After cleaning the blood off of his gun McDermott places it back into the rightful place it belongs, his holster. Flipping his jacket it around it and buttoning the front back up McDermott smiles and adjusts his tie.

Lately there has been some bloodshed and that is the catalyst to what has brought on this speech. Last night as sat back in my office chair at night going over the numbers and taking a moment to read a few chapters from one of the many books on myself I got caught in a thought.

What is the essence of a rogue?

Smiling in an evil and sadistic manor McDermott looks around.

We all say that a rogue is one that leaves his family, buys a family headquarters of their own and takes to shooting of other families. However I feel that isn't the case all the time.

Looking around at all the puzzled faces McDermott begins where he left off.

A great philosopher once said that "Nobody, he believes, knowingly does what is wrong: they always think that what they are doing is right." He then went on to ask if one could imagine someone saying "I know that this act is completely wrong and totally wicked, but I am going to do it anyway."

So my question to you is quite simple, what is the essence of a rogue? Not a single one of us does something that is pure wickedness without thinking it does good. Every hooker I have working the streets at this moment in time is making me money. Which is good for myself, the family, and the city I work for. Every person I kill does exactly the same.

When someone rogues what is their intentions? My guess would be that they are doing something they feel is right even though others may not agree, but there are people that may agree.

So, my last and final question is this. What if someone setup a family in Chicago? What if they even gave money to Godfather Roman and the other leaders in Chicago as way of business?

Waiting for a response.

To even sweeten the question at hand, what if they didn't fire a shot off in a single direction?

Would they still be considered a rogue? Even if it bettered Chicago and the crime families by offering new and inventive leadership would it still be deemed a rogue family? How? Why? What has it done that has caused harm to the crime world we know?

Pulling a piece of paper out of his pocket McDermott places the cut out on the milk crate in front of him.

rogue
Show Spelled [rohg] Show IPA noun, verb, rogued, ro•guing, adjective
-noun
1.
a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.
2.
a playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues.
3.
a tramp or vagabond.
4.
a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition.
5.
Biology . a usually inferior organism, esp. a plant, varying markedly from the normal.
-verb (used without object)
6.
to live or act as a rogue.
-verb (used with object)
7.
to cheat.
8.
to uproot or destroy (plants, etc., that do not conform to a desired standard).
9.
to perform this operation upon: to rogue a field.
-adjective
10.
(of an animal) having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition, as a rogue elephant.
11.
no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local.

After allowing sufficient time for everyone to read it McDermott clears his throat once more.

Now does what I asked sound like a rogue? Someone who is dishonest? No. Inferior? No. Cheating? No. Obedient, belonging or accepted? No.

Why? Because there would be no harm. There would not be a single crime that they would be guilty of aside from the fact that they weren't given permission. However would that not be able to be overlooked for a cool million dollars? Maybe.

So I personally have learned that throwing the word "Rogue" around so much is no longer proper.

Personally, I believe the term rogue is well outplayed now. The term for me is someone who intentionally decides to go against the set up authority in a city or within a family. With so many "rogues" being killed within the recent month here, I believe it will settle down until the children of those rogues get back to a state of power and history shall repeat itself.

What is to say though that "rogues" want to have power or they want to repeat history? Maybe the only power "rogues" would like is that to educate those in ways which have not been adopt by the current leadership.

Pausing for a moment.

Who knows maybe a "rogue" even though going against that of current leadership would setup and teach of something that even the current leaders of today didn't realize could exist? Something that made mafiosi even better at the crime and business they do.

That is really a valid point. Throughout history when a government was overthrown to produce an even better one, there have been people or "rogues" behind it. To them, maybe they wanted to create a better mafia life, but when people in a powerful position are threatened, like a don or godfather, they take out all who oppose them. Its really just all a system of power and who controls it all. The rogues may have bettered us all, or they could have destroyed us all, but either way whats done is done and if the powers that be are tested again they will lash out at the people they see as threats to their reign.

