| Oct 19 - 06:26:23 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: [ <<< - < ] 1 2 3 [ > - >>> ] |
| Apple Orange Tomato (The Hit) | Started by: Marietta on Mar 15, '09 07:59 |
|
I disagree, LessThan. My Godfather has certainly been insulted, and I will put my neck on the line to call out Don Gato on the matter. If Louis doesn't like his plan, so be it, but to come out here insinuating that Godfather Rourke is ignorant in our way of life and essentially pointing the finger of blame at him is insulting. I am insulted, therefore, it is insulting. Alfredo, try to get it together, man. Juice was Juice, not Juice's father, grandfather, etc. Therefore, how could it be the third time with him now? And NO, we are not a fucking community, and mafia families do not all work together to create a brighter, shinier, happier planet. You are thinking of the girl scouts. Wrong organization. |
|
| Reply by: Butt_Ox at Mar 15, '09 13:54 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
isnt this going away from what the thread is bout no????? cant we all just get along? no matter what rank we are4,y=there should be no ego trip right? im sure everybody respectes everybody elses business, but if we want to question decisions,then isnt the streets were we do it? |
|
| Reply by: Alfredo-the-Mouth at Mar 15, '09 13:58 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
As he said the approach was ignorant. He does not agree with the idea. Not "ThomasRourke is ignorant". As I already stated, just because he does not like the idea brought upon our society does not mean he does not repsect the man. As much as admire your loyalty to ThomasRourke, its not your place to come out and speak representing the family as an associate. |
|
| Reply by: LessThan at Mar 15, '09 14:00 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Then I guess Don Gato should probably come and kill me, right? Since I am way out of my league and all. | |
| Reply by: Butt_Ox at Mar 15, '09 14:01 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
mr butt_ox so your trying to tell me that all the different godfathers/godmothers all work against each other??? if they dont then your right but id beg to differ,i really would? if this is the case then i wil show my ass in any business window you like? i understand that your protective as i would be, but i think that you have a realyy niave attitude man.whats the point of the streets if we cant view our oppinions? your contradiction makes me smile,your insulting people,the actual reason for ur defensive attitude? |
|
| Reply by: Alfredo-the-Mouth at Mar 15, '09 14:04 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Alfredo, one does not need to "work against" someone in order to not be "working together". My point is, that we are not all one big happy family. We are separate, individual families in separate cities, all protecting our own unique interests. Wars happen when one family's interests are in opposition to the interests of another family. We do not necessarily work against each other for the sake of working against each other, but what we do is work FOR OUR OWN CITIES AND FAMILIES, and not as a collaborative effort. This is why I say we are not a community. We look out for our own, not for those outside the family. My attitude is not naive, but realistic. Too often you find people in these cities whose viewpoint becomes diluted by "how things are" rather than "how things are in the mafia". My viewpoint coincides with the latter. As far as why I have a defensive attitude, most people will say it's because I'm a cock. I will not argue that point. Perception is reality, after all. If you insist on baring your apple-red buttocks in the nearest window, have at it. I am not one to judge. |
|
| Reply by: Butt_Ox at Mar 15, '09 14:12 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
first off i have a nice firm set of buttocks ;) no as i have said in an earlier thread i do agree with you, but you were the one who started with the defensive attitude,and again as i said in an earlier thread i feel that we are going off the point of the thread..........i still disagree with you on the community thing man............ok we all have our own interest at heart,but if were r all worken apart surley there would be many more wars? the only reason that we are here is because you got defensive over your man,so i got defensive over mine yea? so lets just agree to disagree yea? |
|
| Reply by: Alfredo-the-Mouth at Mar 15, '09 14:20 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I think you'll find that any matters I bring to voice are strictly business, I have no problem with the Godfather of New York as a person, and if I did, I wouldn't spout off about it. It is MY business however if there is some nut with a gun, given more power than he knows what to do with, and that doesn't matter which city he comes from or who he works for. It especially becomes my business when he starts shooting, and I swear if it had been one of my members who caught the bullet then I would have alot more to say on the situation. It becomes a problem to me, one that I feel needs expessing and dealing with, when it is an incident that should not happened, and though I may not be speaking for a lost member of my own, I will for any who have or who may do as a result of your "Business". Just because you're making money from the situation does not mean we cannot