| Oct 19 - 08:19:29 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: [ <<< - < ] 1 2 3 4 [ > - >>> ] |
| The Debate Concerning DorkRourke's Untaggeds | Started by: ThomasRourke on May 24, '09 03:38 |
|
In this situation, I am really quite indifferent. I don't really have a fair shout on who should do what, or an opinion either way. In one hand, you have untagged members of a family; does this show lack of committment? Effort? Does it display a self-righteous ignorance, by ways of thinking, that this person doesn't need to be tagged, or shouldn't have to? Or is it just some meaningless tattoo that doesn't not give credit to the real loyalty within the member, as Ms Rossi clearly pointed out? On the other hand of course, there is the 'tradition' (To the best of my knowledge) of making targets out of unsponsored, untagged members. In effect, this is a big change to our way of life, should the decision be made to do away with this and offer protection to all unsponsored members. Like I said, I honestly am not effected by either side, however, I will offer this opinion, and take note of the resulting debate. |
|
| Reply by: Fisk_Capizzi at May 24, '09 05:13 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Once upon a time, carrying around your crew tag meant something. Long before your crew leader tattooed you when you joined. Oddly, after their death, it disappears! Strange ink, that. But, it could prove to be a mark of honour, or it could just as easily be a target. Either way, one wore it regardless. It let others know who they were associated with in life and death, for better or worse. | |
| Reply by: Dr_Pickles at May 24, '09 05:42 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Just my opinion since this Conversation regards to me It was all an accident My father was busy doing alot of buisness and not paying much attention to the streets the past few days and when I saw the list of dorkes crew i thought most was picked into a family so when I see a Gangster who just flys into my city with no tag I didnt hesitate to race for the shot thinking most people were thinking the same thing i was. What do i think about the No tag rule? I agree no tag after a leader falls shouldnt be looked after as if they were one of them cause if you think about it they werent they didnt sponser them or have there back at all. But I do like how i was on that list just after My bloodline comes back and didnt have time to update my profile. Like i said though just my opinion *shrugs* |
|
| Reply by: -SpikeSpiegel at May 24, '09 05:50 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I think this really is an individual thing, from CL to crew members weather they should tattoo the crew name across their bodies. From my experience, I haven't known a CL to make this tattoo a necessity to living the crew values, and as the above list shows it's obvious it isn't being strictly preached across the cities as a necessity to living the crew values. I myself, would personally use this tattoo as a way of initiation to Made Men and higher, as they have earned the right to carry that name permanently on their bodies. They have been through much sweat and tears and possible bloodshed, to be able to represent that crew name forever forward. I think the bigger point here is that the higher powers that govern the cities of those that have a fallen CL have given an order of protection. In that notice the name of the person was given as being protected, weather they wore a crew tattoo or not. If that notice said those without a tattoo were fair game, then that would be the case, no? I think it's all about the Godfather/mothers guided words, and if other CL's, even residing in other cities, are happy to abide by those words then they sign that all their crew members or members of the city have been notified and its being enforced. The question I have is, what happens if a Crew or Godfather of another city doesn't agree to the notice another Godfather or CL puts out? Can we live in a world where different cities have different rules and still be civilized about it? Can some cities allow you to shoot the newly unsponsored that don't carry tattoo's, while others enforce against it? And can we have a harmony about it? |
|
| Reply by: Mannie_Monte at May 24, '09 06:15 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I just want to clarify my question above... 'Can some cities allow you to shoot the newly unsponsored that don't carry tattoo's, while others enforce against it?' Meaning, if you are unsponsored without a tattoo and found to be in City A, while your crew is in City B, can they be fair game under the rules of City A? If the Godfather of City B placed them under protection, would this law not just apply in the walls of City B? I understand it's a respect thing, but where is the individuality between the cities? |
|
| Reply by: Mannie_Monte at May 24, '09 06:23 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Ofcourse there is individuality between cities, we even had the rule in Las Vegas for a while that what ever the local crew witnessed happening there would stay in Vegas. What you are describing now is nonsense, if a Godfather speaks out in the street saying that Mr. X his members should not be harmed in anyway and City A AND their acting leader goes against his statement I think we both know what the result of that will be. Why? Even though you might be in City A while you belong in City B, the locals of City A are attacking a memeber of City B. And thats unacceptable and will easily be seen as an attack on City B. I don't make the rules but I would expect utter mayhem if the one you're suggesting is implied. |
|
