Master_Pain - where did you pull that figure from?

There isn't a straight forward answer to your question. Some may receive help from friends or even their current Leader, but that is down to the individual situation from what I gather.

I was going to fund my own entry if I decided to go ahead and throw my name in, but instead I elected to remain out of the contest at this time for personal reasons. I would suspect anyone that was in the same position as myself and instead went ahead with their entry would have already accounted for where the funds were coming from - perhaps that a question you can ask of these applicants since after all the point of the campaign is that they would be available to win your votes and so should be happy to answer such a simple question personally.

hmmmmm indeed but perhaps i expressed my self incorrectly. What i meant was, it's planned to help the winners with the costs or it is up to them to found it through themselves or with help? But after reading what you have said Marshall, it's clear to me that the costs will be covered by the winners. hmmmm interesting... Let's see how it goes :) I'm excited to hear whos going to set up.

But, im still afraid and kinda lost here. Staten island will be considered part of NY? Yes it will but, authing people without helping them to buy fortifications and other stuff isn't jeopardizing a district since it's going to be obviously weaker? Well, again i dont know if the answer of this question is in the thread somewhere, but yeah, im interested to know the answer...

I might be completely wrong here, it's what i can see afterall plus english is not my mother tongue so maybe i've lost something?

So far i have heared attempts to bribe for votes, insults within districts and cities, mails whoring for votes, yet with little substance as to why of some of the contestants who can remained un-named.  This is the end of I wannabe a leader but no one wants to make me one that i hate.

I understand the frustration of some for wanting to be a leader or having that first chance for people who talk bad about their own family and ex-family you will be dead quick as a leader; for those who try to bribe, money will only get you so far i came into this world broke and will probably leave it similar.  Leadership has many facets diplomacy, delegation, integrity, intelligence and hard work among others.  It's a steep learning curve and it can be very costly.  I understand why some of my district entered as i have been honest with them and told them for now is limited opportunities as people have to prove themselves but in general i just hope people can surprise me if they win the competition in some cases; i know i have more faith in some then others.

After sitting back and listening to everybody else say there piece, I can't help but think the haters of this thing, are missing something blatantly obvious.

Let me say this to begin with, I have hated every contest/experiment, or whatever you want to call it that has been put upon our world. Deciding that you are going to be a Crew Leader, rather than the honour being bestowed upon you, just doesn't make any sense to me, and I personally do not think it should be that way.

This little 'contest' runs much in the same way, except what happens after the contest has actually started.

The rules were very clear, literally ANYBODY can enter, this provides 100% of the population with the opportunity to be a Crew Leader if they aren't already. Favouritism may come into play, but the fact that each person has three votes, negates the fact that they will just vote for their friend, and nobody else. (Maybe if you decide to vote, you HAVE to use all three votes? If that was possible I feel it would be better.)

There are people complaining about what happens after the contest, whether the people authed into Staten Island actually have any power over the district, or whether it remains in the control of the other Godfathers. There also seems to be some confusing over this unnecessary bloodshed shit.

It's quite simple. The auths will be treated like any other Crew Leader. If any other Crew Leader just starts shooting people, causing, holy shit, unnecessary bloodshed, they are dealt with by the other leader. This will be very much the same deal for those being authed into Staten Island. If they exhibit ANY behaviour that would get any other Crew Leader into bother with the other leaders, they will come under the same scrutiny.

When ANY other Leader sets up, they are allowed to ask for a RHM, for another couple of additional members, for some funds to help in the setting up of their HQ, anything. They are allowed to ask about it, and whether they can have it. It's then up to whoever they are asking whether they get the answer they want.

The only 'contest' part of this, is the initial vote. After the vote is completed, this ceases to be a contest, and normal service is resumed.

Well, that's what I understand from what I've heard, anyway. Cantona, feel free to correct me, I'm sure I've got something wrong.

Alright Teofilo you say it's obvious so tell me. What defines unnecessary bloodshed? Is there a number limit? Is there a set of guidelines toward reasoning what is and isn't unnecessary? Or is this just "so and so's gut says that was unnecessary, so RIP." The primary issues are how little respect their is for the authing process that it's now a voting system to get in and with shooting discouraged there's a lower than normal fear of removal; and the fact there are undefined terms in the contractual rules established. Vague terms of that importance in a contract usually leave somebody screwed and I can guarantee you it won't be whoever wrote them because those are the same people enforcing them. The ridiculously easy ability for someone who designed a contract to abuse it is why most governments see vagueness in a contract in the favor of whoever didn't write it and hold those who wrote it responsible.