Again "Pardon" has to pull out the soap box

Rogue??? Why must we complain about this, it is the essence of the Street. If we did not have people who were willing to stir the pot then life itself would be really boring.

I can remember way way back during my history my Great great great etc. Dad was giving a chance to have a family.

On he went and welcomed the challange, he did well until the person who granted him the favour (His GF at the time) shot him dead.

Now would that be a ROGUE in todays standard... Maybe but I am not sure,

Either way our families are still on the streets and we meet each other from time to time and the amazing thing is that we are still friends.

So rogue or not the streets need them.

At least in my opinion.

After listening to jimmycicci McDermott pauses.

I'm quite glad you see the point I'm getting at, however you're missing the point. This said "rogue" did not shoot anyone or even come out and setup a new family to seek out control. He did it merely for the fact of bettering the world. He didn't get approval to do so, but has setup and attempting to lead.

Looking at Pardon with a confused look on his face McDermott thinks back to his initial speech.

Did I complain? I don't believe I did sir. I believe I'm merely setting the stage for a discussion of what the essence of a "rogue" is.

While the intentions of the indiviual may be completely docile and harmless - the act of buying out and leaving is disgraceful (considering that one has to be at least a mademan to setup a crew) As we saw more recently with Magua and his family - a mademan leaves his family under two conditions - with blessing or with a bullet.

There are only 2 types of rogue in this world, those who go rogue to take power and those who go rogue to cause chaos.

The sort of rogue you mentioned is unheard of, I can't say I've ever come across anyone simply setting up because they wanted to and then giving the city heads tribute despite not having their blessings to set up in the first place.

If this happened would this be a rogue too? Yes. Why? Because they've not had the blessing of the Godfather to set up, it's quite simple really.

"Now does what I asked sound like a rogue? Someone who is dishonest? No. Inferior? No. Cheating? No. Obedient, belonging or accepted? No"

I'm sorry but yes it does. They would have left their current family to set up in chicago, I assume that they would have done this without the blessing of their previous family head. So are they dishonest? Yes. They have left their family to set up on their own without the blessing of anyone. Inferior? Yes. They are inferior to the Godfathers, they are not above their authority so therefore they command none themselvs. Cheating? Yes. They have cheated their way to getting their button with hidden agendas and a lack of honesty. Obedient, belonging or accepted? No. They will be none of these as they WOULD be a rogue, so at least you got that one right.

The term rogue has been used a lot recently and when it's being used people are referring to one of the two examples I gave at the start of my speech. The recent rogues did none of the things you gave as your example of a rogue.

Domencio steps forward and speaks up.

"From a perspective of the family he left or if he never entered a family, it could be looked upon as someone who can't be trusted or someone who cheats his way in a system of established families that have existed and have a procedure of how you gain rank.  In my opinion, you can't just expect to walk off the boat or leave a family to start your own just because you made that decision.  So from a certain point of view, this person in question would be a rogue based on the definition you provided."

"In the end, if a Boss or a Godfather finds someone to have broken the order of things it will be handled accordingly." 

Crugeon hears a whisper and looks around to see Domencio's lips moving but little sound coming from them

Might be better if you talk up a little kid, we can barely hear you.

I understand the viewpoints in several ways but to get back to the original part of your discussion McDermott and reading the varied definitions of a rogue, I would disagree that none of them fit. # 11 states "no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local."

A person doing as you suggest, may not be harming a soul and it perhaps would end up in the best interest of the city in the long run except the person in question has chosen to defy his betters, defy mafioso traditions and spit in the face of who so ever might be the obligatory authority to name him as a leader.

Certainly it is possible to change our traditions but not by saying Oh - so and so just set up an HQ without auth but that is okay. Whenever we as a mafia society have changed traditional actions, it has been after a prolonged period of discussion and input from the Godfathers, leaders and often the Gods themselves.

For whatever my opinion is worth at rank of wiseguy, sir, until that has happened, a rogue is still a rogue and should not last in our society any longer then possible.

