Che was sat in the Dead Rabbit  conversing animatedly with his friend, the bar's owner Raoul. It was a strange establishment, perhaps not to Che's taste but he spent a great deal of time in their nevertheless. For a start, it was in a convenient location - very close to the offices from which Factory directed its various legal enterprises. Secondly, and vitally for a man in his position, he knew he was surrounded by friendly faces.

He didn't really make an effort to speak quietly, he knew (or at least hoped) that as Right Hand in Brooklyn, his words would end up spreading anyway, regardless of how hushed his conversations were.

"It is vital! The freedom of movement for all peoples is vital to everything amigo! For solidarity, for equality; to allow anyone and everyone the same opportunities! Listen, you can look all over the world and the story is the same. North America. Latin America. The Eurasian steppes. Never in history do hear about rampant poverty until the conqueror steps in to enforce colonialism and imperialism. The conqueror enforces it with his gun or his stick, it he ensures it remains by building walls and creating borders!"

"I see where you're coming from Che, I really do. What the sweet fuck does this have to do with our line of work though?"

"Well, it's simple! We have a system that makes no sense. All of the time, we talk about how important it is to be a made man. Fundamentally, it is a coming of age moment. Giving a man their button is symbolic of the fact we trust them to lead, we trust them to teach and to act as sponsors. We even acknowledge their standing amongst other people in our thing; they can get the ball rolling on crimes in a way that a non made-member cannot."

"These are fundamental truths of the rank, and they are reflected in the way we actually treat our made men. Some leaders are more harsh on their made men with punishments, because they feel these people are made of something more. Some leaders are more lenient with their made men, because they feel these individuals have put in the ground work."

"What about the responsibilities though? Rights come with responsibilities. We all know that the responsibility of a made man is absolute loyalty. You leave the family as a new leader or in a body bag. It's that simple. But do we not diminish that responsibility when it is a principle we make everyone involved in this thing of ours unflinchingly obey?"

"Many of us here have attended a ceremony in a dark room where we spoke of loyalty, of sacred oaths of fealty and service; are these words not empty and hollow if we are simply reinforcing what we were already doing as earners, wise guys, goombas? It is strange that we expect this kind of loyalty from unmade members, I think. We are unique in this; it is not something Al Capone insisted on when he reigned supreme in the streets of Chicago, nor something original 5 families expected of the young toughs that pounded the sidewalk in the big apple. Even in the old country of Sicily and Napoli it was accepted as the natural order of things that Non-made individuals were 'free agents', allowed to ply their trade with mobsters of many different stripes in the name of profitability."

"Why, then, do we cling to this idea that once you have visited an HQ once, you must remain with that family and only in the most exceptional circumstances may you leave? Why is accepting an invite into someone's crew so different from accepting an invite to join a crime? Why is it so different from doing 'odd jobs' for a family? The demands we place on a thug elevate them to the status of a made man, and yet we treat these demands as though they are inevitable and unchangeable rather than what they are; creations of our own design, reflective of our collective mindset."

"Very few things in our lifestyle are dichotomous. We accept that our line of work is nuanced, that sometimes our goals and even our principles are muddied and unclear; and yet the common outlook on crew swapping below made is absolutism at it's worst. 'NO! We cannot, we must not allow this! It goes against all of our ideals!' It is a common lie that has become a self fulfilling prophecy. This is, perhaps, not a rule to reflect our ideology but an ideology borne out of the existence of a rule.

"I propose we do not subscribe to this train of thought. I propose we say 'Yes, free movement of people is surely beneficial.' I propose that we alter our hierarchical structure to better reflect what the founds of this thing of ours hand in mind. You know I will advocate this in the name of perpetual revolution, in emancipation of the proletariat and I accept you may not hold these ideals as closely as me. Surely though, merely in the name of pragmatism and common sense, it is worthy of consideration.

I can not agree with you more when it comes to Made Man standing. It is the ultimate honor given to men in our line of work, and hence it comes with ultimate benefits and body bags...

Now when someone is not made, things change drastically. You are not a 'core' member of the family, hell...you ain't even family technically. Thats why you can't start certain jobs, and invite associates to this line of work. But when it comes to free movement my friend Che! I must say that YES! We are "Free agents!" Somewhat! When not Made...thugs and WiseGuys are allowed to wonder, with usually one real restriction. You have to be getting promoted! That doesn't necessarily mean that you will get your button finally! Just means you will either be taking over as a Hand or possibly be getting ready for bigger and better suits.

Now if the family that you were working for was unwilling to do that, as a free agent you are allowed to leave your current family. Sometimes yes the original family requires some sort of payment for letting such a talented mafioso go! Thats all well and good, I mean even with your Socialist Ideals my friend. I am sure we still all here work for the profits!!! 

Raoul looked closely at Che, seeing him for once as a kindred spirit rather than just another man in a slanty suit.

"Guevara my friend, i couldn't agree with you more. As I was saying in the street the other day, this used to be the case for any family my ancestors ran. Until the rank of Wise guy, you were free to come and go as you pleased. If you joined my Great Grandfather's family and you weren't happy, you could leave, no questions asked. They saw Wise Guy as the time you needed to knuckle down and show your loyalty, rather than Made Man when you are privy to all kinds of family secrets already.

My families view was a simple one. Sure there are people like Setanta, myself, Curtis and so on whose families have been in this thing of ours since time immemorial, but some people come here and its the first time their family has been involved with us. Or its only the second or third generation of their family. They don't know me, they don't know my bloodline, they may not have the first idea about who I am, yet they are expected to sell their souls into indentured slavery for all time, based on a short conversation with one of my hands or sponsors.