So since it's blatantly obvious, tell me the definition of unnecessary bloodshed that the GF council is using. Tell me what means one competitor has of shaping their district if their gun is forced to be holstered from the fear of death from an undefined, vague reason if they come to feel they're surrounded by others they think are destined to go nowhere. Finally, tell me what value there is in being established in a CL position if the only qualification is that you can talk a few people into acting for one moment... because last I checked, being a CL was more a marathon than a sprint; it should be defined by work ethic, intelligence and a whole bunch of other things that can't be measured by one thread and a short period of time advertising themselves. I fail to see how letting "he who wins a voting contest" rule a district is in anyone's best interest, even the winner's because that's an unearned title that they will now have to live up to.

And let me respond to what will probably be the first response to this reply... No I don't assume the GF council will abuse the contract but yes I think it's a realistic possibility at least one of them will try for a friend.

I did say I myself do not agree with this kind of thing happening to begin with. I'm not in favour of this authing system, or anything of this nature ever happening again.

I would say unnecessary bloodshed is what it always has been. You don't need me to spell it out for you, much the same as I wouldn't even want to say. It's not a measurable number of deaths that need to happen, for it to be deemed unnecessary. Granted, it is a vague term that has been used, I dare say, so that there is no definite description of it, and action can be taken when and if the Godfathers want to.

If one of these new auths decides to start shooting at the other authed CL's, this would be treated in the same way as it would be, had it been in another district, or over another city. Unnecessary is what the Godfather deem it to be, given that they are the Godfathers of this thing of ours, and have been entrusted with ensuring the safety of each and everyone of their members. I trust them to make the right call in removing anybody or anything that may be a threat to the general population.

WhereWasI, at least these people have put forth a speech and participated in some conversations before they set up...which is more than what I have seen from more than one leader that was authed in the past several months. An opportunity is an opportunity - some chose to seize it; others chose to let it pass.

Why are you being so hard on these people - because of the way the opportunity is presented? If anything, this is harder than the conventional way of getting permission to set up. You seem to think the winner will be because someone voted them to win. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think several people will be voted in to set up, and then depending on how well they do, will still remain standing. So it will be based on work ethic, intelligence, and all the other characteristics that leaders should have.

Teofilo, It is okay to disagree, and I actually agree that some of the question others have asked have little value and have a very straight forward answer, so much so I won't even recognize them because it isn't my responsibility but one of these points I choose to drill away with was TeQ's point that I agree with and the other was mine.

The problem is that I would love for unnecessary bloodshed to be spelled out for me but no one can. They're choosing to set the limit at an undetermined level and there is no justice in that. If we go by that system, one man could get away with murdering 10 people because he had a change of heart and another could be stoned to death for stealing. There has to be set rules in terms of punishments of the gravest nature... and with vague terms there are none and there will be no justice. (I'm using this philosophy from an Ayn Rand novel because I truly believe it's the best form of judging legal systems but putting it in my own words should anyone recognize it).

My personal belief is that sometimes it's good to clean house, so I completely disagree with the bottom section. In the past, Leaders have been forced to work together and given the opportunity one will strike the other. Why should the one that knows the other is aggressive and only holstering their gun out of respect for the Godfather have to wait? Why not make the first move? CLs always have and always will butt heads, especially if there's a lot in one district/what we used to call a city. So I see possibilities where bloodshed is needed internally, but it would look unnecessary to outsiders because I've seen that exact situation before multiple times.

Blaise, the second stage is a bunch of people mashed together by a highly flawed system now being told to pick a consensus leader. Anyone who doesn't pick themselves joined the competition for the wrong reason, they probably joined to get to wear the shiny bold letters rather than lead and they won't pick themselves because they know they're not fit to lead whether they ever admit it or not. These people will now likely be the swinging votes, and that thought horrifies me. The second stage is just as horrendous as the first unless they get together and determine a method for proving who the best leader is rather than discussing things that can't be proven as is what usually happens when picking leaders even in non-experiments, unfortunately, or picking whoever has the most friends of the group; and I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that those who survived by the vote will choose to live and lead by the vote rather than take action to make a proper decision.

I'd also like to publicly answer a question I got in a private message, yes I'm treating these questions much nicer than the prior responses. I do it because they had the decency to keep bloodline comments out of their arguments. If they choose to bring one up, I'll be just as cruel to them as I would be to anyone else. Your opponent stooping to vulgar comments and criticizing you isn't an excuse for bloodline comments, I understand sinking to the level of an opponent in given situations but there's no excuse for stooping lower.

(OOC: This is one of my serious accounts, but I won't stand for or tolerate weak minds who turn to personal insults and going off topic when they can't think of a way to counter another's point. Kuklinski was bad enough and he never had any real power, so I fully plan on squashing any attempts to mimic his street speaking presence if I can be arsed to participate in the street speech, which I'm trying to do more of again. I've also had some OOC parts in my responses, my apologies for not taking the time to correct them this isn't an hour when I'm usually not awake.)

