With the recent changing of the guard we have seen a massive rise in activity on our fair streets. It's something that makes me happier by the day. People are expressing their opinions freely without fear of being shot down and we are finding out more about everyone every day. We are communicating with people we wouldn't usually converse with, some are finding new friends simply from what they've said in the streets.

Sunshine and rainbows. :)

However, there WILL come a time when what has been said will "cross the line". People will eventually go too far and end up at the wrong end of a hitman's smoking barrels.

So, my question today is... where is that blurred line for you? If you had a stake in the power front, what would it take for you to gun down someone who was out of order in the streets? Is it name calling? Excessive cursing? Persistantly jumping on someone (by this I mean a person who targets a certain someone's threads and just shits all over it no matter what)? Or is there some other reason you would cut someone's life short for their speech?

Personally, it would take a lot for me to end someone's life for what they said in the streets as my blood has always viewed the streets as a sanctuary. Somewhere I can air my views on any manner of subjects. I know that my blood has crossed the line in what we've said many times before... sometimes we got away with it because of who we were, sometimes we didn't. I think the thing that grates me most is one of the above, persistantly jumping on someone. I despise it when someone listens to a speech and because its by a certain person their automatic reaction is to take a huge dump on the hard work of whomever. They can't see through their rage-tinted specs and put aside their personal feelings for someone, even when they have written a well thought out and articulate street poster. I think if this happened on a regular basis by someone I would take serious issue with it and probably end that person's life as they're obviously very bitter about something and only a bullet between their eyes is going to stop them from doing what they're doing.

Then maybe by doing that, I would have crossed ANOTHER line myself...

George and Bruce appear on the streets infront of Father_Teq

"Sorry Sir, FattyFats will be here in a minute, He is just in the public toilet" Bruce Says

A few moments later, FattyFats appears with a smile on his face

What an interesting conversation. As I would like to think of myself as an active street talker, I think the line needs to be pushed. Pushed as far as possible. We should be able to go as deep and aggressive as we can. My advice is to have a safe word. Something that a leader and there members know. So when a member has gone in too deep, the leader can use that safe word in the streets and people of the family know that the line has been reached. George and I use safe words all the time. Today's one was Cricket. As for where I think the line is? Well one of the topics that I despise is the 'Rate the Leader' ones, where someone actually has no idea if someone is a good leader, but feels a need to come out and rate them all. Usualy with over 80% of them being rated negatively. This is something that is way over the line. How can one rate someone when they do not know what they have done?

Anyway, it will be interesting to here others thoughts, and maybe what they think are taboo subjects.

I despise it when someone listens to a speech and because its by a certain person their automatic reaction is to take a huge dump on the hard work of whomever.

Thats ironic coming from you since you're a bloodline most guilty of doing that here and in the coffeeshops (even as recently as yesterday).

Anyway if my bloodline was ever given the opportunity to be made a leader I wouldn't allow people in my family to run rampant on the streets. They would know that as long as they represent my crew they would be expected to follow a code of conduct. There wouldn't be no petty arguing on the streets among the other things that are ridiculous.

David, the coffeeshops are NOTHING to do with the streets, nothing more to say about that.

So where have I constantly dumped on a certain someone's posters? That's right... nowhere. I may have a go at them in ONE of their threads,  but I don't follow them around and do it in all of their posters.

Perhaps you should read things twice before commenting dude because you totally missed what I said through your rage-tinted specs.

I think one of my least favourite aspects of the Streets relates in part to what you are saying, Father_Teq. Even you, FattyFats.

What I really despise, abhorr, cannot tolerate whatsoever is when someone's speech descends into a pathetic handbags-at-dawn scenario, reducing what could have been an intelligent enough debate to something that simply makes me yawn and walk away. This could apply to either those who seem hell-bent on shooting down another mobster regardless of their opinion due to their bloodline, or of course someone who comes to the fore in order to question leadership. I agree with neither motivation to open one's mouth.

I firmly stand by David_Webb' sentiment in that you are always representing someone else when you come to these Streets, and as such should exercise a degree of respect for that representation. If you get embroiled in either of the above scenarios, then you are, by proxy, embroiling your entire family. If one feels the need to get involved, they get involved at the risk of embarrassing their CL and Godfather - so if it is a necessity, my advice would be to do so wisely and with this blurry line at the forefront of their minds.

There is a method to public speaking within this Thing Of Ours, a method which I must say relatively few mafiosi seem to have familiarised themselves with; either that, or in the heat of the moment they just forget.

