Domencio, I would advise against calling people you do not know, who are higher ranked and in another city out in the streets. You've already heard one New Yorker say how they are not impressed with your response, now there is another. Mind your tongue in future please.

Domencio speaks up sense certain people have trouble hearing...

"I am not calling anyone out...you both should have stayed on point and refocused your energy in a better direction.  Though making threats is something that will not silence me...Yawn, as I said the only reason you said anything was to inject yourself into something that was none of your business in the first place.  You can suck his dick somewhere else!  And Fletcher...go FUCK yourself...DiD you hear that loud and clear?"

To leave for RH or LH would be a mutual agreement but you were saying that the only way out is by death etc. As Maguas Made men+ found out.

Nowhere not once did I say that this "rogue" would be superior or equal. I simply defended the fact that of the "rogue" being inferior, because by definition aside from rank he would not be inferior. If you think I'm wrong please do visit a library.

As for your argument about %'s, you assume people would take auth. However many don't even achieve the rank required to do so or know what it truly means.

Smiling McDermott looks at Mr. Fletcher.

Have you not noticed every single argument you've come up with for me has not been about the "rogue" I asked about at all Mr. Fletcher? You base everything you know on past rogues and what you assume their reasons and intentions to have been. Now you throw at me a scenario of New York about a "rogue" of your own.

However you still have yet to answer my question and my scenario. I might suggest start thinking more theoretically and answer my questions instead of coming up with a whole other scenario that plays nothing onto the subject I brought up that you have yet to answer.

You say this is quite painful then quit trying to answer something that has no answer to it. What I'm going at is the inner reason, not the "Oh some big bad guy has setup a family! Shoot him!". Hence why I drew up my "rogue" and made him out to be peaceful yet rule breaking. Why? Because almost every great mind at some point in life went against the grain for the betterment of society. However the "rogue" you've drawn up plays to the dark side of everything and to what you think you know about "rogues".

There actually is talk in an ancestor of mine's diary of a "rogue" who set up not only with good intentions to be able to take in the homeless but also to aid my ancestor and the other powerful family in a war. He did well at helping, never once showed any disrespect or threat in any way other then to the opposing side of the war. Once the war was over, my ancestor and the other power at the time were faced with the fact that though with all good intentions and follow through on those intentions, it boiled down to simply the fact that he had not been authed. They battled their way through their own feelings and opinions plus the multitudes of messages received but finally it was decided that despite the good he had done, he was outside of the tradition and we as mafioso follow tradition to the letter, though less nowadays then we did then.

So, the sad and unfortunate decision was made to take him out and was accomplished. This brings me back to my point earlier about how traditions are formed and changed in our world. Sad situation that it was, there had been no discussion prior to this man's setting up his HQ and therefore he was shot. Regretfully? Yes. Wishes made that he had contacted the appropriate people first? Yes Would he have been a good leader and beneficial to our world? Yes. Was he authorized by anyone to set up? No, end of story at that time.

You have raised some interesting thoughts to ponder McDermott and I hope perhaps this may make the powers that be today consider adding some clauses to the unshakable current meaning of the word rogue at this point of many changes in our ways.

McDermott it's painful because you're obviously not listening carefully to what I'm saying as your counter arguments are based on things I haven't said or you're only selecting parts of a specific point and ignoring the rest.

I didn't say death was the only way out, if you listened you would have heard that I also added mutual agreement was another way out.

If the rogue's not superior or equal then the only possible option left is that they are inferior. Agreed?

Again regarding the % point, what you have said is irrelevant, you've ignored what I said against your original point regarding asking people if they'd like auth, but whatevs.

The scenario I used is what would happen if a rogue such as yours set up, isn't it? I simply changed the city so I could think about it from my own point of view as a NY'er if it we're to happen. The point I was getting at with my scenario is that the rogue has completely ignored some of the most important principles we expect from mafiosi. You say it's not been made clear why they should be punishable? I disagree, but I'll reiterate the more important points to my scenario. They have disrespected their previous leader, their current Godfather, they have been dishonest, unloyal and untrustworthy. I feel that a mafiosi such as this should be punished. Whether rogue or not.