have a problem with it. If I had my own city and charged people a Dollar to have auth, would you have a problem with that? Would you voice your displeasure as random and numerous bold suits overpowered yourself and those who work for you? You most likely will do, and that is what I am doing regarding your money grabbing scheme. This position is an Honour. Not something to play with, or to do for the weekend and most of all not to pay for. If this had been one incident out of many, where whoever passes judgement on if someone should set up in your city, has stumbled and made a mistake, then fine, but as far as I can tell this was the first one. Quite obviously your selection process is no more than a brief viewing of a persons wallet. It no longer matters about stepping off the boat, approaching a family, offering your services till death, gaining rank, position, respect and eventual responsibility. No. Now you just need a fat fucking cheque. |
|
| Reply by: LouisGato at Mar 15, '09 14:36 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Don Gato, I respect your views. They are certainly accurate in theory, but they do not apply to the context of this situation or the argument at issue here. I completely agree with your viewpoint of the prestige of being a mafia Boss, however, paying tribute to the Capo di Tutti Capi of the city is NOT "paying for auth". It is paying tribute. Huge fucking difference. So, what this basically comes down to is your disapproval of Juice being given the green light to set up shop in New York, and your disapproval is based on the actions of his forefathers. I addressed this issue by comparing it to the decision to auth Obizzle and Hypno in Detroit. You cannot judge a man by his forefathers. Your mistake was in criticizing Godfather Rourke for what you called "a severe lapse in judgement and a(n) ignorant approach to our way of life", when in fact, Godfather Rourke made no such error. He judged Juice on his own merits, not on anything done by an ancestor. He was, in fact, going about things the right way. If we did things your way, your city would have AT LEAST two fewer Dons. As I said before, it is lucky that we don't do things that way. While Juice failed at his opportunity, it does not reflect on Godfather Rourke, and your insinuation that it does reflects a distorted view of how such opportunities are allocated in this thing of ours. |
|
| Reply by: Butt_Ox at Mar 15, '09 14:51 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
That is certainly your opinion Louis. An opinion to be shared within the walls of Detroit, as Marietta's viewpoint is the polar opposite. I think that people make poor decisions all the time, and in this case the gentleman was punished for it. Continue at your own risk Louis, because I imagine Marietta won't be too pleased with you voicing dissent openly. If I may quote her directly: "I wish you the best of luck, Godfather, to you, your family and those that I'm sure we will see go bold in New York soon!" I don't think anyone's saying you shouldn't have a personal opinion, but the stand from your city is clear. As a Captain you need to remind yourself of whom you work for and it is their wishes you knowingly signed up to follow. It isn't like one day Marietta said, "Hey by the way today is the day you follow my lead." Detroit is where your personal opinions belong, it's quite simple. You mentioned the word "rogue" earlier, Mr. Gato. And yet here you are in the Street not working for the wishes of your city, but against them. My friend, I think you need to make sure that you aren't the rogue in this charade. |
|
| Reply by: ThomasRourke at Mar 15, '09 15:01 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I've nothing to add of my own opinions regarding this dispute, but I do have one important point to make. Mr. Ox, you've referred to the fact that Don Gato accused Godfather Rourke of "a severe lapse in judgement and a(n) ignorant approach to our way of life". It was my understanding that Don Gato was referring to Juice, and not Godfather Rourke, when he uttered that particular phrase, although it was admittedly a bit unclear. I could easily be wrong, but that was my interpretation and it certainly changes the tone of Don Gato's remarks. |
|
| Reply by: MacLeod at Mar 15, '09 15:03 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Butt_Ox I think you'll find the Godfathers choice to auth a man and then claim no responsibility for his actions clearly shows that he has no faith in his ability and does not trust his motives. It's literally a huge disclaimer slapped on Juice_V's forehead, that saves Don Rourke's backside when the inevitable shit hits the fan. I think you'll also find it's common practice to know a mans mother and father before allowing them into La Cosa Nostra. Excuse me for being technical, but that is our way of life, and the basis of my argument. This man had very few credentials, other than money, that justified him having power that very few should wield. I'm afraid it directly reflects on Godfather Rourke. It's the man who says "Yes" that the authorities hunt in this thing of ours, not so much the man that pulled the trigger. You cannot call the transaction "Tribute" either, the people who pay me tribute I know, I know their intentions and their attitude. Those I don't will never get past Wise Guy. they certainly don't send me a few mil and I let them do whatever they please. Thomas Rourke Pushed the button for money, and as a result allowed an unpredictable and unworthy member of the community the ability to point his gun at whoever he wanted, and do some serious damage. I cannot, unfortunatly, bring this down to a conflict of interests, I feel it is much more a mistake on one side that should not have happened, how many more will buy a suit and immediatly start shooting? Who else do you expect us to lay blame on when it would never have happened had it not been for the higher up's of New York? |