Curtis and I are long time friends, or families have served together more times than i can even recall. I trust the man with my life and would gladly lay my down for his. but we are very different people. If someone approached me and spoke to me, and asked me to sponsor them into Curtis's family based on what I said about him, they may find him to be a completely different man, they may fail to see the qualities in the man that demands my undying loyalty. it is for those reasons that I agree with you and believe that all associates in this thing of ours should be allowed to wander as they please until they find the family they are happy with, and the people that they believe they can lay their lives down in defence off.

Prehaps if this were to happen, we would see less suicide amongst our kind, and more people surviving to pledge their lives and their honour to their crew leader at their own made man ceremony."

Raoul pours Che another Fernet and Soda

Salud!

 

Weebl manoeuvres his way onto the square where a small group is gathering. After a few fruitless attempts to roll onto the soapbox he gives up and positions himself in the center of the bystanders and speaks up.

"It's an interesting topic which you bring up. In a world where we chase opportunities and seek out the best for ourselves, the current common rules within families don't give a lot of options to do so freely and indeed limits young associates to roam wherever they please. I doubt if this is an actual problem for many people, but my experience can be different of those of others.

Thing is, the current situation is also in place, because associates do get an awful lot of the benefits, one would assume only Made Men would have. Associates are not only met in dodgy bars and warehouses, but usually are free to roam inside the family's headquarters. There they enjoy their buffets, stuff their toilets and enjoy the safety of those 20' perimeter walls. Within those rooms people with an antenna can often pickup all kinds of information about the family's operations and business status. Made Men these days go through a lot of effort to teach youngsters on these shores some of the ropes of working in a crime family and if a gangster happens to run in some unexpected troubles, often their sponsors come to their aid. All this does imply a family may expect a bit more dedication from the young ones in return. There's simply more at stake then just the few bucks one might miss if a gangster decides to work for a different family.

So, if a call for change on this matter would be real, than I think that part should be taken into consideration as well. The current demand for loyalty is not based on only having met once."

Two things that I didn't touch on and I think both Weebl and Raoul_Silva touched on. 

"...but some people come here and its the first time their family has been involved with us. Or its only the second or third generation of their family. They don't know me, they don't know my bloodline, they may not have the first idea about who I am, yet they are expected to sell their souls into indentured slavery for all time, based on a short conversation with one of my hands or sponsors."

Thats where I think the biggest issue inlays. Most that usually come to our shores and sign up have been involved in this thing of ours for many generations. Some loose their way and eventually return...some retire. And for the those that retire...a new breed replaces them. This new breed is where the crucks of this conversation inlays. They rarely know how this thing of ours works! And with no current rules to 'whoring' its just as easy for the them to sign onto a crew as it is to knock over a post office. Click! Clack! Bang! Bang! Welcome aboard!!! All the while there probably wondering "What the hell am I doing here?!?!" 

Ive have multiple new comers ask me the question "Why is it important to join a crew?" And as a old sole I feel its my job to educate and not necessarily build the ranks in our crew. But others feel compelled to do the opposite. And its at that point where a new comer could possibly waver. Because he's not being educated about this thing of ours, and they are expected to be ATM's for the crew. And to be honest over my fathers bloodlines I don't think he has ever stopped a new comer from switching crews as long as the pre-requisite was, they were new. The oldies should know better. The oldies should still be held to their word unless if a promotion is extended to them. 

"Made Men these days go through a lot of effort to teach youngsters on these shores some of the ropes of working in a crime family and if a gangster happens to run in some unexpected troubles, often their sponsors come to their aid. All this does imply a family may expect a bit more dedication from the young ones in return. There's simply more at stake then just the few bucks one might miss if a gangster decides to work for a different family."

I have already sorta expressed this, but what Weebl says is spot on. With the amount of work that it requires to bring a mafioso up to speed...its flat heartbreaking to see them walk away. Sometimes it is with a heavy heart, but if someone is getting a promotion, you can't stop that. If anything as a motivator, mentor and as a Made Man; one should smile when the chick sorta grows its wings and learns to fly away. But only if its for the greater good. Don't want any chicks spreading their wings and crashing now do we? 

So I somewhat agree with the theory that anyone under Made should be a free agent. But I think its best when the circumstances dictate decision. Its not just as simple as "Were free, we can fly...Im out peace!!!" 

It is undoubtedly worthy of consideration; it's a thought I've read about in the journals of my ancestors many times. Your appeal is to pragmatism and it is there that I will rebut in four simple points.

First, emphasis on recruiting and finding a good match will diminish. While it may seem great on the side of the associate, it is a nightmare for sponsors. If all the effort they apply to bringing people into a crew can be swept away immediately and without recourse; the incentive to recruit is understandably lessened. If one were to say "do job x and reap the rewards with security," that would be more enticing than "do job x but the rewards will be at risk". Now, I'm all for "competition brings quality," and that is why the more recruiters the better before the invite is sent (the new mobster has a chance to see and speak to a lot of different people). But this is by no means a good move for existing crews (whose pragmatism I'd presume you're appealing to).

Second, recruiting could theoretically be done between crews. If our social structures now allow drifting of associates between crews, this problem would proliferate immediately: recruiters can pick good workers and fast rankers out of other crews at no cost or risk. To me that is abhorrent and would only stir up dissension, dishonesty, and discord among existing crews (whose pragmatism I'd presume you're appealing to).

Third, the focus of a new recruit would be irreversibly confused. If the priorities of the new recruit are shifted from "understanding our world and moving up" to "getting in the best crew and moving up," they will visibly respond negatively to any conflict within the crew they choose. The moment they hear/see something they don't like; they'll immediately look to another crew rather than actually understand and process the premise with which they disagree. This would force existing crews to adopt much more "friendly" tactics  and social constructs (if they aren't overwhelmingly friendly already [which is an ugly departure from realism in itself]) and shift an extraordinary amount of power to new recruits and away from existing crews and crewleaders (whose pragmatism I'd presume you're appealing to).

