To yourself you probably believe you make positive waves yet the disdain you give your rank, the way you claim to have chosen to stand down from the trusted position of right hand shows how little you believe in our world and way of life.

Agreed. If WWI truly cared about making a difference, it starts at home...with your family. Most people would love to work themselves up to being a member in the upper structure of their families, serving and protecting them. This includes sharing ideas with them and working actively to put them into action, not trying to demand or extort esteemed leaders into doing something.

Leaders make rules that serve as a guideline to how their members should conduct themselves. However, at times the rules simply cannot be a catch-all for every possible circumstance. In other words, there are shades of gray when it comes to making decisions about punishment. In those instances, it is up to the leader and his/her council to reach a decision on the fate of that member.

"Yeah... but no outline at all backed with punishments means those under rule of undefined rules have to live in fear of punishments that can't be reasonably predicted. If you want a catch-all because you're afraid of someone breaking the rules through technicality, that's not a just reason for no definition at all. To avoid 'unnecessary bloodshed', maybe just make it so you have the permission to attack on the grounds that it isn't simply unnecessary bloodshed from a Crew Leader."

If family rules cannot be used as a catch-all to resolve every issue,  making a checklist of do's and don'ts when it comes to leadership itself would be futile. That would require the Godfather Council to think of every conceivable scenario that could possibly take place, and then state a consequence. What happens if they would try, and someone found a loophole that caused mayhem? Would the GF council not take measures to rectify this? And if they did, would they be heckled for not being able to predict the future?

"Family rules? The things my bloodline and many other bloodlines have signed but not read for generations now are expected to be the basis of judgement despite the fact they should all be unique. That sounds insane. There are rules to buffer out awkward scenarios without simply refusing to attempt a set of guidelines. If someone finds a loophole, good on them because whoever made the rules sucks at making rules and they should use every advantage they can think of. If there are no guidelines, the Godfather Council realistically shouldn't do anything to rectify it other than change the rules because they didn't do anything wrong. I will heckle them if they come up with a set of guidelines that doesn't have a defined safety feature preventing the things they want, but my guess is that if they don't include one that they actually want bloodshed to entertain the masses, which isn't necessarily a bad thing considering what these people signed up for."

This would also stifle personal growth in the new leaders, because when crew leaders have to ask permission or consult a checklist on what they can and cannot do with their members (or the protection of said members) before they can act, how is that true leadership?

"It is true leadership because they don't have to follow those rules. These rules may be defined by an outside presence because the opportunity was provided by the outside presence. If they choose to work in the guidelines there will always be a way to thrive and do what's necessary by seeing just how far they can push the rules before breaking them."

I doubt any of the Staten Island leaders are fearful that one day the GF Council will rear their ugly heads and kill everyone except one leader. That's being paranoid. There is no room for having irrational fears in our Mafia - that sort of thinking can get you killed.

"Cantona admitted himself he only went with the Council decision so that few members would be sacrificed to fill a district. Their purpose has already been filled. There is no guarantee they won't be shot for no reason at all, but these rules seem to be a manner of quickly killing all the leaders in a 'justified' manner so they can tell the community their action of ending the competition is 'justified'. It's a common thing in this thing of ours, and I just want them to admit that's the point of the rules, or explain the true nature of vagueness and refusing to give a specified guideline."

Your contribution to our world is to paint yourself as the street speaking mouth piece of our world against the oppressive godfathers. Sound familiar to anyone? It certainly does to me.

"I've called one rule oppressive. I've called the godfathers indecisive beings acting on lethargy and fear, quite the opposite of a real oppressor. If you believe otherwise... find one of my quotes stating they're oppressive. Stop implying I'm saying things I'm not saying."

What's my contribution to the world? I know that's the question you will ask because most of us can read you like a book. My contribution the chances are you will never know. Unlike you I don't feel the need for community recognition. I respect my godfather and the current godfathers and world we come from unlike your good self. As a mobster Mr WWI you fail miserably, the code, the rules we agree to abide by when we become made men you have chosen to spit on with your attacks on those who massively out rank you.

"I want my questions to be predictable because it means you'll all finally start being specific and stating intentions without having to be asked. Your contributions are nothing I've asked of, your words to strike at my character rather than my words or points are what I was pointing at. I feel the need for community recognition if I'm going to be the only one out here pushing for the streets to stay alive and active because I can. I'm in a position where I can make a demand because if I stopped what I'm doing the streets would likely shrink back into obscurity of just Auth speeches and unheard stories. I don't respect those that haven't earned it, show me the acts I should respect them for, and simply getting a title isn't enough for me. As a mobster, I do everything asked of me and more because we just had a conversation about Right Hand Men where many thought the best had a spine to tell those above them when they're wrong. That's not the role of a Right Hand, that's the role of a leader and if questions and criticism of actions are what you consider attacks then I envy your sheltered life but I won't change my words or opinions to fit what your eyes and ears are accustomed to."

