Changing of our flag , Yes or No.

Forums › Off topic › Changing of our flag , Yes or No.

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449591 13-Dec-2015 11:20

dclegg:
sidefx: I wasn't a big fan of red peak either and disliked the way it got added... but I will say one thing about it - it does scale nicely. Even the slight downscaling on that preliminary results page makes almost all the choices except red peak look like jaggy pixelated messes (though whoever resized them did a particularly bad job and jpeg...) Whereas red peak looks decent and identifiable even very small:

(sorry this has probably been hashed out elsewhere already but it was very noticable to me on that results page)

I wasn't a fan either, but I came around once it was explained, along with explanations of what makes a good flag. And that's why it never really stood a chance. It was up against two nearly identical flags that contained the Silver Fern that Kiwi's know and love, and the Southern Cross design lifted from our current flag. That symbology, and what it means, is easily identifiable.

But in my opinion, it looks far more like a corporate logo than a flag. So I'll definitely be voting to keep our existing one. I was actually seriously considering voting for a change to Red Peak, if it had won this round.

Because the current flag better represents NZ than the new one? Or because your choice didn't make the cut? (not nit picking, just asking)

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 810

Trusted

#1449594 13-Dec-2015 11:25

tdgeek:
I found Red Peak to be logo like. Simple, like a logo is. Doesnt really say much about what country it could be representing

It actually did. It contained nods to our beaches, mountains, status as one of the countries to see the sunrise first, & links to our Maori heritage. But this all required explaining, and I think this is one of the reasons it didn't fare well.

Another reason it didn't fare well was people didn't take the time to consider the study of vexillology, so they can understand what separates the good flags from the bad. To be fair, that should've been undertaken by the flag selection committee, and the fact that there were no vexillologists on the panel says a lot about how flawed the process was.

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1449595 13-Dec-2015 11:28

tdgeek:
I found Red Peak to be logo like. Simple, like a logo is. Doesnt really say much about what country it could be representing

Southern alps, mountains, dawn, dusk, volcanoes. Said a bit. No mention of a rugby team though, probably its downfall.

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 810

Trusted

#1449596 13-Dec-2015 11:28

tdgeek:

Because the current flag better represents NZ than the new one? Or because your choice didn't make the cut? (not nit picking, just asking)

The new flag has symbology that I identify with more than the old one, but I find the execution to be poor. As a result, I personally don't see it as a candidate to replace our existing flag.

To be honest, before this whole flag process started, I was dead against change altogether. I would much rather we have the conversation about becoming a republic, and have our flag changed as part of that process. But as I considered things more, I conceded that changing the flag to remove the Union Jack could be a step in that direction.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449599 13-Dec-2015 11:59

dafman:
tdgeek:
I found Red Peak to be logo like. Simple, like a logo is. Doesnt really say much about what country it could be representing

Southern alps, mountains, dawn, dusk, volcanoes. Said a bit. No mention of a rugby team though, probably its downfall.

dc and daf, thats a lot of meanings for a very simple image. Over the top of many kiwis and many foreigners.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449600 13-Dec-2015 12:05

dclegg:
tdgeek:

Because the current flag better represents NZ than the new one? Or because your choice didn't make the cut? (not nit picking, just asking)

The new flag has symbology that I identify with more than the old one, but I find the execution to be poor. As a result, I personally don't see it as a candidate to replace our existing flag.

To be honest, before this whole flag process started, I was dead against change altogether. I would much rather we have the conversation about becoming a republic, and have our flag changed as part of that process. But as I considered things more, I conceded that changing the flag to remove the Union Jack could be a step in that direction.

Agree. In many ways NZ does not have a flag. We are one of two countries that have a commonwealth membership flag, with the Southern Cross. Ours has 4 red stars, Oz has a better likeness that many will clearly see is a star formation. So, our flag is the Union Jack and 4 red stars, either to make it look pretty or balanced, i.e. fill in the blue bit a bit. Back in the day, yep, but these days, no.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449615 13-Dec-2015 13:16

farcus:
Geektastic:
I was 38 when I moved here. I'm fairly well educated and of above average intelligence.

hmmmm . . .
The fact that you make this statement raises some ????

Yet if you'd shown me a fern before I moved here and asked what country it reminded me of, I would have said "Sorry, no idea."

It may be iconic to new zealanders but don't kid yourself it carries immediate association anywhere else.

whether it is iconic to anyone outside of NZ is irrelevant. It ONLY needs to be iconic to New Zealanders

It raises no questions. It is a statement of fact to place into context the fact that any non-recognition of the fern is not down to stupidity or poor education.

