Do the Zouaves need a change of logo?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Imagine being a Ukranian Talossan and finding out this is the logo of the Royal Bodyguard:



Of course, we had it first, but the association with war crimes is worse than embarrassing right now.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Not to mention the text is all wrong...

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Not to mention the text is all wrong...

That's the legal name, so that's what their logo has to say.

The MinDef could certainly request an actual official achievement for the organization from the College, or they or the capitan could change it at will to whatever they want. Since it's not really currently in use, I'm not sure it matters urgently.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Not to mention the text is all wrong...

That's the legal name, so that's what their logo has to say.

It's concerning that outdated spelling and a grammatical error are part of the law...

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Not to mention the text is all wrong...

That's the legal name, so that's what their logo has to say.

It's concerning that outdated spelling and a grammatical error are part of the law...

I mean, there's an entire version of the orglaw in outdated language. Our laws have changed dramatically and quickly in the last few years, but pretty much any use of language was carried over unchanged in the rush.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Not to mention the text is all wrong...

That's the legal name, so that's what their logo has to say.

It's concerning that outdated spelling and a grammatical error are part of the law...

It could be fixed, if someone hoppers a bill to do so. I don't think its that concerning, since the language seems to evolve, and non-native speakers often write the laws. In fact, spelling can be fixed by the scribe without legislation. If someone, *anyone*, wanted to give some pointers on fixing it, the...ahem...scribe will be listening. :-)

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Imagine being a Ukranian Talossan and finding out this is the logo of the Royal Bodyguard:



Of course, we had it first, but the association with war crimes is worse than embarrassing right now.

I admit I don't understand the relation, except I do recall seeing something about a Z somewhere in reference to the invasion. It's not really out fault that the symbol exists, but symbols can be changed.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

In the past two weeks, Z has gone from a military marking to the main symbol of public support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

In the past two weeks, Z has gone from a military marking to the main symbol of public support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I don't think we should go changing things just because the Russians decided to be genocidal idiots, since the letter Z doesn't really have any inherent symbolism.  And it's too early to tell whether this new meaning for it will be long-lasting or not.  But since I made the current logo in five minutes and it's not that great to begin with, changing it also seems completely fine.  No great history behind it or anything.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

In the past two weeks, Z has gone from a military marking to the main symbol of public support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I don't think we should go changing things just because the Russians decided to be genocidal idiots, since the letter Z doesn't really have any inherent symbolism.  And it's too early to tell whether this new meaning for it will be long-lasting or not.  But since I made the current logo in five minutes and it's not that great to begin with, changing it also seems completely fine.  No great history behind it or anything.

I would agree with this, while a new logo isn't necessarily a bad idea -- I quite like the idea of commissioning something from the CoA, which I'm sure is surprising to all -- in this context the Z pretty obviously stands for Zouaves.

No one bring up the Finnish Air Force...

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

....
It's concerning that outdated spelling and a grammatical error are part of the law...

Laws in all countries - not just ours - become more and more out of date in language as well as social relevance.   To understand some laws in the United Kingdom, for example, you need dictionaries over a hundred years old - or reference to more recent litigation which restates the (old) language in modern terms ... though the old language is what remains as the statute. Don't be concerned... at least, not within the meaning of the Registration of Emotional Status Categories (revised) Act, 1952/E.II-1 Section 7 Clause 3 et seq.  ;) ;)