To yourself you probably believe you make positive waves yet the disdain you give your rank, the way you claim to have chosen to stand down from the trusted position of right hand shows how little you believe in our world and way of life.

"I believe very little in where we're going. I greatly dislike when leaders don't answer critics or questions, and I believe our leaders should be capable of answering to questions and criticism so yes I am changing the world for what I believe to be the better. Any disdain you see me giving to any rank is on your own opinion that I should be someone's fucking lap dog waiting for orders, a bone, and wagging my tail because I'm not being struck down for some rule I don't understand. If that's the life you want, fine, have it, but don't expect me to follow you into the role of a mutt. I'm a human being."

As much as you believe it's slander the reality remains you are no different to kuku, or maybe closer to the child who fails to get his own way and cries about it I'm the streets. I can quite clearly understand why my fellow countryman chose to ignore your whinings, I now wish I had.

"I'm vastly different from Kuku, I'm also man enough to say I am out here because things aren't as I wish. To call it childish to fight for what you want with whatever means you have is to be worse than naive, you're likely intentionally blinding yourself from your own wishes as well just to fit a system so you can follow orders. Use whatever words you like, you're incapable of countering my real logic and must resort to comments of this sort because you're incapable and doing the same thing I'm doing. You're fighting with the only tool you have, now be man enough to admit all you can do is poke at my reputation because you lack the intelligence to go after my points or actually start debating the points themselves."

Agreed. If WWI truly cared about making a difference, it starts at home...with your family. Most people would love to work themselves up to being a member in the upper structure of their families, serving and protecting them. This includes sharing ideas with them and working actively to put them into action, not trying to demand or extort esteemed leaders into doing something.

"You know nothing of my role in my HQ and to even insinuate anything of the sort is a sign of just how pathetic at debating you are. I don't need a title to help guide minds, command respect, or do what's best for my family. Your insinuations that I don't care because I don't hold a title any longer are unfounded and pathetic. For all you know this is what I believe is best for my family, and that is my belief considering I believe it will make everything better for the whole community. Stick to the subject at hand."

WWI, can you name me a current crew leader who was authed in the traditional way who has an outline of what to do in their leadership? Because that's the only way what you have said can hold up. The point is, there is no safety net when it comes to being a leader. There is no "catch-all". And your suggestion doesn't solve what you claim your issue is with the term "unnecessary bloodshed", it's just a more roundabout way of saying the same thing the council said.

Even with the rules currently in place for sponsored members, there is no guarantee that they won't be shot for no reason at all. Any one of us can be killed at any time. But yet you seem to want this guarantee for this competition by harping on a single term. We rely on the cooperation of everyone involved to uphold some semblance of order - it's called teamwork and organization. I am failing to see your point, except that you desperately want to believe that there is something amiss within the GF council. You want them to come up with rules for the Staten Island leaders that they don't even have themselves...safety features? And just because they did not include such, doesn't automatically mean they want bloodshed. You use a lot of faulty either/or logic in your reasoning. It is you opinion, yes, if the Council didn't include what you want them to have, then they want bloodshed. That doesn't mean that it's true and I am tired of you attempting to pass over your opinions as facts, yet you have the nerve to continually accuse people for things that you do.

I may not know what you do behind closed doors, but according to you, you wanted to offer ideas to help the community-at-large only if you got something in return. That's not helping "us" - that's helping "you". Also, if your ideas have merit, surely passing them up the chain until it reaches your own Godfather would suffice? Perhaps you want the recognition and fame to go along with it? Or maybe you are unsure whether your family would advocate your ideas?

You have just admitted that you sign documents without reading them, especially the rules of your family. Also, you encourage people to find loopholes to break said rules. I'm believing more and more that you don't know much about nor respect this thing of ours.

Pathetic? I think not - try again.

WWI, can you name me a current crew leader who was authed in the traditional way who has an outline of what to do in their leadership? Because that's the only way what you have said can hold up. The point is, there is no safety net when it comes to being a leader. There is no "catch-all". And your suggestion doesn't solve what you claim your issue is with the term "unnecessary bloodshed", it's just a more roundabout way of saying the same thing the council said.

"Where did I say this? What proves that was part and how is that a part of my argument at all? Looks like a statement laying meaning to my statements that isn't there. Show me a quote and logic or stop twisting my words."

"And the council's method puts all responsibility on the person who didn't draw up the contract whereas my method has an outside leader now linked to the necessity of the action. I don't believe in a system like that, but it's better than holding an undefined rule over their heads."

Even with the rules currently in place for sponsored members, there is no guarantee that they won't be shot for no reason at all. Any one of us can be killed at any time. But yet you seem to want this guarantee for this competition by harping on a single term. We rely on the cooperation of everyone involved to uphold some semblance of order - it's called teamwork and organization. I am failing to see your point, except that you desperately want to believe that there is something amiss within the GF council. You want them to come up with rules for the Staten Island leaders that they don't even have themselves...safety features? And just because they did not include such, doesn't automatically mean they want bloodshed. You use a lot of faulty either/or logic in your reasoning. It is you opinion, yes, if the Council didn't include what you want them to have, then they want bloodshed. That doesn't mean that it's true and I am tired of you attempting to pass over your opinions as facts, yet you have the nerve to continually accuse people for things that you do.