| Reply by: Scipita at May 24, '09 08:02 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Having ignored the chatter in between and directed towards the initial 'query' Sir, if I may comment - there is no real debate or foundation thereof to challenge the protection you granted for the homeless gentlemen. The late DorkRourke worked within the confines of your fine city, at the end of the day - he was your creature as were his men. You made a reasonable request that his people be offered protection and solace. Ultimately it's your city, thereof your rules. You provided a list of the stranded individuals and thus there is no argument of who worked for Dork and who didn't. |
|
| Reply by: Telemachus at May 24, '09 08:47 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Fine words Telemachus. I couldn't agree with them more. Tagged or untagged, members were offered protection. Godfather Rourke stated that he personally was willing to protect each and every member of Dork's family. All other families had a choice whether to follow the Godfathers decree or not, but knowing what the result would be if they chose not to. To take it a step further, the request of Godfather Rourke was then fully backed by Godfather Jimmy. An order was made to all of Philadelphia that none of the (clearly) listed members were to be touched. Someone who doesn't keep up with the orders given on the streets, the orders given by their own godfather, doesn't double check the status of a potential target... well, they have no justification for their actions. Turning to the more general discussion of 'tags', away from the specifics that led to this debate, I feel it's a similiar situation. Each family leader will make a call on how the crewless are to be dealth with. They either say they are fair game, tagged or untagged, or else say they are not to be touched, tagged or untagged. A CL is free to make a decision that "untagged unsponsords" are fair game, as their position as leaders leaves them free to make any decision, but they know that they will have to deal with the consequences of such a decision should another leader take issue with it. Trying to come up with black and white rules in a world full of grey areas just leads to potential for abuse on technicalities. We have leaders in our world to provide leadership. It is up to those leaders to decide on what course of action to follow in any given situation. |
|
| Reply by: Deimne at May 24, '09 09:19 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Speaking as one from a bloodline who has never once been killed by their leader for accidentally shooting someone they shouldn't have, I can see absolutely no reason that the simplest of orders such as "don't shoot these people" would not be followed to a T. It would take an act of either staggeringly unacceptable ignorance or severe intoxication to screw up that badly, and in either case the excuse offers no exemption in my eyes. ThomasRourke decided these men were to be left in peace. It's not his fault if someone didn't listen, it's the fault of the soon-to-be dead mobster. That goes regardless of this tagging matter and should be treated as a separate matter from debates over future decisions. As far as the merits of tagging go, I think it's plain for all to see that I find it useless considering I don't wear one. I am a Made Man, loyal to the death to my leader. A few words on my business card won't change that. Furthermore, if -- heaven forbid -- my Godfather dies, it will be painfully obvious that I was not some disrespectful gangster running rampant in the streets not paying any tribute, but instead a trusted member of a former family. Why? Because all can see my rank and date of birth (I have no idea who drunkenly allowed me to tattoo my own birthday on my forehead, and if I find out harsh words may be exchanged) and know that I'm not a target -- or, in times of war, they will see this and know I am a target. That goes for everyone ranked above gangster. The only possible usefulness that could come from this tagging is in the case of gangsters. In that case, having a line on their business card might serve to prevent the boneheaded mobsters mentioned in my first paragraph from making the biggest mistake of their lives, but that should be entirely unnecessary. As far as showing loyalty goes, that is something that can only be done with actions. It is not shown by a few spurious words flashed everywhere you go. Hell, if it were shown that way, wouldn't it make more sense to liquidate the people that wore these tags than it does to protect them? After all, the ones wearing tags would then be the ones most likely to hold a grudge and wait for the best moment to strike rather than taking the death of their leader laying down. |
|
| Reply by: Pyro at May 24, '09 12:37 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I look at it this way, when a CL dies there should be a grace period for them too seek a new family. Yes when a Godfather/mother says not to shoot them for a certain time you need to respect that. If you feel that you cant holster your gun for the time period that they say then you will suffer the consequences of your actions. When that time period becomes void then it is open season |
|
| Reply by: Preston_Franks at May 24, '09 12:47 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| if you don't have a crew tag doesn't mean youre less loyal then those who have one | |
| Reply by: kevin at May 24, '09 13:25 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Ah, there's really not much that hasn't been said before me. Considering this was not a war, more or less an unprovoked random attack on said individual, and that basically the entire ruling chain of the seven cities agreed to it, I should see no reason why one person should be under or over the rest when it comes to crew tags. While it makes things a lot easier, it will generally boil down to actually having a dossier compiled of the individuals, otherwise, the tagless members will always be a hit and miss when it comes to offering protection. While I do appreciate tags as it makes things a lot easier, I don't think it should be spun into something that sums up the entire person's career or life in the form of a quote; What goes on behind closed doors is their business, and as the public, we shouldn't judge them from an outside apparatus without knowing entirely what transpired in their lives while their late boss was over them. With that said, and, once being the victim of homelessness, I too will respect these policies should they be made abundantly clear - keeping in mind the boundaries that separate our cities and the authority of who controls them. |
