I absolutely would. There is no "intervention" about it by the way. This is intervention. Without the quotations. One of the main things that I have loved about this game from the beginning was how the players get to control the game for themselves with very little admin interference as long as they are keeping up with the rules of the game. The players as a Godfather Council awhile back set up a limitation to the amount of crews that a city can have, which eliminates the stacking that everyone is saying this suggestion is trying to do.

Players have a way of sorting these things out. Just because it may not be in a timely manner that the admin/coders may want, doesn't mean it's not being done. We were down to 4 of 7 cities not being occupied, we are now at 2 of 7 and that isn't for that much longer as the Detroit experiment is about to begin. Even in the future, I would not want to see this being implemented as it hinders the players experience and ability to do things without feeling pressured into them because of a site change.

I'm still of the same opinion as before on this.

I think it will be of long term benefit in ensuring that players actually have an incentive to auth outside of their own cities.

Looks like PC-Ter will have the deciding vote.

If you think this through carefully why would it make people auth outside their own city?


Tell Joe Bloggs you expect x level of "donations" before they rank. They will earn more money and the invisible godfather is no longer creaming off your money. It will increase the money flow in the game as well.

It won't make a huge impact, but it will provide the incentive to see the cities occupied, which is the whole point of the suggestion.

I honestly don't see this as an incentive. "We're going to take something away from you so you play the game the way we want you to" does not say incentive. I am actually surprised to see you supporting something that takes away from the players choice Grin.

I'm all for players choice and the less Administration that is involved in the actual playing of the game, the better. Players should be allowed to play in whatever way is most advantageous to them. However, if the nature of their playing is going to be disadvantageous to the game overall, then the Administration will need to step in to make sure that it is rectified. They are objective and tasked with balancing the long term future of the game against the whims and desires of the players. A doubtlessly tricky task.

One of the reasons that I went back and forth on sponsoring this is due to my reticence to bring the Administration into the playing side of the game, but I believe it to be outweighed by the need for a change in this instance.

With the current system, why would a player ever authorise outside of his own city? The logical choice is to secure your own position, thus ensuring your own survival and then to make sure that you establish yourself as a dominant force and maintain that over your rivals. Nowhere within the player's mindset or mandate should they need to think "but if I authorise 40 leaders beneath me, what will happen to Las Vegas that has none?" I don't believe that is a player's responsibility; I believe it is the responsibility of the Administration.

Therefore, we are being asked to consider a change that will benefit the game overall and will encourage cities to be occupied. I then ask myself is it better for the game as a whole to have all the cities occupied, but leaders lose a small amount of money or users have total freedom and the game has empty cities? I believe it is better to lose a small amount of money so that the game as a whole may see a benefit. As a result of that belief, to me, the administration has to objectively institute a change that will help rectify the problem.

This change isn't the final solution to this issue, of that I'm certain. yet it is a step in the right direction that may encourage players to think "maybe Las Vegas needs some crime after all as I'll get more money if it does".

You could ask the same thing for every leader since Anita why they decided to authorize crews in other cities. People take notice of empty cities - they all become, at one point or another, occupied. The reasoning behind this suggestion almost makes it sound like the current leaders are holding the other cities hostage ins ome grand standoff. Why aren't we following historical precedent of allowing players to do this organically, when it has always eventually worked for us in the past?

I have to say I disagree with this. The main reasoning behind this is the fact that it takes away from the roleplay aspect of the game. If we are trying to make this game as realistic as possible, how is turning off earnings in empty cities being realistic? When a city is not under any particular control in real life, it did not stop gangsters and families from doing business in that city, earning money. Why should it here?

With time cities become populated again. Just because a major war happens and some are left without room for a day does not mean that crew leaders will not take action to rectify that on their own. No need for administration to step in and try and force a solution.