"True, there is no guarantee a leader won't start randomly killing their own but there is a guarantee that shooting a member for no reason at all will hurt the leader by possibly inspiring others to retire, leave, or retaliate on top of the lost earnings. You call it harping for a single term, call it whatever you want but you're all still dodging the subject of why it should be defined. You claim 'it isn't defined elsewhere', but there are greater consequences for attacking other members pointlessly and this is a trap that I'm demanding they admit they've set or stand by the statement they're giving these people a shot and defining the rule."

"You rely on teamwork, I rely on my mind because I know that people are afraid of what will happen to this thing of ours should they act without a semblance of purpose or order. You call it teamwork, I call it self-preservation and doing what's best for yourself by agreeing to terms defined to give each individual some feeling of security and worth. You can claim selfless teamwork, but I'll laugh in your face if you gain anything at all because those rules were made with selfish intent and there is nothing wrong with thinking of one's self first."

"There is something amiss with the GF Council. There have recently been two joke competitions and very few answers to questions. Very little actions or words to hush critics. Very little signs of actual decisive thinking required to truly lead and not simply follow a formula. Our world is shrinking. The number of active bloodlines isn't what it once was... so following the same old, same old isn't gonna cut it for those of us who believe it is their job to not only keep their members alive, but to keep them active."

"The issue with attacking another district or GF is fear of another attacking you. There is little to no hope of an outside influence being attacked for killing someone inside the competition so long as they're following the rules presented to them... so yeah I'm asking for an artificial safety feature to replace the normal fears that keep enemies at bay."

"If you truly think my logic is flawed, then counter the points... stop saying it to try to further attack my reputation."

"I never said they truly want bloodshed, by the way. All I said was that competitions having bloodshed wasn't a bad thing. I've claimed their decision on the rule will decrease bloodshed and that it along with the other rule are in place to remove the leaders 'in a justified manner', as they'll claim, when they want to populate it. So once again, point out quotes or stop being a cunt and putting words in my mouth. If you are going to continue putting words in my mouth I will no longer hold my tongue to the kind of fowl beast you're imitating from whatever reason you so choose to act in such a pathetic manner."

"I challenge you to point out the fallacies in my premises. IT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING FROM THE START. Find the parts that are wrong and discuss it. I never claimed any opinion of mine to be fact, I merely have confidence in my words because I actually put thought into the subject and not at striking at my opponent's reputation by putting words in their mouth."

I may not know what you do behind closed doors, but according to you, you wanted to offer ideas to help the community-at-large only if you got something in return. That's not helping "us" - that's helping "you". Also, if your ideas have merit, surely passing them up the chain until it reaches your own Godfather would suffice? Perhaps you want the recognition and fame to go along with it? Or maybe you are unsure whether your family would advocate your ideas?

"I offered those ideas for free to a few for a backing so that if morons like you attacked my reputation and ignored the point of it they'd be set aside quickly. I'm not afraid to admit to using force against people whose questions go intentionally off topic to attack my reputation. You want me to put in that kind of effort and get no more benefit than anyone else? To that I say go fuck yourself... do it yourself if you don't feel like paying my price, but don't try to tell me what I can and can't charge for my talents because you think you need it. Your need isn't of my concern, my desires are and these particular ones probably would be beneficial to the community but I won't take an equal share with everyone else for something produced by just me."

"If I didn't have a point, as Kockaert already pointed out, I would likely have been shot by now. If I didn't have the capability of doing what I'm saying, someone from the council would've done more than ignore me by now based on how these things usually go. So why am I being treated differently? Is it just because I've worded things in a way that have avoided personal insults more than many of the past who walked a similar path? Or is it because they've seen how long the streets have been dead and the number of bloodlines finding it harder to come back? Whatever you choose to believe... I know what I believe and that's all that matters to me."

"As for not following the chain of command... I'm no man's lap dog and well past acquainted enough with many of those at the top to go through the slow process of chain of command, but you have no evidence that I didn't and I won't tell you whether I did or didn't take it to those I was supposed to take it to first. Wasting time with formalities is one of the many things that led to the streets slumping to the condition they're now commonly found in."

You have just admitted that you sign documents without reading them, especially the rules of your family. Also, you encourage people to find loopholes to break said rules. I'm believing more and more that you don't know much about nor respect this thing of ours.

"I admitted to signing one copy/pasted set of rules without reading them. You'd be stupid to read the same thing one hundred times over if you understood it so when I sign it I usually mention that I didn't read it. No crew leader has once had an issue with this in my bloodline's history."