Domencio looks over at the man he has never met.  Smiles and walks away.  No reason to argue with someone who has nothing to add to the conversation.

Domencio, I'm fairly sure that CrugeonFletcher was only intimating that you were not speaking loudly enough and that you would find it easier to convey your point if you were to speak up.

To me, that added value to the conversation.

"Now does what I asked sound like a "rogue"? Someone who is dishonest? No. Inferior? No. Cheating? No. Obedient, belonging or accepted? No"

I'm sorry but yes it does. They would have left their current family to set up in chicago, I assume that they would have done this without the blessing of their previous family head. So are they dishonest? Yes. They have left their family to set up on their own without the blessing of anyone. Inferior? Yes. They are inferior to the Godfathers, they are not above their authority so therefore they command none themselvs. Cheating? Yes. They have cheated their way to getting their button with hidden agendas and a lack of honesty. Obedient, belonging or accepted? No. They will be none of these as they WOULD be a "rogue", so at least you got that one right.

Let's touch base on this CrugeonFletcher. Dishonest? How is it unfair that this "rogue" setup with out the authorization of his leader. He didn't lie, he never said that he would never buy a headquarters and begin his own family. Inferior? I think not, if this "rogue" has the money to buy a headquarters and money to kick up from said family then he obviously can provide. Also if he's gotten to the rank of Made Man then he is more than likely not inferior. He would have had to work for every single part of that rank learning about how business and crime is ran. Cheating? No they cheated no one from anything. They didn't have a hidden agenda or lack of honesty, if anything someone LACKED the questions to ask if this "rogue" had any desire to become a leader. Obedient, belonging or accepted? They maybe will to obey by a set of code but because they choose to write a new code that doesn't mean necessarily that they are not obedient. Belonging? They may not belong as a family head due to the fact they setup without approval, but they may actually belong there.

Rethinking his thoughts McDermott gathers himself.

I meant Obedient, belonging or accepted in the opposite way Mr. Fletcher. Anyhow back on point....

Thinks back to where he was.

Ah, right! You say that, "There are only 2 types of "rogue" in this world, those who go "rogue" to take power and those who go "rogue" to cause chaos."

However I disagree. Those whom have gone "rogue" in the past may fall in to those two categories in some ways however they all share the same thing. They all believe that they lead better than those who were presently leading. Those who go "rogue" for power obviously feel that those with power do not deserve power. Those that go "rogue" for chaos may perhaps be sick of the current leadership.

My point being with that, is the fact that every "rogue" has shared the common conception. They all believe they are better than the current leaders, that is what we presume though.

Going back to his original speech McDermott re collects some past thoughts.

Now, the "rogue" that I speak of does not wish for power or chaos. He does not wish for anything but the opportunity to teach the way of La Cosa Nostra different of leaders today. Much like if you sat down LaQuenta and Marcus. Both two different leaders, physically and mentally. However they are leaders nonetheless.

Looking over at Mr. Fletcher McDermott begins to smile.

I do have another question in particular for you. Have you ever asked every single "rogue" exactly why they did what they did? Or have you assumed that every "rogue" is hell bent for power and chaos?

Domencio looks over at Yawn.

"Just curious...Do you speak for him?  Maybe you should mind your own business and add to the conversation yourself..Tough Guy!" Domencio smirks and walks out of the crowd shaking his head...mumbling...

"Troublemakers...always starting something for no damn reason...bunch of punks."

Dishonest? How is it unfair that this "rogue" setup with out the authorization of his leader. He didn't lie, he never said that he would never buy a headquarters and begin his own family

It is dishonest as when you become Made you pledge your loyalty to your leader until they release you from your pledge or they die. They never said they wouldn't buy a HQ or begin their own family? So what? That means everyone who hasn't told their leader this can set up without being labelled a rogue? Not likely.

Inferior? I think not, if this "rogue" has the money to buy a headquarters and money to kick up from said family then he obviously can provide. Also if he's gotten to the rank of Made Man then he is more than likely not inferior. He would have had to work for every single part of that rank learning about how business and crime is ran.

