Totally with Goku here.

I'm here to get my district, my family and myself ahead of everybody else. If I see an opportunity that is more favourable than another, I will 'sound out' that option first. By the looks of it, Goku did just that... turns out it wasn't an option for him. So he's probably looked elsewhere and got a slightly worse deal, or is still looking and willing to accept worse terms than previously.

Sure, it's a ruthless tactic, but what business are we in exactly here?

I don't even think this is bad morals either. Just a sheer determination to get ahead. The only fault he made in my eyes is asking someone who likes to flap their gums about things publicly.

Kudos, Goku. Better luck next time.

I will say that this speech gives the listener a  false impression of what actually happened. We are told how this associate was visibly shaken and the speech makes it sound like the guy was cornered in some dark alley, ready to poop his pants.

That isn't actually the case though. The associate in question has shown us that he is more than capable to 'defend' himself. And the associate wasn't really put in a 'difficult bind' at all.

Bit bent.

The purpose of this was not to out the parties. It is clear he did that quite on his own.

Whilst I agree that going to a friend or close associate for a loan is not frowned upon, clearly the party here grossly overestimated the relationship, if he had not I'd likely never have heard about it.

Furthermore who are you to comment on the mentality at the time of the incident? Were you there?

We have seen some different views on the topic which is all this was designed for. Should you wish to comment on the bent nature of the discussion I'd seriously consider getting your facts correct.

If you feel your facts are in a row, I'd appreciate you sharing the correspondence that the associate sent through to me after this encounter, seeing as you feel you have the full picture of their state of mind.

*Zeitgeist is eager to read the evidence on which Goto has based this statement*

Who am I? I am Goto.

I have eyes and ears, and it's quite obvious what the mentality was looking at Mr. Jeddy's and Mr. Goku's comments. It's a different mentality than in your original speech at least. And no, I wasn't there. But I am not stupid, or at least I  take pride  in the fact of having an average level of intelligence. Bombarding Mr. Jeddy as an shaking and confused associate is not really accurate, right?

I don't claim to have a full picture. If Jeddy really reacted like this associate in the original speech, then boy, he certainly does differ from his forefathers. But then again, that is what he wants to do - distance himself from his ancestor?

Feel free to keep your correspondence. 

It is always refreshing to see a mobster so overwhelmingly arrogant he chooses to admit he doesn't have any proof but insists his average level of intelligence and his ego will be suffice to assure accuracy.

Never trust a man who refuses to admit he might be wrong... You still manage to take that a step further and have flat out refused to consider any correspondence that would prove otherwise.

Whilst your thoughts on this matter have been appreciated sir, I'd appreciate it if you might allow other members of our community a chance to speak on a matter pertaining to the issue posed. Not your psychological impressions of a relationship.

First off, I wonder why you think talking about my 'overwhelming' arrogance will help this discussion in any way, but if that suits you, carry on. I think your point was that I should not analyze others without clearly 'knowing' them? I suggest you do the same, so we can have a discussion without it getting to that thin line of disrespect towards each other. Maybe I was wrong in saying that Jeddy didn't act in any way like you described, perhaps he really came to you, shivering? 

I agree I don't have much proof except  a low level of contact with one of the two parties involved. Does it make me arrogant that I disagree with the way this situation was presented? Do I need proof for this? 

Well then, I have some sort of proof. When Cristian's bloodline announced his bloodline would retire from this world, Jeddy was quick to remind Cristian of his debts to Jeddy in a rather sharply-worded manner. Surely this indicates that Jeddy is a person who can defend himself rather well,  and his contributions to this 'discussion' have also shown us this. 

Any other members of the community are free to speak on the matter, just as much as I have the freedom to do so. At least, I feel you've cheated me here with giving me a first impression of the situation which is frankly untrue. 

Maybe you never intended this to be about the two parties involved, but it has, and I feel like the one-sided way this 'incident' was presented might have something to do with that. 

Really, how would you feel when someone came to the streets to tell a one-sided story, without mentioning names? You'd still know it was about you.

After listening to the entire discussion he decided to throw in his two cents.

"A loan should be a simple thing regardless of who it is between. Sure, the scenario that was originally presented may seem unedifying but as others have said, there are many additional factors that can come into play. 