Fourth, made man promotions would function as a retainer. This is a side effect of the second and third points, but if your associate has reached the experiential demands for a Made Man promotion but has not yet matured for this role; could he not go looking elsewhere for someone to gratify his ambitions instead of meeting the qualifications of his crewleader? Made promotions already mean remarkably little, it would be an absolute terror to see them reduced to a means of keeping your associates happy and keep them from leaving. This would degrade the Made Man rank for all existing crews and crewleaders (whose... well, you get it.)

It's fun to toy with ideas like this, but when met with real pragmatism from the perspectives of both the associate and the sponsor, it's much harder to see the benefits outweighing the costs. This is not an oppression of the proletariat, this is common sense, and it's why it has been the convention since the dawn of time.

I'd happily refute each of your points of rebuttal with a simple "So what?" Denam. That isn't being flippant about your views or suggesting your view on the topic isn't relevant, it's simply that I don't agree with the things you've outlined as being real problems. Many of them are true, but I'd view them as a positive rather than a negative. 

I will admit my initial gut reaction was similar to your own, but I've had a little time to mull over the potential here since Guevara first raised this discussion in a copy shop some time ago. He's still debating the pros and cons himself it must be said, one of the reasons he's opening it up here for discussion. 

My views on each of your 'pragmatic problems'.

If all the effort they apply to bringing people into a crew can be swept away immediately and without recourse; the incentive to recruit is understandably lessened.

I disagree. I think it will hurt people who member whore and try to sweep up as many new recruits who don't know any better, but it will in fact reward the families that actually mentor their recruits and teach them the right way to do things. If you run a good family, the risks here are negligible. The better you run your family and the more you do help your low ranked members the more this change would actually reward you in the long run. It's only a lazy family that aren't doing the things they should be doing that need worry. With that in mind, it should raise the bar across all families and have the lazy one actually start pulling their weight rather than simply doing the bare minimum. I see this as a major positive, not a negative.

: recruiters can pick good workers and fast rankers out of other crews at no cost or risk.

 I'm not sure how you're inferring this from what has been said. People are free to move between families, if they choose to. Do you honestly imagine that if crewleader X is found actively trying to poach an associate from crewleader Y that it would have no repercussions? The second a bad leader steps outside of bounds and actively starts sniffing around an associate of another family, one who's loyal to their current leader and who has every intention of working their ass off to earn a place in that existing family so passes on such a low and slightly slimy mail... you really don't think that leader would be shot in the head?

Our world is a world of honour and trust, just as much as it's about politics and getting one over on the other guy. Sure, this type of thing will happen. All it does however is provide more scope for bad leaders to get caught and good leaders to benefit. Again, this is a huge positive to me not a negative.

If the priorities of the new recruit are shifted from "understanding our world and moving up" to "getting in the best crew and moving up," they will visibly respond negatively to any conflict within the crew they choose.

If that is the priority of the new recruit, firstly you wouldn't want the fucker in your family and secondly you haven't trained them well to begin with so deserve to be screwed over by them. Sometimes the values in our world stink. People value bloodline friendships over family. That's just wrong. They value coffeshop friendships over family. That's just wrong. They value the potential for a financial reward or the promise of being kept alive or even a leadership role in a new regime over family. That's all wrong.

If a change like this might actually serve to force leaders to instil genuine loyalty and qualities into their recruits, or at least reward the ones that do while hurting those that don't, I once again see this as a major positive and not a negative. 

could he not go looking elsewhere for someone to gratify his ambitions instead of meeting the qualifications of his crewleader?

Yes, someone could do this. If they do, they're a cunt. You'd rather not have them anywhere near your family. Not only that, but you've also just identified a family that has no value on the role of a button man and just hand them out like candy. Again, that's a good thing to know. If there is a family operating like that, they're a risk to our world and should be removed. Made man is a trusted rank that should only be held by incredibly trusted individuals. If or when a made man fucks up it should have a major impact on the family that swore him in as a friend of ours. Our world has lacked this respect and honour of the role for a long time, this isn't just a reflection of recent leaders or even going back a few generations, it has been going on for far longer than any of us can even recall. However it is a problem and it does need to be addressed. 

If someone is jumping ship like this they're a weasel that doesn't deserve a place in any family, they've been thought wrong from the start so don't have the qualities that would make them fit for the role and they will, no doubt, end up hurting the family they join due to them not having the intelligence, loyalty or honour that is required of the role. 

Again. Huge positives here. Not a single negative in my book.

It's fun to toy with ideas like this, but when met with real pragmatism from the perspectives of both the associate and the sponsor, it's much harder to see the benefits outweighing the costs. 

I disagree. When viewed with real pragmatism and the context of what these 'issues' are indicative of, the pros VASTLY outweigh the cons here. This is subjective. I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong", but in my opinion the pros are winning this by a vast margin.

This is not an oppression of the proletariat, this is common sense, and it's why it has been the convention since the dawn of time.

It actually hasn't been this way since the dawns of time. What is being discussed here is actually returning to the true roots of Cosa Nostra. Until you swear loyalty to a family, you're not part of that family. An associate is just that, associated with a family and not part of it. Yes, it takes time to get to the point where you're trusted enough to be part of a family and this requires working very closely with the one family for a long time. However, until that oath is sworn an associate in the old world was always free to carry out work for any family they choose. 

This hasn't been the case of things here on our shores in recent times, but the points raised by Guevara are interesting ones and it's a discussion I'm certainly keen to hear more on. It isn't black and white by any means and I'm sure someone may raise issues with it I've not yet thought of that are a cause for concern... but at the moment I'd be a strong supporter of the suggestion here.

Word had spread of the infamous conversation including Guevara in The Dead Rabbit. Some things were lost in translation as it worked its way down the grape vine, yet the main idea was in tact as it reached Scriba, or so he thought.