You're sugar coating your rogue in the hope that it will be portrayed as peaceful, well fair enough, it has yet to attack anyone, perhaps it has no gun for all i know, but that's irrelevant. For the reasons given above, that rogue should be punished much the same as I would expect any other man or woman within this life style to be punished for going against such principles.

As for Domencio, it's easy to act the big man when you're about to take the easy way out.

And just as he sorted out how to speak clearly too...what a waste...

ah well...YAWWWNNNNNN!

back to sucking Crugeon's...actually, never mind...

Mr. Fletcher this is equally painful because now I have told you exactly what I'm getting at yet you don't want to do so.

If the rogue's not superior or equal then the only possible option left is that they are inferior. Agreed?

I still disagree. I simply stated the "rogue" wasn't inferior yet you're still arguing he is. When the only way the rogue could *possibly* be inferior is *if* he is lower rank than the crew leaders and godfather of the city.

The scenario I used is what would happen if a rogue such as yours set up, isn't it? I simply changed the city so I could think about it from my own point of view as a NY'er if it we're to happen. The point I was getting at with my scenario is that the rogue has completely ignored some of the most important principles we expect from mafiosi. You say it's not been made clear why they should be punishable? I disagree, but I'll reiterate the more important points to my scenario. They have disrespected their previous leader, their current Godfather, they have been dishonest, unloyal and untrustworthy. I feel that a mafiosi such as this should be punished. Whether rogue or not.

The difference though between my "rogue" and your "rogue" is you make your "rogue" out to be the bad guy. You say a "rogue" would be inferior due to lack of income for some reason, but I know many mafiosi same rank and higher than I that make over two million a week. So that would cover the cool million I originally hinted at before.

You're sugar coating your rogue in the hope that it will be portrayed as peaceful, well fair enough, it has yet to attack anyone, perhaps it has no gun for all i know, but that's irrelevant. For the reasons given above, that rogue should be punished much the same as I would expect any other man or woman within this life style to be punished for going against such principles.

My whole point of this you still have yet to even try to grasp. Even after I explained to you exactly what I'm getting at Mr. Fletcher. You have yet to really discuss my "rogue" aside from him being dishonest to todays standards. Also you draw up a "rogue" of your own, make him sound like a piece of shit on the street and then try to say that he is the same as my "rogue". When, they're not at all with the way you're portraying your rogue.

I'm attempting to get away from the old "rogue" yet you constantly want to go back to it. Why? What's the point in discussing something that's been discussed a thousand times? However the discussion I bring up is more or less the inner meaning. The purpose to it all. Hell I even given you the picture perfect "rogue" that has done nothing to harm anyone and all you can come up with is "it was dishonest". Well I know damn well no one in La Cosa Nostra is 110% honest about everything to everyone. They maybe little white lies and secrets but that's La Cosa Nostra. So I am going to throw out your dishonest argument.

Maybe now you'll explain aside from the little wire you have my "rogue" hanging from that he's done nothing to anyone. Except being guilty of doing good for the greater good. Because every argument you've had isn't anything relevant to my "rogue". You say that "well this isn't likely, that's not likely." but base it off of past "rogue" and "rogues" you thought you knew. When you haven't, and yes I know my "rogue" doesn't exist, but I created said "rogue" and if you're going to debate about it then at least keep it focused on that "rogue". Not your "rogue" that you purposely made sound like shit.

Taking a breath McDermott looks at Mr. Fletcher.

Right now, anyone that has the drive to do so could setup and be a leader. Not only could they lead but if they did what my "rogue" has done, they would get members. Not to mention if they work hard they'd bring in extra money to kick up. Also, if they have partaken in the credit feature then anyone could easily make ten, twenty, or thirty million in days.

