| Sep 23 - 17:19:51 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 2 [ > - >>> ] |
| Regarding regarding the unsponsered | Started by: AwesomeRourke on Jan 06, '09 12:38 |
|
Ladies and gentlemen. I wish to pose to you all a question. A question I wish for you to answer. Now, I have noticed that every time a crew leader dies, others flock to the streets and demand that his or her former members must not be harmed; that they must be given time to find a new family; that any who shoot at said members will themselves, in turn, be shot at and killed. Why? Why does this need to be stated every single time a leader is killed? Should it not be common knowledge by now that the act of preying on the recently homeless is against the laws of the land? Do we tell every civilian who enters our cities that they must commit crimes, deal in drugs, and find themselves a family? True, there are the few whose families are new to this thing of ours, and they, as individuals, are taught the rules by which we live. But we do not make such announcements public. So why with the case of shooting at a fallen family? It may be argued that people don't always follow these rules; that they still shoot; that they must be reminded. Well, the people who still shoot at these poor helpless gangsters are those who would ignore any such announcements, anyway. Those who holster their guns already know what is expected of them. It seems like nothing more than unnecessary for continual announcements to be made. And for each person in power to confirm that their family will be following the same rule. We know you will. It's expected. It's the way. Announcements of this sort should only be made if it has been decided that the homeless will not be allowed to live; that so-and-so's family will not follow the rules. So, tell me, why? Why say it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again? |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
|
New people arrive at our shores daily, and you can't enforce a rule you haven't laid down in the first place. Need an elaboration or will that suffice? :) |
|
| Reply by: Denver at Jan 06, '09 12:40 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I already mentioned that. Those people can be dealt with individually. As is the case with teaching them the other ways. And I am sure most families make note of this in their codes of conduct, which all are told to make note of when first joining a family. | |
| Reply by: AwesomeRourke at Jan 06, '09 12:44 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
While I agree with you to some extent Sir, it still needs to be posted, in my opinion. The announcement by each Crew Leader gives a sense of security to the remaining fallen CL's family. Lets them know they have a set time to find proper family and that they aren't fodder for a shooter. What I think is utter trash is a speech about condemning the announcements. |
|
| Reply by: HydroPhonic at Jan 06, '09 12:50 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Surely not too trash, or you wouldn't have lowered yourself to replying. I think it's far from trash anyway, an entirely relevant issue if you ask me, as it does seem slightly superfluous. I would actually go as far as to say that the continual reiteration of these statements can cause confusion. If one Crewleader posts such a notification, but not all other leaders post their agreement. Does that mean they don't agree, or that they're just not posting? |
|
| Reply by: KingOfOnePercent at Jan 06, '09 12:59 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I think that John Dillinger's case was different, and statements in that situation are very necessary. Because I, for one, want to know the difference between a crewleader who has died in an accident or an act of God vs. a crewleader who has died in a war. I would treat those family members of the crewleader killed in a war very differently, and would hope that crewleaders of other families would make no such announcement in that situation. If a crewleader falls in a war with another family - shouldn't the situation be different? If my family has warred with a family and defeated that family by killing its crewleader, are his family members not our enemies? That guy that shot at me is still my enemy, even if he has changed his affiliation or loyalties. I will not stop shooting him until he is dead...or until I am dead. We are, after all, enemies. Please tell me we have not arrived at that place where we are protecting our enemies, who will likely look for any chance they get to rise up and seek revenge. |
|
| Reply by: Brick_Pollitt at Jan 06, '09 13:04 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I agree a thread shouldn't need to made everytime. For the more experianced players, they should know not to shoot, especially in these circumstances. From what i can see, two of his members we're shot down straight away. With no hesitation. So, what does it boil down to. Not writing a thread quick enough to warn these Mafioso? Looking at ~JD~ Death time and the time VinnyMuciano was unfortunatly shot down was 4 Minutes. Maybe the thread was in process of bein made. Surely 4 Minutes isn't long enough. As a high ranked member of them family, i would not go ahead and be trigger happy, without counsulting at least my family head first. This bullshit doesn't wash with me, Hypno. |
|
| Reply by: Hypno at Jan 06, '09 13:17 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I agree with Denver and probly anyone else, new people arive daily and most dont know what the current rules of our world are and how they work so it must be said over and over and over again :) | |
| Reply by: DeathKnight at Jan 06, '09 13:48 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| We protect all unsponsored mobsters here, Brick. The rules and speeches regarding them mean their lives are more valuable than the lives of family members. | |
| Reply by: Mirage at Jan 06, '09 14:00 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I'm sorry. I didn't quite understand that statement Mirage. The rules mean the lives of who - the unsponsored former members of a fallen crewleader? - are more important than the lives of your family members? Is that true of those unsponsored gangsters with whom you were hypothetically just engaged in a war? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or oppositional - I just seek clarification so I can then decide if I need to debate this issue, perhaps on another street corner. | |