Bottom line, if you want to arrange a loan and there is even the most remote concern about it, get both party's crew leaders involved to ensure the integrity of the deal and it's terms. All further concerns will then be mitigated."

TeQ, Goto, Goku. I feel you are all doing Comrade Zeitgeist a disservice - accusing him of twisting the narrative to suit his own agenda, a highly ironic charge given that you are doing precisely that yourselves.

Let's consider Zeitgeist's original framing of this debate. Given the subsequent responses, it seems that the relationship between Goku and Jedddy (or their bloodlines) is well known. Perhaps if Zeitgeist had mentioned the associate by name in his original speech, people may have suspected that the potential debtor in our cautionary tale was Goku. Did Zeitgeist do this? He did not. There are a mere 17 right hand men who walk these streets not including Zeitgeist himself, and a further 3 are from New York and couldn't be our potential debtors as Zeitgeist noted they were from another city. Did Zeitgeist refer to our potential debtor as a right hand man? He did not, he left the anonymous individuals status as that of a button guy.

I find it hard to believe that, from the way Zeitgeist framed this situation alone, they could have deduced that Goku was the involved party; I find it hard to blieve anyone who tells me that from this speech alone and in the possession of no 'outside' information they could have concluded that this Chicago Right Hand was the subject of this speech. I would go as far as to openly call that person a liar; there is nothing - nothing in Zeitgeist's speech that marks out Goku as the involved party.

I know Zeitgeist and I know his bloodline. He is an astute, intelligent man with a way with words. He had an axe to grind, had he genuinely wished to call out Goku in this matter, he'd have done one of two things. A, he'd had called him out directly and simply. B, he would have crafted his speech which obviously pointed the finger at Goku without every mentioning his name. He did neither of these things. He kept things vague - deliberately vague I would say - so as to discuss the underlying 'question' rather than the specific individuals involved.

The only reason that we are discussing the specific individuals involved is that Goku himself picked up the smoking gun by the barrel and burnt his hand in the process. I feel I must restate what I said earlier - those accusing Zeitgeist of twisting the narrative because he has an axe to grind ironically seem to be, well, twisting the narrative because they have an axe to grind.

Now I've addressed this frankly unnecessary sideshow, let me actually talk about the underlying 'issue' - and I will frame this practice as an issue as that is exactly how I would view it if one of my guys was an involved party.

I by no means assume Made Man to be a natural progression in my family. Before I open the books, either I or my inner circle will sit down with potential button guys and make sure they are aware of what the the rights and the responsibilities of the position entail. I tell them that as made men I would and will expect them to die for the greater good of my family, that's their responsibility. I also tell them that they should and will expect me to put my life on the line to right a situation in which they have been wronged or otherwise the victim of gross injustice, that's their right. In short, I stress to them the sacred bonds of comradeship are stronger even than blood, nationality or class. I stress to them that it's a two way street, that the relationship is one of reciprocity. I stress to them that as individuals we are weak, but united we become strong  - the single twig will snap, the bundle will bend but never break.

If, armed with this knowledge, my button guy, my brother chooses to go cap in hand to another city, they have categorically failed me. If my made guy embarks on such a course of action, they render all my words meaningless. Everything I say on the topic of how sacred our bonds of family and comradeship are ring hollow if they are not backed up with related action. My made men are made men because I trust them entirely. I trust them to to advise me and I trust them to represent me publicly. If they aren't even comfortable with approaching me for a loan then their counsel is useless to me; and going out of house for a loan is, in my opinion, poor representation indeed.

I mentioned earlier that my relationship with my button men is a two way street so let me also say this; if my made men categorically fail me, it is because I have categorically failed them first.  I talk in the streets about the emancipation of workers, about precipitating glorious revolution. If I do this without providing for those closest to me then I am little more then a fraud. If those closest to me seek outside assistance before they come to me, then I have clearly not explained or demonstrated the importance of our bonds adequately, and that is absolutely on me.

He did not. There are a mere 17 right hand men who walk these streets not including Zeitgeist himself, and a further 3 are from New York and couldn't be our potential debtors as Zeitgeist noted they were from another city. Did Zeitgeist refer to our potential debtor as a right hand man? He did not, he left the anonymous individuals status as that of a button guy.

