It is not my place to comment on districts in which I don't operate; if Spunky and Kelly_Kapowski wish to say anything else then that is for them to decide.

There is, however, a logistical point that I believe needs to be made here. These are not Curtis' rules set down by Curtis, as you would have it. They are the Godfathers' rules, set down by the Godfathers.

Every District head had initial input into the various platforms under discussion, and each District had a further vote and only proposals with a majority vote passed, a process which the Commission earlier agreed would signify collective acceptance.  I also think it's important to note that, as far as my understanding goes, these rulings are specifically the wish of the current leadership as (prior to this going to the presses) Godfather Ajani recounted the votes after discarding the dead, in order to ensure the Commission was in no way chained to the wishes of dead Leaders, however minor that impact may have been.

On this occasion, yes, Godfather Curtis was the spokesman of the group. This is simply because if every leader stood up to say a different part of this speech then it would not resemble a summit of statesman and leaders but more an amateurish high school theatre production. Nevertheless, my Boss was keen to impress upon those listening the collective nature of these rulings, and I can guarantee you that next time an announcement will be made, one of the other Godfathers will be making it - that's how its always been in our thing.

Beyond that, if you genuinely are of the opinion that two Godfathers spent a series of weeks in backroom discussions on ideas and principles (and let me tell you these conversations were at times extremely time-consuming due to the nature of getting everybody together at once) only to decide that they don't care about them the minute they go public and will break them as they see fit then, well, that's your prerogative I suppose. You can think what you like and you're entitled to your own opinions, but nothing about that argument to me seems logical in the slightest.

Beyond that, if you genuinely are of the opinion that two Godfathers spent a series of weeks in backroom discussions on ideas and principles (and let me tell you these conversations were at times extremely time-consuming due to the nature of getting everybody together at once) only to decide that they don't care about them the minute they go public and will break them as they see fit then, well, that's your prerogative I suppose. You can think what you like and you're entitled to your own opinions, but nothing about that argument to me seems logical in the slightest.

Regardless of it being logical or not, they have still done it. Period. You are telling me that the districts could not take a solitary day out of the member whoring rat race, just so these prospective crew leaders could at least show their faces in the street, if only for a minute? No, they apparently couldn't, the allure of rounding up the sheep was more important, and have so forth just gone back on the rules that were set by the Godfather council (not just Curtis, my bad).

Spunky,

Just because she spoke now after her auth doesn't mean that it takes away from the rulings that you and the rest of the godfathers as a collective group came to. I heard it and suspected that street speaking was a requirement that happened before the authing itself, not afterwards. I can understand that Lancelot does not have a lot of street presence but he has some. I have seen him speaking his opinions a few times prior to his getting a fancy suit, but no one can seem to remember Whor-able doing so.

Street presence for leaders is overrated anyway. I have never understood the obsession with hearing leaders speak in the streets. The point of being a leader is that your members are safe and content. If you fit the criteria needed to make that magic happen, I don't see the need for a street speaking requirement, also because I don't believe in forced street presence.

If you manage to build up a strong, happy family but you prefer to be quiet, that's alright to me. I understand why the Godfathers implemented this ruling, but I simply disagree with it.

Denam nods his head, understanding the nature of the disruption. His confusion arose from the timing of it all; the takedown, the influx of new mobsters, and the necessity of authing someone Spunky could trust.

I thank you, Godfather Spunky. I believe you that the circumstances brought about this situation were at least primarily out of your control. I don't want to make it appear as though the Godfathers are each and all willing to break the rulings out of convenience; as it seems to be quite the contrary. Your intentions were to follow the rulings but the circumstances prompted an alternate solution. I very much appreciate you coming out here to tell us that, as it certainly settles my concerns about the purpose of the ruling moving forward.

Denam sees people starting to yell over each other to have their opinions heard. He smiles and exits the conversation, pulling his pea coat collar up to block the bitter winter wind.

After listening to the discussions raging on about how the godfather ruling was not enforced properly Lancelot decides to address the gathered crowd, taking out his pistol he fires one shot into the air to grab everyone's attention...

"Good afternoon everyone although I cannot speak on behalf of Whore-able I can for myself, as you are all aware yesterday was somewhat a busy one and certain things I had planned to do had to be put on a back burner due to more pressing matter, yes I was authed before I was able to get a thread out in the streets but there was never any intention to go against the godfather ruling it was merely an oversight on my behalf for that I appologise", Taking a look around the crowd Lancelot clears his throat and begins to talk once again "With regards to my street presence I have never been one to needlessly spam the streets with drivel, however if a valid and important discussion came about then I will actively participate in a constructive manner, I thank you all for your time but I really must be off I have urgent business to attend, good day."