Anyone who can buy a HQ and can send up a tribute is superior then? Not likely. If they've managed to get to the rank of Made Man congrats to them. However they are still inferior to the Godfather of that city and the authorised leaders who reside in that city, to say they aren't would be ridicuous.

Cheating? No they cheated no one from anything. They didn't have a hidden agenda or lack of honesty, if anything someone LACKED the questions to ask if this "rogue" had any desire to become a leader.

I can tell you now that at least 90% of the people around here have a desire to become a leader, so is there any real point of asking such a question? Not likely.

Belonging? They may not belong as a family head due to the fact they setup without approval, but they may actually belong there.

Just because they may have the ability to be a good leader doesn't give them the automatic right to set up because of this. A lot of people around have great potential to be great leaders, some people get their shot, others don't. That's just how this thing of ours is.

the fact that every "rogue" has shared the common conception. They all believe they are better than the current leaders, that is what we presume though.

You don't know this to be a fact though. Not every rogue may believe they are better than the current leaders, some do cause chaos for the sake of chaos, to mix things up a bit or go out with a bang.

Have you ever asked every single "rogue" exactly why they did what they did? Or have you assumed that every "rogue" is hell bent for power and chaos?

I assume this is rhetorical but I'll have a crack anyway. No I've not, but I'm pretty sure we are yet to see your type of rogue. Who knows though? Perhaps you can prove me wrong and become the first?

Domencio, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully. I do not enjoy such words, whether whispered or shouted, aimed at me.

Yawn was correct in his statement, it didn't take much sense to realise what I was getting at.

SINGERROURKE grabs a chair and sits down while eating popcorn with the local bums.

Oh yeah...This is getting good. Really good.

Smiling and listening to Mr. Fletcher speak McDermott waits patiently.

"No I've not, but I'm pretty sure we are yet to see your type of rogue. Who knows though? Perhaps you can prove me wrong and become the first?"

Have you noticed, especially from this statement alone that neither of us have been able to give a justifiably correct answer? Everything we both can say will be exact opposites, but we can't prove the other wrong.

Dishonest? How is it unfair that this "rogue" setup with out the authorization of his leader. He didn't lie, he never said that he would never buy a headquarters and begin his own family



It is dishonest as when you become Made you pledge your loyalty to your leader until they release you from your pledge or they die. They never said they wouldn't buy a HQ or begin their own family? So what? That means everyone who hasn't told their leader this can set up without being labelled a rogue? Not likely.

It is assumed to be dihonest, but the fact of the matter is that every mafiosi is in a constant of flux. No one mafiosi will be the exact same tomorrow as he was yesterday. Yes, they do not have the approval of their leader and the old code is once you're in you can't get out. However what about when someone is asked to RHM or LHM for another leader and they're Made Man+? Do they die? No. Do they more or less get the job, yes. Why? Because it's seen as a way to better the whole. That Made Man will be serving a higher purpose. Just like our "rogue" would be if he setup and did it without harming anyone.

Inferior? I think not, if this "rogue" has the money to buy a headquarters and money to kick up from said family then he obviously can provide. Also if he's gotten to the rank of Made Man then he is more than likely not inferior. He would have had to work for every single part of that rank learning about how business and crime is ran.



Anyone who can buy a HQ and can send up a tribute is superior then? Not likely. If they've managed to get to the rank of Made Man congrats to them. However they are still inferior to the Godfather of that city and the authorised leaders who reside in that city, to say they aren't would be ridicuous.

The only way your argument here makes sense is in the fact of rank. Yes, they are more than likely lower ranked than all leaders because leaders can only achieve Don if there is a Godfather. However does that make Marcus, DavyJones, Ragnarok or any other leader inferior strictly on rank? No. Why? Because they can sustain a family. They can provide protection, income, and other necessities to contribute. Just like our "rogue" that I've used for an example.