|
| Reply by: Vicodin at May 24, '09 14:08 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Sigh. This is an interesting subject. I frankly don't care if the people in my family, or in any family in New Orleans wear tags or not. If something were to happen, I would hope they'd be protected by virtue of the fact that they earned for me, and worked hard for me. I know I'd defend them with my life regardless of whether they wore a tag or not. Because I don't demand that my members put the tag in their profile, I suppose I should be to blame if something should happen to them? I guess so. |
|
| Reply by: Brick_Pollitt at May 24, '09 14:19 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I understand where you are coming from Mr T.Rourke with these Untagged members. I would just like to say that this is plain simple to tell these people who dont have their family name in there quote. No family name in your quote then when/if your leader dies then you have a less chance of survival. I personally am now asking my members to add the family name to their quote so they have more protection but if they do not then that is their choice but it may cause their death if I was to die. |
|
| Reply by: Death-Knight at May 24, '09 14:32 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| oh and Mr Pollitt. I agree with what you just said 100%. That is exactuly how I am. It is their choice wether they want to or not, but im just going to mention that it will help them survive in the case of my death. As thats all it does :D | |
| Reply by: Death-Knight at May 24, '09 14:39 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| It should not be needed to have a tag to have a higher survival rate... | |
| Reply by: Scipita at May 24, '09 15:01 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I couldn't agree more Sciptia. As Godfather Vicodin already stated..
Thankfully, this thing of ours is full of well organised and competent business people. In the case of DorkRourke's family, it took Godfather Rourke all of two minutes to locate such a dossier. This information was provided to all concerned. I can say with confidence that similiar information would be available should the same fate have fallen on any other family in the seven cities. Ignorance will never be a justification, a reason or even a problem for a family not to be given protection, should it be appropriate in the situation. |
|
| Reply by: Deimne at May 24, '09 15:12 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Disagree! To me, tags show loyalty. If not, give me some good reason why not to wear one. Anyone?? Lets discuss. People wear tags to show who they work for and are loyal too. Also for protection in war time or the sudden death of their leader. People don't wear tags because?? Anyone??? These are the main reasons I think people don't wear tags: 1) So that if their leader dies, no one will kill them for being associated. 2) They feel they're a individual and not a family member. 3) Just plain irrogant. Having said that, none of the above statements mean that a person doesn't work hard or they're not a good earner, but what it does mean is that they don't have enough RESPECT to list the person they would die for on their jacket! Having said that, I have no sympathy for those without tags unless instructed by a higher power to not touch! They want to be seen as a individual, they should be treated as a individual and DIE ALONE with no protection of that current family that is receiving protection at that moment! PS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME OF THE REASONS NOT TO WEAR A TAG, BUT NO WILL RESPOND TO THAT. |
|
| Reply by: Mississippi-Floyd at May 24, '09 15:23 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Meh, I'll just say this too. If you want to prove you are loyal to me...a tag in your profile doesn't really do that for me. If you're fighting next to me in a war? Yeah, that shows loyalty. If you're showing support for decisions I've made? That shows loyalty too. I'd much rather you do those things than put my name or my family name in your profile. But if you want to put something... Put "Brick_Pollitt is one handsome Mo Fo" That's as meaningful to me as my crew tag. In fact, enjoy it more. It just might save your life. And besides all that, it's true. |
|
| Reply by: Brick_Pollitt at May 24, '09 15:33 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Why not to wear tags? They look tacky and clutter your business card and don't serve any meaningful purpose. If your leader died in a war, I'm sure the other side has their list of members to shoot whether or not you're tagging. If your leader died of a freak accident, everyone's going to know that the goombas and up that are now unsponsored came from that family, and on top of that, most of the time people are storing lists of who worked for whom anyway. No one fades out of sight by not having a family tag on their profile. Frankly, not protecting the untagged unsponsored to me reeks of nothing more than an excuse to shoot people -- either the family is worth protecting or they should all get the same treatment. And once again I ask: If we're treating tags as an actual sign of loyalty, don't we have it reversed? Shouldn't we be shooting the more loyal members because they're more of a threat to our businesses? | |
| Reply by: Pyro at May 24, '09 15:37 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: [ <<< - < ] 1 2 3 4 [ > - >>> ] |
How much do you want to tip for this post?
Minimum $20,000
Minimum $20,000
