lronSight cleared his throat,

"I prepared this speech assuming it would get plenty of attention on just the title alone. I'm glad to see it worked on a decent number of you. I would like to start things off with a short story. One where I will probably be comparing your leader to an annoying fat child, unless you yourself are a leader who believes there are too many districts, in which case I'm comparing you to an annoying fat kid."

"There once was a short fat child with a very annoying voice. You approached said child and realized you were unable to talk and felt compelled to sit and listen to the child. The child decided to begin telling you about the shortcomings of eating candy, how it could lead people to becoming obese and all of the health complications associated with that. Then he began to speak about Diabetes and the potential of having to have a foot amputated. All the while, in between every sentence he'd grab a handful of candy and stuff it into his mouth. He finally finished speaking about the hazards of candy, and you noticed the entire bowl of candy was gone. Then his mother came and refilled the bowl of candy, and the child began retelling the story and shoveling more candy into his mouth."

"There is a problem that the fat child continues speaking about, but doing nothing to prevent. The mother may be irresponsibly putting more tempting candy out in front of the child, but the child can and should say no. So who is really responsible? Both are to an extent, regardless of just how much of the blame you choose to place on either individual. The child clearly knows better and does it anyways, while the mother can see the results of her enabling and is still irresponsibly enabling the child."

"There are currently 7 districts left vacant and I can pretty much guarantee people are making plans to fill them rather than do something about the problem they moan about. Well, I'm taking this problem into the public light. We have an opportunity to put the candy down and go for a run. An opportunity to stop expanding needlessly. An opportunity to set standards for expansion whether it be total members, active members, or whatever. We can stop and set regulations for expansions rather than mindlessly forcing more. Maybe the Gods (the mother in the story) could take this opportunity to remove some of the temptation and get rid of a city or two by restructuring in a way the GF Council could come to terms on, but if they won't take it away then we ourselves need to openly admit we have a problem and actually do something about it. The stupid mindset that we need to keep expanding tells me you want that number or more no matter what you say, because you always seem to fill them up so quickly."

As much as you will be shocked to hear it, I actually agree with you. It seems like we are filling districts with new families for the sake of doing so, because we can (I say we, because it is the community as a whole, with no real objections or petitions to our leaders nothing will change their course of thinking, how will they know if there is an issue?)

Surely we should only be exploring these avenues and taking the necessary steps to expand once we are literally jam packed. In my opinion we lose the close knit community feel the further we breach out.

Zack takes a handful of candy from the soap box and shovels them down his fat gob. 

I like the way you have portrayed your opinion on that matter. 

I do think this is a great time to set a new precedent in our community with how many Districts are currently sitting un-occupied. I'd love to see new rules put in place by the remaining Godfathers about expansion because let's be honest here... we really just don't need it right now. I'd rather see fewer crews with more members than fewer members in loads of crews. I really just don't see the flipping point to be honest other than to give your bestie a bold suit for the sake of it. Rather than someone who has worked hard and deserved it AFTER the current crews with in the city have reached their potential on member numbers and expansion is needed to grow, rather than just make your city look bigger and stronger. 

What kind of restrictions would you put in place? What would you like to see happen or change in the way these districts are populated?

I completely agree with you, there was a time when each crew leader and city was a powerhouse - with a crew leader having almost celebrity like status among members of this thing of ours. The large number of districts available throughout the country means that crew leaders are strongly incentivised to expand in order to, they hope, expand their sphere of influence - yet quite the opposite happens. 

With all due respect to our crew leaders, many of whom are fully deserving on their position, we simply cannot support this level of geographical expansion unless we wish to compromise the value of a crew. In my eyes, a crew should be almost full to the brim, before it expands and each crew should be sufficiently powerful enough to be recognised by other mobsters throughout the country. In order to achieve this, growth should be inward, not outward. 

Out of pure love of discussion and the foresight that responses will largely be in concurrence with IronSight's speech, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate.

Your analogy is poor. It's a brilliant way to contend your thoughts, but in order for an analogy to be... analogous, it has to maintain certain parallels with reality. We aren't dealing with children here, and we aren't dealing in candy. We're dealing with power. I'll leave the parallels between power and candy to the philosophers, but I will contend that, in this world, there is no obesity. There is no negative consequence of acquiring too much wealth, kills, or influence. There are hypothetical negative consequences, but nothing that could align with a "symptom," much less a disease. The actual relationship is quite the opposite; that power provides some element of safety while candy is the object of man's will which when un-checked leads inevitably to his demise. I refuse to believe that the pursuit of power is unhealthy, otherwise we'd see a lot more dead Godfathers.