Firstly, let me re-iterate that these are indeed a collectively, democratically collated set of guidelines / rules.  Call them what you will, as long as we adhere to them the desired approach to things remains the same.

Moss,

I was under the impression I had taken the flak for my slight oversight as soon as I noticed my error which, funnily enough, was right as Lancelot donned his bold suit for the first time.  If you ask around, most people will tell you that I uttered some slightly drunken, though still coherent words a few hours ago with regards to MY error.  They will probably also tell you that I made sure the oversight was rectified and as far as I can tell, Lancelot has been speaking his mind since he was pushed into the position where his words carry more weight and hopefully inspire others for some time to come.

Assume, assume, assume.  The levels of procrastination over a slight oversight on my part here are quite unbelievable and also somewhat irksome Moss.  I think the fact I took the time out from my hard earned R&R after yesterdays events to take my mistake on the chin and ensure a speedy resolution from my side of the fence should have been an end of this.  What more can I do but stand up, admit my error and speedily rectify the impending situation?  I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve with your ramblings here but your persistence with trying to stoke a fire that has already been extinguished are beginning to become a little annoying.

With your flagrant insistence that you are correct here and everybody else is wrong I took the liberty to look over your two most recently deceased ancestors speeches and contributions to our wonderful streets to just double check that you were, of course, speaking from experience and had the acquired knowledge to be qualified to seek acceptance of your beliefs from the masses.  I'll be brutally honest, what I found, is making you sound a little hypocritical.

Whilst I appreciate input and solidly built arguments, this particular one never really got started and really does not have the steam to achieve your aim, which I can only assume is to try and make the current Godfathers look like a group of ill educated apes;  Good luck with that.  

Firstly, let me re-iterate that these are indeed a collectively, democratically collated set of guidelines / rules.  Call them what you will, as long as we adhere to them the desired approach to things remains the same.

Moss,

I was under the impression I had taken the flak for my slight oversight as soon as I noticed my error which, funnily enough, was right as Lancelot donned his bold suit for the first time.  If you ask around, most people will tell you that I uttered some slightly drunken, though still coherent words a few hours ago with regards to MY error.  They will probably also tell you that I made sure the oversight was rectified and as far as I can tell, Lancelot has been speaking his mind since he was pushed into the position where his words carry more weight and hopefully inspire others for some time to come.

Assume, assume, assume.  The levels of procrastination over a slight oversight on my part here are quite unbelievable and also somewhat irksome Moss.  I think the fact I took the time out from my hard earned R&R after yesterdays events to take my mistake on the chin and ensure a speedy resolution from my side of the fence should have been an end of this.  What more can I do but stand up, admit my error and speedily rectify the impending situation?  I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve with your ramblings here but your persistence with trying to stoke a fire that has already been extinguished are beginning to become a little annoying.

With your flagrant insistence that you are correct here and everybody else is wrong I took the liberty to look over your two most recently deceased ancestors speeches and contributions to our wonderful streets to just double check that you were, of course, speaking from experience and had the acquired knowledge to be qualified to seek acceptance of your beliefs from the masses.  I'll be brutally honest, what I found, is making you sound a little hypocritical.

Whilst I appreciate input and solidly built arguments, this particular one never really got started and really does not have the steam to achieve your aim, which I can only assume is to try and make the current Godfathers look like a group of ill educated apes;  Good luck with that.  

First off, Kelly, I am too long in the tooth to beat around the bush and try to stoke some fires. If I wanted to be blunt and tell you that you stupidly fucked up, I would have. However, this is not the case, nor do I think that. I am sure you would be able to provide some sort of long retort to this, so let's just avoid what ever dance we are going to have in regards to each others comments and cut to the chase.

The points I have brought forth are ones that I think are valid. Never once have I insisted that everyone else is wrong and I am right. Perhaps this is just an oversight on your behalf, or an assumption of something that's not there? Who knows. Yes, you already explained that by some inexplicable reason you were drunk off the victory of the century, the take down of Las Vegas, that Lancelot's street presence was a mere oversight, one you could not have foreseen. It just didn't hit you when the Godfather rules were agreed upon and you looked at your prospective auth. I do applaud you that hold your hands up and admit that it is your fuck up, it's quite an admirable trait to say the least.

