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 is a statement from Godfather Curtis, it can be found here for those who wish to question it. With that being said, Chicago your two most recent auths go against everything this statement is about. You authed two leaders in a post war haze in attempts to refill your damaged city. At the core of your decision, I understand it. What I don't understand is how you just wish to brush aside the changes we are attempting to create here. For years people have bitched and moaned about mute leaders, about leaders who get a bold suit then never leave their HQs. Well the above plan was put in place to help change those situations. 

I'm sure you'll come out here and attempt to dress up the situation. You'll tell me they're vocal guys/gals and they'll speak more, but the proof is currently in the pudding. Thanks to information provided to us by the gods, neither of them combined has said ten things in a public manner. That is slipping back to a standard that we do not wish to see return. My concerns here today are not personal, I'm bringing this discussion to the public because it needs to be discussed. I have no desire to see mute leaders receive bold suits, and I am not alone in my thoughts here.

Just out of curiosity that I have on this rule and since it is being brought up again in a Street Thread that does not have an insane amount of posts in it making it hard to find an answer to my question I will say it here. What exactly is the definition of Street Presence we are trying to uphold here? Is it just speaking on topics raised by the public or is it posting Street Threads in general?

If it is posting Street Threads in general I do not quite understand this ruling and hopefully somebody can address my questioning on it because in my opinion I have seen quite a few threads go up by the Leaders who post it a day before or after they go bold and my question is why is this something needed. I have read these threads and found them to be a complete crock and they were only posted out of fear of dying had they not posted them.

So this is my thing that I want to know about because I think if something is being asked in the Streets that Crew Leaders could answer better than others then they should be posting in these and this should be something that should count towards this presence. If this is already the case than don't mind this part but I definitely want to try to clarify this for myself at the very least if not others who may be curious as well.

Definitely not alone there, Sir. I am tired of mute 'leaders' also. There was a time before when having street-smarts was looked favourably upon and our streets flourished for it. A couple of my ancestors have led city's and demanded anyone who was looking to move further up the ladder be street active.

My reasoning is simple, I cannot find out everything I want to about a person just from 1-on-1 conversations. I need to know how they react when the spotlight is on them publicly. If you cannot hold your own in a battle of wits with someone in the streets, how do I know you're not going to fold when the heat is on

Reactions can be oh-so-different when they're to the masses. A leader is going to have to deal with the masses at some point. The streets are a great nursery for just that.

The excuse of 'oh they'll get out there now they're bold' is not a reasonable one either. Sheep leading sheep.

Well, I've learned from personal experience that having an opinion on things, and having a personality, are detrimental to leadership in this thing of ours.

There seem to be two lines of thought on what makes a leader qualified.

One is that they have a presence in public. This is the line of thought I subscribe to. The other line of thought is that they make their current leader a boatload of money. That's it. That's all that qualifies them to be a leader themselves. And if you do form an opinion on something, or start to show the barest hint of a personality, you'll be shut down quickly and told to get back in line, that all that matters is making money and not ruffling feathers.

Me? I'd much rather follow someone who doesn't have a problem with ruffling feathers. At least I know they're a real person, not an animatronic piggy bank.

You authed two leaders in a post war haze in attempts to refill your damaged city. At the core of your decision, I understand it.

 Naturally.

What I don't understand is how you just wish to brush aside the changes we are attempting to create here. For years people have bitched and moaned about mute leaders, about leaders who get a bold suit then never leave their HQs. Well the above plan was put in place to help change those situations. 

 Is this (https://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/543569#9708102) considered as a 'single coherent speech'? If not, I do not really understand the requirements. The concept is nice, but in reality it's more of a soon-to-be-bold person making an uninspired, forced speech that they probably wouldn't have done otherwise. And yes, Gin didn't really make himself known all that much, but I do not find that important. If South Side thinks Gin is capable enough, and we haven't seen reason to think otherwise, who are we to argue? Are we denying that he is competent based upon the fact that he didn't make some forced half-assed speech?