No, all the arguments for change are predicated on it 'saying something about NZ in the world' more or less, so clearly any new design has to be iconic to others to say that - for example (not that I am advocating it) putting an actual Kiwi on the flag would be.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449634 13-Dec-2015 13:18

networkn:
Geektastic:
tdgeek: I agree James and a good point. Much of the cost will re circulate into the economy by way of wages earned, services provided by the private sector, and an amount of the private to public money movements will be spent by the earners in the economy.

I like the flag.

1. It seperates us from Australia, a very similar flag
2. Black is NZ's icon colour, fern is not as iconic as the kiwi but its close. Southern Cross shows some link to the old flag.

New flag? No. Its an update to the old flag, removing Union Jack, adding NZ fern and black colour to make it a NZ flag not a Commonwealth flag

Everyone claims the fern is "iconic" but is it really?

I was 38 when I moved here. I'm fairly well educated and of above average intelligence. Yet if you'd shown me a fern before I moved here and asked what country it reminded me of, I would have said "Sorry, no idea."

It may be iconic to new zealanders but don't kid yourself it carries immediate association anywhere else.

Unsure of your age, but I am guessing you have been here at least 10-15 years.

I'd suggest in the past 10-15 years the Fern has become very well known because of the punching above our weight in a fair number of sports. The AB's have been completely dominant and I'd say in my past 10 years of travels, NZ and the fern are a lot more indentified in places like the USA/UK/Canada/Asia Pacific.

Beyond that, the flag needs to mean something to ME, which the current offering and the new offering do, which is enough.

Not sure about you, but my flag needs to say a lot more than the symbol we use for ball games. Sport is a recreational activity not a nation defining one.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449635 13-Dec-2015 13:20

dafman:
networkn:
I'd suggest in the past 10-15 years the Fern has become very well known because of the punching above our weight in a fair number of sports. The AB's have been completely dominant and I'd say in my past 10 years of travels, NZ and the fern are a lot more indentified in places like the USA/UK/Canada/Asia Pacific.

Beyond that, the flag needs to mean something to ME, which the current offering and the new offering do, which is enough.

And for all those NZ'ers who don't love sport, does the silver fern have the same affection? Is a country is more than just one large rugby team?

I'd love a new flag, but cannot oblige the two corporate logos we have finished up with, so voting to keep old.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449660 13-Dec-2015 13:51

Regardless of what flag people like the time has come to get rid of the one we have a, in my opinion, it doesn't represent NZ as it is today.

I would have preferred something simple like the sliver fern as it is recognized overseas much like the Kiwi. That sport teams wear them says more about changing the flag than keeping it. Much like the military that tended to use the Kiwi not the current flag.

Personally I don't much like the ones that were being touted but never thought it would be an easy process, suffice people can have their say next year so no need to tear apart people for not agreeing with them.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

michael001

160 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 61
Inactive user

#1449714 13-Dec-2015 16:25

tdgeek:
michael001: The flag selected is exactly what one would expect from the process. I think it looks cheap, unprofessional and most embarrassingly, not a flag.

That aside, I look around my home office now and I see many items carrying an image of the New Zealand flag. Items that would require replacement should the flag change. I think a flag change, would cost me personally in excess of $500.

Looking towards business, the cost of the change alone will be measured in several development iterations - conservatively, that's about $60K. That's without changing a lick of printed material around the office.

So if I now consider just one item at a national level - the NZ drivers licence bears the NZ flag. What would be the actual cost to the taxpayer for change there?

Two things are absolutely certain for me:

I will be voting in the next flag vote.
I will be voting for no change.

I am hoping enough people feel the same way.

So your vote is based on money. ok. Drivers Licence. I doubt we will all have to renew. Next renewal we get the updated flag on it. Stationery. Re branding or changing the logo happens in business. In the case of the flag, I doubt there will be a "you must assimilate" now. If the go live date is say 1 Jan 2017, there is ample time to manage stationery stocks, run them down. More like 2018 or 2019.

Pity that a national piece of our country is reduced to dollars and cents

That is because it's not your dollars and cents, they are mine - sixty thousand of them. I would put it to you that if you had a little skin in the game you'd be thinking a little more pragmatically too.

The money part is only part of my concern, the flag option is nasty and cheap looking - it looks like a sporting logo. One that might last a couple of years before the next re-branding.

Expensive AND embarrassing.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449715 13-Dec-2015 16:30

michael001:
tdgeek:
michael001: The flag selected is exactly what one would expect from the process. I think it looks cheap, unprofessional and most embarrassingly, not a flag.