Upon making his usual trip around the streets he noticed a group speaking amongst themselves about the same topic. One of associates having the freedom to choose their own destiny, even after being invited by a sponsor to work closely within a family.

Scriba was in his usual getup; suit and fedora, yet his suit jacket was off and slung over his right shoulder, collar clenched in his right hand. A lit cigar was in his mouth. The locally manufactured expensive rolled tobacco was leaving a bad taste in his mouth, literally. He was still awaiting Aegon's shipment of fine cigars he had been promised. With the car now acquired, his tastebuds reminded him it might be time to finish the deal.

Scriba took the half finished cigar and flicked it to the ground. No more of that shit, he thought. He'd rather go without than keep puffing on ass. He spat toward the ground, attempting to rid himself of the taste, before making his way over toward the crowd conversing.

At this point Scriba just stood amongst the men, noticing some Philly faces, and held an ear. He watched their body language closely, keeping an eye on their mannerisms as he liked to do. Scriba strongly believed the body told more of a story than the words conveyed, and he could learn more about a man by the way he carried himself, than by words alone. Lies always came out through the body, he thought.

He listened for a period then began going off on a tangent, in his own mind. He thought upon the way things currently were with made members, button men. And how things were with members before they got that induction. How they were of sorts, constricted, as he believed them to be and as his thoughts reflected those of the words of the group.

The crowd died down, and after Setanta finished speaking he felt a jolt of enthusiasm to add his voice to the growing discussion. He held onto the left side of his suspenders with that hand as his suit jacket still slung resting over his right shoulder.

"It seems this Guevara has made quite a stir with his conversation. I like the idea of associates being less tied strictly to their initial family. Sure, you'd think they would work from that initial angle toward a more prominent position in the same family, yet what if things don't work out so well?"

"It may just prevent some of these suicides I've read about in the obits section of the paper recently. Young associates trying to make it then taking their own lives. Maybe the pressure to work for only one family, that they may not completely enjoy, had something to do with it."

Scriba shrugged his shoulders.

"But, who really knows? Maybe it wasn't the issue at all. Regardless, if those that work as associates don't feel like committing their full loyalty to the family they initially began with, then what's the harm in them finding a place elsewhere? It'll be the best thing for both the associate and the family in the end."

Scriba's face scrunched up as the asinine taste of the earlier cigar made itself known again. He gathered some saliva in his mouth then attempted to spit toward an empty space on the ground. The saliva ended up coming out as a spray, rather than a solid blob.

Setanta, if your rebuttal is "so what?" then this is no longer an appeal to pragmatism. I demonstrated why it would not be pragmatic to adopt this policy, and I'll happily do it again.

"I disagree. I think it will hurt people who member whore and try to sweep up as many new recruits who don't know any better, but it will in fact reward the families that actually mentor their recruits and teach them the right way to do things."

Okay, even if you don't think this will hinder proper recruiting, there is absolutely no way this rewards any families. If they already mentor and teach them correctly, they won't have associates jumping ship (which is not a reward, it's an avoidance of cost). If we are going to start referring to associates not leaving their crew as a "reward" to that crew, then we are approaching the bounds of absurdity.

Despite my utmost respect for you Setanta, you don't actually have the authority to tell people how to run their crews (outside your district, of course). If they want to be lazy, they can. I don't think the annals of history are populated with empires run by the apathetic.

My pragmatic approach was done entirely on the basis of economic theory; that people will choose to maximize their gains and minimize their costs whenever possible. If recruiting costs a certain amount of time and effort now and this policy were put into place, recruiting would still cost the same amount of time and effort (if not more). So the costs either rise or stay the same. Meanwhile, the gains of recruiting (a new member) are now worth substantially less as the risk of losing the new recruit has been increased. On an economic basis, this makes recruiting less worthwhile and less meaningful.

Do you honestly imagine that if crewleader X is found actively trying to poach an associate from crewleader Y that it would have no repercussions?

Abso-fucking-lutely. I apologize for the swear, it's just that; we're criminals. It's kinda "our thing" (pun intended) to do what we must to get ahead. So do I honestly believe that poaching will occur? Definitely. But imagine the circumstances surrounding someone's "honest" desire to leave their crew:

• Person A has some decent reason to not want to be in Crew 1 and seeks to find a new home. The only way he can learn about other crews is by talking to them. So he will reach out to other crewleaders or crew members (who are literally the same people who were trying to recruit him before he joined Crew 1) to see what their crew is like (and they will say the exact same thing as when they were recruiting him).
• Person A is indifferent to Crew 1 and is persuaded by a friend in another crew to jump ship. After the "recruiting" process was done, Person A still remained close contact with a sponsor he had made while being recruited. The recruiter asks him how he's doing, how he's getting the hang of things, etc. and he starts slipping in things that would go better or different if he were in the recruiter's crew. It's subtle, but it's poaching and it will occur.

Even if you want to outlaw poaching (which you can't because the only way it's "poaching" is if the recruiter/CL engages the associate instead of the associate engaging the recruiter/CL which can only be proven by the CL and the associate who has now decided to join said recruiter/CL; he's not going to "rat" on the guy who just picked him up so no repercussions will ever occur), this will still happen. Hell, this already happens without the free movement of peoples (though obviously more rarely).

If that is the priority of the new recruit, firstly you wouldn't want the fucker in your family and secondly you haven't trained them well to begin with so deserve to be screwed over by them.

If a change like this might actually serve to force leaders to instill genuine loyalty and qualities into their recruits, or at least reward the ones that do while hurting those that don't, I once again see this as a major positive and not a negative. 

If you've only had three days with the boy, what's the difference? You hardly know him, he hardly knows you, and all he knows is that there's something in the crew rules he doesn't understand enough to appreciate. And all it takes is him asking a recruiter in another crew "hey do you have _____ in your crew?" to get him swept away. It forces the crewleader to meet the new member on the new member's terms and appease the member to keep him around; which is not how the mafia works. You work for your boss, not the other way around. 

