I have a kin who arrived on these shores nearly fourteen years ago listening to similar conversations. Rogues, bloodlining, purging and lifetime grudges. 

When my first kin arrived they had powerful business dealings going on in another country. A country where the vast majority lived by a code of honor known as omerta. "If I live, I'll kill you. If I die, I'll forgive you."  

Through the years and to date, my kin has met many who live by that code of honor. And I am honored to have met them. It is these very people who are great for business. Sadly, we will not see some of their kin again. We have some around who are losing a race to a snail so to speak. And Lord knows my kin has tried to put a fire under their butts. It's exhausting. 

I see some of the greatest leaders that set foot on these shores doing next to nothing. And they know who they are. Rogues just don't surface for vengeance. It could be boredom. It could also be part of a bigger plan to pick away at power to eventually move a new regime in. 

The kin of mine who arrived here nearly fourteen years ago had a crew of men and women nobody would have on their crew because they were labled as rogues/karens in the other country. They took heed to the laws and they shined. My kin could not have been more proud.

The sense of entitlement long lives too. They is not helpful either. I am a firm believer in trust until given a reason not to trust. We forget it is the very people we shun, could very well be the people who save your life.  

“Then there's been the middle ground. Letting as many people as possible prove themselves and earn their second chances, whilst still carrying out smaller purges against those considered born trouble, those whose backgrounds couldn't be verified or those who simply seemed a bit dodgy. Bloodlining has also remained part of that approach, with the argument being that some families have already shown what happens when they're given another opportunity.

But even that comes with its own problems. Who gets to decide when somebody is suspicious enough to be removed? And at what point does being the child of a rogue become enough to condemn somebody who hasn't actually done anything themselves?”

Been there, done that. In the end, it eventually fails, but finding a middle ground is the most moral thing to do... in a world that isn't particularly moral...

There are no alternatives. Only different grades of brutality.

Bobby_Tweaks, yes, often times it is done based on some behavior… The scrutiny… But the X-factor is also presumed behavior. Paranoia and presumptions drive a lot of deaths…

Matty, it’s best to accept there is no perfect solution to any of this. The only option is to find some sort of middle ground of mitigation. People often take second chances, with the intent of a backstab or at least without genuine loyalty, something I avoid. Regimes die to allowing enough of those to slide by.

Archy, leadership can try as they might, but people die. People want revenge. People die some more. They want more revenge. There are also people that simply want power for the sake of wanting power. Blood alone should not necessarily be used as evidence, but (and this is coming from me) sometimes you know where you have someone. You know they’re your enemy. That’s not changing. Black and white. Additionally, finding someone hiding is often times enough of a reason…

I do believe in research. I do believe in vetting people. I believe in putting in detective work. I believe in trying to make sure that a kill is done on valid cause. It was rare in my line that there was ever what I would call a “blind shot.” Due-diligence is important.

Straight up blanket bloodlining and purging is not a good practice. However, there are some exceptions, i.e. bloodfueds and so on.

Michael, I don’t know if the current rogues are doing things off of emotions or strategic calculation. That presumption is a bit much. But yes, you should have no mercy for them; that is the battle. Fight. Kill or be killed. 

Archy, again, so if you are saying you will not welcome the child of a former rogue back, then you are excluding them. Eventually, this becomes a large number off excluded people. As a collective, groups exclude others… They exclude other groups. It’s about who’s on top and who’s on bottom… Every time. And those at the top, give orders to their allies to deal with threats to staying in power.

Michael, Simon’s clean slate speech was political baby kissing. How many people has Simon or Simon’s friends bloodlined or purged? How many of those were ordered by New York? Would Simon have said no to New York if asked to execute someone? Has he said no? Yes, he has, but rarely. Going to keep KW safe? There are generations of grudges and other things that exist… They don’t go away, and there is always something driving in the background. Even NY allowed a member to stand who had knowledge of rogues, arguably redirected the rogues at Simon, until Simon's kin then killed that person (causing Harrow to step down because moody emo boy), along with his allies, who also joined New York after… Then what happens? New York retaliates and witness statement catches Striphe?

One hand washes the other, and when it doesn't, problems happen. Did Simon stand up for something? Kinda. Is Simon in the driver's seat? Not really. Was his heart in the right place in some way? Maybe. But for the sake of survival, there are sacrifices, and the clean slate concept was low brow politicking; he didn't have the power to deliver on that. He was subservient and overpowered; thus, it's not entirely his fault. It'd be a bad idea anyway. Some people do not live to be held down. 

FayeKinnett sums things up well.

God has the right idea. Ancestry does not forget. And so, why should a regime?

Steven hits on an important point. A lot of what happens has to do with whether a leader chooses his own family over the group they are with. I agree with the sentiment, but the longevity factor is low for a leader like that. A leader who does not act in the interest of the group is a liability. A group with liabilities has a choice. Get rid of the liability or die. 

Anyway, this is all talking in a circle. It’d be nice if there weren’t threats. It’d be nice if people didn’t lie. It’d be nice if you could trust everyone. It’d be nice if you didn’t die.

But you do, and it'd be boring as fuck if you didn't. This is a world of war. Be brutal. Be measured. But do your best to be smart about it to stay alive, if that’s your objective.

"You believe in research, vetting and detective work, sPikEySPoOGELyWOOGLy, and so do I. That’s why “only different grades of brutality” doesn’t sit right with me. If every road ends at the same bullet, the investigation is just a formality before the funeral.

Watching a man, limiting what he can see, having someone vouch for him: none of that is a bullet, and all of it can be undone when the evidence changes. You can’t do that with a grave. Ancestry doesn’t forget, fine, and it shouldn’t. That’s why we ask questions. But a ledger is only useful if you read it before you act. If it already contains the sentence, nobody needed to open it.

Hiding is the same. Sometimes a man hides because he’s planning something. Sometimes he hides because we’ve taught him that being found is fatal. If we treat both as guilt, we’re the ones manufacturing the suspicious behavior we say we discovered."

I'm not saying that every road ends with the same bullet. But many roads do end with brutality. 

Watching, limiting, vouching are all tactics, and yes, you can change your mind and kill them. But to a group in power, there are some that are already sentenced and it is a linear path, to death. 

While I get your point about hiding, it signifies there's no trust between parties, and whether that's manufactured by the situation of those in power or not, it usually ends in death. 

Firstly, thanks to everyone who's taken the time to contribute to this discussion. There's been some genuinely interesting perspectives shared and it's good to see people willing to look at things from different angles, even when they don't necessarily agree.

I never actually started this discussion expecting anyone to come up with the perfect solution. If there were one, I imagine it would have figured it out long before now. The whole point was to hear different opinions, challenge some of the thinking that's become almost second nature around here and perhaps consider whether the way things have always been done is necessarily the way they must continue.

History is important, experience matters and nobody should be naive about the world we operate in. But experience doesn't make anyone infallible and repeating the same conclusions for years doesn't automatically make them wisdom. Sometimes the most valuable thing we can do is accept that we don't have all the answers and actually listen to what others have to say.

Although, apparently we can put all that to bed now as someone's made their customary appearance and graciously explained to everyone where they've gone wrong, good of them to clear that up for us.

Something witty sarcastic and slightly zesty