-The singer is a gay pansy who does poetry

-NPMs suck

-This debate is long and borring

FFS. if you could please refrain your frustrations to yourself in future and remember who it is you are talking to. You will conduct yourself in the correct manner in these streets and especially when addressing The God Father Council.

Apologies on FFS's behalf for his absent minded rant.

Philly is going to have to be insanely politically savvy to survive with the families who have benefited from NPM's income for the last 6 months hovering overhead while they try to rebuild...i wish them luck i really do

It's quite alright Jammin, I forgive you both.

Fairy muff! Perhaps it was a bit too early to go knocking these recent changes. The proof of any pudding however has always been in the eating. Time will tell whether these changes are good or bad for our society as a whole. As I have no aspirations to ever get auth nor have I done for many generations, I doubt any of these changes will affect me personally.

/me goes back to making money for the man and twitching his lazy eye.

While the arguments around leadership skills are certainly valid, I suspect there's a simpler reason for the abolishment of NPMs, picking their pockets is rumoured to train a mafioso's skill in stealth.

Given all the problems with BG shooters the leaders are trying to deal with - and in my humble opinion not doing a wonderful job of it, I know at least two people who have never and would never shoot active BGs that have died over suspicions and no proof - simply removing one of the tools those stealthy mobsters use to hone their skills is an easy fix to slow future generations of would-be BG wackers training. From a leadership perspective, it makes sense. The flip side of the coin is that BG wacking is a method of weakening those in power that can be achieved by those without the hours required to train a cannon. To be honest, while they may be annoyed by it, there's nothing they can do, and I'm as tired of these random (BG) wacking assholes as anyone. So fairplay to the council for making the decision if not for being entirely up-front about the reasons. 

As for the rest of it, time will tell. Personally I prefer a family to be populated with people, so can't see a major downside. As Grin has already discussed, there is still plenty of supply of spaces for up and coming hoodlums, there is still spaces for new auths, they'll just have to earn it. Hell, perhaps a knock-on effect will be more people making more of an effort out here. We can but dream.

Looking to the future, I can see a time where there will be all cities full of their 4 crews and a lot of people with high rank thinking "well, now what?" When that happens, there will be a few rogues, there will be wars, and both of those things will be fun. Well, unless you're one of the poor sods who dies in the first wave without being able to fight back, it'll suck for them, but for everyone else, it'll be fun.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

GW Bush, Dec 19th 2000 1928

Big Kudos.

Albiet a bit late to the table, these are the exact standard of sweeping changes i've advocated and pushed for since the removal of the old guard. There is no denying the impetus was needed to be put back onto the leaders to lead a family, rather than the work shy get rich by sitting behind a wall of NPMs

There is still work to be done, but this will hopefully go some way towards dosing my pet pieve of seeing people in bold who have no right to be there. To give back the merits of authorization its missing mojo, and instill its sense of pride once again

My advice. Work hard, perservere and make sure to eat your greens

Jax

I don't have much to say about policies or what is right or wrong. I'd just like to thank the leaders of all of the cities for coming together for one common goal. As well as allowing for conversation and debate in the streets over what the goals should or shouldn't be. While there will always be a sore thumb or two we should all remember that we are a community with one common enemy, the cops.

~Hercules

Firstly there have been concerns within this conversation that current HQs would not be able to be filled without the use of NPMs. There have been cities in the past that could attract enough people to have more than the 161 limit; this was before NPMs and after NPMs (removing NPMs from population counts). If a Godfather can market their city, I have no idea why they would want to stifle growth in that city.

I guess I have begun to make it clear that I am against limiting the number of HQs in each city. As Grin stated, as RHM of Chicago his first concern is for the wellbeing of Chicago and said he'd believe that to be the same for all Godfathers and current city heads in regards to their own city. So why vote to limit your growth potential, offense and defense? Continuing to use Chicago as an example, 39 more members and the doors to the windy city are closed (since there are some NPMs employed here right now, let's double that number to 78, this also happens to be half the NPMs currently on the site so an over-estimation in my mind). I am failing to understand why a Godfather would (if they and their CLs could market the city right) turn away money makers, offensive and/or defensive assets to another city if they are truly in it for their own city before all else.

Since the GFs of the larger cities, are in essence, going to be pushing members to the other smaller cities, does this mean we are in for a long peaceful period with no warring for the foreseeable future? Why deport people who could be very useful and loyal during a war to a potential enemy? Even though all the current Godfathers (actual and acting) may believe they want peace, someone is bound to mess up or piss the rest off.

Saying that we have 450 active members on our streets does make it sound like no city could ever fill their 161 member limit without the other cities being next to empty and useless. However this is a very misleading statistic. We have 650 members who do not have "inactive" stamped on the front of their shirts; 450 who have walked the streets in the past 24 hours. Have we forgotten the casual members of society? Are they no longer beneficial and should not be included in our membership count? That is not what the Godfather of Chicago told his city just days ago.