WhereWasI there is no definition of unnecessary bloodshed, there never has within this thing of ours, the contest goes by the spirit of our world on that point. If someone of your bloodlines experience doesn't understand the principle then I fear for the world.

Since I will go with the principle you don't understand it then I will attempt to explain it.

Unnecessary bloodshed is whatever those that have the power to deem it to be. If Joe Bloggs and his Cannon believe one death is unnecessary then the limit is one death.

Our world is not just one of crime it is also one of understanding people, what is unnecessary to JakeLuciano, may not seem to be unnecessary to you. However if it ticks the boxes for Jake and he choses to unload his gun its his decision based on events.

Whatever a mafiosa in our world does, be it on the streets, or shooting a gun you are making a decision as to whether it insults or upsets someone. If it does you live with the consequences.

As an idea, I would like to take this opportunity to say I quite like it. Fundementally it has promoted street speeches and got the streets moving which if you listen to alot of the old guards of our world is something that should be focused on more than anything else.

First off, stating there is no definition and then attempting to define something that CAN be defined shows you didn't even think your opening premise through. A cannot be A and not A at the same time. A term can't be undefinable and able to be attempted to define. For that matter, no word can be undefinable because words are the brains definitions and classifications derived from thought which is derived from the senses detecting the world around you.

Someone of my bloodline's experience has nothing to do with this matter because Joe Schmoe on day one could bring up a question or new way of thinking that redefines the way we do things. If you choose to live by the spirit of a law, then you've poorly worded your law in a way it can and will be abused rather than take the time to sit down, find the flaws in it and address them. The only difficult part in that is admitting you can be wrong and thinking if you're unable to think in that way.

Our world is not just one of crime it is also one of understanding people,

Our world is a world of crime and getting what we want no matter what, lol. In my terms of our world, if a man steals from me to feed his family I still break his legs to show my enemies I'm not the man to steal from. That is what organized crime is in definition... forcing your will upon others to reach to the top through any means, though I see what you were attempting to portray.

My point is this: telling the competitors they can't make Jake think a kill is unnecessary and then never giving them any hints of what he thinks is and isn't fair isn't a healthy system to develop a district. It works on fear and nothing of truly productive means works as well on fear as inspiration. That point has been proven in economics by the slow steady removal of slavery from the world as man's individual capacity for productivity increased with technology... but now I'm going off topic.

Whatever a mafiosa in our world does, be it on the streets, or shooting a gun you are making a decision as to whether it insults or upsets someone. If it does you live with the consequences.

That is true, but those mafioso have prior events and reactions to hold as judgement to their actions. They thrive in a system they or their ancestors had time to explore and understand whereas this is undefined, confusing, and riddled with excuses for failure.

If you don't understand how our world works it is your problem not this competitions.

Did I define unneccessary bloodshed, I dont think I did, or even attempt to. It can't be done because its based on people perceptions. Did I describe the principle behind it, yes I did. Don't worry my apologies if you were incapable of differentiating between the two.

Every time someone takes auth and dons a new bold suit they do so knowing that quite simply anything they do could be deemed unnecessary by someone of greater power. Why should we give it on a plate in this instance???? Your CL doesn't know if any of his actions would be deemed unnecessary by his own godfather, I suppose he could run every single decision by his godfather if he chooses, but then anyone in Stanten Island could run every single decision they make by every godfather currently in our world.

Hell you even chose to state yourself that if someone steals for you to feed their family you will break there legs. Person stealing no doubt didn't deem stealing from you as something necessary of such punishment. The irony being you openly state you are friendly to people stealing from you. Go figure that one out....

Did I define unneccessary bloodshed, I dont think I did, or even attempt to. It can't be done because its based on people perceptions. Did I describe the principle behind it, yes I did. Don't worry my apologies if you were incapable of differentiating between the two.

An explanation can't be made if a concept can't be defined. An explanation is literally a definition minus the specifics... basically when you explain something you do the same thing as defining it but label the specifics in variable form. And those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Why choose an insult when you have a question rather than asking the question to define the difference in opinions unless you're afraid of the answer or the thought required to find it?

Every time someone takes auth and dons a new bold suit they do so knowing that quite simply anything they do could be deemed unnecessary by someone of greater power. Why should we give it on a plate in this instance???? Your CL doesn't know if any of his actions would be deemed unnecessary by his own godfather, I suppose he could run every single decision by his godfather if he chooses, but then anyone in Stanten Island could run every single decision they make by every godfather currently in our world.

