KillEmAll I think he's referring to people who were gunned down for no reason, not those who got slapped by the rogue.

I'm not giving you specifics, my young Thuggy friend.

Those who matter have been spoken to and have access to the funds to compensate those who they feel deserve it. 

HypotheticalHarry can go and swing. 

"People had been dying for no reason prior to this, and HenriDucard everyone around who could not be vouched for or did not have there bloodline known had begin to be gun down."

So...you're saying if you couldn't be trusted, during a time of high tension and extreme duress, you died? I'm confused. Why would those in power not be taking absolutely every last precaution during times like these?

Aye MeinSchaft, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular with my example.  I was only putting out some stats just to see how much they were offering to the innocents that lost their lives yesterday "Hypothetical Harry" in other words.

On a more salty note, I'm sure they asked the Crewleaders for the victims if they had change for a dollar and those in the know just laughed it off and didn't give two shits.

HenriDucard before you get too invested their were quite a few people who were vouched for targeted in the mass wipe. This isn't mass hysteria, people were killed in mass with no explanation as to why, nor any warning of what would happen for the unreasonable crime of being alive and active at the wrong time (which wasn't just during the initial shot, it was hours later as well) regardless of whether or not they had been vouched and had evidence they were keeping their gun preoccupied in at least one case.

You guys and your cries of bloodlining. So silly every time.

People who don't get vouched for, get shot. This can occur whether your bloodline stems back to Adam or you are the bastard child of PrettyWittySpikeS. It comes down, as I've said before, to the trust you as an individual, have garnered with those in power. If you want to succeed, you need to stop worrying about bloodlines and let your grudges die.

Now, just before you all jump down my throat again for trying to explain how things actually work, which I might actually know given I'm actually there; some mistakes did occur yesterday. Whilst I'm sure it means nothing to you, I have offered my apologies to the Dons of those who were wrongly gunned down on my watch and have suggested policies which should be implemented in the future to limit this sort of thing. Funds have been set aside to ensure their dependents are taken care of.

Intentional Rule circumvention in a rather scummy way, not blood lining. You're not supposed to ask for bloodlines and you killed a lot of people "you didn't trust". Some of them were on a vouched for list, and others you never even reached out to their CL who could tell you (someone who they would have no plausible reason to feel the need to gain your trust in particular) if they were trustworthy or not, you just took a shot on quite a few people who it seems their only evidence of being untrustworthy was not turning in a bloodline on a shot report. If you start killing off people for not turning that in, you're effectively forcing them to turn it in or die whenever this sort of thing happens. Maybe this is a one off thing, maybe it's not, maybe someone steps forward with a log of this exact thing this time or next. I'd like to bring it to light just in case, because that is by far my favorite rule of the gods and nothing said here today has given me any confidence this won't actually happen again.

"Untrustworthy people die" is also a very shitty reason for people not on the in to not assume this type of thing will happen again, so going forward I'll be joining every rogue I see and to anyone reading this who isn't on the in, I suggest you something similar that fits your own agenda because there is now a history and admission of policy to mass kill anyone who happens to be on during a rogue.

ShotForPlaying, the shots taken yesterday which I was involved with had nothing to do with bloodline. I was there and I called the shots whilst I was, and at no point did I consider the bloodline of anyone who was shot before or after making that decision. Instead, I made prima facie decisions, as I always do. Information wasn't perfect, as it rarely is and some mistakes were made as I've already said. Choose to believe that or not.

TheStoryMan, I can't tell you where to go from here, that is for you to decide. I can only reiterate what I have already said; some mistakes were made, which if the new protocols are followed will not be repeated. As to your compensation, that would be the remit of your predecessors former down and I would imagine calling him a simpleton and an idiot is not really going to encourage him to cooperate.

Former down is a fancy way of saying former Don.

I will say, I do appreciate that someone is out here admitting that mistakes were made. I think it takes more leadership to admit when a person has done wrong and try to arrange some sort of compensation then to parade around acting like "what was done was done and get over it."

Anyone who knows me at all knows that I don't stand around ass kissing to try and get ahead. I tend to speak my mind rather bluntly and so lately not at all, just to be on the safe side. More often then not I agree with much of what the "nobodies" are saying, like in this situation. To kill people across the board simply because they were roaming the streets at the time a mysterious shot was taken is ridiculous, uncalled for and pathetic. 

We got that. It's been said, over and over and over again. LarryLongNeck is out here saying "You're right, some mistakes were made, we're going to do better moving forward and we're gonna make sure it doesn't happen again." Granted, it would be nice to see one or two others who were involved that night make the some concessions, but you can't have everything you wish for. 

So why keep arguing? Why keep pushing the issue? You're just making yourselves look silly, honestly.