I won't dwell exclusively on your analogy, because it isn't the analogy which presents the error in this line of thinking; it's the line of thinking itself. From our arrival in this world, we are told to do one or more of a limited number of tasks. Among these are ranking up, acquiring wealth, and increasing gun strength. All of these directly contribute to increases of power, and are actively supported and rewarding activities. These are things we do alone to build ourselves up, while extending a crew or district into another district is an act of social power incline. It's much more complex, much more risky, and makes everything more interesting. It would be foolish for us to promote these steady power inclines while discouraging (through words and "rules" alone) the social component of those increases in power. And even if you see it as solely a reward, it's a reward which has been earned in the same way that getting 45 drug units earns you the rank of Don. The conditions of a new district opening is a separate discussion entirely, but we must therefore accept that the conditions are fair and that the opening of new districts (naturally) is something we support. The question is how, why, and when we fill them.

To that, I will persist in my disagreement. I think instituting rules on such behaviors gives the world a false stability and unnecessary structural patterns. If anything the TripleDeuce fiasco has taught us, it's that districts and crews can be independent from one another even in the same city/district. I see no reason why we need to restrict the number of members in a district before expanding, when some HQs are literally just satellite HQs for a stronger/larger crew, and not separate at all. I recall one of my ancestors being in an HQ which had rules posted requiring you to swear loyalty to other crewleaders in the district. That kind of dependence makes districts the new "crews" and godfathers the new "crewleaders". No power relationships have changed, they've only magnified.

So excuse me for finding some degree of absurdity in the claim that we need "fewer districts" and "fewer crews" when there's really no difference between the "old days" and our modern setup. We've just changed the names and how long it takes to reach the highest point. I mean, the system is almost exactly the same. Just swap out the word "district" with "crew", and we just have an extended version of the structure years ago.

So until we decide to redefine what districts, godfathers, and crews are, conversations like these are pointless, and expansion is inevitable.

"If I've picked up on anything since rediscovering the life of crime, it's this. The value of being deemed worthy of your own crew has diminished vastly. Granted, that's not to say there aren't leaders out there who've earned their privilege and are handling it well. Because there are. What gets me is the race to occupy. Now, now, now.

In the end, it's always the mother's choice. 'Child' implies immaturity and with immaturity comes impulsiveness. Until there aren't voids to fill I'm not confident the problem will ever go away. A solution? I do not have one. Unless the Gods obliterate the spaces in which we think need instantaneously filling or until the majority of high ranking upper structure decide to start respecting quality over quantity nothing will change I don't think. But hopefully I am wrong. Maybe we can start realizing it's not a race against time to set up shop the moment there's space to do so. Surely we can be so wise as to realize the mistakes we've made time and time again are not beneficial and are only hurting us in the long run."

This is an issue that is at the heart of many of the problems we currently face in our world. Simply put, it's a case of too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. This was an issue we faced even before the opening of two new cities by the Gods, but now we face a situation in which the distribution of members and crews across our world becomes ever more sparse. It is obvious that the ideal situation is the opposite of this; fewer open districts equals less crews, which equals larger, more concentrated, stronger existing crews.

It is much better for this situation to exist than for there to be a large number of small crews, many of whose leaders have been authed simply because pressure existed to fill those spaces. As long as these districts are filled by the Godfather Council and other leaders, this problem will continue to exist. To do this demonstrates to the Gods that there is at least someone out there who wishes these to be these spaces available, and thus it provides little impetus for anything to be done about it.

I realise what I say here echoes much of what others have already said, both here and in other discussions, but I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. There is largely a degree of consensus on this issue, and it is important for the longevity of our way of life that the changes we talk about occur.

Exactly right. The amount of active players, especially in the summer, warrants changes to be made.

Listening to all who have spoken, it is clear they are more educated than he and their bloodlines have been around much longer, still he thinks he can say a few lines that might be useful.

"From the way I see it, near enough new to these shores is that some cities have more districts than others, clearly due to hard work and the growth of said city. Now in my opinion, if every city was limited to three districts only and the others given back to mother, that might help things around America for the short term. With this, it would mean more of a tightness between cities as I believe I heard Zack mention somewhere amongst the voices I've heard.

If we ignore the West Coast completely, bring back the drugs, the crime and remain with the Eastern side of things with three districts, I believe that family around would benefit from this hugely. Each family would have more people sponsoring them, districts in each city should in theory balance out so that they all have an equal amount... After a bit of resguffling of course."

