Whilst nothing exists in a vaccum, aside from the deitrus of the household collected in such a device, it is important that no-one feels targeted by the question I am about to posit to you, the peon masses.

Debate rages over whether or not Manius's death was justified.  That's not for me to say, that's up to the protagonists involved and interested parties.

But let me ask you this, if one syndicate decides to remove another syndicate, for no other reason than greed, grudge or glee, should that syndicate announce the reasoning for their actions fully and honestly?

Within our community, is there a need for PR?  Can thjose with power and guns dispatch others merely because they can? 

Does the removal of a business rival always have to be justified?

In the simplest terms, yes, the removal of a rival has to be justified. Going out and taking potshots at another crew's man isn't right, and if it doesn't have good reasoning behind it brings about those nasty wars that ravage our cities from time to time.

What about an internal conflict?  Or one city attacking another.

For example.

City A wipe out City B.  City A then send two CLs to City B to set up HQs.  City A takes to the Streets to say "we did it to make money".

Is this what we want?  Would it be acceptable?

It all depends on what YOU think is justifiable.

I personally think hitting the mattresses should be a last resort at all costs. The art of killing is bad for business. It stops all business ventures for a short time for you to fulfill your obligation in removing someone. You're losing money in better words. Now from my stance you don't need to prove yourself to anyone else if you're running a Crew. If you want to remove someone from a position of power, you just better face the repercussions afterwards. That being the Public Relations in our community.

In my opinion you're actions don't have to be justified for other people to understand. Just be aware that someone will come out and judge you. Your actions will be judged for all to see and your name will be at questioned. Its really whether or not you can come out to the streets and explain yourself.

I agree with Mike, in a way. War is never a first option. If someone fucks with you, you mention it to your CL and hopefully they can help stop the problem. If they can't, then they can consider hitting the mattresses.

Mysterion listens to the speaker from a rooftop, before giving his view on the questions raised to the astonished looking crowd looking up at him.

I believe a reasoning speech is often useful after a takedown or war. For example, if City A wipe out City B, and offer no explanation, what conclusion might Cities C, D and E come to? They could well come to the belief that City A are 'killing for target practice', 'performing step 1, in their quest for world domination' or 'doing it for the lolz'.

If neighboring cities are allowed to come to these conclusions, they could well feel threatened and let paranoia determine their actions. If the truth is in fact City B's second in command assassinated a family member of City A, and wasn't brought to swift justice, calling City A into action, then an explanation could do wonders in quelling the paranoia from the other cities.

But does it always have to be justified? I guess that depends on the physical power of the aggressor...

Of course those in power can dispatch people at will. I have said many times before that, the community, its actions, they way its run and what is seen as acceptable is very subject to the crime syndicates that are currently in power. what is seen as acceptable in one era, may not be accepted in another. you are a product of your own environment, we will all do well to remember such a phrase.

Most times we have to accept the conditions we live in and abide by the current strong holds rules, that is unless you want to try to change it by, going to war, if that be the action deemed necessary. lets use the latest incident as an example, like you i wont comment on the internal war as a whole, i was not privvy to the inner workings, with that being said, it was a power move, which ever way you want to look at it, and there is nothing wrong with that. If you have the resources, the outside help and the backing to, put you and others who you want to see succeed into a better position, power wise, then why wouldnt you. What i dont get is this, and im not pointing fingers or singling anyone out here, but surley if the powers that be, I.E. the current strong hold just come out here and simply said, because "we can", then i would gladly accept such an action, simply, well because id have too. it really is that simple.

As for making a speech, i honestly love the post war speeches and drama that does inevitably follow, more from a spectators view, as apposed to any real interest. In saying that i dont feel its a necessity, sure, as i have said i love the drama that follows it, but sometimes these speeches are truly more hassle than they are actually worth. I would also say, i dont see how good it can be for business, for a gf or an acting head to come into a busy street, a street were, well every unknown commoner walks amongst us. Maybe even the odd filth. Simply put in my eyes, the reasoning should be on a need to know basis and not verey tom, dick or harry should be privvy to such info.

Another question you might want to think about is, "Does everything have to be promoted in the Streets?"

I mean something as big as mentioned before, taking out a complete city is a huge ordeal. That might need to be addressed due to the amount of offsprings of the fallen returning to these shores. But say a removal of a small crew, does that really need a whole explanation to everyone to hear? And by small I mean like 10-15 man crew.

I think an explanation to other city heads, where only they would be given a full explanation, would suffice. And if they chose to tell their members, its on them.

Sorry for cutting you off Space-pole. Seems we had the same point. The need to know basis.