So I thought, but then he mentioned this in a reply to my initial comment upon his speech: 

 I find it hard to believe that, from the way Zeitgeist framed this situation alone, they could have deduced that Goku was the involved party; I find it hard to believe anyone who tells me that from this speech alone and in the possession of no 'outside' information they could have concluded that this Chicago Right Hand was the subject of this speech. I would go as far as to openly call that person a liar; there is nothing - nothing in Zeitgeist's speech that marks out Goku as the involved party.

I don't say that anyone would automatically see that Mr. Goku was the subject of this speech. I said that the associate's behavior was misrepresented. And really, the 'underlying question' could have been asked without the little story.

The only reason that we are discussing the specific individuals involved is that Goku himself picked up the smoking gun by the barrel and burnt his hand in the process. 

I think I would have done the same. If someone made a speech which mentioned me without naming me, I would still try and set things right.

I feel I must restate what I said earlier - those accusing Zeitgeist of twisting the narrative because he has an axe to grind ironically seem to be, well, twisting the narrative because they have an axe to grind. 

I don't think so. My point is that the associate in the speech was misrepresenting the situation, which instantly gives the listener a  bias towards the concept of a 'shivering associate'. 

In short; I think this isn't and shouldn't be an issue, but it was made into one to ask 'underlying questions', even if there wasn't really a need for those questions, or for the story in the speech. 

It was just a guy approaching (what he thought was) an old friend for some financial aid. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. 

The truth of it is there are people in our world who will adopt an opposing position simply for the sake of it. Their defense of it is no less fierce but they don't speak from passion simply the desire to argue.

Whilst I had attempted not to personalize this, lets examine some facts.

The "shivering" associate was an appropriate framing mechanism for when a respected and powerful hand of another crime family comes up to a mere Wise Guy and looks to procure a loan because they were under the impression there fathers were close, these weren't two old friends meeting up for a chat or a loan. These people did not know each other personally, only via ancestry. Furthermore when Granddaddy Jeddy was expunged by the gods from our world this close friend didn't even say a word in his defense.  This friendship seemed of little consequence to Granddaddy Goku who was well to do. Which makes you wonder no? He also seems to have some memory lapses when it comes time to repay loans.

The fact that Goku chose to come out here and personalize it was his decision, the story presented was told in the first person as I experienced it. This wasn't a police report on the facts, this wasn't an historical document detailing the points of the day. This was the story presented from my point of view. So when you say it is subjective... Of course it is.

If I had genuinely felt annoyed or angry over this I'd have taken it to the proper channels and informed all parties of the situation. I didn't. I don't feel that is necessary as I don't think there is any precedent for it in our community. I did however want to present the information so that a discussion could be had over the PRINCIPLE not the PEOPLE.

There is nothing stopping anyone asking anyone else for a loan. All I was merely trying to ascertain is, since we are mobsters; do these sort of interest free, cross city, cross family loans, accurately reflect how we would be doing business? I just don't think so.

The truth of it is there are people in our world who will adopt an opposing position simply for the sake of it. Their defense of it is no less fierce but they don't speak from passion simply the desire to argue.

True, such people exist. Luckily, I am not one of them.

The "shivering" associate was an appropriate framing mechanism for when a respected and powerful hand of another crime family comes up to a mere Wise Guy and looks to procure a loan because they were under the impression there fathers were close, these weren't two old friends meeting up for a chat or a loan. These people did not know each other personally, only via ancestry. Furthermore when Granddaddy Jeddy was expunged by the gods from our world this close friend didn't even say a word in his defense.  This friendship seemed of little consequence to Granddaddy Goku who was well to do. Which makes you wonder no? He also seems to have some memory lapses when it comes time to repay loans.

Alright, I guess it's true that they weren't two old friends, but their ancestry were close enough in the past. He didn't say a word in his defense because his bloodline was not in this wonderful country of ours at the time. Not sure what that has to with this though. Plenty of people defended Jeddy (even though he didn't need to be defended), but still he has distanced himself from those old friends. 

To me there is nothing wrong with the principle. I see you disagree and that is fine. In the end no loan was given and there wasn't really a need to make a speech about it, in my opinion. However, you made one and now I'm here to disagree with your reasoning.