That aside, I look around my home office now and I see many items carrying an image of the New Zealand flag. Items that would require replacement should the flag change. I think a flag change, would cost me personally in excess of $500.

Looking towards business, the cost of the change alone will be measured in several development iterations - conservatively, that's about $60K. That's without changing a lick of printed material around the office.

So if I now consider just one item at a national level - the NZ drivers licence bears the NZ flag. What would be the actual cost to the taxpayer for change there?

Two things are absolutely certain for me:

I will be voting in the next flag vote.
I will be voting for no change.

I am hoping enough people feel the same way.

So your vote is based on money. ok. Drivers Licence. I doubt we will all have to renew. Next renewal we get the updated flag on it. Stationery. Re branding or changing the logo happens in business. In the case of the flag, I doubt there will be a "you must assimilate" now. If the go live date is say 1 Jan 2017, there is ample time to manage stationery stocks, run them down. More like 2018 or 2019.

Pity that a national piece of our country is reduced to dollars and cents

That is because it's not your dollars and cents, they are mine - sixty thousand of them. I would put it to you that if you had a little skin in the game you'd be thinking a little more pragmatically too.

The money part is only part of my concern, the flag option is nasty and cheap looking - it looks like a sporting logo. One that might last a couple of years before the next re-branding.

Expensive AND embarrassing.

Skin in the game? No need to get nasty. So you feel that of the flag was suddenly accepted next week, that you are bound the week after to fix everything that affects you, that has a flag? If that was the case I would agree, but its a long way off, so those affected can print what they print, knowing when the change will be. There is no need to budget on dumping everything and replacing it now, you can do that as you replace stocks of said items when they are due for replacing anyway

Nasty and cheap looking? That's not a fact that is your opinion.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#1449727 13-Dec-2015 17:06

michael001:
tdgeek:
michael001: The flag selected is exactly what one would expect from the process. I think it looks cheap, unprofessional and most embarrassingly, not a flag.

That aside, I look around my home office now and I see many items carrying an image of the New Zealand flag. Items that would require replacement should the flag change. I think a flag change, would cost me personally in excess of $500.

Looking towards business, the cost of the change alone will be measured in several development iterations - conservatively, that's about $60K. That's without changing a lick of printed material around the office.

So if I now consider just one item at a national level - the NZ drivers licence bears the NZ flag. What would be the actual cost to the taxpayer for change there?

Two things are absolutely certain for me:

I will be voting in the next flag vote.
I will be voting for no change.

I am hoping enough people feel the same way.

So your vote is based on money. ok. Drivers Licence. I doubt we will all have to renew. Next renewal we get the updated flag on it. Stationery. Re branding or changing the logo happens in business. In the case of the flag, I doubt there will be a "you must assimilate" now. If the go live date is say 1 Jan 2017, there is ample time to manage stationery stocks, run them down. More like 2018 or 2019.

Pity that a national piece of our country is reduced to dollars and cents

That is because it's not your dollars and cents, they are mine - sixty thousand of them. I would put it to you that if you had a little skin in the game you'd be thinking a little more pragmatically too.

The money part is only part of my concern, the flag option is nasty and cheap looking - it looks like a sporting logo. One that might last a couple of years before the next re-branding.

Expensive AND embarrassing.

How is that an argument against the change? Do you think companies don't change phone numbers, email/physical addresses, letterhead format etc etc. and need to redo office stationary and stuff like that? Everything has a cost, and most things will need changing at some point in time. This time it happens to be a flag, next time it might be your street address, who knows.

Note: I don't particularly want to change the flag, personally, just think the above arguments regarding costs not associated with the referendum are kinda silly.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15464

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449780 13-Dec-2015 19:48

Not sure about you, but my flag needs to say a lot more than the symbol we use for ball games. Sport is a recreational activity not a nation defining one.

Heh you picked the wrong guy to have that conversation with since I am MAD about Rugby, and as far as I am concerned if we used the AB's logo for our flag, I'd sign it off immediately!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1449797 13-Dec-2015 20:14

networkn:

Not sure about you, but my flag needs to say a lot more than the symbol we use for ball games. Sport is a recreational activity not a nation defining one.

Heh you picked the wrong guy to have that conversation with since I am MAD about Rugby, and as far as I am concerned if we used the AB's logo for our flag, I'd sign it off immediately!

And, "ball games" are but one of many places that the silver fern appears. It is handy that the sport exposure our country gets, allows the silver fern to be seen internationally

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17