Now there might be one empty city, Los Angeles. And as stated previously by Grin, it would probably be the cities which are full on HQs now populating Los Angeles when that time comes. So those of us in Chicago, Saint Louis and New Orleans can expect there will be one chance per city to gain auth? (You might be able to send 4 crews to LA but then each crew there would have to be limited to 37 members so there would be room for the members under the person who eventually made GF). So there might be a 2nd spot from one of the now full on HQs cities. Be sure to work your butt off if you are one of the (potentially) 157 people from one of those three cities who want auth. Remember there are two spots available sometime down the road.

My last point on this topic is this. The purchase of NPMs has been removed so that leaders have to lead to gain members? But yet smaller, less desirable cities and crews will have members tossed at them when best lead cities fill? (I am not saying the smaller cities now are less desirable but given a longer period of peace than what we have had recently, this trend will show). I am not sure how one is any different than the other; purchasing robot members or having members pushed in your direction because the better lead cities are full. Just as the best lead crews should fill up fastest, why should the best lead cities not be able to grow to their potential? Why should members not currently in those cities or able to join them in the near future not be able to pledge their loyalty to the best lead city as they come to our shores?

I just wish to clarify that my "Albiet a bit late to the table" was in the context of my response to the thread, and in replying days after the speech was made. Not to the timing of the announcement and rulings themselves

Jax

I have had the chance to process and contemplate the changes the Godfather Council has made to auths and HQ; and I feel the policy should be reviewed. I don't know who suggested these restrictions at the meeting, or what the consensus was for each, but I do feel they are rather lopsided. I don't want to step on any toes here; so I'll just provide my thoughts on the matter.

First of all, the restriction to keep HQ-count to four is sensible. It makes no sense to allow tons of half-empty Headquarters to populate our cities, just because we can. In that regard, I understand the decision. However, to require 40/50 *active* members to auth a new HQ seems to only restrict the cities with less or smaller HQs. The cities with 4 HQs already established have more people available to bring in new blood (4 HQs means 12 structural recruiters, plus sponsors), and more options for new blood. The restriction doesn't even affect Chicago, New Orleans, or St. Louis, because they cannot make any new auths due to the 4 HQ limit.

I feel that forcing each CL in a city to have a 50-man HQ and filling that with 40 active members is an unreasonable requirement. I propose that the requirement of less than 10 available spaces per HQ is reasonable; and I feel that should extend to 25-man HQs as well. Rather than force smaller crews to make the $14,000,000 investment into a 50-man HQ, they could just serve as leaders of 25-man HQs for their boss. Essentially, placing those smaller HQs in a "captain" position until the HQ is full enough to expand to a full-fledged CL position.

<blockquote>However, to require 40/50 *active* members to auth a new HQ seems to only restrict the cities with less or smaller HQs. The cities with 4 HQs already established have more people available to bring in new blood (4 HQs means 12 structural recruiters, plus sponsors), and more options for new blood</blockquote>

The council penned an agreement which consisted of all godfathers and city heads, acting in the best interest of our cities to bring order and semblance back to our streets. An agreement which was consented in unity by all and for all. Whether you agree with them or not ‘your’ city head was equally party to them, and as each city header nailed their colours to the mast, it is safe to assume they were happy with the changes. And as i’ve not heard otherwise, still are

That isn’t to say that this agreement is set in stone. These aren’t legislation’s that are binded and governed by law. They were sealed upon with a shake of the hand whilst covering a gun under the table, just in case. Ones which can be broken just as easily as they were created (with the exception of outside influence from the gods)

As is and always will be the case, leaders are free to rule their roost how they best deem fit, to put the welfare of their city and their people first and above all else. If that means pissing a few people off, so be it. Cup your balls and get on with business

Each city is in a different state of flux, and yes no doubt some cities benefit these changes slightly more than others. Whats good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander. We’re not in a democracy, its not possible to be all things to all people all of the time. If everything is diluted down trying to please everyone, nothing will ever be accentuated. If these changes hindered any cities development I would hope something would of been said or subsequently changed by the city head. Its easy to be a leader, its much harder to be a leader who stands by their principles and lead without the wool gloves on

If Consigliere Lotta or any other head felt it is no longer in their best interest to abide by one or all aspects of this agreement then I hope they would have the courage of their conviction to implement changes for the betterment of the city. In the same breathe I would also hope anybody who isn’t in a position of power but who were equally aggrieved and felt they their city back was being held back, would make a reasoned plea to their city head. I know Godfather-Worley gave everybody their chance to air their views on the matter, no matter which stance you took on the subject

Personally, I think having a near full HQ before being able to auth another leader is one that i’m behind 100%, this was abused to epic proportions under the last regime and I would hate to see near empty HQs fill a city again, whether that be 2 or 10 HQs. For each city there will be always be more than enough city sponsors active at any given time to recruit any potential new blood, if approached correctly. The one issue I could see a problem with would be the actual limiting of a city to four HQs, as this not only stunts a cities development and growth it halts it completely once they’ve hit the threshold

Jax

Yess a big leap foward has been made. This is probably the biggest thing done here. No more being bullied into things beucase of being weaker, no more seeing 8-9 families who taking all the new memebers. I say this is a great start to a new era. This will make it fun to play again, not worryng about kissing up to another godfahter who isnt mine. I hope this council work well togehter and make MR a great fun equal place to be.