Gollum scales the walls and jumps down to the back alley and finds his way into the streets. It was the first time he had ever spoken publicly except for the times he lost the competitions he entered in for. He decides to ask a question not for argument but for clarity. 

To shoot or not to shoot, that is the question my precious...

We have seen many wars in the past few days, Vegas and Los Angeles, and one question that is left looming above my head and many others is why are those that are not made shot and killed? In one war we had everyone killed, absolutely obliterated. In the other there was a specific request that no one else be harmed. One could make the argument that it is of no point because they are so little ranked and pose no threat. One could say it is not honorable to shoot a mafioso who has yet to make their bones. That it is dumb to shoot poor helpless gangsters and wise guys. However one could make the response somewhat simple by saying if you are not with us you are against us. If you are going to join up with another family then you are not just against me but my family as well. You offered them your time and money to help my enemy prosper. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. 

Because i am still figuring out this life and how it is all to be run i think it is fair for me to ask this question. Is their a certain code of conduct that is to be followed and if so why? Does this code still apply today and if it does, should it? Is it really honorable to shoot everyone who is made and not shoot anyone below? 

Gollum starts randomly jumping around the street awaiting a response from any more full of knowledge than himself. 

Cipher puts down his puzzle box and approaches Gollum

when one thinks about war there is only POW's and the dead when it all boils down to it. it makes no sense to keep your enemy alive after their leader has passed on.

anyone who sports a loyalty patch on their storefront or their attire to your enemy is and always should be fair game regardless of rank as you do not want someone loyal to the person you and your family have just slain to stay alive. that is just asking for trouble!

and just think, those still alive after a war...are they really innocent? if they are alive they did not fight for their leader. and in my experience disloyalty with it brings a whole other set of problems, however if someone is and or was disloyal to their leader what makes you think they will be loyal to ones self

the only true innocents in war are civilians all else must perish at the hands of the victors

ive heard stories in the past of orders to keep people alive after their leader retires from a life of crime however that should only be the situation in which lives are spared

war is war and with it brings a inherent danger for all involved

Cipher returns to his puzzle box which clicks away as he rotates and pulls on its casing

History is written by the victors. If the victor wishes to spare the followers of his defeated foe, then such is his right. Likewise, if he wishes to end them, then...well that's his choice.

I agree that the victors choose if everybody is to be killed or not. To be honest, I don't think it makes too much sense to allow people to survive and join other crews. I can understand why it is done, but I still think that not much is lost and if things are done the right way, overall losses can be kept to a minimum. 

If my comment sounds too ambiguous or unclear, you can ask me privately over a cup of coffee. I hear street sweepers are out on full force and I hate censorship so I just won't give them cause to strike my words since we have recently been denied tools that had been in use for generations.

Personally I find it strange that when wars happen and low ranks get killed that not all low ranks are killed. It doesn't make sense to kill some and save others. Unless there is some sort of favoritism or glory of playing God involved. If you start with killing everyone, then everyone should be killed.

During wars I hate seeing people above Made Man saved because those are the people that are supposed to be loyal to their leaders. If they can so easily jump into their enemies families then can they truly be trusted to be loyal? Loyalty is a big thing I think. Someone on another street corner asked if people could tell the difference between friends and family. There should be a line, but there is so much blurring it that I can hardly blame people for forgetting that family comes first. It should always come first.

Do I think the lower ranks should be killed? Eh.. If it were all carbon copies of me then perhaps. Even at such a low rank I value loyalty above all else. Does everyone? Probably not. We all value things differently.

However, when deciding to shoot families during war then I would suggest maybe if you are going to shoot all ranks, then shoot all ranks. No survivors. Show that your family is more important than the lives of the enemies. After all if you were worried about your family getting attacked or others getting revenge if they were left alive, gangsters do rank up eventually. They can pose as a threat later on down the road.

As far as certain codes go, I am not sure anymore. I can only give you my thoughts as I see the matter.

Amado Carillo (also known as Lord of The Skies) smiles to hear what Gollum has said, and walks down to him and says: Hey Gollum, Rule is Simple, Kill everyone so that no one can revenge back. I would offer them a chance to join me, if not I would shoot them. But anyways, That is what i would do. Bye

''Not all associates are innocent. Well, none of us is really innocent, but you get what I mean. Ultimately it's up to the victor to decide whether there will be a protection order or not, but I think having a protection order in place is better received by the general public. Those who are Made are understood to be part of the family, and thus should die with the family. Of lower ranks the lines are blurred sometimes, and a decision has to be made.''

Personally, I believe in only taking out the problematic person. I don't like mass punishments for one offense.

Personally, I believe in only taking out the problematic person. I don't like mass punishments for one offense.

I totally agree there. Or even more persons is O.K., if those may be problematic too, too linked to problematic ones, or would apear to be a risk for family business in the future. One should think when deciding, that if he spares some innocent lifes, he has greater chances of being  spared at another time. Vendetta spares lifes very rarely...