Two very good points raised there Lola.

I firmly stand by David_Webb' sentiment in that you are always representing someone else when you come to these Streets/em>

This is and will always be the case. Recently a favoured member of mine began a post which commented on a deceased mafioso. The first headline report in its own right probably cut close to crossing 'that blured line' but as far as I am concerned did NOT cross it. However using this thread as an example a number of people soon jumped aboard and the post quickly developed into a bloodline bashing thread. My member before they knew it stepped over 'that blurred line' which brings me onto that second point you raised:

in the heat of the moment they just forget.

Out right insulting people in the streets is never good for business on anyone's end rest assured my member has been privately rebuked for lowering the tone and to be frank embarrassing me and our city. When a debate escalates to the point of a back and forward slanging match it is no longer a debate.

In conclusion how I view the streets is a place for debate, if you are ever in doubt of crossing 'that blurred line' ask yourself a simple question am I arguing for the sake of arguing or can I honestly say I am involved in debate.

Precisely, Evilclown.

I have to say, if I were ever to be in the position of CL, having a member - particularly a favoured one - cross that line would concern me hugely, mostly because I would then almost feel the need to 'proof' everything that came from the mouths of my family, just in case it conveyed us in the wrong light. Needless to say this would be a less than desirable expenditure of time and energy, and one of that could have been easily avoided.

This is why - irrespective of rank -  it is vitally important to be aware of that line, and assess what you have to say carefully before you say it.

My bloodline has never been particularly vocal in the streets.  Partly because more than one person before has said the exact thing I was thinking before I woke, but more because I think mostly because I haven't really been all that interested.  The debates that are normally started on the streets are generally the same recycled conversations that we have engaged in for generations.  Having a cyclical conversation with the same bloodlines does not appeal to me.  People are currently acting as though we have had a gag order released.  I never felt restricted under Roman's rule, and I honestly do not understand how people did, other than in the funerals of rogues. 

You could then, and can now, if you so choose, say what you want as long as you know HOW to say it.  Personal insults are no more acceptable now than they would have been at any time in the past.  Calling out a city head publicly, instead of starting a debate about the issues, really is not appropriate. Over the past few weeks I believe there have been a few things said that were inappropriate, and were over this line that is so frequently mentioned.  Were I in a position to decide how the issue were handled, it is unlikely that I would have opted not to punish the individuals who broached their grievances less than respectfully.  Who they were speaking to, and whether or not they were correct, would hold little bearing on their punishment. Say what you want, but do it with respect.   

There is a level of power that will always come into play.  The more power you and your city has, the more you can get away with.  That will always be true.  One tenant I appreciated about the Roman Empire, is that Roman held his people to the same, or higher standard than he would expect from members of another city.  Hopefully that is one stance that we will not abandon in the coming months. 

The line's certainly blurred, but definitely not static.

For example, if a two bit nobody came to the streets and called me out for no reason; I would wield what influence I have to ensure they don't get aawy with it. If they called me out raising a valid argument, I would certainly be more interested in what they had to say. Conversely, if a Made Guy called me out; I'd feel more obliged to listen to what he had to say purely on his rank.

what would it take for you to gun down someone who was out of order in the streets? Is it name calling? Excessive cursing? Persistantly jumping on someone..?

First of all, If I was the one with the iron fist, I'd never 'gun down' anyone for excessive swearing or name calling, I think it's the ultimate in flimsy reasoning to off someone. As a collective, we are actively engaged in murder, fraud, blackmail, assatul, theft, extortion, the dealing of narcotics and countless other activities; yet some people would see the vice of 'potty mouth' enough to kill over? It is, if I may, fucking pathetic.

Persistantly jumping on someone? This is a bit more valid really. Certainly, if a person persistantly comes out with shit, I will persistantly jump on them. That's the way I am, and I detest the bleeding heart argument that it will make people not talk. Boo hoo. However, if someone repeatedly 'disses' someone's contribution solely based on some pesronal grievance, that isn't on really. On the other side of the coin though, just because someone makes a speech which is well thought out and presented doesn't mean should I agree with it. There's many characters on the streets who are eloquent and intelligent who's presence I admire - but despite that I find myself on opposing sides to them on most divisive issues; that doesn't mean I'm jumping on then, I just disagree.

So ultimately, there is no 'line' that applies to every situation. There are far too many variable factors to just say if you do 'A' it's fine, but if you do 'B' it's not - each instance simply has to be judged as an isolated scenario as far as I'm concerned.

