Erickad rubs his chin as he continues to listen, as he was ignored before,

I still fail to see what constitutes "cheating" here? It seems they were smited by the Gods for discussion and "threatening" but I can't see how it is cheating to simply talk.

Read the description for the DD circulars, erickad. 

I did read them, Grindenwald, but it seems all they did was talk in their little coffeeshop groups, or whatever people do nowadays.

Is that really enough to be labeled as cheaters?

I'm comfortable I know what the point is; a post-mortem on another purge regime and the lessons that can be learned from their demise. This isn't the first purge regime and there is a reason for that. Suggesting that you can "ban" them is naive as they have been banned for years and still grew to prominence once again. What did the ban solve? Absolutely nothing, if anything it made the situation even worse. Punishment without rehabilitation achieves little except repeat offenders. 

"Cheating" isn't our remit to determine, nor is it restrictive to just the Blackwater affiliates. The Gods have spoken and the offspring of the Blackwater group, as far as I know, are free to ply their trade on our shores once more. That is the end of it, so if your petition is to the Gods, it is in the wrong place and if it is to the leaders and community at large, I think it is flawed thinking that will only perpetuate the errors of the past.

And when I say "ban", I mean them being effectively blacklisted by organised crime, not by the Gods.

See again. As I said previously. This isn't about purging. Regimes have purged. Whether thats politically viable or not is another conversation. And I do believe in what you said to an extent, about how no punishment without rehabilitation measures is incomplete. 

As per the 2nd part of the conversation where you say. Ban doesn't solve anything as the group rose to prominence again, post ban. Thats accurate as well. None can deny some of the skills nilf members have when it comes to being mobsters. They have fine tuned their skills to fit our trade well.

However, again the elephant in the room isn't whether. They will rise back to power, are good at the trade or are just another repeat 'purge regime'. The elephant in the room is repeated moments of cheating. As the old saying goes...cheat me once, shame on you. Cheat me twice, shame on me. Thats what I'm trying to get to. I have no personal quarrels and have not hinted at such. 

My argument is very simple. We have always put the onus of rehabilitation on the members of La Cosa Nostra. That perhaps they would help these misdirected cheaters to correct their paths. Well hell, its been a while. Its not happened. The last some regimes were caught cheating, with nilf members at the heart of them. There is something underlying wrong here. And until we accept that, the rehabilitation process will not happen. As the first step in correcting anything is defining whats wrong. Obviously either the onus on members rehabilitating isn't working, or maybe there is more to it. 

Go back to some years when you were a child before you got on the boat and made the journey to our shores. When you cursed, mama took your favorite toy away. Then when you did it again, she took away certain liberties to not go hang out with friends. Then when you did it again, mama went ham. Levels of punishment, perhaps one leads you to rehabilitate your next course of action. 

However, now imagine if mama just kept slapping that wrist and you kept getting worse and worse. And kept cheating to win. You've not been rehabilitated. Nay, if anything you've been shown that your wrong is acceptable, with mere repercussions. And the flip side, if you get away with your cheating ways...stands before you the golden round. In that instance. Do you think the child will stop his ill mannered ways? I doubt that, since the repercussions haven't been severe enough. And the trade off is worth dying for or rather cheating for, shall I say. That is the inherent problem with where we are. 

Gellert grabs the circular that erickad was hinting at. Clears his throat and reads it out loud. 

"IP tracing discussion, threatening to financially hurt the game unless I change features, threatening purging unless I change features - blacwater"

And this isnt the first time Nilf/Blackwater has been punished for such measures. 

If I remember right from past journals. This would be the 3rd time they were involved in a manner such as this. 

Ah, yes, I do hear it quite clearly when you say it for all to hear, but the two keywords I keep hearing are "discussion" and "threatening."

It doesn't seem to imply, to me, that they did anything other than talk game in their coffeeshop, which leads me to what I said before. Is just talking about that kind of topic enough to be labeled as a.... cheater?

So now were talking about intent and execution. 

I think the reason we saw the correction come so swiftly. Is because this isn't the first time this group was involved in such a case. They have spoken, discussed and executed such matters before. 

Hence this time, before it was implemented. They were stopped in their tracks at the level of intent. 

Which makes sense no? If its a first time offender and they have intent. Possibility they regress to some form of normalcy are much higher. 

Versus someone that is a repeat offender and has shown intent yet again. Odds are they will implement yet again. 

I think perhaps thats what your hinting at? 

Actually, this discussion is about purging, you're just trying to make it into something else and I don't actually think this is the place for it. 

There is no greater punishment we can impose than has previously been imposed upon these people. Believe me, they weren't welcome in any family and were killed wherever they were discovered, when they were discovered. The only stronger measure along your line of thinking is one which can be taken by the Gods and they have not chosen to do that. That should be the end of that discussion or at least the end of that discussion here, because we cannot impact upon it in any way whatsoever. 

Agreed Grin-05. 

I am not the one to limit anyones privileges. That is infact why I was trying to bring light to my discourse. That perhaps there needs to be more scrutiny to the prevailing argument than before. And that perhaps, maybe. Someone will see, that to protect the majorities privlidges. Sometimes, you have to limit a certain minorities privileges. 

However thats not my call, or any mobsters, for that matter. 

Good day lad.