| May 03 - 04:52:10 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 |
| Two types of WAR | Started by: JarJarBinks on Jun 16, '08 03:48 |
|
As far as I'm concerned, there are two types of war--reactive and preemptive. Most people seem to agree that if someone wrongs you strongly enough (shoots your RHM, kicks your cat, eats your mother), you're entitled to go back and kill them (and possibly their whole family). But where a lot of dissension occurs is in the preemptive side of war. It's not the revenge-style war I want to talk about the most. What I'm interested in is hearing peoples' thoughts on preemptive war. When is it justifiable to kill someone who's done nothing wrong to you? When is it okay to fit cement shoes onto someone who is a potential threat but has behaved admirably? For isn't it true that leaders fall more often due to hidden threats that suddenly show themselves (with big frickin' guns) than they do to threats they see coming from miles away? Please, by all means enlighten me! Inquiring minds want to know! |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
| Well if you yourself are in a position of power you must proper preemptive strikes to eliminate any threat to keep your family and yourself in good health. Taking the first strike to someone who may have been innocent is something I'd rather live with that a life with the fishes. | |
| Reply by: AlexisVonWaffle at Jun 16, '08 03:51 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
If as a leader you get some reliable, and I use that term loosely around here, Intel to suggest that someone plans to attach your family. There is nothing else for it, you have to pre-empt it and strike down on those in question. As the head of a family your duty is to do all in your power to protect your family. Hearing whispers of people coming to attack that which you hold dear and doing nothing is as good as sitting back and shooting them yourself. Leaders around here are always viewed as Good or Bad dependant on their actions. I think a lack of actions speak much more volumes towards a leader than the ones they take. Anyways, i'm rambling and confusing myself now. In short, there is no definitive answer to when is the right time to strike another leader, only when you feel you either have to or want to strike, is it then the right time. |
|
| Reply by: TheShooter at Jun 16, '08 03:56 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Interesting question. To me, the answer is whenever you feel it necessary. We are La Cosa Nostra, The Black Hand, the Mafia. Yes we run and rule by a code of ethics, but the law is pretty ruthless in our world. You do what you need to to get ahead, and stay ahead. By whatever means necessary, if it is within that code of ethics. If you know someone is going to bomb your house or kill your children, do you not do everything in your power to stop that from happening? Of course you do, if you are a man or women of any real caliber! |
|
| Reply by: Skulls at Jun 16, '08 03:58 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Also, what rank should someone be allowed to join another family when their own is killed? I for one, am in favor of all Earners and below being adopted because they weren't even that close to becoming parts of the real family. WGs, that's dicey and MM ought to generally die with the family unless they were specifically planted there as moles or something. (not that I'm an advocate of subterfuge like that but I know that it's fairly common.) Anyway, should Earners and below be executed with their family or should they be given another chance to prove themselves to a different family--like a turf takeover, if you will. I've personally dealt with gang members that hadn't been fully inducted and they were allowed to live when they left the gang. But the tattooed members were killed when they tried to leave. Is the mafia much different? Yes, this opens up more discussion on this thread, but let's go for it! Let's hash this shiiiite out! (When I was new, I was killed twice by the rank of Goomba for doing absolutely nothing except for sponsoring into the wrong family. I nearly quit because of that and took a long break before checking the game out again. Does killing the lower ranks help the future strength of families as a whole? I seriously doubt it. Your thoughts?) |
|
| Reply by: JarJarBinks at Jun 16, '08 04:06 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| When it comes to left over members in a fallen leaders family I hate to admit it but it's really who you know. When it comes down to a takedown, if your a mute goomba in the family, someone will most likely off you just because they think no one will take notice. On the other hand if you are a big speaker and have many contacts in other families their is a chance that one of your contacts will help you get shelter. It's a dog eat dog world out there and having friends helping you out is always something that is needed. | |
| Reply by: AlexisVonWaffle at Jun 16, '08 05:32 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Very well put AlexisVonWaffle I agree. I think EVERYTHING depends on " Who You Know ". I mean like he said if your a silent user who hasn't created a little ripples in the lake your going to be swimming in it soon. People are less likely to take a chance on a user they haven't seen around alot. Or seems iffy to let in to your family. It may seem "Evil" but the safest thing to do for your family is to let no one in. but the SAFEST is not always the best for the future of your family. You never know you might be denying the best earner in the whole game, or the best hitter and so forth. |
|
| Reply by: Vincent_Gambino at Jun 16, '08 05:45 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Whats all this talk of "users"? You all on drugs? Jabs everyone with OOC jabs for their OOCitis Personaly, I'm in favour of when a family is being taken out, you need to wipe out their entire upper structure. This meaning anyone that is FAMILY, Made (wo)Man upwards. Anyone below that in my opinion should be left alone, they pose no immediate threat. Any Wise Guy given the chance to live and join another family must obviously first prove him/herself to their new boss before becoming part of that family. |