If anyone, even a (potential) leader, has no desire to speak his mind publicly and keep his opinions to himself, I feel he should be able to do so. The 'plan' doesn't solve it, it's merely there for good looks.

And here we were again, discussing things the Godfather commission had already ruled upon and straightened out, Scarfo thought, as he set upon the crowd gathered. He removed his fedora, brushed his free hand through his hair and addressed those in attendance.

"Yet again the same things get said, even though they already been answered by the Godfather who put up the sign to begin with, and other Godfathers who were a part of the council that came to the decision that more street presence was necessary to tie in with being given authority to lead a crew. Even Ragnarok again mentioned the reasons why the rules were put in place."

After feeling like he had the crowds attention, Scarfo moved himself to a spot more visible and returned his fedora to his head. He gave it a little tap on the top to give it some staying power, then proceeded.

"I don't think it's a hard thing to grasp, that the leaders of our thing want those authorised to run a crew, to be able to hold a straight forward speech in the streets. If they haven't done so up until the point of being given the nod, then they are obviously doing it there and then out of respect for the rules put in place, and to demonstrate they can do what is required of them, and what our Godfathers expect of them."

Scarfo recognized a few faces present, especially that of Fear who he had ties with in South Philadelphia. He glanced around at the others gathered, and gathering, as he continued.

"I for one agree with the rules set in place, but also if I didn't, I'd still follow them regardless. Those that are in power, make the rules. We can argue them all day, but what exactly will that do? I hate paying taxes, but if I fail to do that, then I'll get into shit. Rules exist for a reason, and although we may not agree with them, what can we really do about it? And how far will our complaining really get us?"

If this.. rule has been followed we would have a thread that would likely have to do with one on the following subjects: 

• Loyalty
• Guns
• Street presence
• Respect/disrespect
• 'Slipping standards' and how to improve them.

The result is a forced, uninspiring, boring, emotionless rehash of the same old topics. That isn't what I want to see from a leader! I want to see them on the streets, but only if they want to. If you force some level on street speaking on them, I think it really sucks out the energy and passion. That ain't fun. When I see one of those soon-to-be-bold's, and I hear them speaking I just know it's because they're setting up soon and they have to let the masses know they can speak. I would rather find this out by actually hearing hem when he/she thinks it is necessary for him/her to talk. 

We shouldn't focus on the streets, we should focus on leading a family. Of course I like it when I see a leader speak on the streets, but only if what I hear actually sounds inspiring and interesting to me. This isn't a solution to anything - it's just there to make everything look pretty.

Ok I'll try and address this as best I can before the topic gets too broad to cover in one comment.

Firstly, the Gofather Commission ruling has been explained at considerable length in the speech that Ragnarok quoted. I will quote a later portion of the same discussion here in an attempt at further clarification on why this was implemented:

"The rule about street presence is meant to simply give additional assurance that a new leader is not a complete cretin. That they have the capacity for coherent speech and can participate in a clearly worded conversation. 

We all know that leadership involves many skills. At times the least of those required skills will be the ability to speak in public. However, at some point during a leader's reign they will almost certainly be called upon to speak in public. Whether that is to make an announcement, support a family members's efforts or respond to someone calling them out, they do need the ability to speak, should it be called upon.

Therefore, the need to demonstrate that ability, whether through participation in discussions such as this, or through starting a speech or discussion of their own, is a requirement for auth under this regime. "

Now, as Fear, TeQ, Job, Rags and a myriad of other people have said and keep saying, you all prefer vocal leaders. Me too. I would like to see a return to the days of it being impossible to even be considered for auth unless you had an established and respected street presence. This was my position when the Godfather Commission were in discussion on this very issue. It must be said however that my position was pointed out as being somewhat antiquated in the current society and in that discussion, the majority vote felt that although they liked leaders who spoke, they didn't feel it was a required ability in order to lead a family. I accepted the votes and opinions of the other members and that has been that.

