| May 03 - 00:11:15 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 2 [ > - >>> ] |
| Crew Tags - Ashamed? Lazy? Unworthy? | Started by: ForkRourke on Feb 07, '09 00:06 |
|
When a leader dies, one of the only things keeping their members alive is the fact that they put their crew tag in their profile. I've put a lot of thought into this actually and realized one thing. While you may not agree with me, or even strongly disagree with me - I think anyone who deliberately chooses not to have a crew tag becomes truly unsponsored when their crewleader dies. They should no longer be offered the protection of their crewleaders name if they did not even have the crew pride to wear said tag. This is also a two way street - the crewleader should also enforce their members to wear the tag for their own safety. If a member dies because he was untagged - it makes a very loud statement about crewleader. Was it that they were not concerned with the safety of their members? Was it they were unwilling to spend the 10 seconds to ask the member to put on the tag? Was it that the member felt the crewleader was undeserving enough that they didn't bother putting in the tag? There could be millions of reasons - but ultimately it comes down to this: A member is dead because someone (leader or member) made a choice to not put the tag in the profile to ensure protection after the leaders passing. Hypno, I am not picking you out in particular, I simply grabbed the first name I saw in the crewpage to do a little quick research. Hypno has 48 members. Of the 48, 14.6% of his members do not carry the crewtag. That means in the event of Hypnos death, 14.6% of them will not be offered the protection of Hypno's good name. Left_Turn - Wise Guy skitz - Made Man AlexanderCorvinus - Gangster Mitch-Murphy - Wise Guy Gunther - Earner Lil_Thugh - Thug imagogetta - Thug This same math is repeated with most of the crewleaders... Is there a valid reason? Just curiuos. |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
|
One of the rules in my HQ does say "Do wear the Crew Tag" - However I have gone on to say that it is entirely up to them. It goes on to explain that should they decide not to heed this vital piece of advice then they can't grumble about dying, so I hope that everyone that has read my rules understands the importance of it. |
|
| Reply by: Acute at Feb 07, '09 00:11 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I've wondered the same Mr.ForkRourke. It just seems like a bit of disrespect that they would not wear their family colors proudly. Most know that its what will keep them alive if the Boss should fall yet some still choose not to wear it. So I ask the same question, why do we protect those that choose not to wear the colors of their respective family? |
|
| Reply by: James_Stewart at Feb 07, '09 00:19 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| My father wore the colors of la Pistolas, displayed proudly in his profile, and he was still brutally murdered, simply for living in Chicago! | |
| Reply by: Darkhawk765 at Feb 07, '09 00:22 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Maybe it's because I'm a bit drunk, but I've done some further digging into our family: Nine of us proudly bear the full name of the family "The Riot!" One of us claims to be a "Proud Rioter... Always and forever." You merely put the "[Riot]" in your profile. I'm not coming here to be accusatory, but do you wear that merely to gain a "crew protection" in terms of death, or are you truly bearing the crest of the family? |
|
| Reply by: RourkeyRourke at Feb 07, '09 00:28 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I think one look at my crew donations in my own family, as well as supporting other detroit families financially would easily answer that question Rourkey :) | |
| Reply by: ForkRourke at Feb 07, '09 00:36 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Rourkey pulls out the giant chalkboard for the Rourkey-Fork debate in OOC Ah, but you can't "bear the crest of the family" merely by your internally published crew earnings, can you? |
|
| Reply by: RourkeyRourke at Feb 07, '09 00:45 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Loyalty is not defined by what we have in our profile quotes. It may be wise to have one there, simply because of the policy of leaving "tagged" members safe after the death of their leaders, but that is also something that is a creature of our own making. Why should anyone be safe after the death of their Boss? The family offers protection to each of its individual members. If the family no longer exists, why should any of them be safe? On the same note, does the family die just because the leader dies? I don't think so. Under the assumption that it does not, then the surviving members of the family should continue to protect their own after their leader's death. If someone shoots one of the survivors, the other survivors should seek vengeance. It is objectively ridiculous that the shooter's Boss should kill his own member for actions that cause no harm to the family. | |
| Reply by: MrsButterworth at Feb 07, '09 01:16 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| fyi: crew tags dont save your life. Never have mine anyways. | |
| Reply by: Cav at Feb 07, '09 04:11 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| The victors of a war will often feast upon the unsponsored, tagged or not. Let us not kid ourselves. | |
| Reply by: OfficerMcQueen at Feb 07, '09 06:28 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I don't think it's a leader's automatic responsibility to make sure their members are tagged, some may choose to enforce it and that's perfectly acceptable. And while the circumstances of a leader's death certainly dictate whether their tagged members will be "protected" or not, having the tag certainly can't hurt your chances. If you choose not to wear it, you assume the extra risk. | |