|
| Reply by: LouisGato at Mar 15, '09 15:06 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Butt_Ox I think you'll find the Godfathers choice to auth a man and then claim no responsibility for his actions clearly shows that he has no faith in his ability and does not trust his motives. It's literally a huge disclaimer slapped on Juice_V's forehead, that saves Don Rourke's backside when the inevitable shit hits the fan. Well, no, because he made that policy long before Juice was ever considered for this opportunity. It was a general policy, not one specific to any particular auth, and certainly not specific to someone who was not a foreseeable future leader in the city at the time. So, again, you are going to stick with the policy of judging a person by their forefathers? Ok, first of all, "knowing" a mother and father, and using that information to judge an individual are two different things. As I've said before, very few of us would pass muster in your eyes if you are going to use that criteria. That's really all that needs to be said about that. You best start taking those preemptive actions now, then. You can start in your own city with Hypno. You'd better get to LA, next, because that awful Don Prozac had some unruly characters in his family tree. Oh, and your own Godmother! Who could forget the awful Don of Chicago in her bloodline, who was evil incarnate? I here Brian Rourke has ancestors who were tied to the CP, better shoot him quick. Is this sinking in yet? I won't even get off on the topic of the fact that we might not necessarily be related by blood to those whose footsteps we follow. I've tried that before, and I believe it caused a few brain aneurysms. And MacLeod, I think Louis's last statement should clear up your confusion. |
|
| Reply by: Butt_Ox at Mar 15, '09 15:15 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
It does, sir. Perhaps I was just hopeful. With a troubled look on his face, MacLeod turns heads off for the nearest bar. |
|
| Reply by: MacLeod at Mar 15, '09 15:20 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Regardless of if he said it when he released his policy or as Juice_V gained power, he still said it. Should a man rise to power within his city through his wallet instead of ability and respect, then start a war with Thomas Rourke who is he to blame then? Or the rest of the country, should they fall victim to a well planned war after lining the pockets of New York, fingers will be pointed at The Godfather. And enough with your mentioning peoples history. Juice_V's anchestors came and went so fast I failed to keep up how many people with the Juice name failed at keeping their hands to themselves or keeping their guns holstered. Now after a spree like that, a new Juice comes alomng and simply pops into a bold suit? What kind of mentality does a man have that he just feels he can shoot whatever he pleases? Why was it not spotted before hand, if not through his anchestors or the time taken to get to know this man? A man can be evil in nature, or have devious intent, but plain ignorance is not acceptable. |
|
| Reply by: LouisGato at Mar 15, '09 15:22 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
This entire... entire debate (if you can even call it that) is a fucking sham. For the first time in my long career I am utterly disappointed in one, nay, several of my own 'illustrious' soldatos. Louis, LessThan, let it go. Now. That is not a suggestion. It is an order. I dealt with this matter the way I felt it should be dealt with. I shot Juice right between the eyes and I felt good about it, because I enacted revenge for the loss of one of HydroPhonic's associates. Associates. I killed a crew leader over a man who wasn't even officially apart of my crime syndicate. A man I had never spoken to personally, a man that could have done fuck all for all I know about it, and could've sat around the HQ picking his ass. And yet I murdered a man in a bold suit for this goomba, for CH. That alone should've been a good enough revenge for all of you. That should have been the end of the story. The danger had passed. I protected my city once again. But no. You all flood into the streets. You accuse and you point fingers at a man who CLEARLY stated in his initial speech that none of the bolds who set up under him were working on his orders. Arguing in the streets? Calling names and hurling slanderous accusations? ALL of that, or at least if you have been working for me long enough you should know, all of that goes against principles that I have built the city of Detroit upon. Respect. Honor. Loyalty. Not petty back biting and name calling. Do you not realize how many men I have slain in the past week for disrespect? And then to see a few of my own flock strut in here and start calling into question the judgment of a Godfather? A GODFATHER?! One of whom toiled and worked