"Yes I encourage the use of loopholes and the abuse of nonexistent laws, that's how we get things along the lines of the 10 minute MIA rule. You should be capable of seeing how experimentation benefits society, but I'll wait for you to think about how easy life would be if no one did as you drive your car, wear manufactured clothes, take flights, and wield a gun. Concepts made possible by those who questioned the world in front of them and pushed for more."

Pathetic? I think not - try again.

"You managed to put words in my mouth again, you're yet to point at quotes when making accusations of my words or intentions after I've called you out on it before... yes... you're pathetic. You never seem to learn how to have an argument of this nature; you always go back to playing on emotions, putting words in my mouth, or just making unfounded accusations at my person without presenting a shred of evidence."

By comparing our society on a micro vs marco level, I am showing you how what you are asking is not reasonable, so thus you constantly demanding for a clarification because of your underlying fear of the GF Council committing unfavorable actions makes you look foolish. I can use my own examples, comparisons, and paraphrases without you saying it first. Paraphrasing what you say, or making my own counter statements based on what you say is not twisting your words.

"True, there is no guarantee a leader won't start randomly killing their own but there is a guarantee that shooting a member for no reason at all will hurt the leader by possibly inspiring others to retire, leave, or retaliate on top of the lost earnings. You claim 'it isn't defined elsewhere', but there are greater consequences for attacking other members pointlessly and this is a trap that I'm demanding they admit they've set or stand by the statement they're giving these people a shot and defining the rule."

I'm not clear here - are you saying that if the GF council doesn't explicitly define what they mean by "unnecessary bloodshed", that they in fact will somehow directly or indirectly cause what you stated above? Instances that can potentially occur in any family? What?

Is it just because I've worded things in a way that have avoided personal insults more than many of the past who walked a similar path?

Well that's a lie, because you have hurled more insults at me and others than I have seen in a while. But I'm the moron, right?

You know, for someone who has continually said that I have twisted words, you have really outdone yourself this time. "Our Thing" is not done by a single mind. Decisions are made to preserve "Our Thing", because ALL of us suffer otherwise. What you are advocating in your last points is the complete opposite.

There is nothing wrong with thinking of one's self first? Are you serious now? I don't have to attack your reputation - you are doing a wonderful job of doing that yourself. Why don't you just admit that those that do not agree with what you have to say are complete morons...that would save you a lot of breath instead of repeating it again and again every time you speak?

You never seem to learn how to have an argument of this nature; you always go back to playing on emotions, putting words in my mouth, or just making unfounded accusations at my person without presenting a shred of evidence."

And yet you've done most, if not all, in your time out here in the streets. The name calling when people don't say what you want to hear, wording statements to make it seem like they only have one choice or the other to force their hand, and saying people are making unfounded accusations when you do them ALL THE TIME is absurd.

You'd be stupid to read the same thing one hundred times over if you understood it so when I sign it I usually mention that I didn't read it.

Name calling.

"I offered those ideas for free to a few for a backing so that if morons like you attacked my reputation and ignored the point of it they'd be set aside quickly.

More name calling.

"If I didn't have a point, as Kockaert already pointed out, I would likely have been shot by now.

Either/or statement that is based on an unfounded principle. You having a point doesn't determine whether or not you live or die, but it you make it sound like it does.

"You know nothing of my role in my HQ and to even insinuate anything of the sort is a sign of just how pathetic at debating you are. I don't need a title to help guide minds, command respect, or do what's best for my family. Your insinuations that I don't care because I don't hold a title any longer are unfounded and pathetic.

More name calling and assuming that the focus is on a former title rather than the fact that the GF Council is possibly being extorted by another member of "Our Thing".

And that's just based on what you have recently said.

I rather think there are similarities between yourself and Kuku, WhereWasI. The delusions of grandeur? Check. Exaggerated sense of self importance? Check. A grip on reality that is not as tight as it could be? Check. A proclivity for reusing the same names as your forebears over and over? Check.

You an arrogant man, and I have no idea why because there is nothing about you, to my eyes, that justifies such arrogance. You criticise the Godfather Council for what you deem to be un-moblike behaviour; whilst simultaneously modelling yourself as some sort of populist hero. I beg to know how this voice of the hero style you are adopting fits in with your fictitious view of what you think the mob is like, because your rhetoric is lost on me.

You are also a liar. There is no ambiguity to this. You open your mouth and you have the cheek to tell bare faced lies. Picking out such lies is fairly easy. Here's a starter for 10.

My quotes pointed to premises of yours I claimed to be false and asserted Why I believed them to be false. I had listened, I disagreed with your logic and choice of premises.

Lie. When I gave a list of (real life mafia) precedents that proved that democratic situations had occurred in the mob before, what you actually said to me was:

Stick to the main topic, I don't feel like reading into any of this,

This is not a claim that what I said was false, or an assertion of why. It is not a disagreement with my logic. It is an outright refusal to consider what I had said. You are a liar. Interestingly, it is also at this point that your entire argument of 'devaluing leadership' is blown out of the water. Evidently it can not be so, as similar things have happened repeatedly in the (real life mob)

Cantona admitted himself he only went with the Council decision so that few members would be sacrificed to fill a district.

