The decision by city hall to rearrange the civic structure of our society has changed the landscape that we find ourselves in.  It is my view that this will benefit this thing of ours immeasurably.

But it leads to certain questions.

For example, what does a godfather of a district have to do to be assumed to be first amongst equals in that particular city?  Or will such an assumption never be made?

Would it be best for it to remain unsaid? 

Will inter and intra district and city business relationships remain ad hoc, privvy only to those in the upper structure?

What are the consequences of an increased number of persons holding a sacred rank?

In a nutshell - what will the net effect of the increased number of chefs have on the broth?

I am reminded of the saying

"Too many cooks, spoil the broth"

When there are too many cooks, the results of the finished product tend to be inferior. As for here, we shall see.

Surely it will lead to fiercer competition and increased business?

a more interesting broth?

Historically the big personalities on our streets have tended to get targeted. But with most business being whispered in coffeeshops and no real business being conducted or debated on the streets its hard to see how any big characters will clash.

Things like city taxes, authing of crews, defending of hitters (not likely these days) etc: used to be driving factors behind wars. Its hard to see anything like that going down with our current crop of leaders. After all we lost one this week and not so much as a statement or question was spoke on our streets.

I think the foreseeable future is garden parties, finished by sundown of course, so as to not upset the neighbours.

After all we lost one this week and not so much as a statement or question was spoke on our streets.

It is a little unusual to see a Godfather fall without an explanation given by the victor. It's often said that a Godfather doesn't have to give an explanation for his or her actions, but it's always appreciated. Personally I believe that most Godfathers take great pleasure in trumpeting their victories in the streets after a rival is defeated. However the removal of Vaticus and Vegeta was hardly a "victory" for New York, but rather a loss. Of course people have questions, but it's certainly not imperative for a Godfather to discuss internal business decisions, especially ones of this kind of magnitude.

I bring this up not even so much to defend Godfather Phil_Steak's decision to remain silent behind his reasoning to remove Vaticus, as I don't believe he needs me to defend that decision. His silence on the matter should speak for itself. I bring it up instead as an example of how our hierarchies and structures have changed with the introduction of districts, in terms of multiple Godfathers occupying the same city. Personally I think the dynamic will make things very interesting for months, maybe years to come.

Just as a side note, Vaticus wasn't yet a Godfather. I have no doubt he would have been assuming control of the district at some point and cemented that role by taking over as Godfather, but his demise came first and thus he was still essentially under Godfather Steak.

As TheHumanCentipede pointed out, this falls entirely under an internal move and requires no notification to the streets. New York informed those within their walls of the circumstances and were also good enough to inform the other leaders at the time too. I would find it odd in these circumstances for a public comment on the matter as none was required.

Though granted I do see the irony in what I just said, as if you weren't privy to the information then the lack of street comment would have been odd, so I guess its a catch 22 situation.

Vaticus was not a Godfather, Tyrion. My mistake. My existence is so miserable, I flub these kinds of details from time to time. You'd think three heads would be better than one, but not so much when said heads are connected to an anus and fed excrement daily.

I see where you are trying to go with this Tyrion, maybe if Vaticus had more of a personality or presence he/she would still be here. But maybe if they had tried to show personality or presence they would still be here. But more than likey anyone with conviction and their own opinions wouldn't make it to bold.

Maybe if there was any presence on the streets that didn't demand membership of the '4 cities amateur dramatics society' some of these actions would warrant street explanations. In years gone by Leaders would simply not have been allowed by our population to remove Families without explanation. Today we are to preoccupied doing glad hands and not missing a line.

What we seem to be lacking are people with any conviction. Why would anyone want to question tatics to remove a friend/associate/ when their bloodline will lose a Don/Consig/Boss. It is of course accepted that we should all sit in the HUGE coffeeshops up IRC way and 'lol' to the right jokes and 'hehe' to something you'd rather shoot someone over in that hope you can petty and ass kiss your way to BOLD.

Maybe it isn't the majority of leaders that are actually the problem, maybe it is the community for letting 'this thing of ours' become corrupted by greed and coffeeshop relationships.Maybe its our willingness to hope we become the selected lucky BOLD one next. All we have to do is keep our mouths shut and only hoot who we are asked to, not who deserved it.

I have read in days gone by of high ranking people being told they won't be authed until they make themselves known on the streets. Being sent out to make themselves known. I'm all for this, when someone lights up bold we shouldn't be asking...who? why?  We should be cheering 'its about time' or even 'What the hell has he done to deserve...'

Anyway, what the hell do I know....

*shoot not hoot

But more than likey anyone with conviction and their own opinions wouldn't make it to bold.

It's a question of personal views, but I'd rather be dead with my convictions close to my heart, and my opinions voiced, than to be living a lie with or without a bold suit. I'd suggest that many of our leaders may feel the same way, but far be it for me to attempt to put words in their mouths.

What we seem to be lacking are people with any conviction.

Is this a general comment or simply in relation to the specific situation at hand?

I'll avoid going off on a rant and showing everyone just how deeply my own convictions lie when I think someone is speaking in a derogatory manner in relation to myself, my family, my district or my city. I will however say to take care with broad sweeping generalisations. You may end up casting the net further than intended.

