"To explain or not to explain...this is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to explain the wiping of families and death's of parents or to respect the deaths by not washing thine dirty laundry in the open for all your nosy, prodding-eyed neighbors to see."

--I think Shakespeare said that one. I may be paraphrasing. 

I'm not one to usually open questions and discussion in the streets; I've always thought there more wisdom in silence. That to say that one can learn more by simply listening rather than speaking. In fact, I only ever speak in these streets usually in part to "troll" people as the kids are saying. Making one's argument seem lesser and childish has been a source of pure entertainment. And I try to remain impartial in those conversations as I always deemed it important to be intellectually honest with myself. Sure, I may agree with a point you're making, but if you make the point like an idiot, I will mock you... And I'm always willing to hear another viewpoint on things. I'd never shoot an idea down for nothing unless I can give reason to shoot it down.

 So, if I am willing to come out here and open up a discussion, do trust that I mean this solely in an information-gathering type of manner in that I genuinely am curious in the logic behind what it is I wish to bring to the table. 

The Question: Are explanations on wipings necessary?

Now there's an obvious answer to each side (as that's the nature of debate), those who'd say yes tend to fall more on the lower-ranked side and may have a history of their family members being wiped before them. Those on the other side are usually those in power who, understandably, don't always feel the need to explain why they did something. Keep in mind, these are where the averages fall. There are always outliers. 

I feel the need to pose this question because I've noticed something in the last month. When I first arrived on these shores after my great grandfather moved back to the homeland for an extended period of time, I saw many leaders sharing reasons that certain crews were wiped, why this person was killed, why this city was cleaned out, etc. A couple months later, the leadership stopped explaining these sorts of occurrences as is their prerogative. What followed were the recently deceased's kids rushing into the streets demanding an explanation from a Godfather. Which is their own prerogative and I think most of us, if we take a step back, would understand why they'd want an explanation for the loss of a loved one... 

However, no matter if an explanation was given or if one was withheld, things always ended the same way: Arguments would arise. We have a powerful group of people who don't feel the need to explain themselves and an angry group who feels entitled to explanations. We all carry an opinion on this matter.

So, let me set this up a little better. The question has been stated, but let me just make my case for asking it.

No matter what, people always end up in heated arguments over what happened; explanation or not. A thorough explanation is given to the public to read and ask questions, but it's never satisfactory to those recently effected by murder. An explanation isn't given and again, the recently deceased's kids take to the street in anger and fury. So, if there's no appeasing the affected party in any capacity, why should leadership put time and effort into writing extensive memos to the public?

I encourage any and all who'd like to step up and explain their opinion's on the matter. All I ask is that we remain respectful. Let's have a debate, not an argument that plays host to petty threats and childish insults.

And again, I don't mean this in a combative manner, I sincerely am curious in the thought process of the opposite side! Enlighten me! 

Dub smiles and waits for those to step up and share.

It's an interesting question Dub, and one which I too can see both sides of the debate.

On the one hand, you have the recently deceased kin keen to learn what mistakes prompted their downfall, in order that they can avoid similar faux pas(es?) in the future. This side is usually the more emotionally charged side. Understandably so.

On the other hand, you have a regime, keen to keep some mystery to their dealings, which - as you rightly said - is their prerogative.

However, I think what you're failing to address is the wider audience; the families watching from the periphery. This is the group who are silently watching, hearing the arguments and internally passing judgement, and this is the group that I think deserve to hear the reasons, well, maybe deserve is the wrong adjective, but they are the ones who need to understand the reasons behind a removal, because they're the ones who will potentially be making the decision on whether or not to make a move on the regime at some point in the future, perhaps.

Sure, you don't have to explain your reasons if you have the power, but not giving just cause has the potential to make your removal come across as unnecessary, and an unnecessary removal will always leave a third party wondering whether their head will end up on the chopping block next - consciously or unconsciously, and paranoia is an extremely potent emotion.

As the old adage goes - there are three sides to any story; your side, my side and the truth. Personally, I always to hear both sides, so I can try to gauge the truth. Not hearing one side usually implies a certain amount of guilt in my eyes, which is why I like to hear the reasons for a removal.

But then again, what do I know? I'm but a fresh-faced nobody, just off the boat.

You bring up a good point, Dragan. Yes, one I had not previously thought about. Of course, I've been a third party 95% of the time in my life and my father himself was killed in a city-wide wiping. But even still, I find myself thinking that leadership must have their reasons. Anyone who would wipe somebody must have a reason lest they be sociopathic crazies. Even if the reason is as small as "This douchebag PP'd me without asking", it's a reason nonetheless. 

However, I must point out, even for 3rd party families, why should an explanation be warranted? You do make a good point, perhaps I'm playing a 'devil's advocate' role. There's a certain show of power that's being done with a leadership group feels the need to wipe a city, crew, or leader. Perhaps it's stronger to do so without explanation than to do so and explain to the third party crews why it was done? One of the 48 laws of Power is "Always say less than necessary". The idea being that powerful people should be able to intimidate despite saying less and, often, even impress. 

