I noticed that support equipment in the production screen is now a white cross, instead of a red cross. (1.4 Oak)
Can someone WW2 savy tell me the reason for this change?
Can someone WW2 savy tell me the reason for this change?
Support equipment red->white cross
- Thread starter Canacas
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I think it's actually a war crime to use a red cross in stuff other than ambulances and such 
. I heard that a game called Prison Architect got a letter in which it was demanded that red crosses be removed from the game. After that a bunch of games have been removing them.
. I heard that a game called Prison Architect got a letter in which it was demanded that red crosses be removed from the game. After that a bunch of games have been removing them.
Yep. Te IRC Committee is very hot on cracking down on people using the red cross. Computer games generally suffer from it, like medpacs in FPS games and whatnot.
K
K
Just when I think the world's silliness has peaked, we come up with something new and outdo ourselves. I can understand censoring swastikas and Hitler's likeness in parts of Europe, but the IRC did not invent the use of that symbol in a medical context. It predates them by a significant margin. Just as various printed and recorded works eventually pass into public domain, so too should this symbol.
Or, they could just accept the free (and as far as I can tell) positive press.
It is all horribly political I'm sad to say. I was in Israel a few years ago interviewing the head of Magen David Adom and he was cheerfully depressed about the inability to get the Star of David added to Red Cross and Red Crescent - for obvious reasons. You would think that saving lives transcended such things but, no, it apparently matters to someone...
K
The Red Cross is an internationally acknowledged/well known symbol that protects helpers in actual war zones. I can sympathise when they don't want this important symbol used for other purposes. Especially when the closest I have ever been to a war is in front of a computer in the safety of my own home.
Similarly swastikas predate the NSDAP by at least 8500 years.
Personally I think having to censor any of these symbols is silly.
Funny thing is that in 100 years the White Cross will be more recognisable then the Red Cross via this censorship. To much politics.
Just toss it in the Big Book of Political No-No's to be lost to time and eventually understanding, I suppose.
To be honest, they sort of have a point, it's just been applied very inconsistently..
The red cross (and variant religious symbols, like the red crescent or the red star of david) are worn by humanitarian workers operating in warzones to make them immediately identifiable as neutral non-combatants. It's specifically against the Geneva convention to falsely display a red cross.
The problem is, in popular culture the symbol has been misappropriated a generic symbol for "medicine." The argument is that this causes confusion as to the actual meaning of the red cross symbol, which obviously is a bad thing for humanitarian workers who rely on the symbol to make their neutrality clear and (hopefully) to avoid being shot at. That's actually a good argument, and considering the legal consequences of damaging or confusing a commercial brand where only money is at stake, it would be ludicrous if it wasn't enforceable.
The problem really is that the red cross as an organisation has been pretty lenient in the past and has only recently started enforcing misuse of its emblems more aggressively, so it's come a bit out of the blue.
The red cross (and variant religious symbols, like the red crescent or the red star of david) are worn by humanitarian workers operating in warzones to make them immediately identifiable as neutral non-combatants. It's specifically against the Geneva convention to falsely display a red cross.
The problem is, in popular culture the symbol has been misappropriated a generic symbol for "medicine." The argument is that this causes confusion as to the actual meaning of the red cross symbol, which obviously is a bad thing for humanitarian workers who rely on the symbol to make their neutrality clear and (hopefully) to avoid being shot at. That's actually a good argument, and considering the legal consequences of damaging or confusing a commercial brand where only money is at stake, it would be ludicrous if it wasn't enforceable.
The problem really is that the red cross as an organisation has been pretty lenient in the past and has only recently started enforcing misuse of its emblems more aggressively, so it's come a bit out of the blue.
First Geneva Convention, Article 44:
In the US, treaties (like this one) become part of Federal law. Other jurisdictions no doubt have their own rules giving treaties legal force within their boundaries, perhaps enacting parallel laws to support the treaties they sign. In the case of the US, there is also a Congressional charter that created the American Red Cross which grants that organization the right to use that symbol as an "emblem and badge". There was even a lawsuit in 2007 between the Johnson & Johnson company (who holds the trademark on a red cross) and the ARC (who was licensing their emblem for use on sales of items like disaster kits or even personal grooming items like nail clippers or combs in return for a share of the sales).
Use of the symbol in a game graphic is obviously not "indicating or protecting medical units and establishments... protected by the present Convention". But it does take some particularly over-zealous lawyers to make a point of it. And it's enough of a legal mess that a game company like Paradox would no doubt find it much easier to simply avoid any entanglements.
In the US, treaties (like this one) become part of Federal law. Other jurisdictions no doubt have their own rules giving treaties legal force within their boundaries, perhaps enacting parallel laws to support the treaties they sign. In the case of the US, there is also a Congressional charter that created the American Red Cross which grants that organization the right to use that symbol as an "emblem and badge". There was even a lawsuit in 2007 between the Johnson & Johnson company (who holds the trademark on a red cross) and the ARC (who was licensing their emblem for use on sales of items like disaster kits or even personal grooming items like nail clippers or combs in return for a share of the sales).
Use of the symbol in a game graphic is obviously not "indicating or protecting medical units and establishments... protected by the present Convention". But it does take some particularly over-zealous lawyers to make a point of it. And it's enough of a legal mess that a game company like Paradox would no doubt find it much easier to simply avoid any entanglements.
Especially over zealous considering that in this context it is a cross that was used by medics in combat. Paradox did not put it on a pair of nail clippers for a percentage.
By their same logic, war movies should also not display the red cross. I guess it is a good thing that M*A*S*H was cancelled already.
By their same logic, war movies should also not display the red cross. I guess it is a good thing that M*A*S*H was cancelled already.
It only really bothers me because it looks far worse as a white cross than as a red one. Can we go for an orange cross instead
To play Devil's Advocate, allowing a for-profit company use of the Red Cross symbol could open up a slippery slope which increases the possibility for abuse. "Red Cross" is a trusted organization, a lot of people could take advantage of it's reputation to scam people. If use of the symbol becomes too pervasive, someone can argue that they have a right to use it for any reason.
To restate, No I don't think that the Red Cross would be directly harmed by Paradox using it's symbol. But another, less scrupulous actor might argue that because a computer game company was allowed to use the Red Cross symbol, they should be able to as well.
Films, regardless of individual merit, have a long history of being considered art. Video Games, not so much. I imagine this is likely to change relatively soon, but Paradox is a relatively small studio. It should be a big publisher that pays for the lawyers that break down the legal barriers for Video Games to be considered art. Those big studios should be good for something.
To restate, No I don't think that the Red Cross would be directly harmed by Paradox using it's symbol. But another, less scrupulous actor might argue that because a computer game company was allowed to use the Red Cross symbol, they should be able to as well.
Films, regardless of individual merit, have a long history of being considered art. Video Games, not so much. I imagine this is likely to change relatively soon, but Paradox is a relatively small studio. It should be a big publisher that pays for the lawyers that break down the legal barriers for Video Games to be considered art. Those big studios should be good for something.
Last edited:
Spoken like a lawyer. "Please define red." How red does it have to be?It only really bothers me because it looks far worse as a white cross than as a red one. Can we go for an orange cross instead
Seriously, without the red cross, they should just redo the graphic to look like something else. Support equipment can mean a lot of different things obviously.
The text of the treaty says "red cross on white background".
No foul then fellas. Put it back in on a cream background.
Or without a background, but with a red cross.
I know it's straying somewhat off topic, but i agree. Outlawing individual words and symbols is silly, and is in fact going the wrong way. Opinions will vary, of course.
As for the Red Cross, very interesting to learn, but easy to see it from their point of view.
- Status