You don't instill "genuine loyalty and qualities" in three days. It takes time and effort; and that time is cut irrevocably short with the institution of this policy. It is in no way a "reward" for good mentors; it just offers a very cheap alternative to suicide. If they aren't "instilling loyalty and qualities" into their recruits now, this would only make it harder for the people who do. And once again, I'll remind you that you don't really have any authority to tell people what qualities they need to instill in their men. I appreciate (but entirely don't understand) the fact that you and Guevara are coming to the aid of the "unspoken" associate crowd as if there is some outcry against the evils of basic crew structure; but this is not what they need. This will only have an adverse effect on recruiting and crew structures.

Yes, someone could do this. If they do, they're a cunt. You'd rather not have them anywhere near your family. Not only that, but you've also just identified a family that has no value on the role of a button man and just hand them out like candy.

To quote you, So what? What are you going to do about a family that has no value on the role of a button man? Nothing. It's not something worth waging a war over. Entire districts have been built by member whoring and no one does anything about it. We can argue over the "principle" of the thing day and night, but at the end of the day it's something that they can do, so some will. Plus, money is money. If your people are earning for you and they find a more rewarding crew experience elsewhere, they'll start earning for them. And if you couldn't "instill genuine loyalty and qualities" in them, then it's your fault, right? I mean, that's your whole second point isn't it?

Sometimes (and often) people take the easy road. They don't want to showcase "qualities" in order to get their button; so they won't. They don't want to contribute to the Streets; so they won't. This will open a path that goes from every crew to every other, and the crew that offers the most rewarding and cheapest (in terms of effort) experience will get the members.

I mean, think about it. Does every associate who comes off the boat strive to be a "loyal and quality member". Maybe they'll say that, but most of them don't know enough about our world or themselves to meet that criteria. So it takes work on the part of the associate and the crewleader; work that the associate may not want to do. Does that make it the CL's fault for not instilling those qualities? Hell no. That's where good leaders come in; they're the ones who can turn bad associate into good associates. But you'd rather just ship the bad associates off to another crew instead of actually working with them?

It actually hasn't been this way since the dawns of time. What is being discussed here is actually returning to the true roots of Cosa Nostra. Until you swear loyalty to a family, you're not part of that family. An associate is just that, associated with a family and not part of it.

Those are not the "roots" of Cosa Nostra. The roots are organized crime families. And we have literally always considered associates to belong to their crew in a formal sense but not a member of the "inner ring of trust". Do you not make every member sign your rules? Does he not accept an invitation to join your crew? With what definition of "part of" does that not qualify? You aren't "associated" with that family; you belong to the crew. That's why the invitation asks you if you want to join the crew. That's why you have access to their HQ and no one else's. That's why you have to sign their rules. That's why the Crewleader offers his protection. It seems like we're intentionally ignoring the most basic fundamental parts of our world for the sake of hinging on the word "associate" (which is a new invention with the advent of sponsors and invitation limits) and deriving this ludicrous policy from an interpretation of that word.

To summarize, I think you have come to this discussion with two very conflicting assumptions. One is that crewleaders are either good or bad and that associates should be saved from bad crewleaders. The other is that associates are either good or bad, and that crewleaders should be saved from bad associates. At certain points you seem to refer to the quality of associates as being a reflection of the crewleader and that is what voids the merit of these assumptions. People change; and that is quite literally why this policy must not be put in place. A bad crewleader can learn to work with his men and a bad associate can learn to respect and appreciate his leader. But those instances will be absolutely impossible if we allow associates to circulate between crews. I would argue that the bad associates need a good crewleader; not that they should be driven to bad ones. I would also argue that bad crewleaders need good members; even if they don't deserve them in your eyes.

• If bad associates are the result of bad leaders, then this policy changes nothing; bad associates will still be in crews run by bad leaders.
• If bad associates are not the result of bad leaders, then this policy changes nothing; the associate will still be bad regardless of the quality of his leader.
• If good associates are the result of good leaders, then this policy changes nothing; good associates will still be in crews run by good leaders.
• If good associates are not the result of good leaders, then this policy changes nothing; the associate will still be good regardless of the quality of his leader.
• I think we can ignore the idea that good associates are the result of bad leaders or that bad associates are the results of good leaders (as those would be contradictory).

The policy does not reward good associates or good leaders. It only opens up the possibility of crewleaders to be worse with the likelihood of poaching and the ability to "sell" made man promotions in exchange for earnings.

there is absolutely no way this rewards any families.

Sure it does.

It rewards the ones that do it right. The ones the people actively want to join and will flock to, not just the ones people get stuck with. I'm not saying the person leaving is the gain here, it's the fact that the people are moving to the better families who work harder. It means our leadership, across the board, is forced to up their game or the associates that have even an ounce of common sense will leave a crap family in favour of a better one. This is the most pragmatic situation possible. 

you don't actually have the authority to tell people how to run their crews 

I don't wish to and haven't tried to. We're having a discussion about an idea. This isn't a rule and it isn't being pushed on anyone. It might in the future, but that's a long way away.

I haven't suggested I want to tell someone they can't run a shit family, many can and will. I've said I don't care what happens to a shit family. That's something I firmly believe in.

So do I honestly believe that poaching will occur? Definitely.

I didn't suggest it wouldn't occur. I said I looked forward to it occurring and seeing how it would pan out when it did. If someone is an idiot and does it badly, they'll die. If they're smart and do it well, more power to them and they'll gain from it. I fail to see how this isn't fan-fucking-tastic. Our world is all about politics. Giving people one more way to butt heads is again a positive and not a negative.

If people want everything to be plain, straight forward and simple, which appears to be your point here, I've no time for them.

You don't instill "genuine loyalty and qualities" in three days. It takes time and effort; and that time is cut irrevocably short with the institution of this policy.