Anyways, I'm done talking about past "rogues", a "rogue" you've created to highlight the bad as most people always do. I'm looking for the inner purpose and what it is that my "rogue" is so horrible for doing aside from your argument of being "dishonest".

I'm looking for the inner purpose and what it is that my "rogue" is so horrible for doing aside from your argument of being "dishonest".

I'm pretty sure I've covered that already and I gave more reasons than being dishonest. Again, you're not listening to my whole point before replying to it.

If this sort of rogue you mention was accepted within our society, what would stop simply anyone leaving their families and setting up in the way you have explained here? I'm fairly sure we would have many unauthorised leaders popping up here, there and everywhere. Anyone may feel they have the ability to lead, they may have self belief but that doesn't automatically make them a good leader. This shouldn't mean then that anyone who thinks they could do a decent job at it should simply set up because they can make money and because they mean no harm to anyone. Like I said I believe you would have unauthorised leaders popping up everywhere and I can't imagine that being good for business.

The whole idea of this is a joke to be honest. It goes against the principles we as mafiosi try and uphold but by all means lead by example and we shall see if it works for the greater good as you so eloquently put it.

Thank you for answering the question I wanted Mr. Fletcher. I too, believe we would have many unauthorized rogues setting up. However I don't see it as a bad thing as long as they do absolutely no harm to anyone, I.E. shoot at someone.

Looking around at the angry faces McDermott grins.

Now before I get lynched for my words let me explain why. We have leader "A" here and leader "B". "A" is extremely good at teaching young mafiosi the ways of drug trade, corner working and post office robbing. Next we have leader "B" who is amazing at training a mafiosi how to kill, pickpocket and have street presence. So what do we have? A variety of leadership with all kinds of expertise.

As we look back on the time our ancestors have served in La Cosa Nostra we have seen many friends lead together which is great, however we also see many bloodlines obtain leadership over and over again. Maybe they work harder than others? Maybe they have connections?

So far everything here I've learned in recent times is purely relationship wise. However my bloodline has joined many crews who had not been a leader before. For example my great gran dad person served under Sherlock. Sherlock is from the Revan bloodline. A bloodline known for making a fool of itself, however Sherlock talked to every single one of his members damn near everyday. To this day he was one of if not the most active leader on a personal one on one basis with each member that I've seen.

Smiling at Mr. Fletcher McDermott adjusts his tie.

My whole point of this is the essence of the "rogue" I depicted is really just someone who wants to do the better for the greater good. Someone willing to go against the grain to achieve something greater. You yourself have said not everyone gets authed or their chance to lead. I simply wanted to put out there a different kind of "rogue" that maybe would shed light on a subject that's not so bad. Who knows maybe there have been many people like Aiofe's bloodline that have wanted to "rogue" you may say but knows no matter what good they'd do it'd be seen bad because of something that's hundreds of years old.

I have not really went through these responses although, if and I mean "if" this is only a query, your missing one point if you think that of which we would call a rogue was to set up there own crew and pay out some cash and not shoot others. There leaving there previous family which in turn means that there family leader will count this as disrespect and therfore attempt to take them out if this is in their best interest. If that was ok and said rogue was to retaliate against the ex family leader and kill him/her then I'm sure the rest of the city in which that leader was a part of would then go in for the kill against the rogue.

So in turn it couldn't work without said rogue killing the previous city he came from, the ex family leader not minding his leave or the rogue asking his ex leader if he could leave in which case takes the term rogue away from said individual.

Mr. Corelli that has already been discussed. The "rogue" hasn't done anything except leave the family, but didn't harm anyone. Also in past I've seen people Made Man+ even, pay their leader to leave. So I think it's plausable to get around it.

I see where your coming from - but I hope you understand that mademan represent their family. Wither or not bullets or flying, the fact the one up and leaves to pursue his own agenda can do enough to sink the family of origin's reputation.