I like people who are willing to come to the streets trying to discover where that line is, who know how far they can extend that line. I respect people a lot more who are willing to take risks with how far they can push and manipulate the boundaries, as they are normally the ones who spark an interesting debate and make life a little less dull around here. Good or bad, at least their making an impact on our society.

I don’t agree with everything I hear which is great, for every ying there has to be a yang. Agree or not, at least I know what these peoples views and standpoints are, their on my radar and not just a name to be forgotten as is the case in most people. And you can’t do that without testing the water of acceptability

There are far too many people on here across all ranks, from top to bottom who arent even willing to entertain ‘that line’ who wouldn’t know what it is even if it slapped them in the face. No matter how blurry or focused it may be. People may excuse themselves with the notion of recycling old topics, if you feel like that why not be pro-active instead of reactive and spark something new.

I agree with Eve on the misconception that Roman and Prem had a strangle hold on street speaking and censorship as I never felt that was entirely the case. I also don’t agree with this fleeting notion of free-speech that people are getting carried away with. Sure people are free to say what they like just as much as people are entitled to put a bullet between your eyes if they don’t like what they hear

It is fair to say that this line of holding people to account has been tested the past few weeks. But the simple fact of the matter is that these people are still alive. People have the right to not listen as much as they have the right to listen. They also have the right to act if something is said they don’t agree with.

If the person(s) who have been on the end of a so-called shitty stick felt hard done by anything that has been aimed at them, their family or city, why haven’t they done anything about it. If the topic was nothing more than a slanderous smear campaign why haven’t they defended themselves and their credibility to the hilt with logic, reason or other means. Rightly or wrongly, that says more to me about their character than the character of the speaker. If somebody was to speak ill of me, Bama or anyone in Detroit (with the exception of EvilClown, as he probably deserves it)  I know I wouldn’t stand in the corner biting my lip, waiting on the day for the speech to get buried. I’d come out swinging

I’m not here to mollycoddle somebody elses feelings in another city or refrain from saying something I deem important enough to say just incase someone may have their feelings hurt, were not in a creche. That isn’t to say that i’d be right out disrespectful as I was raised to say my P’s and Q’s.

Aside from generally being deliberately crass and derogatory I believe the line is blurry, as it is meant to be that way. There are no hard or fast rules to how somebody is going to react. Some people have thicker skins than others. Some people are overly sensitive, other people couldn’t give a toss. Nothing is definitive in our world.

The line is whether you feel your able to push it too without ending up 6ft under

Jax

MisterBlue listens to the others. They each make good points in their own way and he agrees partially to each of them. He thinks about what would make him kill someone just for their words. It's a tricky matter but after a moment he feels he has his answer.

"Name calling? Excessive cursing? Persistently jumping on someone? These are all things that are distasteful, especially in a group of people like us that value respect above all else. You're a representative of your family and your city. It is important to treat others with respect, even when voicing disagreements. However, I do value free speech and don't feel that every little instance of name calling or words exchanged in the heat of passion should be met with bullets. The streets should be a civil area where people can feel free to voice unpopular opinions or ideas. Though they should do so in a respectful manner. It should be regarded as a public forum where we can discuss matters in an intelligent and respectful manner.

The killing of those who are disrespectful in the streets should be left up to the discrestion of their crew leaders. If they have spelled out what they expect out of their members when posting in the streets and they have repeatedly ignored that. Then they should get popped, not because of what they said but because they willfully and repeatedly disrespected the wishes of those they represent," MisterBlue says. He finishes his speech and then then waits to hear others take on the subject.

<em>After listening to the others, a man in a cheap suit moves to the front of the crowd, looks around and speaks...</em>

Honestly, what is there to say? We're all here to do business, plain and simple. Too many people use these streets to grandstand and promote themselves in hopes that their words will get them noticed...for good or bad. The truth is, there is very little to debate. We all have bosses and most of them have bosses as well. These bosses lay down the rules for this thing of ours and it's our duty to follow these rules, do our jobs and make money. That's it. So, when it comes to chatting it up out here in public, it's completely in our leaders hands. If they want to set certain restrictions and enforce said restrictions, so be it. That's up to them. It's not our job to question it.

<em>After sharing his thoughts, Rathbone tips his hat, then heads off down the street...back to work</em>

Halfway down the street, Rathbone turns around and shouts back towards the crowd...

By the way, forgive me for all the "em's". It's a nervous tick I have and it's been a long time since I've spoken in these streets.

The man tips his hat again and walks off out of sight.