Again, I didn't suggest you would instil qualities like this in three days. Trying to 'win points' against issues that were never raised and things that were never said seems a little odd. It's slightly dull pointing them out. 

This isn't a policy and it certainly hasn't been instituted. It's a topic of discussion where we're chatting about an idea. There's a major difference between them. Try and differentiate between the two.

How is it cut irrevocably? It's only impacted at all if someone is poached from one family to another in such a short time. If that is happening, it is clear that someone is attempting to lure members, bribe members or steal members. If that's happening, it's something to be tackled at the highest levels. Sure the little guy on the ground might not understand the significance of these things, but the leaders and the Godfathers in question will. Again, this simply rewards good leadership and hurts bad leadership. I love it.

And once again, I'll remind you that you don't really have any authority to tell people what qualities they need to instill in their men.

Once again I'll point out that I haven't told anyone a single thing that they need to do. I've said the ones that don't do it, should an idea of this nature ever come to fruition, would be the ones that get hurt so therefore it's a positive thing. 

Saying that a "shit leader will lose out" isn't the same as saying "You can't be a shit leader from here on out". They're very different. 

I appreciate (but entirely don't understand) the fact that you and Guevara are coming to the aid of the "unspoken" associate crowd as if there is some outcry against the evils of basic crew structure; but this is not what they need. This will only have an adverse effect on recruiting and crew structures. 

I'm not trying to speak out for associates, I'm speaking out for the best interest of this thing of ours. I couldn't give a shit about associates. They aren't friends of mine and they don't carry a button. They have no impact on my thoughts here what so ever. The only way they factor into this is that eventually some of them will be a part of Cosa Nostra. When that happens, I only want the best of them making it. If that means changing how recruiting practises are run across all of our cities, I've no problem at all discussing it. I don't have the power to implement it, but I have the intelligence and the ability to share my thoughts on it. 

I completely disagree that it will hurt the recruiting and the crew structures. I think it would move them far closer to how things operate back in the old country and would be a major step forward. Whether that would be the case or not is subjective and open to debate. Which is one of the reasons this discussion was started.

What are you going to do about a family that has no value on the role of a button man? Nothing. It's not something worth waging a war over.

<font color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)">If someone is giving people unworthy of the authority and the </font>privileges<font color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)"> that come with the rank of made man in this world of ours, they're potentially putting my family at risk. If putting a member of your family at risk isn't something worth warring over, what the hell is?</font>

Entire districts have been built by member whoring and no one does anything about it.

Bullshit. Many things have been done about this in recent days. Not everything is public knowledge and available to the masses, but just as someone isn't aware of actions doesn't mean they haven't been taken. In the past many leaders have died for such actions, in the future I'm sure many will too. If your only point is "others got away with this at some point so it's impossible for us to possibly do anything about it that would be positive", you're wrong. Things can be done, things are being done and things will be done. 

Sometimes (and often) people take the easy road. They don't want to showcase "qualities" in order to get their button; so they won't. They don't want to contribute to the Streets; so they won't. This will open a path that goes from every crew to every other, and the crew that offers the most rewarding and cheapest (in terms of effort) experience will get the members.

That is possible, but I disagree that it's a foregone conclusion. I actually strongly believe it will have a major positive impact and not the negative one you believe will happen.

Assuming for a moment you were right though, as this is a subjective matter that I can't refute with logic, how is that any different to our system at the moment? It's literally the same. There's no step down there, even in your worst case scenario. It's simply retaining the same risks that exist at the moment. 

Does every associate who comes off the boat strive to be a "loyal and quality member". Maybe they'll say that, but most of them don't know enough about our world or themselves to meet that criteria.

No, they don't strive to be and many won't be. Again though, I don't give a shit about those one. I care about the ones that do strive to be the best and that's who'll get my focus and attention. If you wish to speak up for the lazy, the dim and the selfish... fair play. I don't intend to, haven't to date and won't in the future.

But you'd rather just ship the bad associates off to another crew instead of actually working with them?

There's two very different things here that you're confusing. You have bad associates and associates who have been thought poorly to date. The two aren't the same and to speak of them in that manner is incorrect.

Bad associates? Sure. Ship them anywhere you like. Some will never be anything more than window licker's and regardless of where they end up they will be nothing more than the peak of their potential, which is nothing. 

Associates that have been trained badly? That's one of the major things this system would correct. It would allow the associates who do have potential and desire to actually maximise that potential. Or at the least have a better chance of achieving it. 

And we have literally always considered associates to belong to their crew in a formal sense but not a member of the "inner ring of trust".

Your use of "we" says it all. "We" are not the founding of Cosa Nostra or the originals. We here on our shores are building on top of all that came before us. Our choice to have associates sharing the same headquarters and signing the same rules was a choice made at some point in the past, but one that can easily be changed. You can try and argue semantics on this one, but it's a loosing battle. Many of us were around these shores when the term "associate" didn't even exist. Our world evolves and changes. When I speak of the past, I speak of the true tenants of Cosa Nostra. Not simply what has happened to happen over recent years due to leaders I neither know of or care for. 

It seems like we're intentionally ignoring the most basic fundamental parts of our world for the sake of hinging on the word "associate" (which is a new invention with the advent of sponsors and invitation limits) and deriving this ludicrous policy from an interpretation of that word.

Exactly the opposite. The term associate was adopted for the very reason that this is how it happens in the old country, which is what everything we have build here is founded upon. If you want to suggest that associates shouldn't have access to the HQ building, perfect. That will resolve one of your issues. If you wish to suggest that families reword the generic invitiations sent out, perfect. That resolves another of your issues. These are all irrelevant fine details that could be addressed if and when this change were ever considered as an actual rule change. For now, it's a discussion. These aren't reasons against the change, they're fine details that must be picked up and adjusted if it's ever implemented.

