| Sep 21 - 23:08:02 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 |
| Unsponsoreds and universal laws | Started by: JohnnyAxe on Oct 29, '07 06:11 |
|
I was having a conversation with Pops the other night over dinner about the unsponsored situation, and I got to thinking about rules. See, Mr Scandia had come to the streets earlier that day to announce that no one was to shoot at anyone without a family and that we all ought to know that. Dad was kind of surprised to see hear it. I mean, yeah, it's good to have these universal rules, but when did this become one of them? For as long as I can remember and from what my father's told me, leaders have made the decision about unsponsoreds on a case-by-case basis. Sure, there was a time long ago when this rule was put into stone and it became tradition, but it hasn't happened here yet. At least, I don't think so. What I'd like to know is if the crew leaders have come together and decided that this is the law--that no clear members of a fallen family are to be shot for a set period of time. Are there exceptions? What is that period of time? How should violators of the rule be punished? What catchy name should it be given? I really think that leaders coming together to form universal laws--even if this isn't one of them--is a sign of stability and cooperation. After all of the rogues and wars of late, it might be time to consider these things. Thank you. |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
|
*Slevin listens with interest, and waits for his chance to interject.* "Actually, I disagree with this practice, especially in times of war. I mean, say there is a war, and you win, and you then order that none of the fallen crew are to be touched. Now, a few of their hitters were sleeping at the time of the takedown. They wake up, their leader is dead, and they start taking revenge. They could have been dealt with while they slept, but now you have a conscious and pissed-off marksman on your hands, with thoughts for revenge. Of course, this is just a hypothetical situation, but it's something that could happen. Then there's the people who like to use opportunities like this to train their gun. Of course, not everyone agrees with this, but it happens, and is sometimes necessary. I don't think that any one leader should be trying to make decisions like this for the whole community. Fair enough if they want to come out to the streets and publically declare that their family will not be shooting, but to tell other families to do likewise is overstepping the boundaries. If all crewleaders come together and agree on a universal policy, fair enough, but given the rate of change with crewleaders of late, I think it is a policy that would be outdated soon after being agreed." |
|
| Reply by: Slevin_Kelevra at Oct 29, '07 06:19 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
For as long as I can remember, people who are left unsponsored due to their Crewleader being shot by a rogue are given 24 hours to find a new family. In the case of war it is judged on a case by case basis. The family leader may feel that every one of the passed crewleaders family to be a threat or they may feel that it was the CL acting alone and choose to spare those left homeless. However, you do raise a good point. Putting into writing a set of universal rules that the world could be run by is a good idea. It would save people using the excuse "Well, you didn't say anything" when a crewleader is asleep and misses something. Obviously, Crew Rules would cover most of the points raised, however, it would give everyone a bench mark to work from. Personaly, I believe it to be a fantastic idea and something I will definetly bring into a discussion with the other leaders. |
|
| Reply by: Scandia at Oct 29, '07 06:23 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I considered it a given, Mr Kelevra, that any threats to the winning family would continue to be targeted by that family's hit squad. Really, I don't think that anyone Made Man and above should have the opportunity to find another family, as they've pledged their lives to their first leader. I know if I were a leader, I'd be skeptical of where their loyalties lie. Perhaps I'm just paranoid, but I don't trust anyone outside of my own family. Anyone unsponsored is a potential threat, which is why I favor shooting them. They aren't accountable to anyone and I don't know if they plan to target me or those in my family. This is not to say that I don't understand that sometimes there are no invites available to accept, because times are tough. Mr Scandia, I do appreciate you taking the time to come and speak with us about this. I certainly hope that something will come from your discussion with the other leaders, even if it's simply clarification on this. |
|
| Reply by: JohnnyAxe at Oct 29, '07 06:37 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
*Slevin nods along as Scandia speaks, and waits for his turn to reply.* "I agree that in some circumstances that fallen families should be given time to relocate, but it's not always a clear-cut thing, is it? Take our latest example, YouSuck's family was helping a rogue who killed three other authed leaders. Why should that family be given any protection? Scandia, con rispetto, you may feel that this is something that should automatically be given, but should that not be something that each leader should decide for their own family?" |
|
| Reply by: Slevin_Kelevra at Oct 29, '07 06:40 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| The situation with YouSuck's family was a bit out of the ordinary from what I've heard. His family was providing the rogue with prowacks, so a lot of his family that weren't real threats were killed along with many innocent Mafiosi. There was no way to distinguish the innocent from the guilty, you see. | |
| Reply by: JohnnyAxe at Oct 29, '07 06:48 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
*Slevin grins, and gives a wry chuckle.* "My Grandpappy had a saying... Kill 'em all, and God will recognise his own." |
|
| Reply by: Slevin_Kelevra at Oct 29, '07 07:04 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Oh yes, I am in no doubt that people who are considered a threat after family wars should and would be killed. However, some wars are over in a matter of seconds with the opposing CL shot first before they are even aware what is going on. In cases like this I feel that it is the leaders choice as to how the families members are dealt with. The other leaders families should not be firing upon the former members until clarification has been given. The only time I feel that people should be spared is when there was no war. When a rogue kills a auth'd CL it is not for the better of this world. It is for the gain of themselves and no-one else. The families members have done nothing to suggest they are a threat or the family leader would have died long ago and ,as such, should not be shot at until they expose themselves as one. To introduce a set of Universal rules does not mean they cannot be broken. A Crewleader could come to the streets and explain that he feels all unsponsored are a threat and he will be killing them all. It would help the world be cleared of any grey areas that people are currently exploiting. It would make things very black and white. |
|
| Reply by: Scandia at Oct 29, '07 07:17 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| "Don't get me wrong, I think clear-cut rules are a good thing. The trouble with rules, they're very black and white, and it's not often that we're ever presented with a situation that is so clear-cut. Most are a muddy shade of grey." | |
| Reply by: Slevin_Kelevra at Oct 29, '07 07:20 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
With a clearly defined rule it would be a lot easier for crew leaders to make decisions. It would serve as a guideline, so when those gray scenarios pop up they can determine the best route to take. At least, that's how I'd see this working. No, it's not perfect, but nothing in this world is. Of course, if someone has a better suggestion to offer, I hope they present it for consideration. |
|
| Reply by: JohnnyAxe at Oct 29, '07 07:26 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| like scandia said, in war things need to be based on a case-by-case basis. i think it should go without saying though that when a rogue knocks someone off, there needs to be an amount of leeway given to the homeless many. in the recent days, it should've been obvious that we needed to protect those without families in our world because there were only two crew leaders left standing and not enough family spots to go around. another thing to keep in mind is that by pettily terrorizing those without a home it can make people become bitter and either leave, or breed new rogues when they get powerful enough. it's easy to shoot blindly at unsponsored people, it's harder to offer a helping hand to people that are sometimes in a circumstance beyond their control. | |
| Reply by: CathalTheCleric at Oct 29, '07 13:32 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1 |
How much do you want to tip for this post?
Minimum $20,000
Minimum $20,000