Another lie. I would perhaps give you the benefit of the doubt here; that perhaps you had misinterpreted something I had said. Nothing about your conduct suggests you deserve such a show of faith, though.

This entire debacle hinges on the fact that you are on a personal crusade because the Godfathers are devaluing leadership. Leaving aside the fact Leadership is whatever define it to be for as long as we are alive, I have pointed out on numerous occasions that we are simply mimicking processes used in various locations at various times by the (real life mob). The process we used is modeled on the decisions of (real life) Mob bosses and you expect us to say 'Oh no, WhereWasI, of course you have a better understanding than them'.

At the moment, I am trying to understand what is driving you; because I cannot see anything beyond arrogance, ignorance or stupidity.

I rather think there are similarities between yourself and Kuku, WhereWasI. The delusions of grandeur? Check. Exaggerated sense of self importance? Check. A grip on reality that is not as tight as it could be? Check. A proclivity for reusing the same names as your forebears over and over? Check.

"Rather sad you all feel the need to keep attacking my character."

You an arrogant man, and I have no idea why because there is nothing about you, to my eyes, that justifies such arrogance. You criticise the Godfather Council for what you deem to be un-moblike behaviour; whilst simultaneously modelling yourself as some sort of populist hero. I beg to know how this voice of the hero style you are adopting fits in with your fictitious view of what you think the mob is like, because your rhetoric is lost on me.

"Where did I say 'un-moblike behavior' or anything of the sort? Show me the quote."

"I don't believe I'm a hero, never claimed to be. I know what I want and I'm pursuing what many want but don't know how to achieve for my own purpose. Regardless, off topic comments at myself once again."

You are also a liar. There is no ambiguity to this. You open your mouth and you have the cheek to tell bare faced lies. Picking out such lies is fairly easy. Here's a starter for 10.

"Accusations of lying before proving are once again... pathetic attacks at my reputation."

My quotes pointed to premises of yours I claimed to be false and asserted Why I believed them to be false. I had listened, I disagreed with your logic and choice of premises.

Lie. When I gave a list of (real life mafia) precedents that proved that democratic situations had occurred in the mob before, what you actually said to me was:

"Your examples of life (real life mafia) have never truly had any baring on this thing of ours because we are our own organization. Some may imitate, but we don't follow their examples because they were in a different situation. You chose examples without in depth knowledge of their decision. You chose to point at another group and basically say 'It was good enough for them so it's good enough for us' and I greatly disagree with the premise that because those others did it that it means it's what's best for what we do. I will not blindly follow the thoughts of another and you're yet to speak of the reasons for those incidents have any relevancy in choosing the decision you made. That's why I said you citing them was irrelevant. That's why I say it now. You're yet to state how the situations are similar and how the circumstances match up enough to use this line of thinking."

Stick to the main topic, I don't feel like reading into any of this,

"Are we doing partial quotes now? Because if so don't mind me going through and piecing parts of yours together so that it looks like you're calling another Godfather something along the lines of what you said to me."

This is the mafia, the Declaration of Independence also says we shouldn't have to deal with tyranny and should take up arms against it... so if I'm really supposed to be dead set on following its principals in everything I ever do I guess I should shoot at JackRyan. This "competition" is a voting system hinting at Democracy in one sect of the country in a system where Democracy simply can't exist from its lack of decisiveness that's required to survive and thrive in our world.

Again, more hints at people who have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Stick to the main topic, I don't feel like reading into any of this, but I'm sure if I did I could find a counter-point from another point in time through man's history that would still be irrelevant to the point being made.

"These are my full quotes to your use of outside references to justify the use of certain concepts in this thing of ours... and you were yet to mention how they had any similarities or relevance so it is in fact pointless drivel until you do. You brought the subject up, it is your duty to show the similarities, not mine to make assumptions on your thoughts."

This is not a claim that what I said was false, or an assertion of why. It is not a disagreement with my logic. It is an outright refusal to consider what I had said. You are a liar. Interestingly, it is also at this point that your entire argument of 'devaluing leadership' is blown out of the water. Evidently it can not be so, as similar things have happened repeatedly in the (real life mob)

"I do refuse to take a statement with no proof of relevance as an unchallenged fact. I would also outright refuse to also believe that I'm a woman because you think you've seen a picture of me naked. Provide proof of relevance if you wish to bring it into the fold. SHOW how it's similar. SHOW the line of thinking behind it and how it's similar to that of yours."

OOC: Your obsession with stating that because it happened in the mafia makes it relevant because we imitate them is founded on the assumption we mimic them to the tiniest detail. You have how many bodyguards following you? Get over it, it's different and you can't just point and say 'they did it so it should be good enough for us.' You have to prove why it fits our ways too.

Cantona admitted himself he only went with the Council decision so that few members would be sacrificed to fill a district.

"Another partial quote. How cute."

