|
This is fantastic entertainment, But in all fairness, the arguments are nothing more than PR. Problem being that even if Joe Public thinks a rule has been broken, Joe Public doesn't make the rules, the Bosses do. A call was made. It was acted on. The arguments against this call have about as much effect as family members weeping over the body of their fallen CL. Sure they are unhappy, but a well formed argument on why it shouldn't have happened isn't going to bring their Boss back to life and in all probability wouldn't have been offered if there was something to lose. |
|
| Report Post |
Tip
|
I think what must be agreed is that there is obviously some mutal respect or agreement between the captain of Signore Cheese's crew and Altitude himself that has resulted in what we are discussing now.
Aside from that, there is nothing else worth talking about all other issues have been quenched, thank you for your time gents, I have enjoyed this discussion.
Tips his hat and saunters off back to the market |
|
| Report Post |
Tip
|
As far as I'm concerned SpiderPig, the Dons of our fair cities are answerable to each other and are accountable for their actions; it is the checks-and-balances system that ensure total autocracy will not prevail.
That being said, I do of course recognise that this is not a no quarter given scenarios, and the Dons should be, and of course are, answerable to themselves far more than they are to their peers. |
|
| Report Post |
Tip
|
|
My apologies, sir. I took what you said well out of context in that sense. The Dons are answerable to each other in the sense that they must be able to defend their actions, but not in the sense that they are subservient to each other. I assumed you meant the second one, which--to be honest--baffled me. |
|
| Report Post |
Tip
|
|
Though we are getting quite off topic, in a good way albeit, surely Dons must show subservience and humility to one another occasionally, if only a political move? I admit that in claiming that Dons are answerable to one another I was alluding to the fact that defending questionable actions one partakes in is always of paramount inmportance; though is it not equally important that the most powerful among us occasionally yield ground to one another? |
|
| Report Post |
Tip
|
Yes, sir, it is. Compromise is what keeps us from a perpetual state of warfare.
But, in this case, I maintain that erroneous decisions were made. It is obvious from the remorse he showed, even in committing the deed, that having AphoticProphet offed wasn't his desire. Either he played a fabulous, fabulous bluff, or he is taking orders from more than one leader. It is not my place to determine which one is true, so I won't. |
|
| Report Post |
Tip
|
I've listened to a few of the responses, but admittedly, not all, so pardon me if this has been said.
While, sure, I believe that some innocent victims of war deserve a shot at life in another crew, I'm not sure that this should've been the case for your father, Paranoia...no offense. Whether or not he joined a "rogue" or a legitimate Capo of Witchy's, he did join a party directly warring another party. That to me directly cancels any "innocent" status your father might have been able to claim. It only seems right that the victorious party would then be wary of someone that had directly aided their "enemy", afterall.
My belief is that you have to pick your leader carefully for these reasons. Are you willing to die for said leader? That's a big question, but that's part of being loyal, which of course, is part of the foundation for being a part of a Family/Crew. If you're only willing to go so far for your leader, then expect to find shelter under a new leader (which is cowardly in my opinion anyway), then it is probably best to sit a war out entirely, and hope that the victorious party gives you some mercy.
So, in my humble opinion, even though you may not have been a real threat, I do understand Altitude's (and Intervention's) decision here. It was out of principle. |
|
| Report Post |
Tip
|