Like I said earlier - a mademan leaves his family with either a blessing or a bullet, and if he leaves with that blessing (I'm sure being bribed to drop - can translate into blessing).

Is he a rogue?

Sal_Giaquinto and others I have not given quite elaborate or responses at all, I apologize.

Tipping his hat in acknowledgment McDermott smiles.

I firmly believe in what our ancestors and such have put in place. I have openly admitted that to Mr. Fletcher in the coffee shops.

My overall point was to say some may have been prematurely judged. If someone leaves a family, they are rogue in my mind. However I will not deny that in their mind what they were doing they probably felt right.

Even the most sadistic mafiosi has his reasons but somewhere they thought some good would come out of it.

Pondering McDermott smiles.

I doubt that answered your question, but I am glad that I've shed some light on the subject. At least more light and time than others care to give aside from complaining about it.

I know I'm just a lowly earner but here's my opinion. Now I hate rogues as much as the next man, but the rogue you describe seems to only be beneficial to this thing of ours. As long as they dont begin to shoot anyone, follow the rules that other CL's follow, and he/she immediately pay tribute to the godfather and/or other CL's in the city, essentially no harm was done except not getting a blessing from the godfather. Which could easily be forgiven by making them pay more tribute than other families, for a set amount of time.

Why kill them off when you could easily make a lot of money off them, were all about business anyway. In my opinion the rogue you describe could possibly a greater money source than other families.

TheResurrection that was actually a big point I was getting at. However one other thing that a few have pointed out is that opens the gateway for anyone that seems like they can be beneficial to setup. Which essentially becomes a catch twenty two.

If anything I believe I have accidentally made something that was once so simple to breakdown quite complex. With fellow mafiosi making great points I believe that those that have taken part in this and graced me with their time now may look differently upon rogues much like I will.

Nodding in acceptance McDermott smiles.

However, I will not allow a single rogue to hurt my family or city as long as I breath.

However one other thing that a few have pointed out is that opens the gateway for anyone that seems like they can be beneficial to setup. Which essentially becomes a catch twenty two.

Yes that' may be true, but is that essentially a bad thing? I'm not saying that any idiot who sets up will should be allowed to live. If they have proven their worth, are respectable Mafiosi , immensely loyal to their city, and have shown tremendous potential, but still aren't given auth to start a crew, so they proceed to start their own without blessing. Should they be shot down immediately? Or given a trial run?

Now if it's someone whose known to cause trouble, or you aren't sure of their loyalty or ulterior motives then by all means shoot them where they stand.

Without catching up on the after chat, I thought I'd at least address the main question to this debate - The essence of a rogue is anyone who goes against the establishment that is in power. Simple as. That is the essence - to go against the current regime, the current rules, the current way of things. You might apply titles to them, attempt to shove them into compartmentalized sub-genres, but anyone who is against the current way of running things is considered a rogue. That's.. really, about it.

TheResurrection I like what you're thinking. However a rogue isn't something that is seen to be given "chance" because like Mr. Fletcher has pointed out they have all done some sort of harm. Whether it be shoot at someone or not, but I would say that if a rogue popped up. Kicked money up to Roman right away and Roman said "Hey, let's see what kind of balls he's got." Then I'd be all for it, then again you'd be risking your life hands down to try and change the appearance of what a rogue really is.

After letting Syriana finish McDermott smiles.

Unfortunately to answer the question I'm asking you would have to catch up. What you have stated, although obvious of what a rogue is known for and by definition doesn't explain his essence. Rogues have inner purposes which is more or less what I was getting at.

We always see bad rogues, right? Ofcourse. However I took the opposition and said "What if we had a rogue that did nothing wrong aside from maybe leave without permission and setup without it?" Thus making it hard to say. They've done no harm? Built a headquarters and kicked up cash to their past leader and have now given the godfather of the city they setup in money. Why? To smooth over the unwanted presence however introducing an innovative approach.

I thought it'd be an interesting concept to discuss through the masses at the very least.