Since his recent well received visits to the streets, NathanExplosion had been contemplating particularly hard on how to bring a fresh, new topic to the forefront of conversations. He sat up late at night tripping balls on shrooms, trying find inspiration. All he found was soiled pants the next morning.

He found himself dwelling on it every night just before bed. How could he find something that hadn't been discussed before? 

It was at their usual after rehearsal beer bath that Nathan and Skwisgaar_Skwigelf got to talking about whether or not they could still kill certain unsponsored gangsters roaming their streets, taking cuts of the profits and not kicking shit up. They talked for a while before Nathan realized: this was unprecedented in our thing to this point. Unsponsored gangsters had always been fair game, free to hunt if one could find them. Never in living memory did his ancestors recount in their memoirs a time where ALL unsponsored mafiosi were protected by city hall legislation in this way. Killing them would somehow lower your skills with a gun rather than increasing it. It was a necessary evil, Nathan believed, in order to protect young people trying to find their way in tough times. Buy it also had allowed several hoboes the opportunity to mingle in the dark alleys without fear. Nathan decided to bring the subject up at his next appearance.

"Ladies and gentlemen, how long is long enough, I ask you? There has been some debate down announcement avenue regarding the new legislation enacted by city hall to protect unsponsored mafiosi to this point. Leaving behind the argument of whether or not the change itself is good or bad, let us discuss the ethical dilemma it puts on us hitmen as we stalk the streets for easy prey.

Currently there are several unsponsored people approaching a full month of life on our shores, something we have never seen previously. The limit has always been 7 days, active or not. If you had not found a home before then you were almost guaranteeing your own death. But now, the almighty -1 badge adorns the suits of anyone unsponsored, and they are left untouched. 

These hoboes could just be innocent bystanders, watching the world progress without intention of joining. They could be waiting for an old friend to be given power so that they don't have to join someone they dislike. They could even be actively attempting to join someone, just being VERY lethargic about it.

Or they could be spies, collecting info for the fallen past regimes in preparation for revenge. Some of them may have guns, ready to fire misguided shots at rogues in attempt to protect them from the hitters. It's even possible they may be trying to build guns slowly, only coming out at night to shoot trying to fly under the radar.

Now, there are no restrictions preventing anyone from putting any of these hoboes in the ground. We are just as capable of killing them as we were previously. But through some dark magic, killing them actually lessens your aim. How long do they sit before that -1 no longer outweighs the risk they could potentially represent? Ten days? Thirty? Never?

After all they're not truly a threat in themselves, at least not on the face of it. Perhaps we should just leave them be. Live and let live so to speak.

I'm interested to hear what people think on this."

He stepped away from the soapbox and waited hopefully for others to chime in.

Very interesting topic that I, myself, have some words for. I rarely talk in these here streets as I have little to say, but this time, I'll add something of value.

City Hall had recently made any old unemployed wanna-be mafioso with little investment in their ..careers to be known as an illegitimate target. I believe it's a fine law to have in any city, who wants the next generation to just killed? Certainly not myself or anyone else I know, right?

Here is where things get wacky. Quite recently one of these unemployed bums refusing any kind of work to the crew leaders of our world decided he would begin pop shots. He had managed to find himself a gun and just shoot. And shoot. And shoot. Three people laid dead in the end because of the hesitation to shoot someone who was deemed "Innocent" by City Hall. In the end, a shooter from the west coast found him eating out of a trashcan and put a bullet in his head. City Hall deemed this shot to be bad, despite the man shooting several members of society.  Was he innocent? At some point, yes. After finding a gun and firing it, you ordinarily wouldn't be so innocent anymore, but rules change. This time, in my opinion, for the worse.

I agree some people are looking for employment but have medical conditions of where they sleep a lot, that is more understandable, but when you have the same 10 or so wanna-be's taking flights from city to city, eyeing who's in the city.. Well, that's not really the same thing.

One recent person had been asked why he hasn't taken an invite to a crew and his response was of the sort: "I want to see how long I can make it in the world without being sponsored". Very valiant of him. Not wanting to be tied down to anyone. In the same retort: He forfeits all protection and he was murdered despite sporting the 'Innocent -1' tag on his arm.