Every man, woman and child who came before you put it on a plate for you. You're not facing any original issues or original twists in classic problems so why should someone come up with a new way of teaching how to solve the same old problems if the old solutions are solid? Don't fix what isn't broken and all that jazz. And next time a major change in the game happens, if you're in a position to see an upper structure meeting, see how much a few men if not one dominate the conversation. The ones who don't will ask the Godfather questions on every detail involved because it's a new twist... so yes I expect them to be able to do the same.

Hell you even chose to state yourself that if someone steals for you to feed their family you will break there legs. Person stealing no doubt didn't deem stealing from you as something necessary of such punishment. The irony being you openly state you are friendly to people stealing from you. Go figure that one out....

First things first, it isn't theft if I'm okay with you taking it. You've never worked with me before or else you'd know of my paranoia and insatiable rage when it comes to my information gathering systems (my google docs functions that even my GF and CL are banned from seeing all the parts of) being stolen. I do that every time, I tell people what will happen if they get in a position to possibly steal from me so they know not to do it. This isn't public knowledge any more I guess... but I've always held those positions and I'll happily state that again and again.

I'm also guessing that you're not going to ask the question I've been trying to lead you into questioning. What part of the process is different when it's the same group of people who judge whether or not to start a war are making these decisions? The similarity many see and assume is the whole sum of the issue is that it's the same list of potential executioners. The difference that some seem to grasp while others fail is the difference between group mentality and individual thought processes. One is much more likely to be cruel and hurt others for little to no justifiable reason if in the presence of someone who pushes them to do it... so all it takes is one to convince the group and then that one that would've had to kill the CL with his own people now just got every leader to take responsibility and is far less likely to see consequences for what was in reality an act born solely of his intent. But if the rules are strict and well defined, the man whose intent isn't to kill the CL will have a stronger grounds to speak on when speaking against this.

In short... making those that make the rules make less group decisions without restrictions so they will be forced to hold sole responsibility for their actions just as they're asking the CLs joining the competition to do. Giving them the same counterbalances in an enemy's mind that other CLs have when there might be consequences for said enemy if he attacks by himself rather than as part of a group with a vaguely justified reason.

I can see this thread now getting way off point.

Knockaert, I don't think it's exactly right of you to throw underhand insults around to people who I'm going to guess, you hardly know. Now I'm not one for jumping to other people's defense when they clearly don't need it, but I think this is what WhereWasI was talking about, when he commented on the nature of his replies to certain people, and the differences they held to his replies to others.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, unnecessary (I'm literally sick of even seeing that word now, I've read it so many times.) is going to be different, even as far as to the situation. Rather than it being a measurable amount, of how many people have to die for it to become unnecessary, one death can be unnecessary given the nature of it. However, one hundred deaths could be necessary if the nature of them is so.

As I said before, it's very vague and to set out clear guidelines would be near on impossible. You would have to invisage every single situation at which death would occur, and they haven't all even happened yet.

At the end of the day, we'll just have to wait and see what sort of thing happens. Those that have gotten involved have done so knowing the risks and the rewards of what they are getting themselves into. I hope it's a success, I really do, but again, as I said before, I absolutely fucking hate these sort of things.

Unfortunately, Honor had an accident where slipped on a step due to a massive downpour of rain, he unfortunately died due to a sub arachnoid hemorrhage from the fall.

Knockaert, I don't think it's exactly right of you to throw underhand insults around to people who I'm going to guess, you hardly know. Now I'm not one for jumping to other people's defense when they clearly don't need it, but I think this is what WhereWasI was talking about, when he commented on the nature of his replies to certain people, and the differences they held to his replies to others.

WhereWasI, May I, as a Crewleader, attempt to give an opinion that may shed some light on your issue?

I Typically do not keep track of bloodlines, So i cannot say for sure who I speak to, but i believe that you have been a crew leader before yes? So you know what i know, that I can define something, but Someone else May choose to disagree with my definition. I think that is the situation you are seeing here. The godfathers as a group, have no reason to agree on unnecessary bloodshed, and what it means. As it always has been, That decision will be made on a case by case basis, By the People on the back side of the event. Action will or will not be taken, and people may or may not disagree.

If a made member of my family shoots at a made man from another family, there are a couple of possibilities. The first, of course, is that the crewleader in question will take massive offence, and I will find myself at war. The second possibility, is that my member will die, and other measures will be taken.  The third, is that some other penalties will be paid. What exactly happens, Depends on the other leaders temper, and on my own diplomatic skills.

So As far as i'm concerned, There is no definition of unnecessary bloodshed, because to define it, Would result in someone dying.

One other note. You spoke earlier of parts of this system have no justice. To that, All I can say is that we are the mafia. As many have said before me, We are not the Government. Justice, Is not what we do. Business is not what we do. Yes, We are using a democratic method for this event, But we are not a true democracy. Do Not make the mistake of taking this one event as a shift of that fact.