hard for me in his own young years, and one whom I have supported on all his ventures since the moment he left my own personal crew? Godfather Thomas, I am sorry for this. I know apologies cannot cover what has been said here, but I am truly fucking sorry that the men in my city don't have an ounce of wit to think whom they are speaking to, and to try and filter some of their own personal grievances when addressing you. Please know that the opinion they have expressed here today is not one that I stand behind. I'm sure you know me too well to think that I would be. Though, I suppose, in the end everyone takes their own path and makes their own judgment calls. You alone are responsible for your own actions. Just as Thomas can't be blamed for Juice randomly shooting mobsters against the New York contract, I cannot be held responsible for this embarrassing travesty put on by LouisGato and LessThan. They should know better based off of the principles I preach. |
|
| Reply by: Marietta at Mar 15, '09 15:28 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
This has all become quite RIDICULOUS. Don Gato, Godfather Rourke stated that none of the people operating in his city were under his control. They just paid a tribute to him. If you had such a problem with Juice, then why didn't you pay off Thomas (just like Marietta did) and go shoot Juice yourself? It seems you like to cry about things afterwards but don't want to do anything to prevent it. Granted, it shouldn't be your job to chop down every dribbling moron that is going to setup in New York. But if you're the one with the problem then it is YOU who should sort it out. |
|
| Reply by: VivaLaTeQ at Mar 15, '09 16:58 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I think that this entire experience serves to highlight some ambiguity in the New York system on which I would politely like to request clarification. I had refrained from bringing some of these questions up before, assuming that the perceived weaknesses were my own fault for not paying enough attention while being extremely busy. Are these "auths" in the sense that the people are in fact protected by the Godfather when push comes to shove, or is the right to their HQ merely a purchase as part of the businesslike atmosphere of New York? To any extent that ThomasRourke is in fact offering his protection, they are properly called auths as I see it. This is the source of the ambiguity I want cleared up, for there have been repeated denials that this is in fact auth, but it also seems that some modicum of protection is being granted. In the announcement of this plan, ThomasRourke did say that these people are not his street bosses or directly affiliated with him, and if they screwed up they would face the consequences. But he also said, and I shall directly quote, "that's not to say I will let wackhappy people take potshots at you." What quantifies being "wackhappy" in this case, and what constitutes a legitimate grievance against the business relation in question at which point the Godfather will cut her loose to fend for herself? If the bar for eliminating the business relationship is set too high, and leaders start feeling slighted by the presence of people they are prohibited by Thomas from shooting, then it seems completely improper for the Godfather to attempt to avoid responsibility by saying "hey, they just bought the place, not my fault." By offering that protection, you have willingly accepted that responsibility. Thankfully, thus far, this remains a hypothetical case. Continuing with hypothetical cases, what if one of the current leaders said "this guy is a flipping moron and I bet, based on all of my previous experience with him and his ancestors, that he's going to kill someone for no reason in a few hours" -- would that be enough? And if it's not, and the prediction indeed comes to pass, how then will compensation be rendered for the perfectly preventable death which occurred? Further, at the unveiling of this plan Thomas indicated that public disrespect would be sufficient grounds for elimination. Is this going to be disrespect in your eyes, or the eyes of the ones slighted? Is any level of disrespect enough, or is there a bar here that we have to reach before which Thomas is going to stand in the way of a leader fairly taking out someone she feels slighted her? In short, I am simply seeking reassurance that this is nothing more than a business relationship and not an auth. And if that is the case, then surely the Godfather would find irking other leaders much more costly than the few million dollars he would obtain from his underling. It entails from those premises that the bar for saying "ok, go ahead and shoot him" is a low one -- possibly even one that could be satisfied by an after the fact message in your mailbox explaining the legitimacy of the take down. That is provided, of course, that the reasoning in that message is clear and persuasive enough. The alternative, in my mind, is admitting that this talk of not having authed or protected these leaders and not being responsible for their action is rhetoric without hold in practice. Finally, as per the topic of monetary compensation -- as of now I assume this was a brilliant move on Marietta's part to cut through red tape as quickly as possible, and not an actual requirement, for it makes no sense to me why a leader faced with a legitimate grievance would have to pay for that grievance themselves. After all, that would seem to me to be a roadblock on the way to resolution via retribution. Furthermore, that seems the opposite of what was intended by the policy as originally laid out, for Thomas indicated that he would, in fact, not be offering protection to that sort of thing, whereas in such a situation he would be offering a very specific amount of protection: protection at the exact value of the check he is requesting. So I assume Marietta's actions cannot be considered as what is expected, but instead are yet another example of her always-appreciated way of going above and beyond to make sure no one is discontent. |
