To clarify, you are saying that if the community comes up with new ways to enforce accountability within a family you will add that functionality into the game? Assuming both ends agree to participate ahead of time by accepting the families universal rules. The very obvious thing that comes to mind is a vote of no confidence of leadership triggered by a majority. So, as clarification, something like that if worked out fully would be something you would add?

"Some uppers should be denied auth, or their auther shot 27 times in a row if they keep doing the same thing."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. Did you really just say this lol 

As it turns out you in fact did not say "Arthur" like I initially thought that I read. 

so how do we get in this group of people that are about to make this decision?  Are cls reaching out to their crews and doing the footwork?  Are the hands touching base with every mobster in line to check the temp .  are you building that base relationship so you know who you are dealing with?   

Having read this a few times, I am struggling to understand exactly how what you're proposing could be put into practice any more than it currently is. 

Most, if not all, crews have rules already which outline acceptable member conduct. If you follow those rules you'll typically be fine to function for X amount of time without consequence. The CL/member dynamic is already quite clear on that point and remains so until you get to the stage where you have reached X wack and/or X days old. At that point all of the previous work is evaluated by those in charge and a decision is made on a case by case basis. "Do I believe this person is going to be harmful if I trust them to reach a point where they could do harm?" and the answer isn't always straightforward either as a simple yes or no, because I might trust a person to stay completely onside whilst another third party is alive, but in the event of their demise, I might completely change that opinion. Is that a yes or a no? A yes then a no? These nuanced situations are basically the game at the top. A constant battle of trying to give opportunities to those who have no intention to hurt you to keep it somewhat enjoyable vs not enabling those who do want to hurt you to stay alive.

And, what makes that hard is they will often appear exactly the same. If my intentions are good I'll follow the rules and do all I can to be part of the family and try to impress my boss to progress. If my intentions are not good, I'll still follow the rules, be part of the family and impress my boss, so that he allows me enough rope that I can slip the noose. That is why we can see a sworn enemy accidentally authed in one breath and a completely innocently intentioned person slaughtered the next. I'm not sure how anything could be coded to reflect that as it seems to be the human element of process. 

To the broader picture, I think what is alarmingly out of kilter is the standards of this regime in what they now expect from the people they choose to lead vs what they themselves and the community at large have historically expected from those that lead. They demand nothing except loyalty and no transgression except betrayal is seemingly going to be reprimanded. Which leads us to where we are, silent, non-contributors holding us hostage out of fear of the consequences of their past actions, Godfathers taking orders from Gangsters, token gestures at leadership, which don't even extend to an auth speech of more than a paragraph or two, that only exist at all because it is mandated they must in code. 

I remain convinced that if Spike was not leading this group, he would be its foremost detractor. Even so, I do not think this is anything that can or should be coded around either. The idea of the game has always been as a sandbox which becomes what you choose to make it - or in some cases - what you choose to let it become. There are limitations upon those in charge due to how the game works, sure, but the number of people in opposition to the regime, particularly those who typically do not care either way who is at the top, speaks to the feeling of the players. I personally believe that if this regime choose not to arrest that decline, it will eventually reach a tipping point and they will be removed. 

My personal preference on how to improve things would be for almost exactly what you have proposed here, but without any need for coded enforcement of it. Those at the top firstly discuss amongst themselves what they want from this, evaluate what they are happy with and consider what needs to be improved. What would they expect and will they expect in the future when they do not occupy top position? Then present the outcomes of that discussion to the rest of the users who can then make their own choices on how they engage with that. If the current regime conclude everything is great, it'll continue on this same downward spiral it has been until they either choose to give up or are overthrown. Alternatively, maybe they can go some way to improving tomorrow and their legacies thereafter. 

Whatever prevents the shit show that has been going on for way too long. The current small group of friends purpose in existing and maintaining existence is unlike anything I have seen in my 13 years here. I see it as some sick demented thinking. No more no less. 

I also agree with Fred when a CL dies the RH should have the opportunity to carry on the family name. Any internal issues should be dealt with internally and respected. Never up for debate by outsiders.

Everyone understands that shit is situational and context matters, but when there is a clear blatant disregard of the standards agreed upon in the beginning you now have a platform to point out the discrepancy.

When a  discrepancy is pointed out  are we back to where we are now? Or does that platform come with support of any sort. 

Izzy, bringing in from another thread I saw where people complained about others copying/pasting rules/jobs and not putting in effort:

Is there a way to code in that the site would be able to check for "plagiarism" in the rules/jobs" portion of the board for Family's that are "active" (meaning not crossed out because the CL is dead) so that everyone is required to put things into their own words with their own flair into it? A way to essentially make people be more unique about the rules in their family that get shown to the streets (I'm talking about the City Rules that everyone can see, not making the back alley Crew Rules visible for everyone).

In my head it seems like it might be easy to code... but I know coding is a unique creature that will give you false hope before chuckling at you while it breaks in random spots because of a misplaced tag or a missed comma or something. 

Thanks Izzy. I am processing what you just said. 

Squishy I totally get what you are saying, I don't think things need to be scrapped completely when someone from one crew is getting Auth/Set up into their own crew, but should they not put their own voice into things?

Maybe I'm thinking more along the lines of something else? I remember back in '17 when you implemented a code where people had to actually fill out their Crew details just to be able to turn on invites into said crew. If someone is getting Auth, it's not generally a sudden situation, the person getting auth should have time to see what's been used before and put it into their own voice.

On the same note, if we are punishing those who posts for unoriginality (I think I saw an announcement somewhere that the post would be deleted and the offender would lose their points, but correct me if i'm wrong), should that not be the same standard going into putting a crew together? Or is that something that we think code would be too overwhelmed by.

That or I'm explaining this poorly, which there's a good chance I am, but hey, spit balling ideas here so maybe someone else might read it and be able to build better on the through train.

Even if it is a Branch of the same family it is ultimately under the guidance of another leader of sorts - So while the overall message could be the same, it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to add a few lines signaling you are unique, you are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th additional headquarters set up in that city due to the popularity of your family. 

And while I do agree the game should hold people accountable, by the time you are in a position to do that you are not privy to the job details to know that they're being lazy pieces of shit. 

Interesting question, Izzy.  

I've always been a "simpler is better" type of person, but unfortunately I think we've surpassed that point because no one is willing to do what is right.  They are only willing to either kill or self preserve at any expense - and I do really mean any.

Is there a way to trigger a confidence vote on our leaders?   If they fall below a certain line they are killed, or they don't get any BG's or something.  Like - if 3/4's of the active players want a leader gone - they shouldn't be leading.  

It would force our leaders to be more accountable and engaging to their crew members.