"Cantona admitted himself he only went with the Council decision so that few members would be sacrificed to fill a district. Their purpose has already been filled. There is no guarantee they won't be shot for no reason at all, but these rules seem to be a manner of quickly killing all the leaders in a 'justified' manner so they can tell the community their action of ending the competition is 'justified'. It's a common thing in this thing of ours, and I just want them to admit that's the point of the rules, or explain the true nature of vagueness and refusing to give a specified guideline."

The Godfathers, with both of these competitions, have played their hand. Following the the latest war, a deliberate decision was made that if we simply repopulated every single district with our own, we would end up with one homogenous mass all originally hailing from either the Suburbs or Northside (with the exception of WiggleButt!) and we decided this would be an awfully dull situation for the foreseeable future. So, we decided to open up 2 (that's 2 out of 10) districts with new options. It is not an easy path, but it is a possibility.

Another lie. I would perhaps give you the benefit of the doubt here; that perhaps you had misinterpreted something I had said. Nothing about your conduct suggests you deserve such a show of faith, though.

"The word sacrificing is based off of my conversation with Blaise, the point you admitted was merely using them to fill the Districts and you have me wrong on this one. The fact I didn't provide your statement is a fault of mine that I am responsible for, but I still stand by the fact you were looking to fill the district in any way you could and my interpretation you all left rules to pull the plug on a moment's notice."

This entire debacle hinges on the fact that you are on a personal crusade because the Godfathers are devaluing leadership. Leaving aside the fact Leadership is whatever define it to be for as long as we are alive, I have pointed out on numerous occasions that we are simply mimicking processes used in various locations at various times by the (real life mob). The process we used is modeled on the decisions of (real life) Mob bosses and you expect us to say 'Oh no, WhereWasI, of course you have a better understanding than them'.

"Your idea that leadership is blindly following another, or choosing to do so without explaining why is my issue. What circumstances match in these situations? Why do these circumstances match enough for this to be relevant? Do you not see the MASSIVE difference in the circumstances between the two?"

"I don't have a better understanding of the mob than them, I have a better understanding of this thing of ours than them because they weren't making these ideas with our problems in mind. They were leading their factions solving their problems, not blindly following the solutions of another."

At the moment, I am trying to understand what is driving you; because I cannot see anything beyond arrogance, ignorance or stupidity.

"My initial drive was your unnecessary comments at another man's points because of his bloodline. It is disgusting that there wasn't a sweeping wave of angry people because anyone who was okay with that now has no leg to stand on when you do it to them. My continued efforts are driven by the fact I'm tired of seeing decisions with little thought, being told not to question them, and then being called an arrogant idiot for asking questions. If you can't answer questions about your idea... then I believe you didn't put much thought into the idea at all and that's what I believe is killing our streets and discouraging bloodlines from returning."

Your fallacy WWI, is that you believe Cantona and the others owe you a detailed explanation of what goes on behind closed doors.

They do not.

This is why many leaders choose not to share all of the details with those not in their council. People like yourself take that inch that people in power gives us, and turn into miles of circular logic thinking, disrespectful comments, and talking about things that they don't understand because they aren't the ones making the decisions. Nor do you know of the circumstances as to how they came about making their decisions because you are not IN said positions at the time the event(s) have taken place. Sure, you can speculate (like you have been doing), but you demanding our leaders to tell what you want to hear or else they aren't making good decisions is absurd.

Regarding this contest, those who wanted to participate, did so. Those who didn't for whatever the reason, did not participate.
The only people who I can see wanting more of an explanation about rules and the like are the ones actively participating in the contest because it's their (and their families') lives on the line. You are not one of them, and don't act like you are doing them or the rest of us any favors by carrying on like you have been doing. You are not.

The only devaluing of a crew leader that I see at this time is someone who has never led trying to tell people who are currently leading what to do.

My continued efforts are driven by the fact I'm tired of seeing decisions with little thought, being told not to question them, and then being called an arrogant idiot for asking questions. If you can't answer questions about your idea... then I believe you didn't put much thought into the idea at all and that's what I believe is killing our streets and discouraging bloodlines from returning."

If you feel that strongly about your beliefs, become a leader yourself, and put your thoughts into action. Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, all you are doing is proving that it's easier to sit back and criticize rather than actually do something about it.

WhereWasI comes strolling out one more time,

"Before I continue this discussion I would just like to point at my new Rank of Wise Guy! I'm very proud of it. It's apparently unfitting for a Made Man to speak their mind in the streets any more because it could be disrespectful so now I have the appropriate rank to speak my mind. So I requested the demotions necessary to reach this rank. Let the conversations continue now that I have the appropriate rank to be speaking my mind in the streets."

*So now that I've requested the demotions (and yes I requested them) necessary to reach this rank, let the conversations continue because I now have the appropriate rank to be speaking my mind in the streets.

"Sorry, slurred my words with the excitement of finally having the proper rank to speak my mind."