Tepid hopes that he is not alone in this thought, and that it hasn't already been mentioned. Too many voices to distinguish from the others for his liking.

"What I am suggesting, for America's sake, is that the West Coast join the East Coast and have limited districts to arrange our organised crimes and drug runs. If this is for America's sake, I am sure that the families set up over in the West would understand."

"I believe you said yourself that Philadelphia was empty now correct? Detroit is also unoccupied right now, those out on the West, if they moved across, we would fill up whatever is left in America without a problem. When my bloodline first arrived to these shores, I don't think Las Vegas and Los Angeles were open to organised crime and the likes, I heard things were busier when we were allowed four cities only.

This would also allow for these less populated cities, to gain more opened districts with some hard work, I'm sure us as a community would most likely welcome this."

With summer upon on in the northern hemisphere we know there will be a lull in business.  It is common and predicted yearly as people lay low for before re-inventing themselves on to the scene round september.   

The truth many have known for sometime seems to be if every family cleared out their inactive members we would see which districts are having the most success and which leaders maybe should step down after sending their active members to another crew.  The truth is even with whats left over with 7 districts empty, there are possibly too many family heads and it can be a great learning experience for someone new to leadership, frustrating for someone trying to build.

I must admit relocation maybe the best solution with districts closed until there is an active population within society to support it as otherwise we will see people sent out to these districts just to struggle or possibly shot down in experiments to thin the herd.  Cities should then grow as needed not as wanted.   Yes a district means CA's, dfps etc, but compared to the costs of the HQ, forts, etc, is it really worth it with the unpredictable lifespans of the business or simply a case of risk vs reward..

The truth is i think a sit down is needed between city hall and the crime figures. we know city hall love the investment crime brings, but there has to be a balance, for whats good for business.

"What I am suggesting, for America's sake... "

"Us, as a community..."

With all due respect, I'm tired of this shit. It isn't my concern "what's best for America." That's left to the politicians and the gods. Anyone who forfeits power, wealth, and influence "for America's sake," is an idiot. I assure you, America will never return the favor. Whatever you think benefits the "community" (a term I've grown to hate) provides only a path to contentment and boredom for the masses. We've started to see "progress" or change as something given to us by our superiors, and not something we can strive for as individuals.

Out of pure love of discussion and the foresight that responses will largely be in concurrence with IronSight's speech, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate.

"Nothing helps a topic like a good Devil's Advocate."

Your analogy is poor. It's a brilliant way to contend your thoughts, but in order for an analogy to be... analogous, it has to maintain certain parallels with reality. We aren't dealing with children here, and we aren't dealing in candy. We're dealing with power. I'll leave the parallels between power and candy to the philosophers, but I will contend that, in this world, there is no obesity. There is no negative consequence of acquiring too much wealth, kills, or influence. There are hypothetical negative consequences, but nothing that could align with a "symptom," much less a disease. The actual relationship is quite the opposite; that power provides some element of safety while candy is the object of man's will which when un-checked leads inevitably to his demise. I refuse to believe that the pursuit of power is unhealthy, otherwise we'd see a lot more dead Godfathers.

"The notion that we're dealing with children is based on the fact children are more likely to act in ways they know are bad for them despite being aware of the fact they're doing something that hurts them, like scratching at a bug bite, and District Leaders who expand seem to mostly believe there is an issue so that part fits. As for claiming districts equal power, you're quite mistaken. Not that long ago there were quite a few individuals with less political pull than others who didn't have a district. Power is based on a combination of politics, killing power and money making in my eyes, not how many districts are owned. The rest is based on that assumption."

I won't dwell exclusively on your analogy, because it isn't the analogy which presents the error in this line of thinking; it's the line of thinking itself. From our arrival in this world, we are told to do one or more of a limited number of tasks. Among these are ranking up, acquiring wealth, and increasing gun strength. All of these directly contribute to increases of power, and are actively supported and rewarding activities. These are things we do alone to build ourselves up, while extending a crew or district into another district is an act of social power incline. It's much more complex, much more risky, and makes everything more interesting. It would be foolish for us to promote these steady power inclines while discouraging (through words and "rules" alone) the social component of those increases in power. And even if you see it as solely a reward, it's a reward which has been earned in the same way that getting 45 drug units earns you the rank of Don. The conditions of a new district opening is a separate discussion entirely, but we must therefore accept that the conditions are fair and that the opening of new districts (naturally) is something we support. The question is how, why, and when we fill them.