|
| Reply by: TheShooter at Jun 16, '08 06:22 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Interesting subject you brought up here, a 'hot topic' on the streets so to speak. Anyways, first things first... "When is it okay to fit cement shoes onto someone who is a potential threat but has behaved admirably?" If you have grounded reasons - reliable intel as 'TheShooter' says - to believe someone is planning an attack on you have to take action. You could be wrong sometimes, so what, nodody't perfect. In the end protecting your family is all that matters. As for the second question. "... what rank should someone be allowed to join another family when their own is killed?" In my opinion you have valid reasons to kill anyone/ everyone. 'Made members' They are among the most trusted people of a family, so can you trust them? NO! Do you have valid reasons to kill them? Hell yes, they are a potential threat in the future. 'The others' If one of these guys approach you, they are only looking for shelter and shelter only, they doesn't give a rats ass about you or your family, as long as they are safe... What kind of family do you want? A bunch of people with their own agenda, or a so called tight nit one, with members who are willing to die for you and more important are willing to die for your family? |
|
| Reply by: Aleksandr at Jun 16, '08 10:23 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
It's all case to case. Granting forgiveness, mercy and amnesty to those who lay down their weapons isnt always a bad idea. We're all in the same boat, looking after our own interests and those of our benefactors. My great great grand father shed mercy on some of the surviving hierarchy in Jay-C's family and later placed two of them specifically as trusted captains and members of his inner circle. Scorched earth when you have the initial upper hand is never an appetizing idea, unless completely necessary. To utterly eradicate an organization, you'll often leave a bitter taste in the mouth in those around you, it's better to show mercy and be underestimated, then to show none and be overestimated. |
|
| Reply by: Lucky_Lombardi at Jun 16, '08 12:48 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Okay, that's a good point. But when is is preferable to leave people with a bitter taste in their mouths and remain in power? What lengths should a leader go to in order to ensure his family's safety? Or, in alienating lots of people is the leader taking a short term gain at the expense of long term security? Inquiring minds want to know! |
|
| Reply by: JarJarBinks at Jun 17, '08 08:50 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
What lengths? Well, that's up to the leader to decide. Like I said earlier, it's better to shed mercy and be underestimated, then to show none and be overestimated. I'd say being a decent leader is juggling your own progress towards godfather, with the general happiness and moral of the community. I smile on people like Turi_Giuliani, who's charm and mannerism was second to none. Noone thought about killing him, and when he was eveuntally served the cold stew death, I'm sure the party responsible regretted it. The man was loved and revered. I believe those are the lengths one should employ to keep their family safe. Diplomacy and a solid public image. Lucky sheds a passionate tear in remembrance of Turi |
|
| Reply by: Lucky_Lombardi at Jun 17, '08 09:20 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Using pre-emptive attacks when it comes to war is tricky. Like TheShooter said, it helps if you have good intel to help you be more aware of your surroundings. But at the same time, shooting anything that moves makes you paranoid and you are perceived as being weak because you are incapable of discerning threats without killing everyone. There are some who don't like taking the first shot, or they don't want "innocent" blood to be shed. But we should remember that the organization is always greater than the sum of its parts, and especially greater than any one person. It may sound cold-hearted, but being in this sort of life one has to be prepared to do such, unless you want to be blindsided. In a war, of course first priority is anyone who you know has a good shot, then after the family has fallen, anyone who is Made and above is most likely to go. Some people would want to kill Wise Guys and Earners because they have the ability to shoot at bodyguards, thus weakening your defense. And some may want to shoot gangsters and goombas because 1. during war, a kill is a kill and 2. after the family has fallen, a shooter may not have any Earner+ targets to shoot, so to feel useful, goes and shoots a goomba or a gangster. What rank should someone be allowed to join another family? I think that depends on the situation. I remember reading in my journals how a leader took out another leader and her auth, and the people who was left alive was invited by another family, with some of them being of Made Man status. The leader who took them in wasn't penalized, but just was told that they would be watching the family very closely for any rogues. Now, the warring family did take out any and all threats, but in that case, they didn't perceive the Mades that went into another family as being such. I also agree with the fact that if you make yourself valuable, and form contacts, you just might save yourself from death if someone believes you are worth more alive than dead. Is it cowardly? Again, depends on the situation. The leader may want some of the members to survive so that one day they can get auth and continue the name. I think the worse thing someone could do however is leave for another family in the middle of a war, because that shows how disloyal you are to the organization. |
|
| Reply by: Kira_Esposito at Jun 17, '08 09:53 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1 |
How much do you want to tip for this post?
Minimum $20,000
Minimum $20,000