WhereWasI sighs,

"Mr. Cantona, I'm confused. You asked someone to step in and have a conversation with me about tying my rank to my street speaking presence, for what purpose? I volunteered for the demotions to show you I won't be moved by the use of force (I assume you did it to get me to stop talking and 'beat me' in the streets without actually opening your mouth) without involving others. Let's do something new; so you don't have to do hint at something to my CL or myself, all you have to do is tell the world you want me dead or further demoted and I'll volunteer for any punishment you see fit, so long as you have a logically sound explanation for the death sentence that others can judge you by."

"Well here I am, asking what you plan to do now that I'm below the rank of made man? Will you simply ignore this discussion hoping that I'll quietly take the demotions? Or will you answer my counterpoints with a logical well thought out response like an actual street speaker with confidence in his ideas would? I assume you'll choose to ignore or immediately try to talk me into killing myself because you're afraid to defend your point, but my assumption could be wrong."

WhereWasI, were I to combine my native tongue of French with English in order to create some super hybrid-language, there still wouldn't be the words to describe the absolute indifference that I regard you with.

There wasn't a time where I did take you seriously, I should make that clear, but at various points you've elicited irritation and a cringe or two; that's been replaced by a void of nothingness - I honestly don't see how I can articulate how much I don't care about you or your opinions, and I am an articulate person.

You will notice that the starter of this speech has not been seen a while, nor have several over people who have agreed with you. Even Blaise and Knockaeart who have consistently humoured you seem to have at least grown weary with your endless babbling.

Why would I need to 'beat you' in the Streets? I am a Godfather, a member of a larger council which has had it's own way. If I 'beat' you in the Streets, will I receive a ribbon or a pendant to commemorate the event? 'Beating' someone in the streets is largely subjective anyway, isn't it? From my perspective you certainly aren't looking like a winner, kiddo. You have (of your own volition of course!) been stripped of position and rank and still nobody is taking you seriously.

You seem to be mistaking my mail to your Boss. I was not hinting at anything, I am not a subtle person - I speak my mind. If I wanted you dead, my mail to your Boss would have said 'I think WhereWasI should die'; but I don't want you dead. I don't not want you dead.

I must express again my indifference towards you, which is only excepted by the the brief flicker of amusement I had when you seemed to think that volunteering to drop yourself to Wise Guy would somehow compel me to answer your questions. Did you think we were in Victorian England, and that throwing down your leather glove would mean I would to meet you in a misty orchid at dawn for a battle of wits?

I'm honestly not sure how on earth you think this thing of ours works. You didn't get what you wanted as a RHM Capo, or as a Capo; so you think I'll entertain you as a Wise Guy? You've really done a number here, son.

This will be the last time I encourage your narcissism with a response. You may choose to chalk that up as a victory for yourself; but given the theme of this reply you'll probably be able to understand the reaction (or lack of it) that's likely to get from me.

There wasn't a time where I did take you seriously, I should make that clear, but at various points you've elicited irritation and a cringe or two; that's been replaced by a void of nothingness - I honestly don't see how I can articulate how much I don't care about you or your opinions, and I am an articulate person.

"You don't care... but you felt the need to speak with my CL about my street presence? Contradictions don't exist Mr. Cantona, why would you waste your time mailing my Crew Leader if you truly didn't care?"

You will notice that the starter of this speech has not been seen a while, nor have several over people who have agreed with you. Even Blaise and Knockaeart who have consistently humoured you seem to have at least grown weary with your endless babbling.

"Blaise has responded, and I'm yet to respond to her because I have decided to focus my efforts on you while I have you out here. She will eventually get a response once I get you to actually answer some questions and explain your reasoning behind your decisions."

Why would I need to 'beat you' in the Streets? I am a Godfather, a member of a larger council which has had it's own way. If I 'beat' you in the Streets, will I receive a ribbon or a pendant to commemorate the event? 'Beating' someone in the streets is largely subjective anyway, isn't it? From my perspective you certainly aren't looking like a winner, kiddo. You have (of your own volition of course!) been stripped of position and rank and still nobody is taking you seriously.

"Because it's embarrassing to be challenged in the streets and have no response. If I suddenly appear to have been punished then I will be a poster child for what happens to those who ask you questions or criticize your actions. You might have another reason, but to pretend you have no reason to have shown me up in the streets is hilarious. It was of my own volition, mate. I don't care about rank or title and never have, you can ask many of my bloodline's former Crew Leader bloodlines, my favorite rank is Wise Guy and I often ask to remain there for an extended period of time."

You seem to be mistaking my mail to your Boss. I was not hinting at anything, I am not a subtle person - I speak my mind. If I wanted you dead, my mail to your Boss would have said 'I think WhereWasI should die'; but I don't want you dead. I don't not want you dead.

"I don't know of your personal interactions with my boss, I merely know you felt the need to go to him AFTER I had a response with less insults than many others. Why would you wait for the one with the logical responses to go to my Crew Leader? Why have you dodged responding to those counterpoints? My guess is that there is a direct correlation. And I mention the dying and punishing part publicly so that if you feel I truly am over stepping my bounds, you don't even have to go to him. I'll fall on my own sword out here in public."