"This is all based on an assumption that district ownership equals power. It barely even plays into that at all. Your touching on 45 units means that you've earned the rank of Don is also false. It earns your leader the ability to promote you, you still have to put in the work gaining their trust to actually receive the rank. It may be extremely easy in some families, but it isn't in all and that's a crew by crew decision. The conditions of opening a new district would prevent forcing an extension. Every time we see a forced extension we see crews piling up with Inactive members just to hit some quota and this is something we need to look to remove. We should be expanding at our own pace, something that doesn't over extend the nation's criminal empire because when we over extend ourselves we risk catastrophe (more dead HQs filled with nothing but IAs). The questions of how, why and when for new districts are the standards I'm asking to be set on vacant districts and is based on an idea agreeing with my premise that their should be standards met before expansion."

To that, I will persist in my disagreement. I think instituting rules on such behaviors gives the world a false stability and unnecessary structural patterns. If anything the TripleDeuce fiasco has taught us, it's that districts and crews can be independent from one another even in the same city/district. I see no reason why we need to restrict the number of members in a district before expanding, when some HQs are literally just satellite HQs for a stronger/larger crew, and not separate at all. I recall one of my ancestors being in an HQ which had rules posted requiring you to swear loyalty to other crewleaders in the district. That kind of dependence makes districts the new "crews" and godfathers the new "crewleaders". No power relationships have changed, they've only magnified.

"Rules don't promote stability, they promote order and too much or too little causes instability in society. TheTripleDeuce in no way, shape or form was the first to show us that being from the same city doesn't necessarily make you allies. This has happened since the beginning of this thing of ours and will always be a possibility. If you trust or work with the wrong person they can and likely will turn on you. I also never specified which numbers should be used to set the standards I simply offered some examples. Maybe you see the relationships as magnified, but I see them as diminished and the reverse. I see GodFathers effectively being what the old Crew Leaders used to be and Crew Leaders being Sub-Crew Leaders. It's not something set meaning that the value of these positions will always change in time and in the eyes of everyone differently, but I've heard a lot more people speak of the values as diminished so I believe it would be best to push for something that might strengthen the reputation of those positions again."

So excuse me for finding some degree of absurdity in the claim that we need "fewer districts" and "fewer crews" when there's really no difference between the "old days" and our modern setup. We've just changed the names and how long it takes to reach the highest point. I mean, the system is almost exactly the same. Just swap out the word "district" with "crew", and we just have an extended version of the structure years ago.

"I believe we need fewer districts and fewer crews to promote leaner and healthier families filled with only active members. The 'old days' weren't really mentioned before you just did but they were different in that it was harder to acquire the Godfather position. People had much shorter life expediencies and there were fewer positions available in the time period I know as the 'old days' but that's different for everyone. It's swap out the word district with city, btw. Each district is supposed to be separate and  unique by the design of the Gods, like the cities used to be. None of this really had anything to do with my points being raised, by I'm being the devil's advocate to the devil's advocate because I can't resist discussions like this."

So until we decide to redefine what districts, godfathers, and crews are, conversations like these are pointless, and expansion is inevitable.

"I've actually already been informed multiple Godfathers like this idea and it could get some major backing. Maybe this will be the end of my contributions to pushing for defining terms before expansion, but that in and of itself proves this conversation had a point and I like to believe the support did in fact help because at the very least you have to give it credit for helping to spread the word (keeping it at the top of the street speeches list)."

With all due respect, I'm tired of this shit. It isn't my concern "what's best for America." That's left to the politicians and the gods. Anyone who forfeits power, wealth, and influence "for America's sake," is an idiot. I assure you, America will never return the favor. Whatever you think benefits the "community" (a term I've grown to hate) provides only a path to contentment and boredom for the masses. We've started to see "progress" or change as something given to us by our superiors, and not something we can strive for as individuals.

Oh, that's just silly. Of course you should be concerned with what's best for "America" and the community does reward you for not just caring about yourself. It rewards you by sticking around and by making you stronger. If there's a problem that's leading to stagnation, being stretched thin and to loss of interest in this way of life(as many seem to think there is), that will eventually affect you in the long run. So it benefits everyone to look for a good solution to the problem. Not something we can strive for as individuals but rather something we can all strive for together as a community. Because, despite your hatred for the word...that's what we are...we're a community. This whole world depends on that community to keep it afloat.

That being said, I'm not saying that every decision should be based off of the needs of the community but when it comes to issues that impact everyone, the community should be on your mind if not for everyone else than just for yourself for the reasons I mentioned above. It benefits the individual to make the community stronger.  

