is simultaneously highly tradition-bound and low in religiosity. In any case, it mostly applies to clearly religious symbols, leaving broad swathes of traditional and folk costume untouched.

The issue about school uniforms is not really a problem since the uniforms could consist of a certain modified subset of traditional clothing.

by **Nitaiyan** » Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:59 pm

Newest Draft:

Are the options too long? What sort of possible other changes might be useful or necessary for this draft? Are the effect lines suitable?

About the matter of compatibility with other issues:

When it comes to this issue’s relation to issue #1036 (When in Maxtopia), there are two main points of concern. One is that, if Leader selects option one/two on this one, is it plausible that this same person would be willing to choose option two on #1036? The thrust of option two on #1036 mainly focuses on wearing specific clothing styles popular aboard, while abroad. It could be that Leader and other officials are not thrilled with donning such garments, but decide that doing so is worth the diplomatic boost. It is also possible that they do not find all of these clothing styles objectionable (some might be deemed sufficiently “modern”). Additionally, the hypocrisy notwithstanding, it could be accounted for as a measure with temporary effects (they don’t need to wear these types of clothes all the time, just on some diplomatic and trade missions).

The other conundrum: having a nation which selects option three on Sartorial Snafu and option one on When in Maxtopia. When in Maxtopia’s option one sets a dress code for politicians. This occurs after some criticism emerges of Leader’s supposed lack of style in wearing Maxtopian traditional dress during a state visit to Maxtopia. The option mentions designer suits and smart skirts.

What if there is some flexibility in interpreting what the option is getting at? Perhaps the dress code mentioned in When in Maxtopia is not really about traditional clothing vs modern attire, but rather an insistence that politicians dress themselves in an “upscale” and “stylish” manner, coupled with a distaste for wearing foreign styles? In that case, the “designer suits,” “smart skirts,” and so on might not always be strictly literal. These items could also broadly represent formal, custom, and expensive attire in general, even, possibly, extravagant traditional/folk clothing.

Following a similar line of logic, perhaps, in issue #504, the shorts might be interpreted as acting as a stand-in for more revealing clothing being worn at school. If a nation selected option three on Sartorial Snafu, and then went with option four on #504, it could be that some other article of clothing being worn at school in the nation is generating a comparable level of masculine attention and attendant controversy.

Another thing to consider is that option three on Sartorial Snafu does not actually prohibit non-traditional clothing. Rather, the government instead is acting through other means to maintain the popularity of such attire among the populace. The incident described in #504 could still potentially happen, even in a literal reading of the issue.

If such leeway is valid, issue #1425 shouldn’t pose a problem.

by **Nitaiyan** » Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:26 pm

At this point, one of the major things I am considering is whether to trim the options a bit; particularly the first two. Would it be better to keep the “Even, in some quarters, mockery!” lines or delete them? Should the list of countries and the examples of “modern” clothing remain or go?
Other than length and wordiness and possible concerns over compatibility with other issues, however, it seems that the basic premise is set, the description and effect lines appear reasonable, and the overall gist of the options suitable. Is this draft inching toward final call territory, or is there still a ways to go?

Possible revision of two options:

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, 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, 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. 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

Something about issues #121 and #504:

by **Nitaiyan** » Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:25 pm

The most recent draft:

I am considering putting this on last call status in the next few days. After setting it to last call, I would give it a few more days to see if major or minor changes are needed before submitting the final version. If a serious problem is found to exist during the last call phase, I will cancel that status and try to fix the problem before submission.

by **Verdant Haven** » Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:14 am

Been looking for time to fully read over and respond again, and finally got the chance. I think this is looking pretty good - I would suggest simply polishing up a few aspects here and there until you're happy with it. Specifically:

1) Length - you touched on this above. There is nothing inherently wrong with longer option texts, but you are right that many of these are definitely on the longer side. My personal preference (and this is personal, not an official guidance) is to aim for my option texts to be in the 70-90 word range. Anything over 100 words (for me) is because it's part of the point of the speaker that they are highly verbose, or to drive home the point that a given topic is hugely complicated. Other editors do have other preferences. I would take a look at the various options and ensure that everything being said is either a contributing part of the argument, or an important part of characterization. Again - it's ok to be long, so long as it is a choice.

2) Effect lines are always difficult. Some like 'em snappy, some like lengthy, but we all like them to have depth. Option 3's outcome in particular feels a bit literal. Maybe something like "past fashion is ever-present" for that one?

3) This isn't a problem, just a note depending on your preferences. The doppelganger options don't have to be widely different from each other outside the text related to the validity. If you like one more than the other, you can use exactly the same text and effect for both, with the exception of that final sentence that triggers the validity check.

by **Nitaiyan** » Sat Sep 18, 2021 3:58 pm

I made some adjusts to significantly cut down on the length. In its previous form, the longest option was actually 147 words; now, it is 90 words. Definitely too long. The revised draft still retains the feel of the previous versions, while trying to improve efficiency and economy of words. Option 1 is currently 88 words, Option 2 is 90 words, Option 3 is 85 words, and Option 4 is 94 words. The description contains 88 words. The overall alterations to the doppelganger options were significant enough that I went ahead and made all of their text the same, except for each one's final sentence.

I also changed the effect line on Option 3. I will mull over each of the effect lines and see what sort of changes to them might be beneficial. The draft seems to be getting close to last call status. Maybe in about two days?

by **Nitaiyan** » Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:54 pm

This version is basically the same as the previous one, with just a few words changed.

My idea with the effect lines on the first two options is to sort of play with the wording on the phrase "manners maketh man," instead applying it to this situation. Leader and the government are drawing a connection, in their own minds, between mode of dress, the mentality of the masses, and the concept of modernity. With Option 4's effect line, an aristocracy has formed (or has been reinforced). However, the restrictions brought on by the sumptuary laws have given garment manufacturers a level of potential, as yet untapped, power that these aristocrats find troubling.

The options seemingly have shaped up well, so I will focus most of my attention on considering if there are alternative effect lines that should replace some of these.

Given all of that, I am going to set this to Last Call status. If no significant revisions occur in the next few days, I will probably submit this draft sometime Friday.

by **Nitaiyan** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:03 am

Probably going to submit this at some point tomorrow.

[Submitted] Sartorial Snafu

[Submitted] Sartorial Snafu

Who is online