I must express again my indifference towards you, which is only excepted by the the brief flicker of amusement I had when you seemed to think that volunteering to drop yourself to Wise Guy would somehow compel me to answer your questions. Did you think we were in Victorian England, and that throwing down your leather glove would mean I would to meet you in a misty orchid at dawn for a battle of wits?

"I didn't mention it as a means of forcing you to respond. I meant it as a way of forcing you to admit you wanted my title stripped and letting the public know your part in it so that you can't make strikes of force rather than logic behind closed doors. It worked."

I'm honestly not sure how on earth you think this thing of ours works. You didn't get what you wanted as a RHM Capo, or as a Capo; so you think I'll entertain you as a Wise Guy? You've really done a number here, son.

"You tied my rank into this with that mail. I've never cared about rank or title. The way this thing works is that it's still embarrassing for you to not be able to respond to my counterpoints despite all your claims of indifference. Explain your decisions to the public, stop hiding behind off topic subjects, I won't let it slide out of the public eye."

This will be the last time I encourage your narcissism with a response. You may choose to chalk that up as a victory for yourself; but given the theme of this reply you'll probably be able to understand the reaction (or lack of it) that's likely to get from me.

"Of course it'll be your last response. You have no real explanation for your actions or thinking behind it."

"Just in case some of you missed the questions that prompted that mail about my rank, let me show you the response most prior to this discussion I was forced to have with my leader. It's quite the odd time to pick to go down the route of punishment, don't you think?"

"Rather sad you all feel the need to keep attacking my character."

"Where did I say 'un-moblike behavior' or anything of the sort? Show me the quote."

"I don't believe I'm a hero, never claimed to be. I know what I want and I'm pursuing what many want but don't know how to achieve for my own purpose. Regardless, off topic comments at myself once again."

"Accusations of lying before proving are once again... pathetic attacks at my reputation."

"Your examples of life (real life mafia) have never truly had any baring on this thing of ours because we are our own organization. Some may imitate, but we don't follow their examples because they were in a different situation. You chose examples without in depth knowledge of their decision. You chose to point at another group and basically say 'It was good enough for them so it's good enough for us' and I greatly disagree with the premise that because those others did it that it means it's what's best for what we do. I will not blindly follow the thoughts of another and you're yet to speak of the reasons for those incidents have any relevancy in choosing the decision you made. That's why I said you citing them was irrelevant. That's why I say it now. You're yet to state how the situations are similar and how the circumstances match up enough to use this line of thinking."

"Are we doing partial quotes now? Because if so don't mind me going through and piecing parts of yours together so that it looks like you're calling another Godfather something along the lines of what you said to me."

"These are my full quotes to your use of outside references to justify the use of certain concepts in this thing of ours... and you were yet to mention how they had any similarities or relevance so it is in fact pointless drivel until you do. You brought the subject up, it is your duty to show the similarities, not mine to make assumptions on your thoughts."

"I do refuse to take a statement with no proof of relevance as an unchallenged fact. I would also outright refuse to also believe that I'm a woman because you think you've seen a picture of me naked. Provide proof of relevance if you wish to bring it into the fold. SHOW how it's similar. SHOW the line of thinking behind it and how it's similar to that of yours."

OOC: Your obsession with stating that because it happened in the mafia makes it relevant because we imitate them is founded on the assumption we mimic them to the tiniest detail. You have how many bodyguards following you? Get over it, it's different and you can't just point and say 'they did it so it should be good enough for us.' You have to prove why it fits our ways too.

"Another partial quote. How cute."

"The word sacrificing is based off of my conversation with Blaise, the point you admitted was merely using them to fill the Districts and you have me wrong on this one. The fact I didn't provide your statement is a fault of mine that I am responsible for, but I still stand by the fact you were looking to fill the district in any way you could and my interpretation you all left rules to pull the plug on a moment's notice."

"Your idea that leadership is blindly following another, or choosing to do so without explaining why is my issue. What circumstances match in these situations? Why do these circumstances match enough for this to be relevant? Do you not see the MASSIVE difference in the circumstances between the two?"

"I don't have a better understanding of the mob than them, I have a better understanding of this thing of ours than them because they weren't making these ideas with our problems in mind. They were leading their factions solving their problems, not blindly following the solutions of another."

"My initial drive was your unnecessary comments at another man's points because of his bloodline. It is disgusting that there wasn't a sweeping wave of angry people because anyone who was okay with that now has no leg to stand on when you do it to them. My continued efforts are driven by the fact I'm tired of seeing decisions with little thought, being told not to question them, and then being called an arrogant idiot for asking questions. If you can't answer questions about your idea... then I believe you didn't put much thought into the idea at all and that's what I believe is killing our streets and discouraging bloodlines from returning."

Reply by: WhereWasI at Dec 29, '13 22:19