Not that his solution is necessarily the right solution but dismissing something just because it goes against your individualist/egoist ideals seems silly to me. 

Of course you should be concerned with what's best for "America" and the community does reward you for not just caring about yourself. It rewards you by sticking around and by making you stronger. If there's a problem that's leading to stagnation, being stretched thin and to loss of interest in this way of life(as many seem to think there is), that will eventually affect you in the long run... This whole world depends on that community to keep it afloat.

I struggle with this mentality. How can we even pretend we're mobsters with attitudes like this? Stagnation, which is a tough concept to discuss in the Streets, is irrelevant at this point. We've been in altruistic-mode for years, and it's done absolutely nothing to better any of us or the "community." We have always been "a community," but it wasn't something we authorized TAKEDOWNS with. You ever see any of the old names clearing out cities "for the sake of America?" You remember Anita surviving for days because of "the good of the country?" No. You remember Roman living for years because he was so in-tune with what the "community" needed? No. The greatest accomplishments were when driven men and women took action instead of waiting for something better to come along. Empowering the "community" to make their own decisions is what will keep them around. There's too much monotony to allow any stricter bullshit.

...dismissing something just because it goes against your individualist/egoist ideals seems silly to me. 

I am countering IronSight's intellectual proposition with a rebuttal. Why even emphasize "your"? Am I supposed to use someone else's ideals to make my points? And how could it possibly be silly to dismiss something you don't agree with? It's not like I can strike down IronSight's proposal with a hard veto, I'm just a tiny voice echoing my thoughts, and I'm clearly in the minority.

Nothing helps a topic like a good Devil's Advocate.

I do thank you for posing this question, regardless of how we may disagree over its answer.

The notion that we're dealing with children is based on the fact children are more likely to act in ways they know are bad for them despite being aware of the fact they're doing something that hurts them, like scratching at a bug bite, and District Leaders who expand seem to mostly believe there is an issue so that part fits. As for claiming districts equal power, you're quite mistaken. Not that long ago there were quite a few individuals with less political pull than others who didn't have a district. Power is based on a combination of politics, killing power and money making in my eyes, not how many districts are owned. The rest is based on that assumption.

My claim that districts = power comes from the Godfather boosts. That's really the only logistical problem with the districts in the first place, isn't it? You say power is based on a combination of politics, killing power, and wealth-generation, but all of those factor into having more districts. The variance in drug prices over a greater number of districts maximizes small-profit deals (which has become very popular since the inception of the districts), the presence of one or more additional godfathers tips the "killing power" scale quite a lot (which wouldn't be available without more districts), and the presence of politics is more potent with this system. If there's 10 Godfathers, doesn't it require a bit more reasoning/strategy/social skills to stay alive than with just 3 or 4? Plus, with so many leaders, a whole wealth of possible structural relationships could prosper. If, as I stated the first time, we promoted the independence of districts, we'd see a LOT more politics, as each district becomes an entity to regard in the national landscape.

Your opinion is that too many districts is bad, when in actuality it's just that; an opinion. Candy's danger to its consumer doesn't come from opinion, it comes from factual analysis of biology and physiology. You haven't proposed an analysis, you've proposed a thought process by which you contend that we are somehow "better" with less districts, despite providing anything short of a rough-sketch analogy to aid your ideas. But I do hope you'll elaborate on the details later on.

This is all based on an assumption that district ownership equals power. It barely even plays into that at all. Your touching on 45 units means that you've earned the rank of Don is also false. It earns your leader the ability to promote you, you still have to put in the work gaining their trust to actually receive the rank. It may be extremely easy in some families, but it isn't in all and that's a crew by crew decision. The conditions of opening a new district would prevent forcing an extension. Every time we see a forced extension we see crews piling up with Inactive members just to hit some quota and this is something we need to look to remove. We should be expanding at our own pace, something that doesn't over extend the nation's criminal empire because when we over extend ourselves we risk catastrophe (more dead HQs filled with nothing but IAs). The questions of how, why and when for new districts are the standards I'm asking to be set on vacant districts and is based on an idea agreeing with my premise that their should be standards met before expansion.

You're providing keen observations, but you're equating them to catastrophes without cause. My point with the 45 units was that when a crewleader has reached a certain point of experience, we recognize them with increased rank. When a city reaches a certain number of members, we recognize them with an increase in districts. My point was merely that it's part of the natural growth curve.