As for the type of speech that would be required. It was always my assumption that if only one street speech was going to be made in order to prove street competence, then it should have to be a discussion that the speaker would have to participate in. One where they would be forced to defend their position against conflicting opinions. Not a bit of role play that did not force the candidate to demonstrate any of these qualities. 

Personally, I will only ever auth vocal leaders. That is just my view. 

Now, on to specifics of each case here:

Well, I've learned from personal experience that having an opinion on things, and having a personality, are detrimental to leadership in this thing of ours.

What absolute bollocks. Really? Are you going to point fingers at the incredible line of great leaders that have ruled this thing of ours and say they didn't have strong opinions on things? They all did, it was part of what made them great. You might want to give that comment more than an additional three seconds thought and reconsider it. As for the rest of your point Job, I couldn't agree more.

With regard to the two auths that popped up in the last few hours. NealCaffrey authed PeterBurke and, regardless of my personal feeling toward the type of street appearance he made, Peter did fulfill the requirements of the ruling before he became a leader.

In regard to Gin setting up. Neither of these prerequisites for auth were met. This may well be down to post war confusion as has happened in the past but it is something we are currently looking into.

As he stands absorbing the lively debate, Peter chuckles to himself at the riposte reply afforded to the original speaker by his old friend, Goto, and the subsequent lack of rebuttal.

Ragarnok, I'm not entirely sure what has made you come out to a public platform and openly question not only the two new authed leaders, but also the two leaders who authed those players (so essentially you've called out four leaders in one fell swoop).

Granted, at my tender age, my visits to these streets have been mainly confined to the Business District of the city, but, as Goto has pointed out - a rudimentary level of street presence has been afforded to myself at least, as has been stated as being a requirement by the current GFC.

Taking a breath, more for effect than anything, Peter surveys the growing audience and returns his attention to the original speaker:

Whilst I commend your pro-active approach to keeping the streets populated, I would suggest that a modicum of respect should be shown to leaders of this thing of ours, irrespective of your personal feeling towards them, especially considering you know the reason these auths have happened and actually commented on that in your initial speech.

But then again, it isn't my place to question what happens in New York, you have fine leaders there, perfectly capable of running their own city, as the leaders of Chicago are perfectly capable of running their own city.

I don't recall him 'calling out' anyone, Peter. He is asking why the rule has not been followed, if he spoke those words anywhere else but on the streets would you have taken it as such a 'shunning', that you accuse him of calling out 4 leaders?

If you believe that bringing something to the attention of the masses is disrespectful then that's your perogative. I fail to see anywhere that Ragnarok made this personal yet you seem to think he has some sort of vendetta against your boss(es).

Why do you feel that because people are in a bold suit they automatically command respect? Have you not seen the long line of retards that have had to be put out to pasture after being given the bold suit?

You do not command any more respect than your lowest ranking member because I do not know you. You've kept yourself well insulated during your 22 days in this world. 

What have you done to earn the respect of myself or Ragnarok? You're telling us to trust your boss' judgement because he's the one who has the power to put you in your position... but I don't have a clue who he is either!

Do I need to repeat the old adage? 

Respect is earned, not given.

A leader is Exactly what the Council is trying to portray they are the image the voice of what they wish to represent you can not do this in the shadows, nor is it up to associates to throw there Potential dons image around, we are all individuals leading life's by rules set worth by those we wish to serve, if we do not like it can we change it possibly, this is where a leader needs to step worth show they stand behind what they want there family to come across at

How do you follow someone who does not show face? i would ask if they exist

I don't understand. You make a speech about how the requirements wasn't fulfilled according to your liking, but now you admit that it was fulfilled? I'm a bit confused. 

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.

He has done this.

 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.

We have seen that he is indeed capable of speaking, although not much, but there is no suggestion as to how much content the speech should have.

All should be good then, now, surely? I follow someone because I trust, like, or respect them. Not because they made some stupid thread because they had to.