I will reiterate my point in a different manner, so that you don't think I am simply stoking a fire, and actually trying to contribute to this healthy debate.  At what point did you realise the oversight on your behalf? Was it just before Lancelot took bold, or after? If it was just before, wasn't it an option to hold off the authing ceremony even just for a single day as to let Lancelot's face be known around the streets? This way your district could have their new auth, AND it kept the collective Godfather rules from being broken or bent.

Also, and this is not just for you Kelly, so don't feel that you have to answer this, but what about future auths? Are excuses and reasons also to be accepted, or are the rules now iron clad and not to be broken?

Just as a side point, what ever you think my blood line may be, and feel free to mention if you feel fit, I would like to make the small point that my last two ancestors held no power whatsoever, nor did they really talk to anyone. They wanted to keep to themselves. Also, I never once actually supported the whole street presence for crew leader notion, I just pointed out the rule infringement, or whatever you may call it. I actually think that forced street presence is just the same as no street presence and that albeit street presence is an attribute, great crew leaders are made from within. Also, just on the small chance that you may think I am just saying that to fit the situation here, I would be more than willing to show you privately, the records of where my ancestors have said the exact same thing.

Thank you once again for the reply, Kelly. It has been a pleasure.

Richard watches the crowd of Mobsters have their arguments, normally he prefers to stay off the Streets, much quieter and less likely your gonna piss off the wrong Boss and wind up in a ditch. But this was a special occasion, as it had to do with the Godfathers nationwide setting out a big list of rules and guidelines. Richard took a good long look at it, absorbing the rulings and thinking long and hard about each one of them. He was about to leave when one of the rules struck him as off, and for the first time in a very long time, stepped out to speak after Moss was done.

"I don't mind the need for rules, in fact in this case I'm glad they're finally in place, so we can stop with all the here-say about rulings and other BS that comes out of some people's mouths. But, speaking from a relatively new bloodline's perspective, the CL requirements are a bit lopsided to those who have old bloodlines and those who love to get into any argument that pops up. There's good reasons why some of us stay off the Streets, myself specifically due to the fact that I prefer a quiet lifestyle, no point in getting into what normally are stupid arguments over pointless things that only make you enemies." He pulls out a cigarette, putting it in his mouth before striking a match.

"I agree with the other requirements, they make sense and it's for the betterment of our work. Hell, I'd even put forward an addition for the future CL in question to go for an interview over the phone with the Godfather Council. But, just because some of us don't want to be in the limelight doesn't mean we should be overlooked for positions of power. If I were to become a CL tomorrow, I still wouldn't change much of my routine, but like I'm doing here, I'll come to the Streets and do the whole shebang when I'm needed. Talk only when necessary is the way to go, keeps you out of sight and out of mind unless you absolutely need to get your point across." He lights his cigarette, dropping the match into the snow before putting it out under his heel.

"So you've got my two cents now, hopefully someone listens and takes it to heart. But if not, I said what I needed to say." With that Richard flips up his collar and heads back into the crowd.

Street presence requirement for new leader

A rudimentary level of street speaking ability must be demonstrated by a potential leader in order to qualify them for authorisation to set up a new family. This is not a demand for a strong or consistent presence but there is a need for them to have made themselves known in the streets. If a potential leader can't manage one single coherent speech as a 'right of passage' then there should be serious doubts about their all-round capability, intelligence and determination to lead.

Moss, where in here does it say that they must have made a speech "before" they purchase a headquarters?  Raincheck, it doesn't.

It says they need to have made themselves known in the streets which I believe was satisfied.  The "right of passage" speech that is inferred could be read both ways but there is no stipulation as to whether that must be before or after the authorisation, there is also no stipulation that they must be the first speaker, a well constructed retort to somebody elses words could well be construed as a speech, as it should.  

I personally feel that a new leader should have at least engaged the masses with their own speech and thusly apologised but after giving the ruling a little more scrutiny realised that an apology was simply not necessary.  Regardless, it still stands.

Personally I wonder why it is so important for a fresh leader (or soon-to-be leader) needs to be active on the streets. Is there a random requirement of street presence? Visiting one street corner, visiting 2, 3,4,5? 8?

It's about the meaning and content of the speech, not the speech itself. I think forcing those up for auth to be active on the streets is counter-productive, but I'll see how it plays out.