I'm unsure precisely how you "pile up with inactive members," but I'm quite certain there's no reason to do anything else. As long as members contribute to your HQ bonuses (and I apologize for getting OOC on you guys), I see not a reason to keep them around. There will never be a "reward" for shooting your own men, so I fail to see why we need to start encouraging that. If there's space to bring in new people, who cares if some of the slots aren't as productive as others?

Rules don't promote stability, they promote order and too much or too little causes instability in society. TheTripleDeuce in no way, shape or form was the first to show us that being from the same city doesn't necessarily make you allies. This has happened since the beginning of this thing of ours and will always be a possibility. If you trust or work with the wrong person they can and likely will turn on you. I also never specified which numbers should be used to set the standards I simply offered some examples. Maybe you see the relationships as magnified, but I see them as diminished and the reverse. I see GodFathers effectively being what the old Crew Leaders used to be and Crew Leaders being Sub-Crew Leaders. It's not something set meaning that the value of these positions will always change in time and in the eyes of everyone differently, but I've heard a lot more people speak of the values as diminished so I believe it would be best to push for something that might strengthen the reputation of those positions again.

Now you're starting to lose me. I didn't say TripleDeuce was the first to turn on his city-colleagues, merely that his scenario offers a lesson to learn. The rest of your thoughts seem to align almost completely with mine, not the reverse. We both consider GFs to be the new "CLs", I just went a step further to claim that districts were the new crews (which would seem to follow from the concept that GFs are the new crewleaders?) My only thoughts on the diminishing values is that we've turned "Crewleadering" into a ghost of what it used to be. It's, as you say, basically just a sub-crew now of a larger "district" force.

I believe we need fewer districts and fewer crews to promote leaner and healthier families filled with only active members. The 'old days' weren't really mentioned before you just did but they were different in that it was harder to acquire the Godfather position. People had much shorter life expediencies and there were fewer positions available in the time period I know as the 'old days' but that's different for everyone. It's swap out the word district with city, btw. Each district is supposed to be separate and  unique by the design of the Gods, like the cities used to be. None of this really had anything to do with my points being raised, by I'm being the devil's advocate to the devil's advocate because I can't resist discussions like this.

I mentioned the "old days" as a reference to the parallels between old crewleaders and modern godfathers. There were always inactive members in every crew, and they would always stick around until they absolutely had to be eliminated. It is relevant to your points, because the core problem you see is that HQs are full of inactive members, and that inflates our observations of how "full" HQs are, and that inflated observation contributes to unnecessary expansions, slimming out our active participants over a thinner and thinner area.

I agree that this is happening. I disagree that it's a bad thing. The more modular and divided we are, the more localized everything becomes. Why do you think we ever implemented "sub crews" in the first place? Because we need localization. We don't want to all be in one big crew, we want to have our own little subsections. So that's what we got; cities divided into districts, divided into crews. The problem I see is that those divisions, like sub-crews, aren't actually independent entities. Sub-crews can't go to war with each other. Sub-crews can't start wars on their own. Sub-crews can't affiliate with other cities, or make deals with them.

As long as we don't allow "bold" to mean something of independence, people will become less interested in being bold, less interested in ranking, less interested in sticking around. The more we dictate what people are supposed to do, the fewer people we will have. I agree with your observations and I agree that there's a problem, but not the problem you describe.

I've actually already been informed multiple Godfathers like this idea and it could get some major backing.

This surprises me very little. This is a Godfather's wet dream; someone else coming up with a "great" idea to potentially solve a problem that has persisted for years. Except, you won't solve any problems, you'll just have fewer crews. That's literally all that this will do. It won't solve any inherent flaws in the structure of our world, any problems arising from those flaws, or even any symptoms of those problems. It will merely "look" nicer. If that's not the candy you were talking about, I don't know what is. 

this is usa @ironsight. what we do is sue the candy company. call up jeddy and figure out how we can start extorting the mayors of unoccupied districts.

I would have to agree with you on certain points, Mr. IronSight. My bloodline has been around for many years, and the establishment of districts have certainly opened an opportunity for talented mobsters. Back in the day getting auth was a very special thing, something that felt like was reserved for the most talented. One could work really hard but would still have to wait a long time to get an opportunity. Now, granted, since leading a crew is time consuming and requires commitment it is not for everyone, but the number of districts can give those ambitious mafiosi the opportunity to make a name for themselves.

I would say, however, that the process of selecting crew leaders should be something more than authing your best pal. A crew, in my opinion, should be established along with the expansion of the city, and should be discussed between leaders. 

But, then again, I am merely a Capo trying to make a name for myself.