| Reply by: Brick_Pollitt at Jan 06, '09 14:11 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I don't know whether you were around these shores long ago Brick, but the norm then was "scorched earth" policy, where every member of a family died in war - and usually rightly so in my opinion. Somewhere along the line, this policy evolved and now those who are deemed threats (usually those above a certain rank) are slain whilst the other members are granted amnesty provided they are not fighting in the name of their family still. The point Mirage was making is that the lives of the recently unsponsored seem to matter more than the lives of one's own family; as highlighted today by the threads and of course the death of Furio_Giunta_Jr. (GHRS!) |
|
| Reply by: KingOfOnePercent at Jan 06, '09 14:22 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| It's true for both situations, after a leader is struck down by God and after a war. | |
| Reply by: Mirage at Jan 06, '09 14:23 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I dont think its even a matter of making this speech for the new people arriving to our shores. This needs to be said every time for those that break rules and constantly look for loop holes to get around rules. You ask any family head how many times they have had to reprimand a family member who has done something they shouldnt have, knowing full well that they shouldnt have, and had said rule breaker come back and say, "Oh, well you never expressly said that I wasnt to do that." Granted nine times of ten the CL will shoot the little bugger for being a dip shit anyways. But most times they would rather not. This is also why anytime there is a war, or a CL dies for whatever reason, most families not involved send out a mass mail to their members stating that they are not part of the war, keep your guns holstered. So no, it probably does not NEED to be said every time. But doing so is a sort of "preventative maintenance" to keep family heads from having to reprimand those family members who like to push their limits. |
|
| Reply by: Ettore_Boiardi at Jan 06, '09 14:24 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| AwesomeRourke, I believe the answer to your question can clearly be seen in the deaths of two former members of Mr Dillangers family within minutes of his death. For a Boss within a family to have been caught shooting one of these shows quite clearly that these posts really are needed. | |
| Reply by: El_Nino at Jan 06, '09 14:29 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
AwesomeRourke, El_Nino hit this on the head. Two of Dillingers members died almost immediately following his death, there were a few after, but for the most part people have listened to the rule we instated earlier today. I was asked by both a former member, and a concerned citizen to post a thread, so I did just that. I wish it were as easy as "just knowing" we shouldn't shoot, but unfortunately you and I both know this isn't true. As JohnDillinger committed what is considered to be a "crime of crimes", many people look at this as an opportunity to get as many shots in as possible on the unsponsored, I view this as unfair to his members considering they had no idea of the crimes he committed and will, instead, wake up dead due to some trigger happy mafioso. I agree with the premise behind your thread, but not the way it was presented. Pose the question: "Why is it necessary?" to those who shoot minutes after a member goes down, not "Why are you posting this thread?" to me. Hate the player, not the game. Love, PG |
|
| Reply by: Phantom-Ghost at Jan 06, '09 14:46 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
This is where things get a little "iffy", because as I say, some people don't need to no not to shoot, because their CL may not care about the unsponsoreds. Posting a thread to declare that unsponsoreds are totally off limits gives the impression that you are speaking for each and every leader. Until each and every leader has come out and agreed with you, that is not the case. As far as I'm concerned, a mass mail to those members you have tangible power over would be a far more efficient way to conduct proceedings, and that way each Crewleader can decide on their own appropriate cause of action. |
|
| Reply by: KingOfOnePercent at Jan 06, '09 14:57 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I think "Marietta's Guide to not being a Dead Retard" (with a few tweaks) would be a good thing for everyone to read (Although its currently Out Of Circulation. The general principal being that even though a leader my be gone, those that were in that family are STILL in that family and therefore they fall under your family rules, which I would say all contain a clause about not shooting members of other families. And Mirage:
If a member of your family cannot follow rules, how can they be trusted? Our organizations cannot function if the rules are not followed. Its bad for business. |
|
| Reply by: PedroRourke at Jan 06, '09 15:23 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I believe that every Body Should AlReady Know The rules about not being sponsered By the Tutorial aaaand that way when a family boss dies it doesnt have to be sent over an over | |
| Reply by: Bigstacks at Jan 06, '09 15:36 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
KingOfOnePercent, You present a valid point, I was not attempting to speak for other leaders. I've talked to some of the other leaders about it, however, and none of them came out and said: "Nope, its okay, shoot them." If they decided to do that, they would obviously overrule my request. |
|
| Reply by: Phantom-Ghost at Jan 06, '09 15:41 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I have to agree with KingOfOnePercent, I also think that shooting those who found themselves homeless should be a decision made from family by family. Nobody can speak for others anf if a family has no problem with shooting the innocent left-overs then so be it. But the thing which should be considered is a sentence we all should know (slightly cahnged ;)): 'Needlessly killing a `homeless mafioso` is frowned upon and may result in your death by more honorable mobsters." |
|
| Reply by: DanielOcean at Jan 06, '09 15:44 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1 2 [ > - >>> ] |
How much do you want to tip for this post?
Minimum $20,000
Minimum $20,000