Furthermore, another law of Power states that it's important to keep other suspended in terror by cultivating an aura of unpredictability. Should leadership constantly explain the reasoning behind the cleansing of cities, crew, and other leaders, that becomes predictable when people figure out the "code" so to speak. The certain things that set leadership off. 

There's certain positives to both sides, but I feel like, when seeking to hold power and intimidate potential coups (as we are seeing now), perhaps it's wiser in the long run to not grant explanation in order to keep an air of unpredictability by always saying less than necessary?

You do bring up a good point though in that I didn't think about 3rd party crews. Good catch.

There is nothing that has ever been created, done or said which has ever appeased everyone. For every action there is always a reaction, so it only makes sense to plan for that reaction. Whether you post an explanation or not there will likely be arguments in the streets or in private regarding your actions. Seems smarter from a PR standpoint to post an explanation. Give context to help control how certain variables around you react; rather than allow the speculations of the uninformed run rampant.

History is written by the victors.

I disagree, Jodas. Correct, there's always a reaction, however that reaction doesn't need to be arguments. Doing/saying nothing about it is also a reaction to it. Yes, you're right that whether a reason is given or not there will be arguments, that I did say. But I don't think there's a point in trying to secure PR (Public Relations for those who don't know). 

As I mentioned to Dragan, creating an aura of unpredictability by always saying less than necessary is a powerful tool. I mean, the killing of one Corrupt Agent ultimately led, after other interactions, to the complete downfall of an entire district. 

Good on LarryLongNeck for feeling like he owed the general populace some explanation into what happened, but its certainly a power move to keep the populace wondering what the hell happened to warrant an entire district getting wiped, don't you think? Actions speak louder than words. 

As far as sharing the reason to control variables around you, that's not necessary for the leadership right now because of the sheer numbers of them. The attacks that we're seeing are highly coordinated between the entire leadership. The relationship between CH leadership and LV leadership is none of my concern, but I know they're friendly and both sides have helped the other in wars in the past. So when you have 16/24 crews in the US all on the same page, I don't think feeling obligated to share the reasonings behind an attack for PR's sake makes sense.

As a side note: History is written by the victors only when the losers can't speak. 

I didn't mean reactions being the arguments. I meant the emotional & physical reactions beyond that of a mere post in a thread. The change of how somebody views you, the risk that a friend will become an enemy, the life of a loved one being taken, two of your enemies find common ground, etc.

I am quite new here, so I do not have the level of experience as most of you as to how exactly everything works. I can only speak from my experience in other streets. You say there are 16/24 which are on the same page, but are they really? How do you know there aren't a handful within the inner circle who simply go along with the majority for self preservation. These people have tipping points. Typically the larger & more powerful organizations tend to fall from within. At some point, the pages get turned due to an intentional action or the misunderstanding of an action and that begins the downfall.

And yes, while the dead may speak here....their voices are often overpowered by the victors and ignored by the crowds.

My n00b cents anyway :)

"It constantly amazes me, how often people talk about all the silent folks who aren't going rogue as if they only remain loyal out of fear or apathy; or worse a foolish belief they will never be shot if they just pass money up the line and do what they are told."  Lucy shakes her head.  

"You know, you are right about that last one though... if you're so foolish as to believe you can work in this business and NOT have a target on your back, you've missed the point.  If you're young, listen up, EVERYONE who lives this life is marked.  The grim reaper will eventually have his hands on all of us.  How you play, what you do or don't do, it doesn't prevent that... it just determines how fast it happens and by whose hand you go down.  The faster you realize that NOTHING you do in this life matters a hill of beans to anyone else, the faster you'll be able to sit back and enjoy the ride."

"You signed up to be shot, and die young.  If there are 500 made men in all of Las Vegas, there will only ever be a fixed number of Chairmen.  And the odds of you being one aren't good.  The odds ALWAYS favors the house.  That's a known fact.  If you don't want to gamble, don't go into a casino - you only sound like a rube when you come out with empty pockets time and again.  And to be clear, if you're here - even if you're not shootin' at nobody... you're in the casino & you're playing."  

"Worst part is, the person who is hated most in all of Vegas... is the biggest winner.  So while you complain today about coming out of the casino broke time and again... once you win, and everyone is shooting at you - talking trash about your evil regime, you'll be bitching about that too."

She looks to Dub.  "So no, I don't think there's any point in explaining things.  People who complain will always complain.  The dead are dead.  Your explanations don't change any of that and besides, we should all realize that Charon's due is the price of doing business.  It's nothing personal.  If folks don't want to pay the ferryman eventually, they shouldn't play."

"Of course, that isn't going to happen.  As a rule, common sense is not all that common.  Heck, most folks can't figure out that discussions like this are started just so the loyal can pick apart the words of the most vocal and deduce who is starting to lean the wrong way anyhow."  Lucy chuckles.