|
| Reply by: Sayyid at Mar 15, '09 17:12 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
To start with, Marietta's offer was just an offer, it's not protocol you are correct. The only way I will be seeking monetary compensation is if one New York leader kills another New York leader which is something I didn't stipulate in my initial speech just by oversight. If a New York leader slays another for any reason, they are to pick up that leader's tribute until a new family sets up in the city. Now what Marietta did was also a classy example of soothing any potential hard feelings between myself and her city. I will review any slayings of a New York family and do my due diligence only because I need to know if my personal loss of income was taken for a reason I find to be just. However, I think it's safe to say that the group of leaders we have now won't haul off and shoot people without reason. "Wackhappy" is certainly a vague term, but not overly complicated when it pertains to my protection of a New York family. This covers a rogue or random wackers. I don't give a shit about other leaders' feelings on this. If a potential family coming to New York messes up, I don't care, it's their own fault, and should be dealt with by the offended parties. I'm not trying to run a large syndicate, I'm happy with my merry band of men, and I think it's silly I should run a city with just 7 members when I can have several families run New York and give me some kick ups every week. This has nothing to do other crewleaders and me. The extent of the relationship between us is this: Person A decides he wants a family. He listened to my speech and understood my stipulations and would like to partake. He goes to Crewleader A and requests it to be so. Crewleader A is under no obligation to grant his request, I don't care about what happens in this area of interaction. After that they just need to send me a mail saying they can follow the stipulations I set forth and are going to be moving into my city, at which point I will announce my acknowledgment publicly. My stipulations are in full public view, Juice in particular said he could adhere to what I had laid out. Obviously that proved false, but I went off what I was told, and will do so each time. This whole procedure is as simplified as it is going to get, I can't break it down any further without having to use pictures. I hate the fact that people use archaic terms to describe a new venture. I don't look at any of these men and women who want a crack at running a family to be "auths" so much as self-starters. They don't get any financial backing from me, they know coming in that unless a (now defined) wackhappy person starts having a go at them I won't protect them, and they have to make their own connections to essentially succeed and survive. I think the place where everyone is going wrong with this idea is trying to place labels on it that have been used before, but just don't fit any longer. |
|
| Reply by: ThomasRourke at Mar 15, '09 18:32 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
This whole thing has come around by misplaced outrage and ideals by Don Gato. Beyond that, it's actually very simple. Thomas can do whatever the fuck he likes in New York, and he is. That includes letting any Tom, Dick or Harry set-up an HQ as long as they agree to pay the required fees. Whether we actually agree with these initiatives, or lack of "vetting" up front, is irrelevant. He is the godfather of the city. Sayyid made some brilliant points, but they've been cleared up for the most part, most notably that financial recompense is NOT protocol, merely a way of Marietta resolving this situation with New York. Her prerogative. Whether Louis is happy about the situation or not, he shouldn't have been here mouthing off especially against prior statements by his Godfather (mother, meh). Thomas' NY policy is not responsible for the death of the Goomba, Juice was. Juice was not Thomas' auth, merely someone that owned an NY HQ and was paying for the privilege. He also wasn't necessarily wrong for shooting the Goomba, until Marietta decided he was wrong, that is. He was in a position where he was his own boss, at which point he decides the rights and wrongs of his own actions, accepting the fact he'll deal with the consequences should someone take umbrage. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for him, Marietta decided to shoot him for what she decided was a wrong. Unlucky for the Goomba, and tough shit for Juice. Nothing to see here, move along. |
|
| Reply by: Identity at Mar 15, '09 18:49 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: [ <<< - < ] 1 2 3 [ > - >>> ] |
How much do you want to tip for this post?
Minimum $20,000
Minimum $20,000