| Reply by: MacLeod at Feb 07, '09 08:23 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Well, if you are above earner, you generally don't *need* a tag. To take the case of MickeyRourke, Or Hayley; members were put off limits for obvious reasons, and it'seasy to surmise which crew an Earner +account with Detroit home city came from. Thus, earners and up are generally fine even if untagged. Gangsters and Goombas, as I've unfortunately demonstrated, often get the shitty end of the stick as, without a tag, it's almost impossible to discern if they were in a fallen crew, unless it was an old account. As far as a statement of loyalty goes, decorum and attitude will always highlight loyalty much more than a quote ever will, as you pointed out yourself Fork ;) |
|
| Reply by: KingOfOnePercent at Feb 07, '09 11:41 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I do believe Mrsbutterworth statement be the standard like any affiliation the members should be proud to wear the tags of it's family. in doing so then you receive the benefits. Half ass it and you risk what comes next. But as Mrsbutterworth stated On the same note, does the family die just because the leader dies? I don't think so. Under the assumption that it does not, then the surviving members of the family should continue to protect their own after their leader's death. If someone shoots one of the survivors, the other survivors should seek vengeance. It is objectively ridiculous that the shooter's Boss should kill his own member for actions that cause no harm to the family. thats the way these things should be handled! |
|
| Reply by: Paul_Pirazzi at Feb 07, '09 15:40 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I had a family tag and it sure as hell didn't help me! But I still think that one a crew leader dies that the crew doesn't neccesarily die unless the other crew members are to cowardly to step up in fill the space | |
| Reply by: MrShady at Feb 08, '09 21:46 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Crew tags don't save lives. If someone's going to wipe your family out, they can. If they're not, they can check home city. I didn't ask crew tags of my members as Muqtada because I think they're tacky and serve little purpose. |
|
| Reply by: Sayyid at Feb 09, '09 01:58 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Certainly crew tags are useless in a time of war when one side is intent on wiping out the other. But I've also seen many situations in which the accidental death of a leader has both left many people homeless and spurred a defense by the other crewleaders to protect that person's tagged members. In that case, it is far from useless. |
|
| Reply by: MacLeod at Feb 09, '09 02:06 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I disagree, MacLeod. In the case of wanting to protect the newly unsponsored, it's painfully obvious that anyone above the rank of gangster is one of them. As for the gangsters, I see little harm in giving everyone with the same home city in their profile the benefit of the doubt. "Oh no, a newbie might get a few days extra protection!" doesn't register for me as a downside. The only purpose protecting specifically tagged members and not the others serves is giving a greedy hitsquad an excuse to shoot people for not upholding a tacky and unnecessary tradition. If someone is loyal to you as a leader, you're not going to know it based on whether or not they have a tag in their profile. You're going to know it from your personal interactions. |
|
| Reply by: Sayyid at Feb 09, '09 03:03 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I concur with you about the measure of loyalty. You certainly don't get that from a couple words in a profile. That being said, if one of the family rules, straight from the Boss, is "Have the tag"... then that person should have the tag. That greedy hitsquad you're talking about isn't even in the equation. And while you are apparently intelligent and intuitive enough to give people the benefit of the doubt to recently unsponsored men and women, there are many more (perhaps in that aforementioned greedy hitsquad) who would not extend the same courtesy. Again, sir, I agree with you in nearly all things. I don't think that automatically having the tag is absolutely necessary and it certainly is not the measure of a man. But if it is a family rule, it should be followed. And even if it isn't, it can't hurt to have it there, right? |
|
| Reply by: MacLeod at Feb 09, '09 03:17 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
MacLeod, I can't disagree with you as far as family rules go. If the boss says it, you do it. That applies in every situation regardless of what the order is, tagging or otherwise. On the other hand, since this is OOC, I'll question why that order seems to come down in every family. It's useless in my eyes and leads to nothing more than cluttering of profiles. It's not someone's responsibility to make sure that a hitter doesn't shoot them, it's the hitter's responsibility to know their targets are legit. And if someone wants to protect a fallen leader's members, I don't see why they'd feel they are the right person to make judgments about the appropriateness of being untagged in place of the former leader. |
|
| Reply by: Sayyid at Feb 09, '09 03:56 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| I would agree with you Sayyid, that it's painfully obvious who was a member of the family before the Leader dies, but by not demanding or requiring tags - you are basically handing your gangsters and goombas a death sentence, unless a crew list is published as with the case of Hayley's suicide. | |
| Reply by: KingOfOnePercent at Feb 09, '09 10:07 | |
| 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