Cheating? No they cheated no one from anything. They didn't have a hidden agenda or lack of honesty, if anything someone LACKED the questions to ask if this "rogue" had any desire to become a leader.



I can tell you now that at least 90% of the people around here have a desire to become a leader, so is there any real point of asking such a question? Not likely.

I would like to see the demographic of this 90% you speak of. I know plenty of people that have turned down leadership and others who do not want to be a leader. You assume so many want something but many of those people do not understand the huge burden and task it is to lead.

Belonging? They may not belong as a family head due to the fact they setup without approval, but they may actually belong there.



Just because they may have the ability to be a good leader doesn't give them the automatic right to set up because of this. A lot of people around have great potential to be great leaders, some people get their shot, others don't. That's just how this thing of ours is.

This is probably the closest I will be to completely agreeing. However I have a "rogue" we're speaking of. We are using this "rogue" as an example to bend the rules. To take the chance in setting up without harming anyone and proving they are worthy of said position. They may not get approval from the get go but maybe the "rogue" earns it.

the fact that every "rogue" has shared the common conception. They all believe they are better than the current leaders, that is what we presume though.



You don't know this to be a fact though. Not every rogue may believe they are better than the current leaders, some do cause chaos for the sake of chaos, to mix things up a bit or go out with a bang.

I am willing to bet on this that when the old great gran dad Apathy, Jonnie_Reese and a fellow friend Animal took out the "CP". They felt that they were better leaders. They felt that they could lead better and they took the chance and took over the leadership at the time.

After taking a drink from his flask to quench his thirst McDermott smiles.

The "rogue" I'm using as an example though should be kept on subject. My point is to get away from "rogues" we assume to have known and get down to what every "rogue" really is. Yes, I will admit that we have yet to see a "rogue" like mine. However it so far has not been made clear why my "rogue" should be punishable in anyway. Yes we have perceived thoughts as to why this "rogue" should not be accepted but no one has yet to cold hardly say why a "rogue" such as mine doesn't deserve to be labeled something else. Aside from setting up without approval this "rogue" has yet to harm anyone other than a code thought up by some old men years upon years ago.

This is quite painful.

What is not justifiably correct? That your idea of a rogue shouldn't be classed as such? Call it what you will, in my eyes if they are not an authorised leader, they are a rogue. No matter if they want to create world peace and intend no harm to anyone, to me they're a rogue.

Mafioso's are usually released from their pledge when they go to join a family as a RH or LH, they don't just up and leave. Their current leader and themselves come to a mutual agreement, so in actual fact no, this is nothing like our rogue. There has been no mutual agreement.

When I spoke of inferior to the Leaders and Godfather in that city I didn't mean in the sense of rank other than in the case of the Godfather, the other leaders may or may not be of a higher rank than this rogue, however to say that the rogue would be superior or equal to these existing leaders would be a joke, you said yourself what if the rogue paid tribute to the leaders in chicago and the Godfather...If this is the case why would you pay tribute to those inferior or equal to yourself? You wouldn't, so therefore they would be superior to this rogue.

My % was an estimate, but you can bet there are a lot of people around who would want auth, however there are always those who wouldn't want it, that is why I didn't say 100%. However, my point was that there is no need to ask every person in your family if they want auth as a majority would say yes, this doesn't mean then that we should auth them because they want it or that if we neglect to ask them this that they should go rogue.

I'm quite shocked you see nothing wrong with such actions.

A guy pledges his loyalty to a leader and is introduced to a family, earning his button. Whether it be a week or a day, he then leaves the family and sets up in New York, without asking TheDean or any of his Underbosses for blessing he still goes ahead and sets up, he has no members and struggles to attract employees because he's not authorised, he therefore doesn't earn a great deal, meaning TheDean will not earn much profit from him being there anyway. He has shown disrespect to his previous leader, disrespect to his current Godfather, he has shown he is unreliable, unloyal and untrustworthy.

Now, from that scenario you see no wrong-doing? I sincerely hope not.