One is that crewleaders are either good or bad and that associates should be saved from bad crewleaders.

Incorrect. There are no assumptions being made.

There are awful crewleaders, there are fantastic crewleaders and there is every shade of grey in between.

I have no personal interest in associates at all, certainly not to save the fuckers. I'm just happy to see the better leaders gaining a higher reward for their work and the worse leaders gaining less for their incompetence. That's a view I've always held and one I will always hold. I love the idea of having a system that better accomplishes just that. 

At certain points you seem to refer to the quality of associates as being a reflection of the crewleader and that is what voids the merit of these assumptions.

A poor leader will fail to train a good associate. That's a fact, not an assumption. I've seen it a million times, I've stepped in to help mitigate the damage being done and I'm 100% confident I'll see it again in the future.

This entire process rewards the leaders that do a great job for their families and hurts the leaders that do a crap job. That isn't assumptions, once again, it's fact. Again, I love this fact. It's brilliant.

People change; and that is quite literally why this policy must not be put in place. A bad crewleader can learn to work with his men and a bad associate can learn to respect and appreciate his leader.

If they start losing associates, I'd hope that bad leader can learn faster. I have absolutely no interest in protecting or helping bad leaders. If they don't already know how to work with those beneath them they obviously weren't a good choice for leadership to begin with. Suggesting this as a reason for retaining the current rules I personally find baffling. "We can't change it, it'd hurt the leaders that suck". Really? 

The policy does not reward good associates or good leaders. It only opens up the possibility of crewleaders to be worse with the likelihood of poaching and the ability to "sell" made man promotions in exchange for earnings.

I completely disagree. Not a single point you raised managed to cause me even a moments doubt on the topic. You very well could have influenced or changed the minds of others listening, but literally not a single thing mentioned caused me to blink even once. 

The change would unquestionably reward the better leaders, the better the leader the greater the reward, and hurt the poorer leaders, the poorer the leader the more they'd be hit. 

The likelihood of poaching would rise, but so would the risks associated with such an act. I fail to see how that's a negative.

Selling made man promotions may happen, but that's no different to the current setup where members are often promised auth just for joining a specific family. If and when this occurs it would again lead to consequences. People tend not to appreciate or tolerate shit leaders being shit in my personal experience. If and when it were to happen, I'd once again expect those around to be pretty damn pissed about it and do something to rectify it. If that isn't happening, it suggests that the leadership around our cities is at a collective level of shite and in that case it doesn't really matter what rules are in place, things would still be awful.

I love the idea, I'm all for it being looked at in closer detail and getting input from as many people as possible. It's something that will divide opinions, as it has divided Denam's and mine, but that's not always a bad thing. If a suggestion doesn't raise some strong feelings that's only a sign that people don't care enough to care. 

I completely disagree. Not a single point you raised managed to cause me even a moments doubt on the topic. 

I put together an enormous response to your points but then I realized there is a tremendous imbalance in this discussion. While I have the utmost respect for you and your points and seek to rebut them on fact and logical procession, I fear that your purpose in this discussion is entirely to further your own position and not even hear mine. When I offer a logical argument founded on universally accepted economic theory, you just say "yes it does," without even acknowledging (much less dismantling) the structure of the argument. Therefore, rather than rehash arguments a third time, I will let them stand and offer you a solution to your woes.

It seems you have a genuine interest in improving the leadership of this world. You have noted that you can judge a good leader from a bad leader: 

There are awful crewleaders, there are fantastic crewleaders and there is every shade of grey in between.

If they don't already know how to work with those beneath them they obviously weren't a good choice for leadership to begin with.

You have noted that you want to reward good leaders and punish bad leaders:

This entire process rewards the leaders that do a great job for their families and hurts the leaders that do a crap job. That isn't assumptions, once again, it's fact. Again, I love this fact. It's brilliant.

You have noted an acceptance of going to war over the issue of bad leadership:

If someone is giving people unworthy of the authority and the privileges that come with the rank of made man in this world of ours, they're potentially putting my family at risk. If putting a member of your family at risk isn't something worth warring over, what the hell is?

You have noted that you don't care about associates:

I have no personal interest in associates at all, certainly not to save the fuckers.

And you have noted that you see no reason to help or protect bad leaders:

If they start losing associates, I'd hope that bad leader can learn faster. I have absolutely no interest in protecting or helping bad leaders.

If you don't care about associates or bad leaders, want to reward good leaders and punish bad leaders, and have a willingness to go to war over the issue; why bother with this policy? Just remove the bad leaders. It would obviously punish the bad leaders, it would reward the good leaders as they would get the leftover members, it would force leadership to be better (as they would face destruction if they didn't), and you don't have to put the onus of finding a good leader on the associate; all the crewleaders would be good leaders (as all the bad ones would be dead).

I'd contend that this would just prolong the inevitable deaths of all bad crewleaders anyways; they would slowly lose good members and gain bad members, increasing the risk of their demise as they rack up both shitty members and shitty reputations. Eventually the self-consuming cesspool of inadequacy would grant the "better" leaders an opportunity to remove them out of either pity or retaliation. So why not skip a few steps and get to the real objective of this idea? The idea would obviously lack any merit if all the leaders were good in their own right; so why go through all this trouble?

When I offer a logical argument founded on universally accepted economic theory, you just say "yes it does," without even acknowledging (much less dismantling) the structure of the argument.

I went through each individual point you made and outlined why I either disagree with them or why they're a positive and not a negative in my mind. I'm not sure what else I could possibly do to outline why I disagree with them. If you've any thoughts on that, please do let me know. As you say, if your arguments are the same as the ones I've already disagreed with and countered from my point of view, you would be wasting your time and mine.

However throwing out a false statement that I ignored your points when I clearly didn't is also wasting my time too. 

You have noted that you can judge a good leader from a bad leader: 

I haven't.