Patti, this isn't a suggestion to circumvent the current predicament of empty cities, its bigger than that. This isn't the first time we've went a long time with a city being empty, anyone remember St Louis? It seems to me that many of the people voting are doing so with an outlook on the current players. This confuses me, my understanding of our role is to look at the long term interest and ignore the social standing of whoever is currently the top dogs in charge.

I fully believe that having a small incentive as this to encourage leaders now, and in the future, to occupy cities that are left vacant can only be good for the game itself.

Though I can understand the position from Cassi with regard to trying to limit admin interference, however the long term benefit to the game is what should always prevail. I still remember the reaction that many people had when a group of leaders decided to enforce removal of NPMs; Admin intervention in that was to bring in CAs instead, id bet any player asked now would agree that the move actually worked out very well for the game, so admin intervention isn't always a bad thing, we might not see it now but it could improve game play down the line just like CAs did.

Id like to note that based on the reasoning given above (damn I missed that option when saying Yes) i've asked PC Pratster to re-visit this idea.

As I was saying before, my understanding of our objective is to think of the game in a long term scenario, not simply what it needs at this second. I feel I should add that my request to PC Pratster is not any attempt to amend his vote, I made that clear to Pratster, I would just like to ensure that people given their votes are doing so with the mindsight of the game and its longterm issues.

Just to expand on what Warrior has stated above in terms of the PC's role, it is a purely objective one.

{I understand that many of you hold positions of influence on the playing side at the moment and that it is difficult to disassociate yourselves from that view point as you might be presented with a situation where a proposed change might have an immediately negative impact upon your playing account.

I would ask, as I'm sure you guys are doing, that everyone tries their utmost to consider issues from an objective position. Consider the long term impact of things, consider how things have arisen previously and likely will again in the future and think of issues from the top, bottom and somewhere in between. If you still feel the same way having considered those implications, then stand by your opinion.}

You are seriously comparing this to the players desire to remove NPM from the game. Seriously????


They are two totally different aspects to the game.

One directly effected the income of the game, this one doesn't effect it one bit.


{I am quite aghast at the pure insult from both Warrior and Grin to the other members of the PC. Seriously you are asking people to revist their decisions because you don't think they are taking the long term view of the game into effect....

How on earth do you think this will make CLs auth outside of their own city any quicker?

With the current proposition in place of just removing auto tribute in cities without any crews in. It is actually more cash efficient for cities to be empty with the full benefit of the crime going to your members. All you need to do is insist on a level of donations for various ranks, drop taxes to a minimum level and reap the benefit.

What has also been totally ignored in this feature has been the effect of wars. Take the latest battle that wiped out a number of cities, they lost and suddenly having been attacked successfully beaten the aggressor you have to start further weakening your city to "protect your earnings".

We have developed a game environment where it is easier than ever to rogue, we are now trying to push people to auth "weak" defensed characters to new cities to try and keep tribute levels going through.

Sorry chaps as an idea there is an element of merit but in its current format that is being pushed through it is ill conceived and appears very knee jerk to a situation that doesn't happen every 5 minutes}

{This isn't a stimulus or an incentive in the least -- Unless you view either as a chance to get back a feature that you've previously had for several years. "Play the game our way, or lose out on taxes" isn't a stimulus for growth - it'll end up crippling the few people that actually survive a war. I ask in earnest - what, honestly, has stopped people from being authed in other cities in the past? Every city, in peacetime, eventually is occupied. Forced diversity by throwing subpar or weakened crews left and right into each city isn't what I would consider "good for the game" just for the fact that it makes our crew list page look a little larger isn't progress - it's administrative arm twisting for a feature that isn't necessary.}

{El_Nino, I gave a broad overview of what the PC mentality should be for every suggestion. I further stated "if you still feel the same way having considered those implications, then stand by your opinion". If that's an insult to you, you have extremely delicate sensibilities that need to be evaluated. I would appreciate it if you re-read what I said and then supplement your post accordingly.