Moss, where in here does it say that they must have made a speech "before" they purchase a headquarters?  Raincheck, it doesn't.

It says they need to have made themselves known in the streets which I believe was satisfied.  The "right of passage" speech that is inferred could be read both ways but there is no stipulation as to whether that must be before or after the authorisation, there is also no stipulation that they must be the first speaker, a well constructed retort to somebody elses words could well be construed as a speech, as it should.  

I personally feel that a new leader should have at least engaged the masses with their own speech and thusly apologised but after giving the ruling a little more scrutiny realised that an apology was simply not necessary.  Regardless, it still stands.

 It doesn't specifically say about the ins and outs of making a speech before the purchase of a headquarters, but it does mention about the singular speech as a right of passage. As you have rightly said, you believe that several responses to certain topics qualifies as the right of passage. Myself personally, if I looked at that rule I would think that a prospective candidate would have to offer a speech to qualify for having their own family. A speech.

Anyway, we are at an impasse. You believe your interpretation of speech, I believe mine. You have the district, I don't. Perhaps the rule needs more clarification to save future mistakes like this conversation now.

Ironically, a rule ascertaining to street activity has made me more active, at least for a day. I am sure I am the only one laughing at that.

If the point is for the soon to be leader to be known in the streets then Whor-able has not done that. No one knew they existed (Besides friends) in the streets. They were never seen there. Lancelot has been seen a few times here and there voicing an opinion.

Do I think they need a street speech they started? No. But if they are supposed to be known beforehand then why didn't she make more of an effort? Why didn't Spunky make her if he knew these rules were coming into effect? There was time to do so as far as I can tell.

Kalebear,

This, to me, would imply that Whor-able is either:

• Not interested in speaking on the streets.
• Has a limited ability to speak on the streets, or is uncertain of this ability
• Is content of their general silence on the streets.

All of which are completely fine to me. No need forcing upon those who do not want to share their opinion with the masses (that often/much). 

-Sovereign, I would naturally agree with you if it wasn't for what the Godfather Commission Rulings. Unfortunately they have set a ruling in regards to this before she was authed. If they want to be taken seriously on these rules I think they ought to be following them as well, not just when it's convenient.

Afghan-Mango, I personally know to expect a bullet when openly disrespecting anyone. Then again, our views on disrespect will differ. I did not really see anyone who was disrespecting the Godfathers or ridiculing their decision, but instead debating and arguing about the possibilities and limitations it creates.

Ivan listens over the arguments, and comments made by others. Some are better in others in the aspect of respect given where its due.

I get the fact that there was a takedown/removal of a city yesterday. I get that there was a "rat race" to see who can get the most out of the takedown and recruit the most people into their respective districts. However in my mind, I still think there is something missing. 

The Godfather Council has made these guidelines to which everyone agreed upon. Everyone literally meaning every district head. I mean thats what I gather from it. So every district head agreed to the following: 

Street presence requirement for new leader

A rudimentary level of street speaking ability must be demonstrated by a potential leader in order to qualify them for authorisation to set up a new family. This is not a demand for a strong or consistent presence but there is a need for them to have made themselves known in the streets. If a potential leader can't manage one single coherent speech as a 'right of passage' then there should be serious doubts about their all-round capability, intelligence and determination to lead.

This says that for a potential leader to qualify for authorization to set up a new family, they must ​demonstrate an ability to speak publicly. It continues to mention that this presence doesn't need to be strong or consistent, but the need to be known is there. IF a potential leader cannot manage one single speech, their should be serious doubts, about their ability to lead. 

Now I am a man that once lived under the heavy hammer and the sharp sickle. I know what it means to have a rule set forth, and to obey it by the tee. Rules are meant to be enforced, upheld even. Not interpreted to one's liking and convenience. Because if we cannot follow the rules set fourth by the GFC, why have them at all? Why have the set standards put fourth? Why all the wasted time in sit downs? 

I am quite impressed with the willingness to apologize from both district heads. I am very inclined to think they are genuinely sorry for overlooking this. However if I were the leaders that were just given the nod to set up, I would do everything in my power to overturn how others felt about this. I would be making my name known for all to see. After all, it is their district leader's respect and honor on the block. Not theirs. 

I truly hope the new leaders take this advice to mind and not think I am trying to belittle them. The time to belittle someone is over after the reign of the fallen regime. With that said, good luck Lancelot and Whor-able. Obviously you were meant to lead if you were given the nod.