Scarfo listened to Goto voice his response, right after he had previously address the crowd. He also waited briefly as others stepped up with gusto to voice their opinion, including the Godfather who came to the same streets with the original rulings some were questioning, many weeks prior.

After the responses had died done, Scarfo made his way casually over to Goto. He made himself visible and made sure they had eye contact, before speaking. A definite train of thought aroused in his mind when Goto had initially spoken, and Scarfo felt the time was right to engage him regarding his words, as best he remembered them.

"I actually agree that making an appearing in the streets just for the sake of appearing isn't the way to go, and the interactions and discussions that come out of it can be rehashes and lifeless. As it being forced to take a shit when you don't really need to take one. Shit just happens, and shouldn't be forced."

After feeling like he had his attention with the rather crude example, he continued speaking. Others within the area and those attending the discussion could possibly hear what was being said if they paid attention, as most were within an earshot.

"Leadership goes beyond the ability to speak, and it's only a part of what makes a leader influential. But, it is a part. I feel the rule exists not to force people to do things they don't want to do, but to test their ability of leadership in this area, so others can get a better idea of their complete skillset. After all, those newer to these shores may not have anything else to go by but a Leader's street presence."

Scarfo shuffled his stance as he took a breath. He was getting a little antsy and needed a stiff drink. The day was just starting, yet he'd had a bust twenty four hours helping newcomers find a home, and extending protection of his own to those thrust into this thing of ours. He wasn't exactly a heavy drinker, but liked the perks, one being it took the edge off and calmed the nerves.

I can agree with your way of thinking.

But, if this rule is indeed there to test their ability of leadership, and thus their ability to speak, I find the results rather disappointment. I don't feel anything close to seeing someone as a 'good leader' when I see these speeches being done a few hours before setting up. It's lackluster, and that is my primary complaint.

Scarfo nodded his head assertively in response, with a tip of the brim of his fedora immediately following.

"And that, I wholeheartedly agree on. Hopefully these rules are just a start to something better in the coming future. It's not ideal, but it seems to be a step in the right direction."

Perhaps my choice of words here has been somewhat clumsy, and I would attribute that to being weary from lack of sleep and a sudden influx of work - it has been a long few days for me, as well as Chicago as a whole. However as I have explained - the requirements, as they are, have been fulfilled, so questioning the extent or the calibre of any speeches that I may or may not have made during my short time here will not change the fact that those requirements have been met, contrary to Ragarnok's initial complaint that two crew leaders set up without any sort of street presence.

Do I feel slighted by Rag's speech? Not particularly. I'm a big boy and I can take criticism as well as I can dish it out. Personally, like many others, I appreciate an erudite leader who knows how to explain their actions eloquently, and I applaud the current ruling elite for making it a prerequisite, however in my situation, a street speech has indeed been made and verified as acceptable, so the suggestion that I have intentionally circumvented the requirements is factually inaccurate. The requirements were met and as a show of intent, I am here discussing these matters despite a paltry 4 hours of sleep.

As I said previously - I fully commend you on trying to keep the streets a lively place, worthy of visiting, but I personally feel that whilst the end result may have been pushed ahead of time, the nuts and bolts have all been put in place ahead of time also.

*Zeitgeist approaches the masses with a few thoughts on his mind*

I remember when my father told me about the implementation of this legislation. His exact thoughts were "I love this, it's truly a legitimate effort to improve the quality of new leaders in our world, but; I seriously doubt this will ever happen".

Standing here today I remember those words and whilst Gins death is a regrettable outcome, it does serve as a notice that the Godfather council is serious about enforcing their laws and they are serious about the quality of leaders in our community.

People will go back and forth about the merits and the reasons and how the system can be abused. Ultimately leaders need to be vocal in our streets, they need to have the respect to follow the rules placed by our Godfathers. It is a hard lesson to learn but one we can all benefit from and above all one our community will benefit from.