I've stated that the proposed system would reward those good leaders who work hardest for their associates and hurt those poor leaders not working at all. That has nothing whatsoever to do with me. This is a discussion about a proposed system, sadly it has little to do with me. Which is a shame.

You have noted that you want to reward good leaders and punish bad leaders:

I haven't.

I have stated I would favour a system that rewards good leader more than it rewards average leaders and rewards average leaders more than it rewards poor leaders. Again, this has nothing to do with me or my choice of who is a good leader or what makes a good leader. The masses decide that, not a single opinion.

You have noted an acceptance of going to war over the issue of bad leadership:

I haven't.

I queried if someone potentially putting your families lives at risk wasn't sufficient grounds for war, what would be? As it happens I do believe a leader carrying out such an act would be sufficient grounds to shoot them in the head. However that's not what I had said until just now.

why bother with this policy? Just remove the bad leaders.

I'm not sure if you're simply trolling with this or if you actually don't know the answer?

I'll presume it's the latter and answer it, just in case.

I don't have the right to do it, the power to do it or the position to do it. I'm a button man, so I hold significantly more power than yourself in this thing of ours. I hold a position as the right hand man to the Godfather of South Philadelphia, so I hold more power than other button men in this thing of ours. That doesn't mean I have the right to send our district flying into any war I wish to personally wage for personal reasons nor does it give me omnipotent power to know what is best in every situation.

It's not me personally that shall decide if a leader is good or bad, no more than it would be you that would decide if a leader is good or bad. That's simplifying the things I have said to the point of falsification, something you have done numerous times now. Please don't.

The masses will decide who's good and who's not up to the task. The system will allow them to make that vote clear with their movement. I'm not trying to provide myself with a position of greater power any more than I'm trying to provide Godfather Whatsername with a position of greater power. It's about trying to provide a system that better rewards the leaders doing solid work for those beneath them and give the ones that are lazy and dumb far less reward than they currently get.

Intrigued by the discussion his right hand had started, Curtis decided to voice an opinion.

"Now, I have no desire to interrupt the back and forth between Setanta and Denam here. That little tet-a-tet seems to be doing just fine on it's own. My points are just thoughts I've had when reflecting on the practical application of this idea.

Firstly, I don't think the freedom suggested here would be quite as loose as is being suggested by some. We are still traditional mafioso and all still expect to be treated with respect. For example; If an associate was working for one of Barry's sponsors and decided they would like to work for Batiatus instead, there would need to be a respectful exchange between the two leaders before Batiatus could send the associate an invite to join his organisation without causing offense. If he were simply to send the invitation with no previous agreement in place, I would expect Barry to be highly offended. A certain protocol would always need to be observed.

Secondly, there could be an epidemic of Wise Guy tourism as unsatisfied or simply mercenary associates reach the end of their time and just start shopping around for the best deal. Placing calls to various leaders to see who will offer the best terms for their future. This would be something that would need to be accounted for and measured against. 

Setanta makes a great point. The open nature of this would place an incredible emphasis on each family to properly tutor and look after their associates. Not in terms of handing out hollow cash reward but in terms of making the associate truly feel that the family they are in, is the one they want to be in for the long term. Short sighted cash incentives and other hollow rewards are unlikely to sway a decision when it comes to a long term future and will probably just be exploited before the associate requests to move on. 

There are other aspects to this final stage of the associate's shopping period that might be problematic. You could acquire a Wise Guy into your employ that you might then need to hold at that rank for a significant amount of time before feeling comfortable enough to give them their button. This could cause ill feeling so there may need to be structure laid down to ensure everyone was on a solid understanding. Perhaps minimum times for an associate to exist in a family before they are eligible for their button, perhaps some other ruling but there would need to be something in place to restrict mercenary crew hopping."

Curtis had been cutting back on his alcohol intake in recent weeks but he permitted himself a quick medicinal nip from his flask before closing his contribution. Turning to Guevara he smiled.

"There are many elements to this and it may not be practical when all the required examination is done. It is however a very interesting idea and I thank you for bringing it here for us to discuss."

Whilst you do bring up many valid points Curtis, my beloved Godfather and leader, some of them do seem somewhat superfluous. As I suggested, allowing the transfers only to continue up to the rank of wiseguy would negate the issue of Button shopping, whereby someone held at the rank of Wiseguy for whatever reason decides to jump ship to ensure that promotion. My family has always seen Wiseguy as the first true Mafia rank, its that rank where you are now indelibly linked to a particular family, you've done work for us, and we are impressed, and now you should be thinking about joining the family proper. Allowing those who have not yet attained this rank to jump ship, would allow leaders time to assess the person now working for their family before offering a button.

The respectful exchange between two leaders I assume is already in place, i know of several people over time who have been allowed to transfer from one crew to another, due to a friend being there, or getting his shot at leadership or because they have been offered a position of autority, such as RHM. I honestly believe that what Guevara is talking about here is literally a free market enterprise, where any Associate can decide summarily to cut ties with one organisation and move to another without prior approval needed from their former leader. As he has said, and as Setanta has stated, associates are not yet mafioso, they are common criminals and street thugs that do work for us organised criminals in the hopes of being noticed and allowed to become part of the family proper.

I would assume from what you have said though, that this would be something that you would not agree to in principal? Personally as Setanta has already so eloquentally said, I bel;ieve that this would only be a good thing. It would reduce whoring, and it would reward genuinely good leaders whilst punishing those who don't have the suitable skills or required abilities. Why would you offer someone $100,000 to join your family, if 30 seconds after they joined they could leave and join another?

As I stated earlier, its something that my own ancestors used to allow, however, I can understand that a radical change such as this, which less face it is a diametric shift from what has generally happened as far back as I can remember, would be a scary prospect and not be everyone's cup of tea. I would however love to hear the opinions of other family heads and godfathers on Guevara's idea.