In my humble opinion, Leaders don't need to give any explanation of their action to the public. They have earned their place at the top of the food chain and they can choose to do Whatever they want. If a leader wishes to kill a -48, he or she can do it. If a leader wants to ban a person from their city or even from all the cities, he or she can do it. If any leader has the necessary fire power to take out every other Family around and replace them with his/her own stooges,He/She can do it. There is no explanation necessary

If this leader(should such a person exist) deigns to explain his/her actions to us and if that reason is 'I did it because I could', we have no choice but to accept it and to either shut up and get on with it or rant hysterically about how much of an asshole that person is. Effectively, we can do nothing about it at that moment. However, if such a leader was to exist, the general public would label him/her a tyrant. A loose cannon.This could end, I believe in one of two ways One,Quite a few Bloodlines would stop gracing our shores. Lesser people means lesser crimes. Lesser crimes= Lesser money for the leader.
Or Two, a more drastic series of events could come to pass, His own people would mutiny against him and frankly, nobody is infallible.

So, PR is not necessary in our world but a sense of right and wrong in a leader is much appreciated, respected and loved. I guess, it is this sense that prompts most leaders to give explanations for their acts.

Thats ok pal, great minds, and all that shizzle.

Personally, and probably a result of not being "inner circle", without the explainations that our present leaders have brought to the streets over the last couple months, I might find life so boring as to end it myself. So while I dont believe any actions need  justification, I believe we all have a need to know, at least if wearing a button, otherwise why be here very long?

I think like with many things in our particular brand of the mob, you're finding a balance between being a mobster and being an entertainer.  The mobster way, in this most recent case, the acting city head should only talk to the other city heads.  Hey, we have an internal conflict here, but we're in control of our crews and no one else is in danger.  Then in turn those city heads can notify their own members.

However, from an entertainment perspective, admit it or not, we love the shit out of thugs and civilians getting angry, emotional, and hearing them argue with everyone else. 

UA recently heard somewhere of questions. Questions involving whether explanations were required after a take-down. Did she hear this in the coffee shops? Was it the streets? She can't remember. They reverberated in her mind for nearly a week. She can't seem to shake it.  

UA heads into a local speakeasy. After slamming a few she begins to ramble to anyone who will listen. She really doesn't care if they listen though. She just feels like rambling. The questions she heard resonate in her mind.

But let me ask you this, if one syndicate decides to remove another syndicate, for no other reason than greed, grudge or glee, should that syndicate announce the reasoning for their actions fully and honestly?

UA laughs. Fully and honestly? Fully, no. Not everything is our business. Honestly .. If you are going to come to the streets with anything at all it'd be nice to have an honest announcement.

Should the syndicate announce the reasoning? Eh, they can but there are always two sides to everything. Expecting full disclosure is a dillusional expectation. We are going to hear what they want us to hear. With the events in New York, we heard a report of the Events in New York and a ghost appeared to report The Betrayal of Manius. Two very conflicting reports. I don't know if this was a power move, vendetta, the removal of a businessman rival or whatnot and the reports pretty much offset each other.

UA slams another shot and continues rambling.

Is there a need for pr? Well, since pr promotes your position or provides ones point of view, it is needed to a certain extent. PR serves its purpose round these parts.

Does the removal of a business rival always need to be justified? I doubt people wake up and decide "lets kill a business rival for sport today" although they may wake up and say "I've got a score to settle..  lets do it!" I guess it depends on ones definition of "justified." Is "I wanted them gone" a justified reason? It may be to some if it secures their position within this thing of ours. If this is the case, I don't feel a novel is necessary to explain it and possibly a street explanation doesn't even need to be presented. Maybe a telegram to the other leaders might be all that is necessary so they know the take-down was not meant to be an assault on the entire city or community itself.

UA slams one more and gets up to leave.

Frankly, I don't care about explanations. People have their reasons and their reasons are no business of mine. My family is my business. My work is my business. Nothing more and nothing less. I keep my ears and eyes open and that is it. What I may consider justified may not be considered justified to others.

UA heads out of the speakeasy and goes down the road. The streets are fairly quiet today. Maybe there is activity elsewhere. She hails a cab and heads to the airport.

Negative.  I apologize for not listening to everybody's reply so if I repeat what another has said, forgive me.

Those in power have no obligation to come to the streets and report their reasons to the masses.  As much as we want to know the reasons, the powers that be should not feel compelled to appease us.  And if they decide to come to the streets and simply say "because we can," then so be it.  It's there prerogative. 

As one of the "peon masses" I absolutely want to know the reasons behind EVERY war.  That doesn't mean I'm entitled. 

That's not to say that leaders shouldn't discuss their motives with other leaders, they probably should.  But that can be done behind closed doors. 

As for those leaders who have come out in the past and reported on their reasons for their part in a particular war...don't we always have to take that with a grain of salt?  They could be lying, and more often than not, their story is only half of the entire story. 

And another note:  Don't interpret this to mean I don't think leaders should have to come to the streets.  I think street presence is very important.

I must say this I do not believe war needs to be justified in the sense everyone else may be thinking of. If you look at what the meaning of Justify is you will find it as this: to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right. Well none of here in this thing of ours can be called Just or we would not be in this life. So we must theirfore use the other defination of right. Well in This Thing of Ours only one thing makes Right and that is Might. So if you got the Might then you also have the Right.