Stefania - Why not?

You of all people should know why the points keep getting brought up, don't suddenly act like a saint now that you've wormed your way into a Las Vegas crew.

LarryLongNeck, you're asking myself and others to take it on good faith that you didn't use information you had access to. You're asking for faith and the right to secrecy, when you more than likely have evidence that could prove this all one way or another. Multiple sources (though you would be a better source and could prove or disprove this rumor) have stated you weren't even the one making some of the sketchier calls. If true, I would assume that means you're here because you're well spoken and you're here to reduce collateral damage or save face rather than provide accurate answers. Information is never perfect, but I'm struggling to understand what information you were working with if you weren't even reaching out to the hands or CLs of some of the people you shot? You (or whomever made the calls) didn't gather information, you (or whomever made the calls) ignored a vouched for list, and you never spoke with the victims about what they should and shouldn't be doing. Exactly what information were you working with if not just shot reports which include bloodline lineage?

Stefania, wait until you are on the end of such a stupid decision

Well, considering why my last ancestor was killed, I'd say I've 100% been on the end of such a stupid decision.

 You of all people should know why the points keep getting brought up, don't suddenly act like a saint now that you've wormed your way into a Las Vegas crew.

I'm hardly acting like a saint. I know why the point is being brought up, I know what it's being argued out. I'm saying that you're losing the argument. When someone steps up, admits wrong was done and talks about ways to improve, then you've lost. Your argument becomes pointless, silly and drawn out. Stop arguing and go live up to the threats you keep making. Words are empty unless you're going to back them up.  

So...you're saying if you couldn't be trusted, during a time of high tension and extreme duress, you died? I'm confused. Why would those in power not be taking absolutely every last precaution during times like these?

Ok and you expect me to chill and get shot,  not to long ago you were against them killing someone under made in a takedown.  But now its ok for someone to die for being online during the time lucky died. He did not die to the rogues, id have gladly taken some credit. I truly thought everyone in this country gave you a hard time, i see why now. Thay being said my father nor his friend killed lucky the first shot was from my father, shooting a member of his family. Evreyone killed between lucky and then id have loved to have killed you all trust me,  however i did not.  You were killed for being online when lucky died.  

I have nothing to prove to you. I feel I've demonstrated myself to be a man of my word and as I have absolutely no need to lie about this, why would I start now?

Anyway, I've told you what happened and that the Dons who had guys in their crew have been reached out to and procedures will now be followed to prevent this being a thing. As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of it. 

The point of the discussion was to give people a certainty as to whether or not they should feel they'll be killed for being on at the same time as a rogue, and later as information came out to confirm you aren't using nefarious methods to circumvent a rule. You're right, you don't have to prove anything to me. You should try to show people outside of the circle (even those on a vouched for list) they shouldn't just start shooting people they don't like every time a rogue pops up because they're going to die anyways, but you don't have to. You don't have to try to prove you aren't exclusively using sheets of data that only includes gun stats, body guard stats and bloodline to determine trust, but again you should because if you never prove you're not doing this and a set of logs should happen to go the gods at a point in time where this world is stagnant (and I would assume their sales are down) who knows what would happen? If you came here to save face, evidence or action more than Here's a small percentage of the amount we'd demand from a CL if one of ours with the exact same stats was killed might be more helpful.

Anyways, thanks for your input. Very little action taken isn't enough for me personally, maybe it is for others. 

You're welcome.

Ok and you expect me to chill and get shot,  not to long ago you were against them killing someone under made in a takedown.

No, but I do expect you and others to realize something. The people you are targeting are professionals. Whether you like their tactics, hate them completely, wish to suck on Dangleeball's scrotum, or could give a fuck less about what's going on, they've made it. This is undeniable.

Put their shoes on for a moment, if you will? Wouldn't you also do absolutely everything in your power to remain...in power? The facts have been mixed up here, somewhere, intentionally or otherwise. There were mistakes made, as has been owned up to.

I don't know all the facts, but I do know this... There are a handful or more of people, not in power, and not vouched for, who were around during these Rogues, who did not get shot. It wasn't a complete fucking blanket "if you're not us, you're dead" scenario.

In regards to the other bit of your comment there - please, find me a statement from myself saying such a thing? I am but a couple weeks into the life of crime and don't think I've witnessed a take-down. However, here are some differences for you to mull on.

This was not a take-down. This was not a war. This was a well organized threat, clearly intent on pandemonium and chaos. The choice to wipe the field with absolutely everyone those in power could not ONE HUNDRED PERCENT trust, while screaming "bloodlining" and "unfair" to some, makes sense to me.

Extreme actions warrant extreme reactions, we all know this.