I believe anyone willing to abuse the infamous -1 'Innocent' tattoo to gain time to build their guns, or eyes, well, they're not so innocent. If after 7 days you haven't found a family, you will die. -1 or not.

Thank you for the discussion.

I believe the cut off should be reverted back to 7 days active or not. Things weren't broke and this wasn't a fix. Anyone surpassing 7 days without a family has done it on their own accord. What was once member whoring is now just standard recruiting; which is reaching out to the new instead of waiting for them to reach out to us. If someone can make it 7 days without joining a family that has reach out to them then they have no intentions to entering our way of life. Unless city hall has plans to make legal work for these people it should revert back to the old way.

City hall said they were doing this to combat 'phony/weak protection orders' but the fact of the matter is that it's our job as a community to uphold them or not.

I agree, 7 days is enough. The other thing is, if you fire your gun, you arent innocent. Just my 2 cents.

Bossanova I completely agree

7 days is more than enough for a street dweller to either find a home, or move elsewhere.  What worries me further is those that are active and still are protected by the -1 tag.

Now while I completely understand city halls reticence to allow a free for all, and quite rightly so, I feel the long standing practice has been altered and some clarification would be lovely, thanks.

I’m for a reversion to the 7 days.

I believe I understand why this was put in place, but at the end of the day that reason was struck down by lightning from the gods. I think either one is fine for a reaction - but both just aren’t needed. I think this swings things too far the other way and makes it too easy to linger with nefarious intent.

"So seven days seems to be the consensus this far, although this is clearly a bit of a limited selection of opinions, so I won't say that it's everyone's opinion. However that raises another question: who would be responsible for cleaning up the hoboes after 7 days? To this point we've seen it's been rare for anyone to risk that -1 on a shot, other than when hostilities have began. So who would be saddled with the duty of taking care of them after 7 days? That city's head could dole it out to someone they trust to handle the situation I suppose. Almost assuredly this responsibility falls on leadership, if it is something we are passionate and united about."

Nathan, I think, after seven days they should be treated as a mia, so anyone can take a shot and get the +1. 

am I wrong? Im new, but Id think everyone would think that.

War-beast, indeed, that is how it has almost always been. And indeed, if given the choice, most people would prefer that way.

However, this is not the case any longer, as any and all unsponsored are now marked with the -1 badge.

This isn't a conversation on whether or not we can or want to change that fact. That change had been implemented by city hall and is not up to our decision. This speech confirms the fact that the -1 for all is how it is, and tries to delve into the consequences and differences in how people treat unsponsored people because of that fact.

Well this should be a thread for "game suggestions" then right? It makes total sense.

NathanExplosion cringes at the sound of the fourth wall shattering.

"My friend I made no suggestions to the way our world works, as far as the laws the gods have written. I haven't asked for any changes insinuated that any need happen on the legislative side. I simply asked for thoughts on the conundrum of when that -1 no longer becomes the issue that prevents an individual from removing one of these hoboes from the streets."

My bad, it seems Ive over stepped my station

Not at all! I'm not upset with you in the slightest. I think you just may have been a bit confused about the topic and what I was saying in my original speech. I have no problems clarifying.

If I came off brash about it I do apologize, I did not mean to seem upset. I only wished to clarify.

Although I also understand why such an order was brought in, we are in a different situation now.    We have around 200 spaces for crew members, we have five crews active at the minute I am talking with multiple sponsors on.    There is not an issue so much of a lack of places to go or reasons why people shouldn't be earning money to build up our cities.

I neither understand why someone would sit outside a crew if they have any aims and risk their hard work, as seen people with -1's stamps on their death certificate in the obits previously, proving the tag to be a limited deterrent.   The simple fact is a crewed person can be learning, earning, and building to something greater than the individual.

Leaders aren't hard to contact, sponsors are not hard to find.    Yes choosing the right family may be hard, but not choosing one at all is insanity to me.   Personally, if you cannot find a family when active over 7 days, it possibly isn't about the families and I agree that should be the cut-off.