I believe my reasons for supporting this change have already been explained at length. It will hopefully make leaders consider authing outside of their own cities to generate further income for themselves, rather than continually securing their own borders. I think of Deimne with 6 crews in New York, I think of Roman with 9 crews in Chicago and now I think of DeadlySin with 5 crews in Philly. This pattern is not altering itself and leaders have no reason to consider the empty cities at the moment. I believe that this may help to change their mentality.

Equally, I can appreciate the reasoning provided by the likes of ralph and Cassi against the feature. It isn't enough to sway me from my decision, but I can appreciate their point of view and that is why they voted as they have done.}

{I was definitely quite taken aback when asked to do what I was asked to do by another PC member, but, as I explained to them;}

I made my decision based on the game as a whole and it's long term. How I have said "It just takes time after a big war" is relevant to ANY big war. The war we recently saw was game crippling. It wiped out over half of the site, you can't expect leaders to then be able to fill every city.

{I'm quite aware what position I hold in game, and I can assure you it doesn't take an effect on what I say in the PC. It wouldn't cripple any finances, there are other ways to make money.}

Take Philly for example, what have they recently done? Sent their most experienced, longest serving, probably biggest asset, to another city to populate it. No other city is in a position to do that, as there are at most 3 crews in one city at present.

It just takes time after a big war. I find myself repeating that a lot for some reason. Admin intervention is not require now, it is not required EVER in this sort of scenario.

{One final word on the comparison of this to NPM's. That leadership banned a game feature. It has been made quite obvious that if you ban game features, other things will be put in place and admin will step in to rectify it. Whereas banning NPM's did hurt the players financial status, it hurt the games financial status even more, with less people willing to buy credits to gain the NPMs.}

{Re read however my thoughts haven't changed, however I am not going to keep posting on here about it so I have mailed you instead}

{As to the feature change, if it has an effect and I am extremely doubtful it will. You are going to see weak crews created in cities which will be rapidly picked off by rogues or taken down because they are not up to standard.}

Id like to point out that at no time was I questioning Pratster, nor his view. He stated "no longer required", that to me made it seem like he had the opinion that this change was due to the current status of the game and that it possibly had been required, but was no longer required, where as we are all looking torward the overall future of the game and not focusing solely on whats happening right now.

I explicitly stated that my request was not to attempt to ask him to change his view, I respect his choice to say no and hold his own opinion. Nor did I question the position he holds in game at this moment in time.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify that as it seems some may have taken offence where none was intended.

It's pretty clear that no one is really going to be swayed on this issue one way or the other. But as passionately as some feel, I imagine we're going to keep revisiting it, so I've been trying to put a different spin on it. This, in my opinion, is definitely a negative way of admin intervening on what should be handled by the players, since this doesn't affect the revenue of the game, nor is anyone banning a game feature, causing need for admin intervention. So I'm offering a spin on the idea that is more of the positive kind than negative.

So... In an unoccupied city, taxes are taken. And where do the GF taxes go that would go to a GF were there one there? I would assume they go to None? So what if we instead, take those taxes, that are already being generated anyway and stick them into an account for that city that other CL's or GF's could borrow from to set up a CL in the new city. Because most of the times that this measure is necessary is after a huge war and the financial stability across all cities has been crippled. If the money was there in an account waiting, then it wouldn't be an issue to auth someone into another city.

The money could only be borrowed and used to set someone up, in the city it was borrowed in. And it would have to be paid back. How, we could easily all come up with a way to do so, be it coming straight out of a tax on the cl or whatever. You could also add a tax to the loan, where they pay back 1 1/2 times or 2 times what they borrowed. I feel like the only way we're going to come to a conclusion on this is if there is some comprising being done.

The vote has came to the decision not to implement at this point in time. If players feel the need for this to be re-evaluated they should repost the suggestion with their proposed suggestion in detail and gain the sponsorship needed. I appreciate the members of the PC for we came to an overall decision of what we felt was right. Case closed.