When it comes to this specific situation, I don't see how anyone can complain about a lack of discussion on the streets. I'm not saying there shouldn't have been one, I'm not saying there should have been one, I'm simply saying that if nobody took the time to come out and request the details, or demand them, then they can't really complain about them not being given is a little hypocritical. It's quite possible that the people who did or do have the convictions to do such a thing were or are already aware of the details and didn't feel the need. However, this is just a hypothesis, so don't read anything into it.

*As Satanta was about to continue ranting, he noticed that KoTE had wandered off towards a dark corner of the streets. After hearing a brief scuffle followed by a loud bang, he decided it might be a wasted effort to continue his talk and instead gave a thought to the souls of the departed.*

"I'm not saying there shouldn't have been one, I'm not saying there should have been one"

lol, so you have no opinion either way....like the point he was making?

If you're going to quote me, please quote me completely and don't misquote me as you have done.

Finish off the rest of what was said and you'll see exactly what was meant. There's a little thing called context which is very important for those of us who like to have intelligent conversations and not just look like a jack ass on the streets. I never said or suggested I don't have an opinion and I take great offence in you trying to, incorrectly, make that claim.

I'm sorry, I thought I was doing to you exactly what you did to the person just above.

So why is it you can partial quote people yet I cannot?

Is this something you May have an opinion on, BUT, MAY NOT have an opinion on but I'm not allowed to quote you because you haven't been told what opinion you should have yet?

Would this be easier if I just made up a nice story and we all joined in?

When you completely ignore the context of a comment and drop the part of it that gives it context when quoting it, that changes it from being a partial quote to being a misquote. It isn't that the rules are different for you and I, it's just that the reasons for you doing it was to try and make it appear as if it suited your wishes when it didn't. I was simply replying to comments that had been made.

As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, yet happily chose to ignore, the comments about saying there should or shouldn't have been a comment made on the topic raised were in specific relation to the hypocritical bitching about nobody asking for a comment. It wasn't a general comment to the events nor was it the slightest suggestion that I didn't have an opinion. It was saying anyone moaning about no comment now, that didn't try to illicit one then was an ass. I completely stand over that and the intention behind it. You can't complain about a lack of action, then fail to take any action yourself and still feel entitled to moan. Again, it's simply hypocritical.

Would this be easier if I explained the words context and hypocritical? Or is being a smartass reserved for you and we shouldn't all join in?

If you simply wish to 'pick a fight' in order to try and generate a little activity on the streets, that's fine. You really don't need to try this hard. I'd happily debate at length without you having to try idiotic tricks and manipulation such as this. As I'm quite bored though, I'm happy to give a reaction to such putty and childish antics.

My previous rant was cut very short due to someone carrying off the gentleman in question and killing him, but I'd happily return to it if someone did choose to discuss the topic rather than try and be a smartass. However if you do wish to employ those types of technique, that's fine too. I'll just be far less inclined to value any further or future opinions I hear you voice if you've sullied your standing by carrying yourself as a hypocrite and an ass. Remember that the action is yours, but the reaction is not.

"Remember that the action is yours, but the reaction is not." - Can we call this the first official death threat in the streets for way to long?

*blushes*

You could call it that, but if you do you're a mistaken fucktard.

I had just clearly said that I'm more than happy to debate the point of the original discussion. If not, I'm happy to go along with your idiotic attempts at manipulation. Nowhere does it even remotely come close to being a death threat.

You've obviously chosen the latter to continue. So at a time when you're out here complaining about people not discussing things on the streets, you've chosen not to discuss the topic and instead attempt (poorly it must be said) to infer multiple things that were clearly never said or suggested. Good job.

God its good to see that word brought back to the streets...everytime I hear it it takes me back to TheIncredibleDrunk ranting and throwing bottles round the old HQ...aaaaahhhh...

My answer then to you good Sir...is...saying as I can see this conversation is doing your blood pressure no good at all...is...that I must dash.

It's incredibly kind of you to be so considerate of my well being, but I'm happy to assure you this conversation is having no negative impacts on me what so ever should you have anything meaningful to say.

I'm actually quite able to make such snappy retorts without need of a second thought, much less it requiring enough thought or reaction to get me worked up.

Surely it will lead to fiercer competition and increased business?

a more interesting broth?

In my opinion, I do not believe this will be the case. The division between east and midwest will most likely refocus the competition and business to mainly one area or the other. This creates more "cooks" in a smaller region. All this is likely to do is create a bunch of average diners not worth visiting. I also believe the importance of higher positions is weakened when there is an excessive number of leaders. That is how I see it anyway.

While not making any comments on the wildly interesting tangent this conversation had gone on, I will however try to put forth my views on the original topic brought to these Streets.

I believe that these changes to the structure of this world will forever change the way we look at titles, specifically the title of 'Godfather'. Before the change, Godfather was his own master, he was someone who dictated the running of an entire city,all by himself. There was no authority to trump him anywhere in the city. However, now we have seen a massive change. As can be illustrated by the speeches made by the two Godfathers who were Godfathers before the change and who now rule a district in a city with two other Godfathers, the title has been diluted quite a bit. At least, that is just my opinion.

I however believe, that this is a positive change. Something that will lead to more competition and possibly a more intense MafiaReturns. It will probably take some time, but I believe that there will come a time when each Godfather of a district will view himself/herself as an independent from the others with different objectives as to how their crime syndicate should be run. Of course, the first time this was attempted, it was met with a very swift end but I am sure something of this sort will pop up again.

Which is why I disagree with you Warped, when you say it will reduce the interesting nature of this world. I am very optimistic that it will increase it.